Bike frame size numbers mean???

Ed said:

Can someone clue me in as to what is referred to as an18" frame, 15"
frame, etc? What measurement would that be? Thanks, Ed

Howdy,

Ah, it would seem to be a simple matter, <g> but...

Check: http://www.sheldonbrown.com/frame-sizing.html

It should tell you what you need.

All the best,

--
Kenneth

If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS."

Thanks Kenneth, almost makes me sorry I asked, Ed

Kenneth said:

Ed said:

Can someone clue me in as to what is referred to as an18" frame, 15"
frame, etc? What measurement would that be? Thanks, Ed

Howdy,

Ah, it would seem to be a simple matter, <g> but...

Check: http://www.sheldonbrown.com/frame-sizing.html

It should tell you what you need.

All the best,

Ed said:

Thanks Kenneth, almost makes me sorry I asked, Ed

Dont miss the <g> grins. Frame sizing can be a complicated thing to
work out. When manufacturers used centre to centre sizing I had a fair
idea what was going on. Now they use centre-top and you have to work
out how much the seat tube protrudes above the top tube etc etc. Now I
have to keep checking each companies geometry charts to see what
would fit me.

Stan Cox

Quoted message said:

Kenneth said:

Ed said:

Can someone clue me in as to what is referred to as an18" frame, 15"
frame, etc? What measurement would that be? Thanks, Ed

Howdy,

Ah, it would seem to be a simple matter, <g> but...

Check: http://www.sheldonbrown.com/frame-sizing.html

It should tell you what you need.

All the best,

Ed said:

Thanks Kenneth, almost makes me sorry I asked, Ed

Hey Ed,

That makes two of us...<BG>

--
Kenneth

If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS."

Stan Cox said:

Ed said:

Thanks Kenneth, almost makes me sorry I asked, Ed

Dont miss the <g> grins. Frame sizing can be a complicated thing to
work out. When manufacturers used centre to centre sizing I had a fair
idea what was going on. Now they use centre-top and you have to work
out how much the seat tube protrudes above the top tube etc etc. Now I
have to keep checking each companies geometry charts to see what
would fit me.

Center to top is really the method that (IMHO) makes more sense. As a
cyclist, you really don't care about where the CENTER of the top tube
is, but where the TOP of the top tube is. If you're building frames,
c-c makes sense - but doesn't help when riding.

Either way, you have to work out the total length of the seat tube
(unless that data is provided by the manufacturer - which I do for the
reason you mention above).

But at any rate, it's trivial to convert from c-c to c-t measurements
- just subtract half the diameter of the top tube. Use 1.5cm as a
round number and you'll never be more than a few mm off.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

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

Quoted message said:

Stan Cox said:

Ed said:

Thanks Kenneth, almost makes me sorry I asked, Ed

Dont miss the <g> grins. Frame sizing can be a complicated thing to
work out. When manufacturers used centre to centre sizing I had a fair
idea what was going on. Now they use centre-top and you have to work
out how much the seat tube protrudes above the top tube etc etc. Now I
have to keep checking each companies geometry charts to see what
would fit me.

Center to top is really the method that (IMHO) makes more sense. As a
cyclist, you really don't care about where the CENTER of the top tube
is, but where the TOP of the top tube is. If you're building frames,
c-c makes sense - but doesn't help when riding.

Either way, you have to work out the total length of the seat tube
(unless that data is provided by the manufacturer - which I do for the
reason you mention above).

But at any rate, it's trivial to convert from c-c to c-t measurements
- just subtract half the diameter of the top tube. Use 1.5cm as a
round number and you'll never be more than a few mm off.

but isn't most c-t sizing to the top of the seat tube?

Kyle

Mark Hickey said:

Stan Cox said:

Ed said:

Thanks Kenneth, almost makes me sorry I asked, Ed

Dont miss the <g> grins. Frame sizing can be a complicated thing to
work out. When manufacturers used centre to centre sizing I had a fair
idea what was going on. Now they use centre-top and you have to work
out how much the seat tube protrudes above the top tube etc etc. Now I
have to keep checking each companies geometry charts to see what
would fit me.

Center to top is really the method that (IMHO) makes more sense. As a
cyclist, you really don't care about where the CENTER of the top tube
is, but where the TOP of the top tube is. If you're building frames,
c-c makes sense - but doesn't help when riding.

Either way, you have to work out the total length of the seat tube
(unless that data is provided by the manufacturer - which I do for the
reason you mention above).

But at any rate, it's trivial to convert from c-c to c-t measurements
- just subtract half the diameter of the top tube. Use 1.5cm as a
round number and you'll never be more than a few mm off.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

Ah there's the problem. Many frames I see have a raised seat tube so a
simple calculation like that doesnt always hold. With C-t I find it
much more reliable to look at top tube length or in the case of
sloping frames virtual top tube length. I was also trying to make sure
Ed realised we wern't being rude 🙂

Stan Cox

Mark Hickey <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Either way, you have to work out the total length of the seat tube
(unless that data is provided by the manufacturer - which I do for the
reason you mention above).

Which is a bit meaningless out of context, too. How high is the BB
above the ground? What is the angle of the ST? If you have a low BB
and relaxed ST, then a bike with a given ST measurement will put you
much lower than a bike with a similar ST length but a high BB and
steep ST angle. 'Best fit' for me varies between 54 and 58 cm
depending on BB height and ST angle, a big range.

- rick

Kenneth said:

Ed said:

Thanks Kenneth, almost makes me sorry I asked, Ed

Hey Ed,

That makes two of us...<BG>

Hi Ed,

I hope that you understand what the "grins" were about...

It is just that you have stumbled into one (of the very many) aspects
of bicycle lore that is pretty funny. It is as if there is some
international conspiracy in the bicycle world that assesses a
significant penalty if anyone tries to standardize anything.

It gets pretty wild.

All the best,
--
Kenneth

If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS."

Kenneth said:

Kenneth said:

Ed said:

Thanks Kenneth, almost makes me sorry I asked, Ed

Hey Ed,

That makes two of us...<BG>

Hi Ed,

I hope that you understand what the "grins" were about...

It is just that you have stumbled into one (of the very many) aspects
of bicycle lore that is pretty funny. It is as if there is some
international conspiracy in the bicycle world that assesses a
significant penalty if anyone tries to standardize anything.

It gets pretty wild.

All the best,

Thanks to all - I'll probably be throwing in questions every now and
then, some of which will seem pretty simple to you guys. Ed

Kyle.B.H said:

"Mark Hickey" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Dont miss the <g> grins. Frame sizing can be a complicated thing to
work out. When manufacturers used centre to centre sizing I had a fair
idea what was going on. Now they use centre-top and you have to work
out how much the seat tube protrudes above the top tube etc etc. Now I
have to keep checking each companies geometry charts to see what
would fit me.

Center to top is really the method that (IMHO) makes more sense. As a
cyclist, you really don't care about where the CENTER of the top tube
is, but where the TOP of the top tube is. If you're building frames,
c-c makes sense - but doesn't help when riding.

Either way, you have to work out the total length of the seat tube
(unless that data is provided by the manufacturer - which I do for the
reason you mention above).

But at any rate, it's trivial to convert from c-c to c-t measurements
- just subtract half the diameter of the top tube. Use 1.5cm as a
round number and you'll never be more than a few mm off.

but isn't most c-t sizing to the top of the seat tube?

Nope - it's to where a line continuing from the top of the top tube
would intersect the centerline of the seat tube. At least that's what
it meant for a couple decades before a few misguided manufacturers
decided (for reasons that totally escape me to be quite honest) to
start measuring their frames to the top of the seat tube. It's by FAR
the least meaningful way to "measure" a frame.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame