LBS and fit question?

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 09:51:43 -0500, "David L. Johnson"
wrote:

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 04:25:57 -0800, Art Harris wrote:

David L. Johnson wrote:

I ride a 55cm and I am 2" taller than you.

You're 6 ft tall and ride a 55cm? That sounds extremely small to me.
The OP says he's 5' 9-3/4"

I'm not 6' tall, I'm 5' 11-3/4"... OK, 11-1/2. But my 55cm frame has
either a 110 or 100mm stem, a 57 would need probably a 90 or 80, which is
pretty short. My seatpost extension is well within normal limits, and the
stem is nearly all the way in, and my riding position is pretty standard.

I've used a 55cm frame for over 30 years. I don't really get the
Rivendell-type suggestion that you should ride as large a frame as you can
be adjusted to. But each person is different.

For starters, the larger frame brings the bars up to you. Most stems have a
short quill and and can't be raised much, so if the seat is way above the top
tube you'll be hunting for a periscope stem to get the bars up.

Apparently you don't need or want that long of a top tube, so it's either a
custom frame or a smaller frame for you.

ROn

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 15:59:17 +0000, RonSonic wrote:


I've used a 55cm frame for over 30 years. I don't really get the
Rivendell-type suggestion that you should ride as large a frame as you can
be adjusted to. But each person is different.

For starters, the larger frame brings the bars up to you. Most stems have a
short quill and and can't be raised much, so if the seat is way above the top
tube you'll be hunting for a periscope stem to get the bars up.

Well, I don't think that my saddle is "way" above the top tube, and I
don't feel any need to bring the bars up. But I have been riding for a
long time, so maybe my back is permanently bent....

Really, I think my position is pretty standard, and that my bike fits
well. I wonder why some are recommending such a large frame as earlier on
this thread -- a 57cm or even larger frame for a person 5' 9" tall with
more or less average proportions.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | "It doesn't get any easier, you just go faster." --Greg LeMond
_`\(,_ |
(_)/ (_) |

In article , RonSonic
wrote:

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 09:51:43 -0500, "David L. Johnson"
wrote:

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 04:25:57 -0800, Art Harris wrote:

David L. Johnson wrote:

I ride a 55cm and I am 2" taller than you.

You're 6 ft tall and ride a 55cm? That sounds extremely small to me.
The OP says he's 5' 9-3/4"

I'm not 6' tall, I'm 5' 11-3/4"... OK, 11-1/2. But my 55cm frame has
either a 110 or 100mm stem, a 57 would need probably a 90 or 80, which is
pretty short. My seatpost extension is well within normal limits, and the
stem is nearly all the way in, and my riding position is pretty standard.

I've used a 55cm frame for over 30 years. I don't really get the
Rivendell-type suggestion that you should ride as large a frame as you can
be adjusted to. But each person is different.

For starters, the larger frame brings the bars up to you. Most stems have a
short quill and and can't be raised much, so if the seat is way above the top
tube you'll be hunting for a periscope stem to get the bars up.

To me, that's an extreme case of over generalization, because triathlon
specific bikes have shorter top tubes but a head tube above the seat
tube, which brings the stem and aerobars placement up just right. In
fact, I know some people ride tri specific bikes -- Softride or Felt as
their long distance century bikes just because they feel comfortable.

I also disagree when people starts saying that long top tubes is the
key to all bike fitting answers. It's a maybe. The reason being, we
are not all built alike and neither do our riding styles. Like the
other poster said, riding a one or two size smaller frame isn't a bad
thing either as long as it is comfortable and it works.

David L. Johnson wrote:
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 04:25:57 -0800, Art Harris wrote:

David L. Johnson wrote:

I ride a 55cm and I am 2" taller than you.

You're 6 ft tall and ride a 55cm? That sounds extremely small to me.
The OP says he's 5' 9-3/4"

I'm not 6' tall, I'm 5' 11-3/4"... OK, 11-1/2. But my 55cm frame has
either a 110 or 100mm stem, a 57 would need probably a 90 or 80, which is
pretty short. My seatpost extension is well within normal limits, and the
stem is nearly all the way in, and my riding position is pretty standard.

I've used a 55cm frame for over 30 years.

I think the problem assumption you are making is that all 55 cm bicycles
will be the same size, and that a 57 cm bicycle is always bigger than that.
This isn't true, the size numbers that manufacturers come up with are
largely whimiscal.

I'm within a fraction of an inch of your height. I currently have
three bicycles, two 56 cm and a 58 cm, which, despite the different
numbers, have near-identical sized frames when measured with a ruler.
The difference is that the 56 cm bikes (Cannondale and Calfee) get
their size from the distance from the center of the bottom bracket to
where the top of the top tube intersects with the center of the seat
tube, while the 58 cm bike (Co-motion) measures the distance all the
way to the top of the seat binder clamp. What's more, I have taken test
rides on bikes of my preferred frame size which the manufacturer has
sized at 55 cm, that being the distance to the intersection of the
center of the seat tube and the *center* of the top tube. So my frame
size (which I measure with a ruler when buying a bike) can apparently
be called anything from 55 cm to 58 cm depending on who made the frame.

Now the frame size I like is at the comfortable-but-small end of my
"possible" range: I could see myself being okay on a frame 2 cm
larger, but a frame 2 cm smaller would have too much seat post showing.
Since you're a wee bit bigger than me, if anything, my bet would hence
be that we ride the same size frames, with the sole difference being that
your frames are measured c-c and mine aren't. More than this, judging
from their web pages Bianchi frames seem to be measured the same way
as my 58 cm frame, so (living even more dangerously) my guess would be
that the original poster is actually talking about a frame which is
1 cm smaller than the frames we ride.

Assuming all those guesses are true, this doesn't sound entirely
unreasonable. He's 4 cm shorter than me, with 2.5 cm less inseam,
and he's looking at a frame which is 1 cm smaller than I ride. If
his frame geometry is similar to those I ride then this seems like
it might be a fit at the big end of his "possible" range.

In fact, the only thing I find mysterious about this is how you managed
to go 30 years without finding a frame in the size you like being
called a number other than 55 cm by some manufacturer or other. When
I go looking at bikes I take a tape measure and a level with me to
find models that are my size; the numbers that various manufacturers
put on their bikes aren't all that informative.

Dennis Ferguson

Cyclocross bikes are sized differently. At your height you need a
54-56 cm bike. I'm 5'11" w a 32" inseam. My C'dale xr800 'cross is a
54cm . My Lemond is a 55cm (equal to a 57) and my old Panasonic 12
speed is a 56. The guy wants to unload that bike badly. That would be
appropriate for a 6'2" person. He will probably charge you to swap
stems etc. If you like the Axis (nice bike) find a 55. Run from this
shop.

On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 00:29:43 +0000, Dennis Ferguson wrote:

I think the problem assumption you are making is that all 55 cm bicycles
will be the same size, and that a 57 cm bicycle is always bigger than that.
This isn't true, the size numbers that manufacturers come up with are
largely whimiscal.

Well, this is true, certainly. I am used to thinking of the measurement
as center-to-center, which IMO is more reasonable than any other.
Center-to-top of the seat tube can mean anything, as you point out, since
nowadays the seat tube often extends several cm up past the top tube.
Even the guy who sold me my frame (Mark Hickey) calls it a 56, using
center-to-top (of the top tube), but I, not considering, always convert
back. Heck, I used to think of my old bike as a 22" frame...


Since
you're a wee bit bigger than me, if anything, my bet would hence be that
we ride the same size frames,

apparently so.


In fact, the only thing I find mysterious about this is how you managed
to go 30 years without finding a frame in the size you like being called
a number other than 55 cm by some manufacturer or other.

I ignore what they call it... or, rather, translate.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all
_`\(,_ | mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so
(_)/ (_) | that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am
nothing. [1 Corinth. 13:2]

"Ray" wrote in message
...
I'm in the market for a Bianchi Axis and went to a lbs that sells them. He
has a 57cm bike that he'd give me a pretty good price on and told me not
to
worry about the fit, he could get it to fit with some adjustments and
parts

The Axis doesn't come in 57cm, it comes in 55cm and 58cm. You probably
should be on a 55-56cm. 58cm is a tad too large for a road bicycle, but as
long as you have an inch or so of clearance between your balls and the top
tube, the dealer is probably correct when he says he can adjust the fitment
(probably with a different stem).

I'm about your size, and ride a 56cm road, 58cm touring. Of course the
standard warnings about each manufacturer being different in terms of
sizing, applies.

Many bicycle shops tend to size too small. See
http://www.rivendellbicycles.com/htm...framesize.html