Bike fitting and used bikes

[Ralph Barone]

Can anybody offer up some suggestions on how much adjustment capability
is in modern road frames? I'm looking at a few used bikes which seem to
be smaller than what I think I should be buying, but I don't have a good
feel for how bad it would be to buy an undersized frame and then just
crank up the seatpost and maybe lengthen the steerer tube.

PS: I'm 5' 10", 32" inseam, and the two bikes I was looking at were 50
cm and 54 cm frames.

[landotter]

On Apr 29, 12:13 am, Ralph Barone > wrote:
> Can anybody offer up some suggestions on how much adjustment capability
> is in modern road frames? I'm looking at a few used bikes which seem to
> be smaller than what I think I should be buying, but I don't have a good
> feel for how bad it would be to buy an undersized frame and then just
> crank up the seatpost and maybe lengthen the steerer tube.
>
> PS: I'm 5' 10", 32" inseam, and the two bikes I was looking at were 50
> cm and 54 cm frames.

There's sizing up a bike that's 2cm too small and there's sizing up a
bike that's 8cm too small. At your measurements, perhaps you're an
optimal 56-58ish. Get the right size, you won't regret it. You'll just
**** away money trying to get it right otherwise.

[[email protected]]

On Apr 29, 8:25*am, "Bill Sornson" > wrote:
> Ralph Barone wrote:
> > Can anybody offer up some suggestions on how much adjustment
> > capability is in modern road frames? *I'm looking at a few used bikes
> > which seem to be smaller than what I think I should be buying, but I
> > don't have a good feel for how bad it would be to buy an undersized
> > frame and then just crank up the seatpost and maybe lengthen the
> > steerer tube.
>
> > PS: I'm 5' 10", 32" inseam, and the two bikes I was looking at were 50
> > cm and 54 cm frames.
>
> The 50 is way too small for you (assuming "normal" geometry); the 54 should
> work (again, assuming there's nothing too unusual about it).
>
> Why buy a bike that doesn't fit you?
>
> Bill S.

I agree. Only sombody really short or really tall should have to
consider bikes that don't fit.

As for whether a 54 is ok, that depends on how it is measured.

Joseph

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On Apr 29, 6:13*am, Ralph Barone > wrote:
> Can anybody offer up some suggestions on how much adjustment capability
> is in modern road frames? *I'm looking at a few used bikes which seem to
> be smaller than what I think I should be buying, but I don't have a good
> feel for how bad it would be to buy an undersized frame and then just
> crank up the seatpost and maybe lengthen the steerer tube.
>
> PS: I'm 5' 10", 32" inseam, and the two bikes I was looking at were 50
> cm and 54 cm frames.

Even if you could make a 50cm road bike fit without mechanical and
ergonomic problems, possibly even orthopaedic problems, you'd still
look ridiculous on it; you could end up on my cycling humour page.
Even a 54cm bike would have to be generously scaled to be a certain
adaptation. If buying a road bike by mail, with a 32in inseam I'd play
safe and stick to 56 or 58cm.

Andre Jute
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE%20HUMOUR.html

[[email protected]]

On Apr 29, 1:35*pm, Andre Jute > wrote:
> On Apr 29, 6:13*am, Ralph Barone > wrote:
>
> > Can anybody offer up some suggestions on how much adjustment capability
> > is in modern road frames? *I'm looking at a few used bikes which seem to
> > be smaller than what I think I should be buying, but I don't have a good
> > feel for how bad it would be to buy an undersized frame and then just
> > crank up the seatpost and maybe lengthen the steerer tube.
>
> > PS: I'm 5' 10", 32" inseam, and the two bikes I was looking at were 50
> > cm and 54 cm frames.
>
> Even if you could make a 50cm road bike fit without mechanical and
> ergonomic problems, possibly even orthopaedic problems, you'd still
> look ridiculous on it; you could end up on my cycling humour page.
> Even a 54cm bike would have to be generously scaled to be a certain
> adaptation. If buying a road bike by mail, with a 32in inseam I'd play
> safe and stick to 56 or 58cm.
>
> Andre Jutehttp://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE%20HUMOUR.html

A 50 might end up looking like this:

http://www.sosenka.cz/archiv/2005/m12.jpg

Joseph

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On Apr 29, 1:01*pm, "
> wrote:
> On Apr 29, 1:35*pm, Andre Jute > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 29, 6:13*am, Ralph Barone > wrote:
>
> > > Can anybody offer up some suggestions on how much adjustment capability
> > > is in modern road frames? *I'm looking at a few used bikes which seem to
> > > be smaller than what I think I should be buying, but I don't have a good
> > > feel for how bad it would be to buy an undersized frame and then just
> > > crank up the seatpost and maybe lengthen the steerer tube.
>
> > > PS: I'm 5' 10", 32" inseam, and the two bikes I was looking at were 50
> > > cm and 54 cm frames.
>
> > Even if you could make a 50cm road bike fit without mechanical and
> > ergonomic problems, possibly even orthopaedic problems, you'd still
> > look ridiculous on it; you could end up on my cycling humour page.
> > Even a 54cm bike would have to be generously scaled to be a certain
> > adaptation. If buying a road bike by mail, with a 32in inseam I'd play
> > safe and stick to 56 or 58cm.
>
> > Andre Jutehttp://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE%20HUMOUR.html
>
> A 50 might end up looking like this:
>
> http://www.sosenka.cz/archiv/2005/m12.jpg
>
> Joseph

Heh-heh. I don't imagine Diane will let Ralph do anything that silly.
But imagine the same bike with a stem extension to match the seat
extension. The diamond would be awfully small in relation, awfully far
away at the end of awfully long levers, and the whole thing, unless
grotesquely overbuilt for a road bike, would flop around like a sheet
of paper in a typhoon.

Is that caricature an actual bike offered for sale? In that case the
maker should learn to spell his own name right, for it is truly a Cafe
Racer!

Andre Jute
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE%20%26%20CYCLING.html

[[email protected][_2_]]

On Apr 28, 11:13*pm, Ralph Barone > wrote:
> Can anybody offer up some suggestions on how much adjustment capability
> is in modern road frames? *I'm looking at a few used bikes which seem to
> be smaller than what I think I should be buying, but I don't have a good
> feel for how bad it would be to buy an undersized frame and then just
> crank up the seatpost and maybe lengthen the steerer tube.
>
> PS: I'm 5' 10", 32" inseam, and the two bikes I was looking at were 50
> cm and 54 cm frames.

The 50 is definitely too small. The 54 might work. If it is measured
center to center, it may be ok. If it is measured center to top, it
might be too small. It sounds like you have a long torso and shortish
legs. You may need a long top tube. or a long stem. If you have a
flexible lower back and you intend on using it for racing in a flat
back kind of position, it may work.

Andres

[Bruce Gilbert[_3_]]

"Ralph Barone" > wrote in message
news:invalid-81DF99.22134328042008@shawnews...
> Can anybody offer up some suggestions on how much adjustment capability
> is in modern road frames? I'm looking at a few used bikes which seem to
> be smaller than what I think I should be buying, but I don't have a good
> feel for how bad it would be to buy an undersized frame and then just
> crank up the seatpost and maybe lengthen the steerer tube.
>
> PS: I'm 5' 10", 32" inseam, and the two bikes I was looking at were 50
> cm and 54 cm frames.

For a man of your size, a safe bet would be to look for a bike with about a
55cm effective top tube. That is still the best way to measure a bike. Look
for how to measure the frame for effective top tube and go from there.
Unless you have unusually long legs and a very short torso, or vice versa,
the 55cm top tube should get you reasonably close to a proper fitting frame.

The 50cm, as others have noted will be too small to work. Depending upon the
manufacturer and their respective geometry, the 54 may work well. I have
seen what were called 54cm frames go from a 53 top tube all the way to 57.
Therefore, measure the top tube and forget what size the manufacturer
describes the frame as. With the advent of compact geometry bikes, the
effective top tube measurement has become increasingly important.

I hope this helps,

Bruce

[[email protected]]

On Apr 29, 2:55*pm, Andre Jute > wrote:
> On Apr 29, 1:01*pm, "
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > On Apr 29, 1:35*pm, Andre Jute > wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 29, 6:13*am, Ralph Barone > wrote:
>
> > > > Can anybody offer up some suggestions on how much adjustment capability
> > > > is in modern road frames? *I'm looking at a few used bikes which seem to
> > > > be smaller than what I think I should be buying, but I don't have a good
> > > > feel for how bad it would be to buy an undersized frame and then just
> > > > crank up the seatpost and maybe lengthen the steerer tube.
>
> > > > PS: I'm 5' 10", 32" inseam, and the two bikes I was looking at were 50
> > > > cm and 54 cm frames.
>
> > > Even if you could make a 50cm road bike fit without mechanical and
> > > ergonomic problems, possibly even orthopaedic problems, you'd still
> > > look ridiculous on it; you could end up on my cycling humour page.
> > > Even a 54cm bike would have to be generously scaled to be a certain
> > > adaptation. If buying a road bike by mail, with a 32in inseam I'd play
> > > safe and stick to 56 or 58cm.
>
> > > Andre Jutehttp://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE%20HUMOUR.html
>
> > A 50 might end up looking like this:
>
> >http://www.sosenka.cz/archiv/2005/m12.jpg
>
> > Joseph
>
> Heh-heh. I don't imagine Diane will let Ralph do anything that silly.
> But imagine the same bike with a stem extension to match the seat
> extension. The diamond would be awfully small in relation, awfully far
> away at the end of awfully long levers, and the whole thing, unless
> grotesquely overbuilt for a road bike, would flop around like a sheet
> of paper in a typhoon.
>
> Is that caricature an actual bike offered for sale? In that case the
> maker should learn to spell his own name right, for it is truly a Cafe
> Racer!
>
> Andre Jutehttp://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE%20%26%20CYCLING.html

That is the bike Ondrej Sosenka used to set the hour record. He is 2m
tall and the rules are very specific. Thus the extreme bike.

More pics here with rider that somehow doesn't' look ridiculous:

http://www.wolfgang-menn.de/sosenka.htm

Joseph

[[email protected]]

On Apr 29, 3:01*pm, " > wrote:
> On Apr 28, 11:13*pm, Ralph Barone > wrote:
>
> > Can anybody offer up some suggestions on how much adjustment capability
> > is in modern road frames? *I'm looking at a few used bikes which seem to
> > be smaller than what I think I should be buying, but I don't have a good
> > feel for how bad it would be to buy an undersized frame and then just
> > crank up the seatpost and maybe lengthen the steerer tube.
>
> > PS: I'm 5' 10", 32" inseam, and the two bikes I was looking at were 50
> > cm and 54 cm frames.
>
> The 50 is definitely too small. The 54 might work. If it is measured
> center to center, it may be ok. If it is measured center to top, it
> might be too small. It sounds like you have a long torso and shortish
> legs. You may need a long top tube. or a long stem. If you have a
> flexible lower back and you intend on using it for racing in a flat
> back kind of position, it may work.
>
> Andres

The 32" inseam is a suspect measurement. Inseam is moderately
difficult to measure accurately , and many people have different ideas
about what the term actually means, making it subject to even more
imprecision. IOW, maybe he doesn't have a long torso.

Joseph

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On Apr 29, 3:50*pm, "
> wrote:
> On Apr 29, 2:55*pm, Andre Jute > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 29, 1:01*pm, "
>
> > > wrote:
> > > On Apr 29, 1:35*pm, Andre Jute > wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 29, 6:13*am, Ralph Barone > wrote:
>
> > > > > Can anybody offer up some suggestions on how much adjustment capability
> > > > > is in modern road frames? *I'm looking at a few used bikes which seem to
> > > > > be smaller than what I think I should be buying, but I don't have a good
> > > > > feel for how bad it would be to buy an undersized frame and then just
> > > > > crank up the seatpost and maybe lengthen the steerer tube.
>
> > > > > PS: I'm 5' 10", 32" inseam, and the two bikes I was looking at were 50
> > > > > cm and 54 cm frames.
>
> > > > Even if you could make a 50cm road bike fit without mechanical and
> > > > ergonomic problems, possibly even orthopaedic problems, you'd still
> > > > look ridiculous on it; you could end up on my cycling humour page.
> > > > Even a 54cm bike would have to be generously scaled to be a certain
> > > > adaptation. If buying a road bike by mail, with a 32in inseam I'd play
> > > > safe and stick to 56 or 58cm.
>
> > > > Andre Jutehttp://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE%20HUMOUR.html
>
> > > A 50 might end up looking like this:
>
> > >http://www.sosenka.cz/archiv/2005/m12.jpg
>
> > > Joseph
>
> > Heh-heh. I don't imagine Diane will let Ralph do anything that silly.
> > But imagine the same bike with a stem extension to match the seat
> > extension. The diamond would be awfully small in relation, awfully far
> > away at the end of awfully long levers, and the whole thing, unless
> > grotesquely overbuilt for a road bike, would flop around like a sheet
> > of paper in a typhoon.
>
> > Is that caricature an actual bike offered for sale? In that case the
> > maker should learn to spell his own name right, for it is truly a Cafe
> > Racer!
>
> > Andre Jutehttp://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE%20%26%20CYCLING.html
>
> That is the bike Ondrej Sosenka used to set the hour record. He is 2m
> tall and the rules are very specific. Thus the extreme bike.
>
> More pics here with rider that somehow doesn't' look ridiculous:
>
> http://www.wolfgang-menn.de/sosenka.htm
>
> Joseph

Thanks for the reference, Joseph. Ondrej's back isn't even flat yet!

The reference to Chris Boardman reminded me that one of the most
thrilling events I have ever seen was Boardman at the Olympics
overtaking his opponent before that poor man reached the halfway mark.
Can't remember the year or the opponent's name, only that Boardman
rode a bike designed for him by the Lotus car company. No Eddie the
Eagle jokes from my couch that day! For me that ranks right up there
with the time Frankie Chili, nearly forty years old, came from the
back of the field in the World Superbikes -- I can't even remember if
he won, or if he merely got a podium, but the ride was so fabulous
that when one of my literary protege based a scene in one of her
novels on that event I recognized her source immediately -- she
thought it another example of me reading her mind.

I reckon I could do 50 klicks in an hour, easily. Now where's the
phone number of my steady truck driver...

Andre Jute
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE%20%26%20CYCLING.html

[Clive George]

"Andre Jute" > wrote in message
...

> Boardman rode a bike designed for him by the Lotus car company.

Sort of. Mike Burrows actually did the design. The lotus people did the
building, but Mike was there all the way through.

[Michael Press]

In article <invalid-81DF99.22134328042008@shawnews>,
Ralph Barone > wrote:

> Can anybody offer up some suggestions on how much adjustment capability
> is in modern road frames? I'm looking at a few used bikes which seem to
> be smaller than what I think I should be buying, but I don't have a good
> feel for how bad it would be to buy an undersized frame and then just
> crank up the seatpost and maybe lengthen the steerer tube.
>
> PS: I'm 5' 10", 32" inseam, and the two bikes I was looking at were 50
> cm and 54 cm frames.

Both are too small. I have a 30 inch inseam and a 55 cm
frame is great. Get yourself a 58 cm frame. It will feel
very different at first but take a long test ride
with a proper saddle adjustment and modest stem.
Remember that cockpit length is critical also.

--
Michael Press

[[email protected]]

On Apr 29, 5:50*pm, Andre Jute > wrote:
> On Apr 29, 3:50*pm, "
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > On Apr 29, 2:55*pm, Andre Jute > wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 29, 1:01*pm, "
>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > On Apr 29, 1:35*pm, Andre Jute > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Apr 29, 6:13*am, Ralph Barone > wrote:
>
> > > > > > Can anybody offer up some suggestions on how much adjustment capability
> > > > > > is in modern road frames? *I'm looking at a few used bikes which seem to
> > > > > > be smaller than what I think I should be buying, but I don't have a good
> > > > > > feel for how bad it would be to buy an undersized frame and then just
> > > > > > crank up the seatpost and maybe lengthen the steerer tube.
>
> > > > > > PS: I'm 5' 10", 32" inseam, and the two bikes I was looking at were 50
> > > > > > cm and 54 cm frames.
>
> > > > > Even if you could make a 50cm road bike fit without mechanical and
> > > > > ergonomic problems, possibly even orthopaedic problems, you'd still
> > > > > look ridiculous on it; you could end up on my cycling humour page.
> > > > > Even a 54cm bike would have to be generously scaled to be a certain
> > > > > adaptation. If buying a road bike by mail, with a 32in inseam I'd play
> > > > > safe and stick to 56 or 58cm.
>
> > > > > Andre Jutehttp://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE%20HUMOUR.html
>
> > > > A 50 might end up looking like this:
>
> > > >http://www.sosenka.cz/archiv/2005/m12.jpg
>
> > > > Joseph
>
> > > Heh-heh. I don't imagine Diane will let Ralph do anything that silly.
> > > But imagine the same bike with a stem extension to match the seat
> > > extension. The diamond would be awfully small in relation, awfully far
> > > away at the end of awfully long levers, and the whole thing, unless
> > > grotesquely overbuilt for a road bike, would flop around like a sheet
> > > of paper in a typhoon.
>
> > > Is that caricature an actual bike offered for sale? In that case the
> > > maker should learn to spell his own name right, for it is truly a Cafe
> > > Racer!
>
> > > Andre Jutehttp://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE%20%26%20CYCLING.html
>
> > That is the bike Ondrej Sosenka used to set the hour record. He is 2m
> > tall and the rules are very specific. Thus the extreme bike.
>
> > More pics here with rider that somehow doesn't' look ridiculous:
>
> >http://www.wolfgang-menn.de/sosenka.htm
>
> > Joseph
>
> Thanks for the reference, Joseph. Ondrej's back isn't even flat yet!
>
> The reference to Chris Boardman reminded me that one of the most
> thrilling events I have ever seen was Boardman at the Olympics
> overtaking his opponent before that poor man reached the halfway mark.
> Can't remember the year or the opponent's name, only that Boardman
> rode a bike designed for him by the Lotus car company. No Eddie the
> Eagle jokes from my couch that day! For me that ranks right up there
> with the time Frankie Chili, nearly forty years old, came from the
> back of the field in the World Superbikes -- I can't even remember if
> he won, or if he merely got a podium, but the ride was so fabulous
> that when one of my literary protege based a scene in one of her
> novels on that event I recognized her source immediately -- she
> thought it another example of me reading her mind.
>
> I reckon I could do 50 klicks in an hour, easily. Now where's the
> phone number of my steady truck driver...
>
> Andre Jutehttp://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE%20%26%20CYCLING.html

Funny how certain sporting performances stand out like that. For me,
it is Thor Hushovd winning the final stage in Paris of the 2006 TdF
(book ends by the way!). They had a camera mounted on a rail of some
sort along the finish so they could film the action up close. The
camera was zooming along next to Robbie McEwan who was kicking ass and
taking names. It was an awseome sprint and people were being punished.
Very exciting. And then McEwan does a double take with an astonished
look on his face. And the camera pans up a bit and Thor just rockets
past and stomps everyone by 4 lengths or so.

Joseph

[Ralph Barone]

In article >,
"Bruce Gilbert" > wrote:

> "Ralph Barone" > wrote in message
> news:invalid-81DF99.22134328042008@shawnews...
> > Can anybody offer up some suggestions on how much adjustment capability
> > is in modern road frames? I'm looking at a few used bikes which seem to
> > be smaller than what I think I should be buying, but I don't have a good
> > feel for how bad it would be to buy an undersized frame and then just
> > crank up the seatpost and maybe lengthen the steerer tube.
> >
> > PS: I'm 5' 10", 32" inseam, and the two bikes I was looking at were 50
> > cm and 54 cm frames.
>
> For a man of your size, a safe bet would be to look for a bike with about a
> 55cm effective top tube. That is still the best way to measure a bike. Look
> for how to measure the frame for effective top tube and go from there.
> Unless you have unusually long legs and a very short torso, or vice versa,
> the 55cm top tube should get you reasonably close to a proper fitting frame.
>
> The 50cm, as others have noted will be too small to work. Depending upon the
> manufacturer and their respective geometry, the 54 may work well. I have
> seen what were called 54cm frames go from a 53 top tube all the way to 57.
> Therefore, measure the top tube and forget what size the manufacturer
> describes the frame as. With the advent of compact geometry bikes, the
> effective top tube measurement has become increasingly important.
>
> I hope this helps,
>
> Bruce

Thanks to all. No time to post more now, but I will digest and follow
up later.

[catzz66[_2_]]

Ralph Barone wrote:
>
>
> Thanks to all. No time to post more now, but I will digest and follow
> up later.

I rode a too small bike for several hundred miles, by jacking up the
seat to get any kind of reasonable leg distances. Besides the too small
one looking quite strange with such a long seatpost, when I finally got
a bike that was closer, I realized that the too small bike didn't feel
as stable to me. The second bike was a shade too big, but the price was
right. I had no trouble at all with it and really could be riding it
now, if I hadn't found one that was the right size and was on sale. I
am 3 inches taller than you, but have about the same leg length and ride
a 58cm frame, which is dead on for me.

[blackhead]

On 29 Apr, 06:13, Ralph Barone > wrote:
> Can anybody offer up some suggestions on how much adjustment capability
> is in modern road frames? *I'm looking at a few used bikes which seem to
> be smaller than what I think I should be buying, but I don't have a good
> feel for how bad it would be to buy an undersized frame and then just
> crank up the seatpost and maybe lengthen the steerer tube.
>
> PS: I'm 5' 10", 32" inseam, and the two bikes I was looking at were 50
> cm and 54 cm frames.

Are you sure your inseam is 32"? When measuring it, you have to hold a
rluer or spirit level *firmly* under your nuts as if you're sitting on
it. Have a look at the frame size calculator I posted here a few weeks
back which gave a frame size of 56cm for someone around 5-10

[Ralph Barone]

In article
>,
blackhead > wrote:

> On 29 Apr, 06:13, Ralph Barone > wrote:
> > Can anybody offer up some suggestions on how much adjustment capability
> > is in modern road frames? *I'm looking at a few used bikes which seem to
> > be smaller than what I think I should be buying, but I don't have a good
> > feel for how bad it would be to buy an undersized frame and then just
> > crank up the seatpost and maybe lengthen the steerer tube.
> >
> > PS: I'm 5' 10", 32" inseam, and the two bikes I was looking at were 50
> > cm and 54 cm frames.
>
> Are you sure your inseam is 32"? When measuring it, you have to hold a
> rluer or spirit level *firmly* under your nuts as if you're sitting on
> it. Have a look at the frame size calculator I posted here a few weeks
> back which gave a frame size of 56cm for someone around 5-10

Well, that's just a little embarrassing... I went downstairs and
remeasured, and it turns out I got both measurements wrong. 33" inseam
and 5' 9 1/2" tall. I guess that brings me a little closer to 'normal'.
I found the fit calculator link that you posted and will check it out.
Thanks.

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On May 1, 5:58*am, Ralph Barone > wrote:
> In article
> >,
>
> *blackhead > wrote:
> > On 29 Apr, 06:13, Ralph Barone > wrote:
> > > Can anybody offer up some suggestions on how much adjustment capability
> > > is in modern road frames? *I'm looking at a few used bikes which seem to
> > > be smaller than what I think I should be buying, but I don't have a good
> > > feel for how bad it would be to buy an undersized frame and then just
> > > crank up the seatpost and maybe lengthen the steerer tube.
>
> > > PS: I'm 5' 10", 32" inseam, and the two bikes I was looking at were 50
> > > cm and 54 cm frames.
>
> > Are you sure your inseam is 32"? When measuring it, you have to hold a
> > rluer or spirit level *firmly* under your nuts as if you're sitting on
> > it. Have a look at the frame size calculator I posted here a few weeks
> > back which gave a frame size of 56cm for someone around 5-10
>
> Well, that's just a little embarrassing... I went downstairs and
> remeasured, and it turns out I got both measurements wrong. *33" inseam
> and 5' 9 1/2" tall. *I guess that brings me a little closer to 'normal'. *
> I found the fit calculator link that you posted and will check it out. *
> Thanks.

Hold a not too thick hardcover coffee table book between your thighs,
opening end up, shove it up hard, stand up straight and get someone
else to measure from the upper edge of the book to the floor. If you
handle the tape yourself, you're not standing straight. The book is
good because it is obvious when something that big is not level. HTH.
-- Andre Jute

[[email protected]]

I have about the same measurements. You need a 56-58cm to fit
properly. Avoid thecompact frames with sloping toptubes as you will
have a hard time gettinga good fit. For a quick fit tip you need to
adjust the saddle so your knee is slightly bent when pedal is lowest.
If you cannot get handlebars near level with the seat you will be
spending much $$$$$ trying to get comfortable. If the bars are near
or above seat some fine tuning will allow for comfort. DO NOT BUY AN
UNDERSIZE BIKE!!! One slightly large is okay but you need a bike in
the 56cm size range.


On Apr 29, 1:13*am, Ralph Barone > wrote:
> Can anybody offer up some suggestions on how much adjustment capability
> is in modern road frames? *I'm looking at a few used bikes which seem to
> be smaller than what I think I should be buying, but I don't have a good
> feel for how bad it would be to buy an undersized frame and then just
> crank up the seatpost and maybe lengthen the steerer tube.
>
> PS: I'm 5' 10", 32" inseam, and the two bikes I was looking at were 50
> cm and 54 cm frames.

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

Andre Jute wrote:
> [...]
> Hold a not too thick hardcover coffee table book between your thighs,
> opening end up, shove it up hard,

Good thing this post did not end here.

> stand up straight and get someone
> else to measure from the upper edge of the book to the floor. If you
> handle the tape yourself, you're not standing straight. The book is
> good because it is obvious when something that big is not level. HTH.

Why not use a carpenter's level, so horizontal can be verified?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On May 2, 4:53*am, Tom Sherman >
wrote:
> Andre Jute wrote:
> > [...]
> > Hold a not too thick hardcover coffee table book between your thighs,
> > opening end up, shove it up hard,
>
> Good thing this post did not end here.
>
> > stand up straight and get someone
> > else to measure from the upper edge of the book to the floor. If you
> > handle the tape yourself, you're not standing straight. The book is
> > good because it is obvious when something that big is not level. HTH.
>
> Why not use a carpenter's level, so horizontal can be verified?

A carpenter's level is pretty difficult to hold between your thighs. A
big coffee table book is like a picture on the wall, instantly seen to
be out of true if it is out of true. But if you don't trust the
measurer's eye, by all means add a spirit level to the top of the
book; that is one reason the opening side is upwards rather than the
rounded side.

Andre Jute
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE%20HUMOUR.html

[Ron Ruff]

On Apr 29, 11:01*am, Michael Press > wrote:
> Both are too small. I have a 30 inch inseam and a 55 cm
> frame is great. Get yourself a 58 cm frame. It will feel
> very different at first but take a long test ride
> with a proper saddle adjustment and modest stem.
> Remember that cockpit length is critical also.

I'm 6'0" tall with a 33.75" inseam, and I ride a 55cm frame. 105cm
stem with 1cm of spacers... just barely avoid toe overlap. I could
easily ride an even smaller frame, only I'd need more stem spacers or
an upturned stem, and I'd get toe overlap too... but I did consider
it. If we can assume that stem lengths from 80 to 130mm are
acceptable, and it is ok to turn them up if necessary, I could have
fit *perfectly* on a 50cm or 60cm frame... or any size in between.

I get the feeling that not many people have worked out the actual
geometry of going from the bottom bracket to the saddle and then to
the bars. The truth is that it is quite easy to adjust the saddle and
bar position to the exact same spot (relative to the BB) over a wide
range of frame sizes. All of the manufacturers of road bikes that I've
noticed, slacken the seat angle as sizes get larger... which makes the
change in *effective* TT length less than it appears. The head tube
length is the measurement that varies the most, and this has a direct
effect on how high your bars will be. If you want your bars close to
seat level then a larger frame will "fit" you best... compared to
someone who likes their bars low. It is mostly a matter of
esthetics... like not wanting an upturned stem or lots of spacers.

[Ron Ruff]

On May 1, 1:19*pm, wrote:
> I have about the same measurements. *You need a 56-58cm to fit
> properly. *Avoid thecompact frames with sloping toptubes as you will
> have a hard time gettinga good fit.

Total rubbish...

[Clive George]

"Ron Ruff" > wrote in message
...
>On May 1, 1:19 pm, wrote:
>> I have about the same measurements. You need a 56-58cm to fit
>> properly. Avoid thecompact frames with sloping toptubes as you will
>> have a hard time gettinga good fit.
>
>Total rubbish...

Seconded. I ride frames around that size, and I'm 6'2" or so. It's what's
comfortable to me - so that's what the OP should ride, what's comfortable,
not some random sizing rule.

(and compact is fine...)

cheers,
clive

[catzz66[_2_]]

Clive George wrote:
>

>> On May 1, 1:19 pm, wrote:
>>> I have about the same measurements. You need a 56-58cm to fit
>>> properly. Avoid thecompact frames with sloping toptubes as you will
>>> have a hard time gettinga good fit.
>>
>> Total rubbish...
>
> Seconded. I ride frames around that size, and I'm 6'2" or so. It's
> what's comfortable to me - so that's what the OP should ride, what's
> comfortable, not some random sizing rule.
>
> (and compact is fine...)
>
>

Agree that compact is fine. Lucky for me, since compact is about all
that is sold in my market, anyhow.

[Michael Press]

In article >,
Tom Sherman > wrote:

> Andre Jute wrote:
> > [...]
> > Hold a not too thick hardcover coffee table book between your thighs,
> > opening end up, shove it up hard,
>
> Good thing this post did not end here.
>
> > stand up straight and get someone
> > else to measure from the upper edge of the book to the floor. If you
> > handle the tape yourself, you're not standing straight. The book is
> > good because it is obvious when something that big is not level. HTH.
>
> Why not use a carpenter's level, so horizontal can be verified?

Framer's square, or a large drafting square.

--
Michael Press

[[email protected]]

No it's 100% accurate. Compact frames only benefit the bike makers
who only distribute 3 sizes.


On May 2, 11:37*am, Ron Ruff > wrote:
> On May 1, 1:19*pm, wrote:
>
> > I have about the same measurements. *You need a 56-58cm to fit
> > properly. *Avoid thecompact frames with sloping toptubes as you will
> > have a hard time gettinga good fit.
>
> Total rubbish...

[[email protected]]

You must be misshapen to be 6'2 and fit on a 56 bike. At 5'11 I'm
severely cramped on most 54's. Compact frames suck. It is difficlt
and costly to get the bars near saddle height even on large frames. I
only buy traditional frames


On May 2, 12:39*pm, "Clive George" > wrote:
> "Ron Ruff" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> >On May 1, 1:19 pm, wrote:
> >> I have about the same measurements. You need a 56-58cm to fit
> >> properly. Avoid thecompact frames with sloping toptubes as you will
> >> have a hard time gettinga good fit.
>
> >Total rubbish...
>
> Seconded. I ride frames around that size, and I'm 6'2" or so. It's what's
> comfortable to me - so that's what the OP should ride, what's comfortable,
> not some random sizing rule.
>
> (and compact is fine...)
>
> cheers,
> clive

[Lou Holtman[_2_]]

wrote:
> No it's 100% accurate. Compact frames only benefit the bike makers
> who only distribute 3 sizes.
>
>
> On May 2, 11:37 am, Ron Ruff > wrote:
>> On May 1, 1:19 pm, wrote:
>>
>>> I have about the same measurements. You need a 56-58cm to fit
>>> properly. Avoid thecompact frames with sloping toptubes as you will
>>> have a hard time gettinga good fit.
>> Total rubbish...
>


100% accurate? Did you looked at compact frames sizes lately? Lots of
framemakers offer their compact frames it more then 3 sizes.

Lou

[landotter]

On May 2, 2:16 pm, wrote:
> You must be misshapen to be 6'2 and fit on a 56 bike. At 5'11 I'm
> severely cramped on most 54's. Compact frames suck. It is difficlt
> and costly to get the bars near saddle height even on large frames. I
> only buy traditional frames

I *thought* that was a mounting peg.

<woosh>

[Ron Ruff]

On May 2, 1:16*pm, wrote:
> You must be misshapen to be 6'2 and fit on a 56 bike. *At 5'11 I'm
> severely cramped on most 54's. *Compact frames suck. *It is difficlt
> and costly to get the bars near saddle height even on large frames. *I
> only buy traditional frames

I don't understand what the "problem" is with sizing compact frames.
It could only be an issue if you are accustomed to sizing via crotch
clearance or seat-tube length, and are unwilling to think about it for
two minutes. Size by headtube length... problem solved.

And as I showed earlier, there is no sane reason to have sizes in 1cm
increments. The reach measurement goes up slowly and generally the
headtube length increases pretty dramatically... but they always do so
in concert. What if you want the reach of a 54 and the height of a 60?
Or vise versa? You are screwed because only a custom frame would have
these proportions. If I spec'd my own brand of road bike or frame, I'd
have 3 reach measurements and 2 height measurements... ie S,M or L
with regular and tall options for headtube length. The would span the
typical range of ~52-62cm on normal frames. The reach would increase
~2cm between each size, and the height ~3cm, and with the "tall"
option the headtubes would all be 3cm longer. It would be a more
functional and universal sizing scheme than what is currently offered.