Large Road Frames and the Myths

Mark - I just rebuilt a steel frame which is a bit large for me by conventional sizing methods (I'm 5'10" and the frame is about a 59cm c-c). My regular road bike is a 56. It's a racing frame, but I now have my bars and seat set for a more relaxed position (lower seat, higher bars). I found the position pretty comfortable on the hoods or in the drops, but I also don't ride agressively on this bike. Two issues with larger frames that you should consider are the longer top tube and the seat position relative to the pedal. The longer top tube will stretch you out some, which makes rasing the bars a good idea for better comfort (bars come back too as you raise them). Of course, this is easy with older frames with quill stems. I have about 4" of seatpost showing, and I had to sneak the seat forward a little to help my upper body position and get my knees more in line with the pedal spindle. So far everything seems great and I don't feel like the bike is too large even though I have minimal standover clearance - maybe 1-1.5". As for having very little seatpost showing, I would be afraid that of throwing other measurements out of whack with a frame this large unless the geometry was designed specifically for less seat tube.

Wow! If you've got the saddle that high on a 57, you have very long legs for your height.

I am also 5'-8" with an inseam of 33.5" (saddle height is typically 29.75"😉. I have road bikes from 54cm to 58cm (measured center-to-top). The basic difference in position is the drop to the handlebars. The 54 is the "racing" bike with the most aggressive drop that I use for club rides. The 56 is my "brevet" bike for long rides. And the 58 is my touring bike. The bars are still below the saddle on the 58 but not by much (2-3cm?).

But I can't imagine riding a 60. I would definitely test ride before buying.

Mark said:

Question is, that I wish to seek opinions about the larger
frames for a medium height rider such as myself.

Big frames are a pleasure, if you get one that fits. Two
critical measurements to check first: stand-over height and
top tube length. If you have enough stand-over clearance,
measure the top tube length to see how long a stem you will
need to get a comfortable reach. If you can use a reasonable
length stem (90-140 mm or so), I'd guess you have a frame
you can make fit comfortably.

I'm 180 cm tall with an 89 cm inseam (relatively long legs).
I use a 60 cm Klein frame with a 110 mm stem, and it's very
comfortable for
me. The handlebars are about 5 cm below the saddle.
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA bike.terrymorse.combike.terrymorse.comOpen ↗

My Trek is polished (buffed on a machine) with no coating.
It gets a little dull after two (or three) years use. Just
rebuff or polish and its all set. Clear coat is a backwards
step IMHO since paint is more fragile than aluminm.

Charles

Mark said:

Hi Folks, I've been kicking around the possibility of
buying another Road Frame, as I would like to build a bike
this time, with the components of my choice (Most likely
mid-high range Campy Parts).

I'd like to build myself a all steel frame bike, something
perhaps like an old vintage NOS Paramount, or Colnago.

Question is, that I wish to seek opinions about the larger
frames for a medium height rider such as myself. One thing
I do notice on this new 57cm Bianchi I currently have, is
that I'm doing quite a bit of bending over to get into the
drops. I'm 5"-8" in height, and I have the Seatpost
extended on the Bianchi about 6", or so.

Reading a article in last month's Bicycling Mag, I'm
reading about the Boss Man at Rivendell praising the
larger frames, and thier comfort. The editor, while
questioning this philosophy did somewhat agree with
Rivendell about the huge road frames feeling wonderful.

I feel with a slightly larger road frame, say a 60cm, that
I might find I'm not bending quite so much to get into the
drops, and might find myself a much more comfortable ride
on longer mileage jaunts.

Is is so bad, to just have an inch, or 2 of seatpost
extended so that pedal reach is correct? Naturally, I know
that a slightly larger road frame will weigh a slight bit
more, but I'm not concerned about that.

I'm not going to be doing any time trials against Lance,
or Ulrich. Just desiring a bit more comfortable ride, and
I'm thinking that the smaller "Politically Correct" frame
just is not going to give me this.

I welcome your opinions on this subject, Thanks, Mark

--
Catamaran racing is like being a kid: Wide Eyes, Big Smile, Wet Bottom

(Mark) said:

Question is, that I wish to seek opinions about the larger
frames for a medium height rider such as myself. One thing
I do notice on this new 57cm Bianchi I currently have, is
that I'm doing quite a bit of bending over to get into the
drops. I'm 5"-8" in height, and I have the Seatpost
extended on the Bianchi about 6", or so.

Reading a article in last month's Bicycling Mag, I'm
reading about the Boss Man at Rivendell praising the
larger frames, and thier comfort. The editor, while
questioning this philosophy did somewhat agree with
Rivendell about the huge road frames feeling wonderful.

I presume you've looked at the Rivendell site and read some
of the articles there about fit.

Quoted message said:

I feel with a slightly larger road frame, say a 60cm, that
I might find I'm not bending quite so much to get into the
drops, and might find myself a much more comfortable ride
on longer mileage jaunts.

Well, in the old days (e.g., late 70's when I was buying my
first high quality road bikes), frames were typically sized
larger than now. basically, you bought tbe biggest frame you
could stand over barefoot without mashing your 'nads into
the top tube. But the frames were proportioned differently,
with shorter top tubes compared to nowadays.

Quoted message said:

Is is so bad, to just have an inch, or 2 of seatpost
extended so that pedal reach is correct?

What matters for comfort is the relationship between your
feet, butt and hands in terms of position; and the saddle
fit itself, the bar width and shape, brake lever shape, and
the crank's Q factor. It doesn't matter how big the frame
is- as long as you can clear when standing over it- if the
saddle, bars and pedals put your butt, hands and feet in the
right places.

As I get older I find myself going back to the size frames I
rode in the 70's and 80's: 63 to 65 cm rather than 60 to 61
cm. I'm about 6'4" and Grant P might even try to put me on a
66 cm frame. Not ready psychologically for that!

Sounds like what you realy need is the correct size road
frame with flat bars or a mountin bike with a set of road
type tires.....

Tim McNamara said:

Well, in the old days (e.g., late 70's when I was buying
my first high quality road bikes), frames were typically
sized larger than now. basically, you bought tbe biggest
frame you could stand over barefoot without mashing your
'nads into the top tube. But the frames were proportioned
differently, with shorter top tubes compared to nowadays.

Oops there was actually a point to that. Modern frames, with
proportionally longer top tubes, can make it difficult to
just buy a larger frame. You might have to go with a really
short stem to get the bars close enough.

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

Quoted message said:

Reading a article in last month's Bicycling Mag, I'm
reading about the Boss Man at Rivendell praising the
larger frames, and thier comfort. The editor, while
questioning this philosophy did somewhat agree with
Rivendell about the huge road frames feeling wonderful.

My experience with Grant Petersen's philosophy of riding
position is that it put too much weight on my rear. It
didn't work at all for me. I felt that I lost power and,
with less weight on the front tire, I felt that the handling
was less solid.

It didn't fit my style of riding at all. YMMV

[censored] Durbin Tallahassee

In article <[email hidden]>,

Mark said:

Question is, that I wish to seek opinions about the larger
frames for a medium height rider such as myself. One thing
I do notice on this new 57cm Bianchi I currently have, is
that I'm doing quite a bit of bending over to get into the
drops. I'm 5"-8" in height, and I have the Seatpost
extended on the Bianchi about 6", or so.

Whether your height is in your torso or legs makes a big
difference in your frame dimensions; and both seat and top
tube lengths increase when frame size goes up.

I'm 5'10 with a 30.5" inseam. I ride a 55cm center-to-top
(53.5 center to center) frame with a 55.5 cm top tube and
120mm stem. It's about right in the hoods and drops and IIRC
matches the USCF fit guidelines.

Quoted message said:

Is is so bad, to just have an inch, or 2 of seatpost
extended so that pedal reach is correct?

You need to get the right reach to the pedals and bars.
--
<a href="poohsticks.orgdrewOpen ↗">Home Page</a

Thanks folks, I've enjoyed reading you posts, and opinions
about this topic.

I have done a bit more homework today about this topic, and
also spoke with the owner of my LBS. He seems to agree with
me mostly, that a larger frame will give you a bit more
comfortable ride.

We both agreed though that Bike Shops become very concerned
about selling a bike/frame that is a little on the large
size (Or too small also) for the purchaser.

Cruising the www today, I went to one of my fav sites, the
Rivendell site, and read much about what they have to say
about bike fit, and much, if not all of what they say makes
perfect sense to me. (Things like the old adage about a
fistfull of seatpost stem, etc)

One isssue I have qualms with is standover height? really,
what difference does standover height have when you're on
the bike, and riding?

Yes, I do know (Found out the hard way about this!) that
embarking, and particularly dis-embarking (Ouch) from a bike
can be hazardous when th standover height is greater that a
person's inseam measurement. Once on the bike though, I
myself see little problem with this so called crucial
measurement.

As Rivendell explains, and this makes sense to me. When A
seatpost's height is not that much drastically higher than
the Handlbar Stem height, what happens, is that the angle of
your arms going to the handlebars is reduced. This has an
effect that makes the reach of your arms actually longer, as
your arms are not at such a downward angle in relation to
your body. The distance is not quite as far as before.

(Note🙂 Please forgive me that I'm not quoting Rivendell
word, for word here.

So, in effect, a long top tube doesn't seem quite as long in
this fashoin of fit/riding.

Also too, noted was the fact that your arms might have a
more relaxed bend in them, thus aiding a more comfortable
ride, with less stress on the arms, elbows, and also
hands. (Not to mention the critical sharp angles of bend
your Back, and neck must go through to look ahead when
riding in the more Politically correct riding fashion".)
Like I said earlier, I'm not doing criteriums, or TT's
with Lance, and Ulrich. (Lets throw Hincape in there too
for good measure! lol)

Again, remembering my ole Motobecane, which was quite a
large bike, probably 60cm. It was much more comfortable ride
than my politically correct Bianchi 57cm. (I do know the
60cm is probably a better fit in most ways for probably a
6'-1" rider0

Kind of reminded me of riding an old Phillips 3-speed, but
with racing handlebars instead.

This is a very complicated topic, which encompasses many
other isssues of proper fit, I do understand this as well.

It's a cool topic though, and it is nice to interact with
all you folks here about this. Thank you again, Mark
D'Ambrosio

Jesse Falsone <[email hidden]> wrote in
message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Mark - I just rebuilt a steel frame which is a bit large
for me by conventional sizing methods (I'm 5'10" and the
frame is about a 59cm c-
c). My regular road bike is a 56. It's a racing frame, but
I now have my bars and seat set for a more relaxed
position (lower seat, higher bars). I found the position
pretty comfortable on the hoods or in the drops, but I
also don't ride agressively on this bike. Two issues
with larger frames that you should consider are the
longer top tube and the seat position relative to the
pedal. The longer top tube will stretch you out some,
which makes rasing the bars a good idea for better
comfort (bars come back too as you raise them). Of
course, this is easy with older frames with quill stems.
I have about 4" of seatpost showing, and I had to sneak
the seat forward a little to help my upper body position
and get my knees more in line with the pedal spindle. So
far everything seems great and I don't feel like the
bike is too large even though I have minimal standover
clearance - maybe 1-1.5". As for having very little
seatpost showing, I would be afraid that of throwing
other measurements out of whack with a frame this large
unless the geometry was designed specifically for less
seat tube.

--

Mark said:

As Rivendell explains, and this makes sense to me. When A
seatpost's height is not that much drastically higher
than the Handlbar Stem height, what happens, is that the
angle of your arms going to the handlebars is reduced.
This has an effect that makes the reach of your arms
actually longer, as your arms are not at such a downward
angle in relation to your body. The distance is not quite
as far as before.

But the emphasis is, in my opinion, all wrong. You do _not_
size a bike based on handlebar height. That is just
ridiculous. That is what a stem is for, and it is the fault
of the promoters of threadless headsets that have made that
the hardest parameter, rather than the easiest, to adjust.

Bike size, among stock sizes, is first and foremost
determined by top tube length. Why? Because that is the
hardest to correct for. Seatposts can be raised, as (in the
good old days) can handlebars. But reach is more difficult,
and can only partially be compensated for by changing the
length of the stem.

To base frame size on whether or not your nuts hit the bar
is for department store bikes.

Quoted message said:

(Note🙂 Please forgive me that I'm not quoting Rivendell
word, for word here.

So, in effect, a long top tube doesn't seem quite as long
in this fashoin of fit/riding.

Also too, noted was the fact that your arms might have a
more relaxed bend in them, thus aiding a more
comfortable ride,

Along with putting more of your weight on the seat, rather
than the bars. This is not a good tradeoff.

with less stress on

Quoted message said:

the arms, elbows, and also hands. (Not to mention the
critical sharp angles of bend your Back, and neck must go
through to look ahead when riding in the more Politically
correct riding fashion".) Like I said earlier, I'm not
doing criteriums, or TT's with Lance, and Ulrich. (Lets
throw Hincape in there too for good measure! lol)

There are several reasons why these folks set the bike up
the way they do. Not all of the reasons are for
aerodynamics. A racer has to be comfortable on the bike for
6-8 hours a day, for days on end. They will not win if they
are in pain. The position you are talking about is more
comfortable short term, but agony long-term.

--

David L. Johnson

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

Tim McNamara said:

It doesn't matter how big the frame is- as long as you can
clear when standing over it- if the saddle, bars and
pedals put your butt, hands and feet in the right places.

I don't see the need for being able to stand over the frame,
either. How often do you stand over your top tube with both
feet on the ground?

--
Benjamin Lewis

Now is the time for all good men to come to.
-- Walt Kelly

Benjamin Lewis said:

I don't see the need for being able to stand over the
frame, either. How often do you stand over your top tube
with both feet on the ground?

I straddle the bike that way quite often, especially on
group rides (waiting to get underway, re-grouping, traffic
lights, etc.). I ride a 63 cm c-c frame and have about an
inch of clearance.

Art Harris

apoman-<< I welcome your opinions on this subject,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

<BR><BR>

Threadless aluminum steerer with spacers and a rise stem or
a custom with a headtube extension. I wouldn't get a
frameset that is too big for you as the seat tube angle
'may' be too slack and the top tube too long.

Peter Chisholm Vecchio's Bicicletteria 1833 Pearl St.
Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535 vecchios.comvecchios.comOpen ↗ "Ruote convenzionali
costruite eccezionalmente bene"

David L. Johnson said:

is for, and it is the fault of the promoters of threadless
headsets that have made that the hardest parameter, rather
than the easiest, to adjust.

Bike size, among stock sizes, is first and foremost
determined by top tube length. Why? Because that is the
hardest to correct for. Seatposts can be raised, as (in the
good old days) can handlebars. But reach is more difficult,
and can only partially be compensated for by changing the
length of the stem.

Ah, but there's threadless stems' strength: reach is far
easier to adjust. It barely takes a minute to change a
threadless stem.
--
Rick Onanian

Rick Onanian said:

Ah, but there's threadless stems' strength: reach is far
easier to adjust. It barely takes a minute to change a
threadless stem.

This is true, although there's no reason quill stems
can't be made with two piece handlebar clamps. A couple
of them are now.

Matt O.

On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 22:18:46 -0700, Benjamin Lewis <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

I don't see the need for being able to stand over the
frame, either. How often do you stand over your top tube
with both feet on the ground?

I do stand over the toptube when I stop and don't want to
dismount for a while. I also straddle the toptube when I
get on the bicycle by swinging my leg over the bars instead
of the seat.

I do understand what you folks are telling me here, Thanks.

As I mentioned in the beginning of this thread I'm wishing
to perhaps build a vintage NOS frame up.

Perhaps in this case like others mention, the geometry, and
fit might be a bit different from bike of today.

Seems there are so many factors for a proper fit. I can
imagine with the rake/angle of a seat tube too, the higher
the seatpost, the further away the distance is to the bars.
Don't quote me on exact measurements please, but as an
example, and thinking about this a bit, a 60cm frame with
the seat raised 3" may have a shorter reach to the bars that
a 56cm frame with the seat jacked up 8".

I know it's a real can of worms I'm opening here, because
I'm sure a number of other factors then come into play, one
being that there must be proper leg position over the
pedals, etc.

As Rivendell explains in part, that usually the more
expensive a Bike frame is, usually the smaller it will be
per recommendations of the LBS.

I can understand this, as usually the person who walks into
a shop, and is purchasing a $3,000-$4,000 frame pretty much
wants this bike for mostly one purpose, and that is to race
with. (I know there always is the exception) So the more
compact a frame is, the better torsional stiffness is, and
also lighter, and better aero-dynamics. I guess this equates
to a faster rider, and a rider who will be less taxed by the
size, and weight of his/her bike. Mark

"David L. Johnson" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Mark said:

Hi Folks, I've been kicking around the possibility of
buying another Road Frame, as I would like to build a
bike this time, with the components of my choice (Most
likely mid-high range Campy Parts).

I'd like to build myself a all steel frame bike,
something perhaps like an old vintage NOS Paramount, or
Colnago.

Question is, that I wish to seek opinions about the
larger frames for a medium height rider such as myself.
One thing I do notice on this new 57cm Bianchi I
currently have, is that I'm doing quite a bit of bending
over to get into the drops.

Perhaps you could raise the bars a bit.

Quoted message said:

I'm 5"-8" in height, and I have the Seatpost extended on
the Bianchi about 6", or so.

Seems to be in line.

Quoted message said:

Reading a article in last month's Bicycling Mag, I'm
reading about the Boss Man at Rivendell praising the
larger frames, and thier comfort. The editor, while
questioning this philosophy did somewhat agree with
Rivendell about the huge road frames feeling wonderful.

There is much more to frame size than just seat tube
length. A bigger frame is also longer. Those who find them
comfortable are perhaps in need of a longer top tube, not
a higher one.

Quoted message said:

I feel with a slightly larger road frame, say a 60cm,
that I might find I'm not bending quite so much to get
into the drops, and might find myself a much more
comfortable ride on longer mileage jaunts.

IMO 60cm is very big for someone 5'8". Even if you are
relatively long-legged, I would think you would have
trouble reaching the bars on most stock frames that size.
Custom is different, but we wouldn't be talking just about
"size" in that case. I'm 5'11" and have, for years, ridden
a 56cm frame.

Quoted message said:

Is is so bad, to just have an inch, or 2 of seatpost
extended so that pedal reach is correct?

This does not sound like a good idea. Get yourself fit for
a bike by someone who knows what they are doing.

Quoted message said:

I'm not going to be doing any time trials against Lance,
or Ulrich. Just desiring a bit more comfortable ride,
and I'm thinking that the smaller "Politically Correct"
frame just is not going to give me this.

There is PC-ness on both sides of this. Rivendell is
reacting to a couple things, one is the silliness of
compact frames with foot-long seatposts, and the other is
the tendency for racers to use smaller frames in order to
get a lower position. But they seem to have gone a bit too
far, in my opinion.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by Mark
I can understand this, as usually the person who walks into
a shop, and is purchasing a $3,000-$4,000 frame pretty much
wants this bike for mostly one purpose, and that is to race
with. (I know there always is the exception) So the more
compact a frame is, the better torsional stiffness is, and
also lighter, and better aero-dynamics. I guess this equates
to a faster rider, and a rider who will be less taxed by the
size, and weight of his/her bike.

This is more or less true. I previously rode two Bianchi framesets, both in 55cm. My measurements however point to a 53cm as the best fit, which is what I ride presently. The 53cm is indeed the more precise fit where all out performance is concerned, but the 55cm frames did feel more comfortable for longer duration training and such.

Naturally, a frame that is obviously too large will feel like a big boat, which is what you don't want. A frame that is on the larger side of your measurements however should not hamper you in spirited riding, and will be more comfortable for those long touring rides.