What size frame should you ride but what do you really ride?

[legrandefromage]

After some 30 years of ATB riding (my first 'all terrain bicycle' arriving on the 21/09/86) I have come to the conclusion that all my frames have been too small!

I'm currently riding a 22" frame quite comfortably with quite a bit of post showing, then theres a 21" and the smallest being 19"

The 'pub' bike is a lofty 23 and even that is quite a decent fit.

I first noticed it with road bikes always thinking that 56cm was the 'biggest'. I'm now quite happy on anything up to 61cm :facepalm:

Then theres geometry.

Some 'small' frames have virtual top tubes so with the right stem and seatpost length fit like a much larger frame - some 18" frames fit very well.

So, what are you trying to squeeze yourselves onto but should really be riding?

 

[brocklanders023]

Re:

I've been convincing myself since the early 90's that my size is 18 to 19". Only recently have I accepted the fact that I need a bigger size and have got myself a couple of modern bikes with big wheels that fit. It will be nice to have the ability to adjust the saddle, seat post, bars etc instead of have everything at the max setting.

Problem for me when it comes to retro though is that I don't like the look of bigger bikes and since I spend most of my retro time looking at them it causes an issue. Just had to let a beautiful and perfectly formed 90 Pine Mountain go as at 18" I could never ride it. The only reason I can justify keeping my 19" Clockwork is that it's got a whopping great stem on it so I can squeeze on it. :facepalm:

Luckily the 20" 89 Saracens fit and don't look too much like a gate so got another of those on the way.

 

[iveto1983]

Re:

I'm 5'10" and usually ride 18"/19" bikes, although I've stopped using that as a way to size my bikes. I always measure effective top tube length because I've had 16" with long top tubes that fit perfectly and 17" and even 18.5" with short top tubes that I've not enjoyed riding at all.
I know if a frame has an effective top tube of 23" then it will fit me pretty well.

 

[LikeClockwork]

Re:

I'm a real short arse, being a girl, although at 5'6" I suppose I'm about 'average'. Seem to have short legs though for my height :?

It doesn't matter what I do, the only size frame that ever works seems to be anything about 14, 14 1/2" centre to centre, and about 21" top tube. The Jamis is too big, the Breezer is on the cusp, can't remember even what size that is, 17" to the top I think, but with an in line post, short upright stem and low stand over due to not having sus forks on the front...it just about works. And is effectively my road bike anyway.

Of course, this is the excuse I have used to buy the Secret New Build, which is the perfect size, at 14 1/2" centre to centre. I like a lot of seat post showing, otherwise it doesn't seem to look right to me, it is, after all, a mountain bike, not a 50's tourer!

 

[M-Power]

Re:

Always ridden the smallest frame I can for the best handling off road but for general comfort larger makes a huge difference for long rides. My main issue is saddle position relative to BB/pedal geometry. I prefer the saddle further back from the BB/pedal position on larger frames. M/L or L FATs fit me perfectly.

 

[clubby]

Re: Re:

Always ridden the smallest frame I can for the best handling off road

I find the opposite. Sure, a small frame will seem more chuckable but get it up to speed and it turns into a twitchy (sphincter) mess, especially on retro frames with long stems to compensate for short top tubes. I'm 5'10, so on the cusp of most companies M/L but with a short inside leg and long torso it's often a balancing act between reach and stand over. With my retro's I do have to err on the smaller frames. Ideally I'd ride an 18.5" but most frames seem to jump 17.5 to 19.5. Modern bikes I'm settling on large as the stand over heights are lower but have longer reach and wheelbase.

Road is even more confusing, I've tried and been comfy on 54 to 58 and then there's compact vs trad, nightmare.

 

[legrandefromage]

Was out riding the 22" humungous MTB and had to stop a few times to bring the saddle up so it was comfy. Bars are a bit narrow.

Have I started growing again??

 

[FluffyChicken]

Re:

Riding 19 and 20" frames at just under 5' 10" and they are nice, comfy and handle really well.
and always have.
(spanning 1991 to 1997 frames here)

Don't know why anyone thinks the smaller frame are more 'chuckable' as they're not if the bike is setup properly for you (and is a decent bike ;-))
Yes they are easier to 'chuck' over a stile, probably of benefit on a 'gates ride'

My 17-18" are nice for 10 to 15 miles of retro fun or slow with the kids. But not for any proper rides.
I do find one of the small frames is really nice in the snow though

 

[FSXStumpy]

I'm a touch under 6'2", and have always found the best fit on 20.5 - 21.5" frames. The seat tube length, however, is the most useless of the frame metrics for me.

It's about reach and standover clearance. And standover clearance is second (but not ignorable).

My wife, at 5'9 has long ridden 17"ish frames, but recently found a better fit (especially for top tube length) on a 19" whip.

J

 

[jimo746]

Re:

I'm 5'11" and for Mtb I find a 19" frame just right.
I guess it varies between manufacturers and different models, but I recently tried a 17" of a similar frame to one I already have and straight away it felt a bit small and uncomfortable, I could have fitted a longer Seatpost and longer stem but imo that would have been like a "band-aid" solution to the problem.
I can however ride bigger frames without too much problem, it doesn't seem as awkward as riding a frame that's too small, but still, once off-road I do notice the lack of top-tube to crotch clearance! :shock: