kwalters wrote:
Theoretical question: A frame builder makes frames
in even sizes; you are interested in a 60cm or a 62cm.
After studying the respective geometries and comparing
them with what you have ridden in the past, you decide
a 61cm would be best. However, builder doesn't offer a
61 and you can't afford a custom build (don't even want
to discuss it). Would you go a size up or a size down?

(And, to the pundits who would say: "Ride them both" you
have to say" "Impossible to do in this town".)

So, who would go with 62cm & who with 60? & why?

Be aware that "frame size" a.k.a. seat tube length, is not that
critical, and that there are at least three ways of specifying seat
tube length.

Personally, I like a large frame, so I would round up as long as I
could straddle the bike (and as long as all the other parameters were
acceptable). I'd be more concerned with having adequate tire
clearance, generous wheelbase, and appropriate top tube length and
trail.

I own both 62 cm and 63 cm (center-to-center) frames and prefer the 63
cm only because it's easier to get the bars higher (still 2-3/4" below
the saddle) and because that bike has better tire clearance (not
related to frame size).

If you can't decide between the 60 cm and 62 cm frame, base your choice
on top tube length.

BTW, the current fad is to ride a smaller frame with a long seat post
and rising stem.

Art Harris