|How tall are you? and what size bike do you ride???||briko51|
Aug 31, 2002 6:01 PM
|Guess I'm just bored tonite...haha...just curious as to what size people ride and how tall you are...maybe to see if there are some extremes of top tube/seat tube length...
i'm 184cm (almost 6'1) and ride a...
57 C-C top tube
|5'11" 58 c-c 57c top tube 110 stem (nm)||riney|
Aug 31, 2002 6:18 PM
|5'10" 57cm road bike,52cm TT bike,18"MTB.||STEELYeyed|
Aug 31, 2002 6:48 PM
|6'4", no smaller than 64cm||cory|
Aug 31, 2002 6:59 PM
|I've owned a bunch of 62s, because they're always left over at the end of the year and I convince myself I'm getting a great price and they'll work. But the only two I've ever been really comfortable on are an old 25-inch Trek and a 64cm Atlantis. When Rivendell brings out its new big cheap bike ($1300, 65 and 68cm only), I'm going to try a 68.|
|6'4", no smaller than 64cm||burdiman|
Sep 1, 2002 8:06 AM
|A 68? Don't you own a seatpost? I am 6'7" and ride
a 63cm (and the post isn't abnormally extended). My inseam is 36" and at the bottom of the stroke my knee angle is approx 25%.
|Too much seatpost showing on a 64...||cory|
Sep 2, 2002 7:33 AM
|I don't want to start on my whole "Everybody's bike is too small" lecture, but a lot of people ARE riding around on frames that are too small by classic standards. One of the criteria (only ONE; there are many others) is that you should have about one fistfull of post showing--if you grab the post, your hand should just about cover it. When I ride a 62, I have 8 inches or so of post showing (haven't measured in awhile, and I don't have a bike handy, but it's a lot). Even on my 64cm Atlantis, it's 6+, about a fist and a half.
If you're talking about a "bike" inseam (to the floor) rather than a pants inseam, mine is longer than yours. A long seatpost is only a partial solution to a too-small frame (I've owned a bunch of them, as I said). And my 64 was so much more comfortable out of the box than my smaller bikes have been with a lot of fiddling that I'd like to try one that meets the OLD standard of fit rather than the new, racer-oriented one. A 68 would reduce the exposed seatpost by about 1.6 inches and make it very close to what used to be the recommendation. If it doesn't feel right, I won't buy it.
|5'11" ... 33" inseam||bianchi boy|
Aug 31, 2002 7:06 PM
|My Gios has a 56 c-c seat tube and 55 c-c top tube, and fits me great.
My Bianchi has 57 c-c seat and top tubes, and fits a little long across the top.
My ideal frame would have a 57 c-c seat tube, 56 top tube, 72.5-73 seat angle, and threaded fork/stem.
|How about Inseam too? 5'11.5" 87cm inseam.............||Justride|
Aug 31, 2002 7:23 PM
|59cm st c/t 57cm tt c/c 120mm stem|
|6'1" 36" inseam. 60cm frame with a 57cm top tube.||paulw|
Aug 31, 2002 7:25 PM
|5'11" ride a 56cm (56.5 TT), 120mm stem 31.5"-32" inseam||Ron B|
Aug 31, 2002 7:47 PM
|I'd like a custom frame with a 59cm TT and 110cm stem with a 48cm seat tube one of these days. Also 74-74.5 degree seat tube angle (short femurs)|
|5'11", 58cm c-c, 110mm stem (nm)||pappy_d|
Aug 31, 2002 9:35 PM
|re: How tall are you? and what size bike do you ride???||jkh|
Sep 1, 2002 2:03 AM
|172cm (just under 5'8") and ride a ...
53cm C-C top tube
2002 Ciocc Challenger Carbon with a ...
|6', 32" inseam, 55cm ST, 55.5cm TT, 130mm stem||trimble|
Sep 1, 2002 2:50 AM
|And my seat is shoved as far back as it can go.
I'm tall from the waist up.
Ideally, I'd prefer the top tube somewhere between 56 and 58cm and a shorter stem.
However, the way the bike is set up now, it's comfortable.
|re: How tall are you? and what size bike do you ride???||koala|
Sep 1, 2002 3:35 AM
|6'3" 89cm inseam, 59c-c frame, 12 cm stem (nm)||DaveG|
Sep 1, 2002 4:59 AM
|re: How tall are you? and what size bike do you ride???||Pjkad|
Sep 1, 2002 5:25 AM
|6'5": 62cm with 5% top tube slope (equiv. to 64cm CC);61.1TT|
|5'9 3/4", 80cm inseam, 54cm c-c seattube, 55cm c-c toptube(nm)||rufus|
Sep 1, 2002 5:32 AM
|5'10" 58cm, 57.5cm top tube 120mm stem (nm)||Breakfast|
Sep 1, 2002 6:15 AM
|5'10" 32.5" inseam 55cm c-t ST 56cm TT 11cm stem (nm)||jeph|
Sep 1, 2002 6:22 AM
|5'11" 58 cm c-t, 57cm top tube, 110 stem w/10 rise. 32in inseam.||look271|
Sep 1, 2002 6:29 AM
|I could probably go with a slightly smaller frame, but this fits me great.|
|6'2", 34" inseam, 58cm C-C box geom., 120mm stem. nm||sn69|
Sep 1, 2002 6:42 AM
|6'4", 36.5" inseam, 60 cm c-c seat and top tubes, 120mm stem||Mike Prince|
Sep 1, 2002 7:15 AM
|Fits me like a glove.|
|6'0" (184cm), 34.25" inseam (87cm), 58 c-t, 57.5 tt, 110mm stem||nazgul|
Sep 1, 2002 8:54 AM
Sep 1, 2002 10:20 AM
|Are there no short -- not as tall -- cyclists? (nm)||mja|
Sep 1, 2002 10:18 AM
|5'1.5", 30.7"inseam, 50cm c-t, 51.5cm TT, 74.7 cm stndover.(nm||theBreeze|
Sep 1, 2002 3:28 PM
|sure, they're just not checking in yet||lonefrontranger|
Sep 1, 2002 6:13 PM
48.5 C-C, custom with slightly extended ST
|5'-9"; 33.25" inseam; 55.5cm c-c; 56.5 c-c top tube; 110mm stem||PsyDoc|
Sep 1, 2002 10:35 AM
|The bike has 73.5 degree STA and HTA. The 110mm stem is a little short and I may move up to a 120mm stem as my flexibility has improved quite a bit.|
|5'-9"; 33.25" inseam; 55.5cm c-c; 56.5 c-c top tube; 110mm stem||koala|
Sep 2, 2002 3:23 AM
|I am 5-10, 33 inseam, but my top tube is 54c-c, do you have along arms? My nose plumblined is in the middle of my stem in the drops. Reason I ask is our inseam and seat tubes are so close but your top tube is 2.5cm longer.|
Sep 2, 2002 10:35 AM
|...not sure. |
Arm meaured from the inside of armpit to the webbing between thumb and finger is 65.25 cm.
Forearm measured from elbow to middle of fist is 35.80 cm.
Extended Arm measured from the shoulder joint to middle of fist is 65.25.
Body Height measured from ground to sternal notch is 144.15 cm.
Torso measured from the Crotch-to-Sternal Notch is 59.70 cm.
A 54 c-c toptube would be far too short for me.
|178cm, 81cm inseam, 53 x 54.5 c-c frame, 10cm stem Nm||Spirito|
Sep 1, 2002 10:38 AM
|re: How tall are you? and what size bike do you ride???||Akirasho|
Sep 1, 2002 11:01 AM
58.5cm to 60.0cm C-C top tubes
130mm to 140mm stem
Remain In Light.
|re: How tall are you? and what size bike do you ride???||Howard|
Sep 1, 2002 12:00 PM
|Height: 5' 11 1/2"
Frame size: 60 cm c-t
Top tube: 57.5 cm
Stem: 100 mm
|6'1/2'' 57cm ct||hinaults dog|
Sep 1, 2002 2:22 PM
|5'11 1/4" and I ride a 57cm||Lazywriter|
Sep 1, 2002 2:47 PM
|Litespeed Classic and Vortex and a 56cm Fondriest. Seeing what most others in my height ramge are riding, my bikes aren't too big like some morons stated when I posted pics.|
|interesting ...||bianchi boy|
Sep 1, 2002 7:01 PM
|It's surprising how many people who responded this post are 5'10"-6' tall. I guess that's why 56-57 cm frames are so hard to find, lots of demand. It's also interesting to me that most of people who posted in my height range are riding frames that are on the large side according to some of the frequently cited fit formulas. I am 5'11" with a 33" inseam, and according to the wrench science and colorado cyclist fit formulas, I should be riding 54-55 cm seat-tube frame. Yet frames that size feel way too small for me, with a ridiculous drop from the saddle to the handlebar. I fit best on a frame with 57 seat tube and 56 top tube, assuming 72-73 seat tube angle.|
|There is an obvious trend towards riding smaller||Lazywriter|
Sep 1, 2002 7:17 PM
|frames but the smallest I could ride would be a 55cm (c-c). Wrenchscience is deceiving because most of the Italian frames they sell are measured diferently than the Litespeeds(c-c versus c-t). My 56cm Fondriest is more like a 57cm litespeed. If you look at most people's custom Seven's or other customized frames, you will see a reasonably small amount of seatpost showing. Nothing near what stock bikes are showing in ads. Even if I got a custom bike, it would be almost identical to the geometry on my current bikes. Maybe a little shorter seattube but the same tt due to my long torso.
My bikes have 110mm stem which put me in perfect position with about 4 inches of seatpost showing. Anymore than that, the frame is too small and that person is sacrificing fit/comfort for a smaller frame. But a lot of people need to look stylish and go for the smaller frames or they legitimately race and want to save weight. By and large though, an excellent fit will be about 4 inches of seatpost and no more than a 120mm stem (preferably 110).
|There is an obvious trend towards riding smaller||sn69|
Sep 2, 2002 6:34 AM
|I'm not so sure that you can say that any more than 4" of seat post equates to a sizing mistake for trendiness, misfit, or whatever. Don't forget, not everyone has equally proportioned torsos, legs, and/or arms. And that, I think, is the biggest challenge...it makes fitting a tri bike even harder.
At the same time, I find it continuously interesting how others critique the height of peoples' stems. Disregarding the obvious safety issues of exceeding manufacturer's recommendations for carbon steer tubes, the only other compelling issue for short cockpits is general rigidity (balanced, of course, by diverging to the opposite extreme with 4 inches of stack like that goofy QRoo TiPhoon that was posted a couple months ago). Again, I think most people tend towards fitness riding and not racing, thereby eliminating the concerns about stack height. Aesthetics, of course, are a different issue and are individual in nature. In that regard, I have to agree with Spirito...there's a lost aesthetic quality with the demise of the threaded stem.
I do, however, agree that the various sizing models have to be scrutinized to ensure that they really satisfy the individual's needs. In my case, Wrenchscience worked well, and Tim worked those numbers to present a range of options and their corresponding benefits/costs. Colorado Cyclist didn't work that well for me. I wish I had done Cyfac to see what they think.
|I agree that there may be some who need more||Lazywriter|
Sep 2, 2002 8:47 AM
|seatpost to show due to freakish inseams, but the "trend" toward smaller frames are the "in" thing today. "A fist full" of seatpost was the old standard. My point is that it is all a matter of what the pros are doing and the general public follows.
It is a trend that is talked about in all the cycling magazines to go with smaller frames. I have read it over and over again. Seriously, go look at Seven's site and look at customers pictures of their rides. All custom frames and you will not see freakish amounts of seatpost. 4 inches seems to be the max give or take. I have noticed that on many custom bikes.
|I'll concede that point...||sn69|
Sep 2, 2002 9:14 AM
|...specifically that people frequently try to mirror what they see in the TDF or when watching Ironman. A 6 inch saddle to bar top drop is untenable for most weekend warriors, and the 130+mm stems the pros are racing on seem a tad excessive. You're also correct about reputable sites, including Seven, Serotta, Strong, Spectrum and others. Perhaps it's bleed-over from the compact style that's so in vogue (yes, I like them too and a Spectrum Super-ti figures highly on my dream bike list).
In either case, there are differences and nuances in everyone's morphology that should CORRECTLY drive fit and comfort, not fads and fashion. On that note, I couldn't agree with you more.
FWIW, I've got 5 inches sticking up and 2.5cm of spacers with a slightly rising stem. The top tube length and reach are spot-on for my comfort and flexibility.
|59cc, 57.5 TT and 120mm stem 6"1". nm||Juanmoretime|
Sep 2, 2002 4:47 AM
|174cm, 81.5cm inseam, 54 c-c/ 120 stem.||colker|
Sep 2, 2002 5:15 AM
|could ride a bigger bike.|
|re: How tall are you? and what size bike do you ride???||StewK|
Sep 2, 2002 1:38 PM
|171 cm; 54 c-c; 55.5 c-c; 120 mm||Look381i|
Sep 3, 2002 3:26 AM
|Fits perfectly, but I like to be a bit more stretched out than most.|| |