|Top tube length!||castrello|
Oct 28, 2002 9:50 AM
|Im 186 cm long (6´1´2) wondering about other peoples top tubes.
Whats your length and how long is your top tube? Im mainly interested in people about my size. Please mention the length of your stem as well.
Im having this argument with my riding buddies and need this info to settle it :).
|6'1" 57.5 top tube 110mm stem. nm||Juanmoretime|
Oct 28, 2002 10:33 AM
|6'2" 59.0 tob tube 130mm stem nm||bigrider|
Oct 28, 2002 10:47 AM
|Depends on leg versus torso length too.||bikeridah|
Oct 28, 2002 10:55 AM
|I am 6'00" but also long-torsoed (31" riding inseam). TT is 57.5 plus 12cm stem.|
|6' - 55.6cm / 110mm (nm)||B2|
Oct 28, 2002 11:02 AM
|Wow! I'm only 5'8" on a good day: 55.6cm / 120mm||Look381i|
Oct 28, 2002 5:36 PM
|Normal proportions. Seatpost is USE Alien Carbon with no setback. My other main ride is 54 tt/120 stem, but it has a Campy ti seatpost with a lot of setback. Because of different STAs, position over bb is the same.
I take it you are short waisted?
|5'8" with 53 top tube, 9cm stem, short reach bars(cinelli nerve)||ishmael|
Oct 29, 2002 6:37 AM
|seatpost is record carbon and I'm in the middle of the rails..I've got a 32" inseam.|
|6' 1", 58cm TT, 130cm stem (59cm C-C ST)(nm)||Cima Coppi|
Oct 28, 2002 11:17 AM
|re: 5' ,10.5" 56.5 top tube 12cm stem (long arms) nm||dzrider|
Oct 28, 2002 11:34 AM
|5-10; 54 top;100mm stem, all leg...n.m.||koala|
Oct 28, 2002 12:02 PM
|Doesn't stem angle matter in this calculation/determination?||BrianNYC|
Oct 28, 2002 12:09 PM
|6.0", 56.5 TT, 11.0 stem. What is yours Castrello?||Spunout|
Oct 28, 2002 12:14 PM
|dont forget saddle to bar drop ....||Spirito|
Oct 28, 2002 12:22 PM
|the lower your bars are compared to your saddle height the longer the stretch or effective stem and toptube length seems.
|5'11" 58.5 top tube 120mm stem.||McAndrus|
Oct 28, 2002 12:39 PM
|Looking at the other answers it seems I ride a rather long top tube but it's very comfortable to me. Maybe I just like to be stretched out. I'm 5'11" with a 35" inseam. My top tube is 58.5 with a 120mm stem.|
|5-10, 55.5 cm TT, 110 mm stem, saddle wayyyyy back.||WrigleyRoadie|
Oct 28, 2002 12:47 PM
|Ditto, but thinking of skooching saddle forward a tad..<nm>||Ouch|
Oct 29, 2002 1:05 PM
|6'0" - 59cm TT, 9cm stem (nm)||laffeaux|
Oct 28, 2002 1:05 PM
|183cm tall; 57.5cm TT (c-c), 14cm stem||climbo|
Oct 28, 2002 1:11 PM
|seems like you won't win any arguments, everyone is very different in what they like/want.|
|5'10" - 57.1 cm TT & 110 stem (nm)||outofthesaddle|
Oct 28, 2002 1:17 PM
|6'0 - 58cm TT, 120mm stem (nm)||Alex-in-Evanston|
Oct 28, 2002 1:26 PM
|6' 2" 58.0 to 59.5 cm top tube 130 to 140mm stem (nm)||Akirasho|
Oct 28, 2002 1:31 PM
Remain In Light.
Be the bike.
|re: Top tube length!||gschiener|
Oct 28, 2002 1:54 PM
|6'1"-56.5 cm. top tube / 120mm. stem|
|6'0" w/ two bikes as follows||RickC5|
Oct 28, 2002 2:14 PM
|#1 57cm tt with 11 cm stem
#2 56cm tt with 12 cm stem
|well, looks like the average height is above 6'! nm||elviento|
Oct 28, 2002 2:50 PM
|6'1 3/4 TT=56.9cm Stem 120mm (nm)||spc15|
Oct 28, 2002 3:02 PM
|height is irrelevant....||C-40|
Oct 28, 2002 3:30 PM
|What determines the proper top tube length is torso length and leg proportioning (which affects saddle position and reach) not height. In case you don't know it, people of the same height can vary several inches in leg length and torso length. People with the same length of leg can vary substantially in upper and lower leg proportions.
The people who have the most trouble with bike fit are those with short legs and a long torso. Most stock frames are made for the longer legged person.
What's the argument?
Oct 29, 2002 1:58 AM
|Well this is me
186 cm tall
inseam 90 cm
sternum notch 158
reversed insem 68
arm length 65
flexibility is good
wrench science calcualted my overall reach to be 70.5 (top tube plus stem) and the frame size to be 60 cm c-t or 58 c-c.
Right now Im on 57 cm top tube w 12.5 cm stem (size 58 c-c). Planning on buying a Caad 5. Should I go for a size 60 with a 59 cm top tube with a 11 cm stem or a size 58 with a 57.2 cm top tube and then couple that with a 13 cm stem? Im kinda in between sizes as you can see.
|wrench science is worthless...||C-40|
Oct 29, 2002 9:49 AM
|As far as calculating reach goes, wrench science yields worthless results, IMO. Since you have an existing bike, it can tell you more than the wrench science site.
When evaluating TT length you must also consider the seat tube angle (STA). Adjustments that may be required for a different STA will affect the reach to the bars and the stem length required. What's the STA on your current bike?
If your inseam informtaion is correct, the 60cm will provide 5cm of standover clearance, which is more than adequate. If the STA on you current bike is 73 degrees like the C'dale, then a you would need a 2cm shorter stem.
The 58cm will require 2cm more steering tube spacers or more stem rise to get the bars up to the same height. The 58cm will also produce an excessive 7cm of standover clearance. The STA on the 58cm is 73.5 degrees, which increases the effective top tube length from 57.5 to 58.2 when compared to the 60cm frame, so there's only .8cm difference. The 58cm may also require a 1cm shorter stem, since it's TT length is greater than the 57cm on your current bike.
|wrench science is worthless...||castrello|
Oct 29, 2002 9:58 AM
|Thank you for your reply!
I will check these things out...
|wrench science is worthless...||castrello|
Oct 30, 2002 5:49 AM
|Eh, I dont agree with this... or is it just me being stupid today:)
If a smaller frame has a steeper seat angle than a bigger frame, wouldnt that mean the difference in effective top tube length (or should I call it reach since the top tube length is always the same) is actually greater than the top tube length. If a seat angle is more upright, that means you get closer to the bars, meaning that the effective reach is shorter than if you had a slacker head angel.
When it comes to caad 5 or 7 (size 58 has 73.5 on both the 5 and 7 while the 58 and 60 cm caad 7 has a 73 and 72.5 degree sta respectively) the sta on the smaller sizes is 0.5 degrees steeper making the difference in effective reach even greater than 1.5 cm (top tubes on size 58: 57.5; 60: 59.)?
Is this right, or am I just being stupid/tired/whatever?
|6'3". 57.5cm TT, 12cm stem (nm)||DaveG|
Oct 28, 2002 4:19 PM
|5'11" 58cm TT 110mm stem (nm)||JS|
Oct 28, 2002 8:07 PM
|6 ft: 56cm TT, 120mm stem||El Caballito|
Oct 28, 2002 8:45 PM
|Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh! Ride a Klein baby!|
|5'7", 53.5 cm TT, 130 mm stem, saddle to bar drop 2.5". -nm||Tig|
Oct 28, 2002 9:02 PM
|re: Top tube length!||Timo Vennonen|
Oct 29, 2002 4:35 AM
185 cm = 6'1
inseam around 89 cm
proportionally long arms
frame 61 cm c-t, 59 c-c
seat angle 73
top tube 58 cm
stem 130 mm
saddle to bar drop around 10 cm
Hope this helps to settle the argument... Remember that the seat angle affects a lot when determining the correct top tube length.
|re: Top tube length!||castrello|
Oct 29, 2002 10:01 AM
You´re not from Finland, are you?
Oct 29, 2002 5:41 AM
|5'11" 56.5 tt & 120 stem (nm)||Ken of Fresno|
Oct 29, 2002 7:52 AM