's Forum Archives - General

Archive Home >> General(1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 )

sizing I in the ballpark?(3 posts)

sizing I in the ballpark?cyclejim
May 13, 2002 9:40 PM
I've been checking out various sites and trying to get a good idea for what size frame I should be looking at, and I wanted to see if you all thought I was in the neighborhood.

I am 6'3", 35 inch inseam, and have fairly long arms as well, I measured them at 25. On mtn bikes, I generally ride a 21 inch frame with longer top tubes of 24-25 being in my good range...more towards 24.5 or longer.

I think I am looking for a 62-63cm frame. Does this seem about right to you?

re: sizing I in the ballpark?DKF
May 14, 2002 4:30 AM
Sounds like you are doing your homework and are in your "ballpark". I'm 6'3" with a 36"inseam and ride a
62 c-c. You didn't specify c-c or c-t, it makes a 1.5/2cm difference in seat tube length.
check that inseam...C-40
May 14, 2002 4:46 AM
35 inches (89cm) is on the short side. Did you check it as described at sites like (barefeet, wearing cyclign shorts)? If your measurements are accurate you have a long torso (and short legs). Long torsoed riders typically need more top tube length than is available on standard frames. A frame with sufficient top tube length may not provide the minimum standover clearance (2-3cm). Common formulas would predict only a 61cm frame, for a proper vertical fit, but some brands may have too short of top tube length in this size. Get a professional fitting to be sure.

The other problem you may encounter is large jumps in sizes at the top of the size range. The largest frame available in some brands may be too big, but the next size down may be 2-3cm smaller, which may be too small. If you find something specific that fits and want comparable geometries in another brands, post again with the info.