Frame size query

"Brian" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Since I'm still shopping around for my hardtail I thought I'd try another
local bike shop.

He advised that I go for a 19" frame.

However this conflicts with what I was advised in another shop who advised
a 22" frame.

I'm 6'2, 34" inside leg measured from crotch to floor.

Kind of unsure what size of bike to go for now.

thanks in advance

--
Brian

Manufacturers often measure frames differently so make sure you are
comparing like with like, common sizing is based on Centre (of Bottom
Bracket) to Top (of seat tube) or centre to centre (of top tube) but you can
also find some people who give measurements for centre to top of top tube,
which is probably the best in terms of indication of nad clearance.

If this is for an MTB (hardtail?) then 22" is too big, you'd have to be
gynormous. I would hazard a guess you would be suited to a 20.5" frame
(measured centre-top) but make sure you check the top tube length as well,
some large frames can have v.long top tubes, if you're disproportionately
long in the leg you may find some are too stretched out.

Steve.

Brian said:

Since I'm still shopping around for my hardtail I thought I'd try another
local bike shop.

He advised that I go for a 19" frame.

However this conflicts with what I was advised in another shop who advised
a 22" frame.

If it's a compact style frame with a sloping top tube (and it very
probably is if it's a current hardtail MTB) then it ceases to be a very
useful measure, unfortunately, as some compacts are more compact than
others. Another side of this is that the two bits of advice may be
using completely different assumptions about the effective meaning of
"frame size", so they may not even be in conflict...

Moral of the story is you need to sit on (and preferably ride on) to
decide what will suit you best in any given model.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

"spademan o---[\) *"
<[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

If this is for an MTB (hardtail?) then 22" is too big, you'd have to
be gynormous. I would hazard a guess you would be suited to a 20.5"
frame (measured centre-top) but make sure you check the top tube
length as well, some large frames can have v.long top tubes, if you're
disproportionately long in the leg you may find some are too stretched

Well, the first shop I went to he sat me on a 20" frame mbt, asked my
height and then advised that I need a 22" frame.

The shop I visited today suggested a 19" frame.

Not sure what do to - I have no other decent bike shops nearby.

--
Brian

Brian <[email hidden]> wrote:

: Well, the first shop I went to he sat me on a 20" frame mbt, asked my
: height and then advised that I need a 22" frame.

Does seem a little big for a MTB frame, but it depends what you want
it for.

Do you want it for technical off-road or for pottering along a canal
path?

: The shop I visited today suggested a 19" frame.

Might be fine. It all depends on the frame. On makes 21" can be anothers 19"

: Not sure what do to - I have no other decent bike shops nearby.

Test ride the bikes. Buy the one you like.

--
Arthur Clune http://www.clune.org
"Technolibertarians make a philosophy out of a personality defect"
- Paulina Borsook

: Brian <[email hidden]> wrote:

: : Not sure what do to - I have no other decent bike shops nearby.

What makes and models are the two bikes? Given that we could probably
give you some more sensible advice as to how different in size they
are.

Arthur

--
Arthur Clune http://www.clune.org
"Technolibertarians make a philosophy out of a personality defect"
- Paulina Borsook

in message <[email hidden]>, Brian

(') said:

Since I'm still shopping around for my hardtail I thought I'd try
another local bike shop.

He advised that I go for a 19" frame.

However this conflicts with what I was advised in another shop who
advised a 22" frame.

Was the 22" bigger or smaller than the 19"? I'm serious. In mountain
bikes, with sloping top tubes, it is not possible to directly compare
sizes from one range to another. A bigger bike with a more sloping top
tube will have a smaller seatpost length, and that's what the 19" and
22" measures. So they could easily both be right.

Quoted message said:

I'm 6'2, 34" inside leg measured from crotch to floor.

Kind of unsure what size of bike to go for now.

One that fits.

To establish whether a bike fits, adjust the saddle so that, sitting on
it, you can get your heel on the pedal with your leg completely
straight. Now, sitting on the saddle, put your hands on the bars. Do
they feel a comfortable distance away? If so, the bike fits. If not, it
doesn't. More or less and with some detail tweaks but that's good
enough until you're more experienced.

Ignore inch sizes, they are just confusing you.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; not so much a refugee from reality, more a bogus
;; asylum seeker

"Arthur Clune" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Brian <[email hidden]> wrote:

: Well, the first shop I went to he sat me on a 20" frame mbt, asked my
: height and then advised that I need a 22" frame.

Does seem a little big for a MTB frame, but it depends what you want
it for.

Do you want it for technical off-road or for pottering along a canal
path?

Well, I'm planning to use it off-road (but not too serious technical
stuff), so I would need something with decent clearance?

Quoted message said:

: The shop I visited today suggested a 19" frame.

Might be fine. It all depends on the frame. On makes 21" can be
anothers 19"

: Not sure what do to - I have no other decent bike shops nearby.

Test ride the bikes. Buy the one you like.

Problem is I don't know enough about bikes to know that the bike I
"like" is actually the best one to buy, hence I'm asking for advice.

The two bikes I've seen are

Claud Butler Rock - 22" frame (can't find detailed sizing information
online)

Gary Fisher Wahoo - 19.5" frame the sizing for this bike can be seen
here: http://www.fisherbikes.com/bikes/sizing.asp?
series=classic&bike=Wahoo

:-/

--
Brian

Simon Brooke <[email hidden]> wrote in news:8hicu1-ir2.ln1
@gododdin.internal.jasmine.org.uk:

Quoted message said:

Was the 22" bigger or smaller than the 19"? I'm serious. In mountain
bikes, with sloping top tubes, it is not possible to directly compare
sizes from one range to another. A bigger bike with a more sloping top
tube will have a smaller seatpost length, and that's what the 19" and
22" measures. So they could easily both be right.

Well, I didn't actually see the 22" bike, or the 19" bike in the shop I
visited today.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I'm 6'2, 34" inside leg measured from crotch to floor.

Kind of unsure what size of bike to go for now.

One that fits.

To establish whether a bike fits, adjust the saddle so that, sitting on
it, you can get your heel on the pedal with your leg completely
straight. Now, sitting on the saddle, put your hands on the bars. Do
they feel a comfortable distance away? If so, the bike fits. If not, it
doesn't. More or less and with some detail tweaks but that's good
enough until you're more experienced.

Ignore inch sizes, they are just confusing you.

Well, I've got a day off work next Wednesday (then 2 weeks holiday starting
from next Friday!!) so I'll pop along to my preferred local bike shop and
have another look at the Claud Butler Rock bike - I'll explain that I'm not
to sure about the frame size, and see if I can get a 22" frame to try on
for size.

regards

--
Brian

"Brian" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Since I'm still shopping around for my hardtail I thought I'd try another
local bike shop.

He advised that I go for a 19" frame.

However this conflicts with what I was advised in another shop who advised
a 22" frame.

I'm 6'2, 34" inside leg measured from crotch to floor.

Here we go again.....

34" minus 12" bottom bracket height (typically, but measure) = 22". Minus AT
LEAST 3" 'nad clearance = 19".
22" ? highly dubious as you might find out if having to put your foot on the
ground in a hurry on something as innocuous as a canal tow path.
Anyway, the 19" frame will be optimised for an averagely proportioned
person of your leg length wheras a 22" frame will be optimised for someone
of average proportions to a 37" inside leg.

The caveat is that frame measuring methods vary and sloping top tubes make
assessments difficult so you really need to sit on a few.
If you have to order a good brand blind then go for a 19", seatposts have
massive amounts of reserve height adjustment (upward) but of course
radically altering the stem length (for increased reach) will radically
alter handling, not neccessarily negatively to your preference.

Having said that your legs are only 1" longer than mine but your overall
height is 3" greater but even so 22".......I don't think so! (I ride 18"
mtbs).

Regards,
Pete

"Simon Brooke" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Was the 22" bigger or smaller than the 19"? I'm serious. In mountain
bikes, with sloping top tubes, it is not possible to directly compare
sizes from one range to another. A bigger bike with a more sloping top
tube will have a smaller seatpost length, and that's what the 19" and
22" measures. So they could easily both be right.

Yes but for practical purposes the better brands base size on a hypothetical
horizontal top tube to suit convention. And regardless of angle 22" seems
awfully high.
But if the OP has a very long torso in relation to his legs he may fit a
"hypothetical" 22" sloping top tube bike that will give both the correct
reach and ample 'nad clearance so I basically agree with you.
As already said he needs to sit on a few at knowledgeable shops, especially
if he's not of average proportions.

Pete

"Peter B" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Here we go again.....

34" minus 12" bottom bracket height (typically, but measure) = 22".
Minus AT LEAST 3" 'nad clearance = 19".
22" ? highly dubious as you might find out if having to put your foot
on the ground in a hurry on something as innocuous as a canal tow
path. Anyway, the 19" frame will be optimised for an averagely
proportioned person of your leg length wheras a 22" frame will be
optimised for someone of average proportions to a 37" inside leg.

The caveat is that frame measuring methods vary and sloping top tubes
make assessments difficult so you really need to sit on a few.
If you have to order a good brand blind then go for a 19", seatposts
have massive amounts of reserve height adjustment (upward) but of
course radically altering the stem length (for increased reach) will
radically alter handling, not neccessarily negatively to your
preference.

Having said that your legs are only 1" longer than mine but your
overall height is 3" greater but even so 22".......I don't think so!
(I ride 18" mtbs).

Regards,
Pete

Thanks for the reply, it's appreciated. I'll be sure to try a few bikes
when I return to the bike shop on Wednesday. My current bike is a '97
Towsend Peak ATB with 19" so something around about the same size as that
should be OK, or a 20" frame.

Just a shame I'm working this weekend otherwise I'd pop into the shop
tomorrow...

thanks again for all the replies.

I'll sit quietly in the corner now until I get to the bikeshop on
Wednesday!

:-D

--
Brian