'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 )

This bike is good for a big guy(8 posts)

This bike is good for a big guytronracer
Dec 5, 2002 6:42 PM
and that bike is good for a little guy...

I've heard over and over again. One reason might be because a frame is beefier overall and will take the abuse a clydesdale would give it, or it has a stiff bottom bracket, a problem larger riders have because of the size of the frame.

i've heard that any really light frame would do for a smaller gent because he/she doesn't have to worry as much about bb flex so they could get away w/ a really light frame.

But, considering ride quality and weight, which frames are ideal for larger guys and which frames are ideal for bigger guys? Are the above assumptions correct? I know there's more to it.

Also, I can't remember where I heard it, but something about the IF crown jewel that they re-angle the geometry specifically for each size. Can anyone clear this up about this particular frame?

I'm partial to steel..can you recommend an ideal frame in a 53cm?

re: This bike is good for a big guygeeker
Dec 5, 2002 8:41 PM
"something about the IF crown jewel that they re-angle the geometry specifically for each size."

They vary the fork rake for each size. Very few mfrs do this. I'm sure IF has some info on their site (

Can't help w. other questions...
53cm for a big guy???C-40
Dec 6, 2002 5:12 AM
This doesn't add up. I ride a 54 or 55cm c-t and weigh 135-140.
bowling ball big?bigrider
Dec 6, 2002 5:47 AM
I think big can be defined a couple of ways

height and weight

Are you implying that you weigh 200lbs and are short
(my brother is built like this with wide shoulders and extra weight)

At any rate don't buy an ultra light frame even if it is steel because they are simply not designed for individuals streching out the upper end of the bell shaped weight curve
Look at the Colnago MXL as well (nm)ColnagoFE
Dec 6, 2002 8:01 AM
Sorry for the confusion....tronracer
Dec 6, 2002 10:00 AM
I was merely comparing the two extremes and I meant to compare a larger and smaller, not a bigger and larger.

I'm 5'8, 135-140 lbs...hardly a big guy. I'm have two 52 cm bikes, but me thinks a 53cm would fit better w/ a 31" inseam.

Sorry again, I've been studying too hard lately and it seems as though its beginning to take its toll.
Sorry for the confusion....geeker
Dec 6, 2002 11:40 AM
"I'm partial to steel..can you recommend an ideal frame in a 53cm?"

Impossible to answer as stated, because it depends on fit/geometry; top tube length and seat tube angle as well as seat tube length. If you're a student and on a budget, Gunnar (American made, Reynolds 853 tubeset), De Bernardi (Italian made, Columbus Aelle, Thron and Zona tubesets), and KHS Flite 800 (853, Far East made, long top tube geometry) come to mind, subject of course to fit.
short inseam...C-40
Dec 6, 2002 1:01 PM
If you've accurately measured your inseam to hard contact in bare feet, you have a long torso and short legs, a combination that make for a poor fit on many stock frames. I'm over and inch shorter with a 4cm longer inseam. Most stock frames fit me fine.

I assume that you are asking about frame size measured c-t, since a 52cm c-c would have a standover height close to 31" which would provide no standover clearance.

Unless you also have long femurs that require moving the saddle far back, you must be using a pretty long stem. Changing to a 53cm frame would not help much. Typically, increasing the frame size by 1cm only increases the TT length by .5cm, sometimes less.