New Bike Sizing Question

Don't even worry about seat tube height these days, throw it out the
window and make sure that the top tube height is right and reach is
right on or can be achieved by a small change in stem length.

If your Volpe only had a "fistful of post showing, it sounds like you
were likely riding a frame on the upper end of the right size for
you--might be shaped like me, I usually end up with less standover as I
need more reach.

Your inseam sounds about right for the 56, but again, top tube
appropriateness is much more important.

BP said:

Hi Guys,

I have been looking for a new bike, the bike I'm interested in is a
Specialized Tricross. My old bike was a Bianchi Volpe, which was a
58cm. The LBS who has the Tricross only has a 56cm, 61cm. Obviously the
61cm would be too big. I test rode the 56cm, which seemed ok. The guy
at the shop said usually cyclocross bikes are sized smaller than the
roadbikes, so if one road a 58 roadbike you would get a 56cm, but he
also said the tricross isnt a real cyclocross in the traditional sense.
I did notice the seatpost was up pretty high, my volpe had no more than
fistful of post showing. Is this just a difference between tradional
geometry vs semi-compact. I am about 5'11"-6'0", 30inch-31ich inseam. I
feel a 57cm would be perfect( which specialized doesnt make), which do
you think would be best to do, get smaller or bigger. They dont have a
58 to try out, Id hate to special order one, and find out its too big.

Go by effective top tube length. Obviously the seat tube can be made to fit in
either size, did you feel like the 56 needed a bit more room up front.

I'm thinking the 56 is probably right for your height, leg length. True the tri
is a bit less 'cross than it's cousins, but a 58 in a conventional cross bike
would fit someone more in the 6'2 range.

The fit and balance on the bike is more important than groin clearance while
standing or showing a fashionable length of seat post. If it feels right under
you, I'd go for it. Nice bike BTW, been seeing a lot of them lately.

Ron

RonSonic said:

The fit and balance on the bike is more important than groin clearance while
standing or showing a fashionable length of seat post. If it feels right under
you, I'd go for it.

I agree. My best fitting bike is 3" too big, by the books.

catzz66 said:

RonSonic said:

The fit and balance on the bike is more important than groin clearance while
standing or showing a fashionable length of seat post. If it feels right under
you, I'd go for it.

I agree. My best fitting bike is 3" too big, by the books.

All my bikes, the one's I've kept and like seem to be a bit on the tall side. I
never have more than minimal crotch clearance on the road and 'cross bikes and a
less than fashionable length of seatpost on the mountain bike. I can remember
exactly one time when I ever had an emergency dismount in a way that the top
tube height was critical and I did have enough clearance. That's enough.

Of course I am old and the larger frame does help keep the bars up a bit.
They're well below the saddle but not eurowannabee low.

Ron

In article <[email hidden]>,

RonSonic said:

Quoted message said:

I agree. My best fitting bike is 3" too big, by the books.

All my bikes, the one's I've kept and like seem to be a bit on the tall side.

I find with the longer top tube that comes with a taller frame, my
knees clear the handlebar better than they would on a shorter frame.

Quoted message said:

I
never have more than minimal crotch clearance on the road and 'cross bikes and a
less than fashionable length of seatpost on the mountain bike. I can remember
exactly one time when I ever had an emergency dismount in a way that the top
tube height was critical and I did have enough clearance. That's enough.

I think another practical reasoning behind undersized MTB and 'cross
frames (thereby requiring greater seatpost elevation) is to facilitate
re-mounting after stopping on rough terrain, where a higher top tube
could get in the way. On paved roads and smoother trails, such top tube
clearance just isn't necessary.

cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

Thanks guys for the responses. I will have to take this all in regard
when I go and atempt to pick the right frame, when I finaly decide on a
bike.

I think I'm leaning toward a larger side rather then a smaller size.
I've never been overly concerned about crotch clearence before, unless
its dangerously close. I spend my time in the seat not standong over
the top tube. I have a feeling the kid who I talked to was trying to
sell what he had on the floor. I remember the guy that sold me my
Bianchi said, that top tube length was more imporant than seat tube
height.

Thanks for all the insight, much apprecieted. Now all I have to do is
decide between the Jamis Nova and the Specialized Tricross.

RonSonic said:

Quoted message said:

I agree. My best fitting bike is 3" too big, by the books.

All my bikes, the one's I've kept and like seem to be a bit on the tall side.

I actually meant 3cm, but the principle is the same. I probably just
have a long torso and long reach.

I have a other quick question before I go back out to the LBS. How
close would a tradtional roadbike frame by specialized for example be
close to something like the Tricross. I was thinking that maybe if they
had like a Alez etc I could sit on, maybe that would at least give me a
idea, if I want to have them order me a 58cm or not. This would be
really easy if they had a 58 tricross to tryout. I test rode a Trek
Portland a few weeks back and that was a 58, standover height wasnt too
high, and just felt comfortable(didnt care for the bike overall though
btw), Im wondering how much different could these frames actually be
dimension wise, to make me jump all the way down to a 56 tricross.

i just road my tricross today........

second ride.... i test road the 56 and felt alittle tight in the
upperbody and tt length....

i am 6'1 with a 32" inseam... my LBS said he thought the 56 looked good
but it felt too much like my mountain bike in terms of upper body
sizing..... and thats not what i want...

so now the 58 feels tall and just a hair long but i have room....

yes my seat is low but i am still playing with ther seat shift and
thinking about fliping the stem to put me lower.....

good luck..... i think felts fx1 comes in more sizes and i wish i had
test rode them...

Question: can a smaller stem give me back an inch of space in my arms
or will that throw off the ride.

this is my first road like bike and my mountain bike is sized small
(which is fun) and i am learning about road bike fit.?????

BP said:

I have a other quick question before I go back out to the LBS. How
close would a tradtional roadbike frame by specialized for example be
close to something like the Tricross. I was thinking that maybe if they
had like a Alez etc I could sit on, maybe that would at least give me a
idea, if I want to have them order me a 58cm or not. This would be
really easy if they had a 58 tricross to tryout. I test rode a Trek
Portland a few weeks back and that was a 58, standover height wasnt too
high, and just felt comfortable(didnt care for the bike overall though
btw), Im wondering how much different could these frames actually be
dimension wise, to make me jump all the way down to a 56 tricross.