Bike frame size - is this for real?

Mickey1980
Posts: 46
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2016 9:50 pm

Bike frame size - is this for real?

Postby Mickey1980 » Thu Mar 29, 2018 1:26 am

Hi, everyone,

I have recently ventured to measure myself extensively with the view to calculate the perfect bike fit using one of the online calculators.
The outcome is quite surprising. The suggested frame dimensions (for various fit styles) suggested a seat tube between 58 and 61 cm and a top tube of... 55cm.

I would like to ask if anyone have seen such a frame geometry? would it be the old steel bikes of the era when the top tubes remained relatively short with the size increase?

I always knew that for my height (185cm) I have relatively long legs and relatively short arms, but having the reach of circa 37cm on a 60cm frame is something quite peculiar.

P.S. I am riding a 58cm frame at the moment which seems to be OK with exception of occasional lower back pain after clocking more than 40-50k. The reach on this frame is 41cm, but it has quite a short head tube with sloping top tube, so the saddle to bars drop is around 11cm.

Lots of steel bikes
Posts: 841
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 9:33 pm

Re: Bike frame size - is this for real?

Postby Lots of steel bikes » Thu Mar 29, 2018 2:49 pm

I have similar body dimensions and finding a good fit is difficult. By the calculators I require a 62 seat tube to accommodate my long legs but a short top tube. I have bikes that range from 56 to 62 that I can ride. The 56 is a good fit because it has a steep seat tube angle therefore using a very long seatpost doesn’t take me too far away from the bars. Lifting the stem also shortens the reach to compensate. Short stem also. Knee above axle can then become a problem. I need the saddle full foreard on the rails. A zero offset post would help with this.
To answer your initial question, I did have a steel Shogun that was 60 55. So they can be found.

Mickey1980
Posts: 46
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2016 9:50 pm

Re: Bike frame size - is this for real?

Postby Mickey1980 » Thu Mar 29, 2018 3:56 pm

Lots of steel bikes wrote:To answer your initial question, I did have a steel Shogun that was 60 55. So they can be found.


Thanks for the reply. Good to hear that such frames actually exist :) was that a roadie?
I have a concern regarding using stems too short as it may stuff up weight distribution over front wheel. The general guide I heard was to use stem 1cm shorter than the normal at most (I take this is a 10cm stem?)

Lots of steel bikes
Posts: 841
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 9:33 pm

Re: Bike frame size - is this for real?

Postby Lots of steel bikes » Thu Mar 29, 2018 4:27 pm

Mickey1980 wrote:
Lots of steel bikes wrote:To answer your initial question, I did have a steel Shogun that was 60 55. So they can be found.


Thanks for the reply. Good to hear that such frames actually exist :) was that a roadie?
I have a concern regarding using stems too short as it may stuff up weight distribution over front wheel. The general guide I heard was to use stem 1cm shorter than the normal at most (I take this is a 10cm stem?)

I’ve never noticed the effect of different weight distribution but I’m no racer so not very astute when it comes to handling characteristics. A short stem does alter the feel of the steering but the body seems to adjust very quickly and it doesn’t become noticeable, at least not to me.
I found a pic of the bike when I first got it. Not set up for me.

Image

User avatar
10speedsemiracer
Posts: 1209
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2017 7:38 pm
Location: Melbourne, in the suburbs, near some hills

Re: Bike frame size - is this for real?

Postby 10speedsemiracer » Thu Mar 29, 2018 5:00 pm

Lots of steel bikes wrote:.....I found a pic of the bike when I first got it. Not set up for me.

Image


I do like a Shogun, nice.
Mmm, SunTour

User avatar
familyguy
Posts: 5843
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2008 2:30 pm
Location: Cremorne, NSW

Re: Bike frame size - is this for real?

Postby familyguy » Thu Mar 29, 2018 8:12 pm

Same. 62x57 is about right for me, too. The European trend to "square" frames doesn't fit right. Not everyone is built like a spider. I have frames ranging from 55 to 59TT and 58 to 63ST. Stem and seat post length changes to suit and ride them all you can.

Edit: I do have a 62x57 Gazelle and a 63x57 Shogun. They're around, look at the Japanese and Dutch mostly for ratios like that, sometimes the French and British stuff.

Jim

Mickey1980
Posts: 46
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2016 9:50 pm

Re: Bike frame size - is this for real?

Postby Mickey1980 » Thu Mar 29, 2018 10:36 pm

familyguy wrote:: I do have a 62x57 Gazelle and a 63x57 Shogun. They're around, look at the Japanese and Dutch mostly for ratios like that, sometimes the French and British stuff.

Jim

Thanks mate!


User avatar
dv
Posts: 242
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2011 10:07 pm
Location: Perth

Re: Bike frame size - is this for real?

Postby dv » Sat Apr 07, 2018 11:33 pm

I have similar issues. Seat forward, and a short stem is the answer if your frame is only a little long.
(That shogun has a pretty long stem - guessing 110 or 120cm - so I assume this frame was too short :D )

Mickey1980
Posts: 46
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2016 9:50 pm

Re: Bike frame size - is this for real?

Postby Mickey1980 » Mon Apr 09, 2018 11:26 pm


That's in Brizzy :( too far for me

Mickey1980
Posts: 46
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2016 9:50 pm

Re: Bike frame size - is this for real?

Postby Mickey1980 » Mon Apr 09, 2018 11:27 pm

dv wrote:I have similar issues. Seat forward, and a short stem is the answer if your frame is only a little long.
(That shogun has a pretty long stem - guessing 110 or 120cm - so I assume this frame was too short :D )

Can't push the seat too far forward, too much pressure on the wrists, unless going with the TT bars :)

uart
Posts: 1540
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2016 9:15 pm
Location: Newcastle

Re: Bike frame size - is this for real?

Postby uart » Tue Apr 10, 2018 10:21 am

Mickey1980 wrote:
dv wrote:I have similar issues. Seat forward, and a short stem is the answer if your frame is only a little long.
(That shogun has a pretty long stem - guessing 110 or 120cm - so I assume this frame was too short :D )

Can't push the seat too far forward, too much pressure on the wrists, unless going with the TT bars :)


I'm not sure I understand what you're saying there Mickey. Are you saying that if you bring the bars closer by choosing a shorter top tube then that is ok for your wrists, but if you bring the bars closer by moving the seat forward that it's not ok on your wrists?

Mickey1980
Posts: 46
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2016 9:50 pm

Re: Bike frame size - is this for real?

Postby Mickey1980 » Fri May 11, 2018 5:45 pm

uart wrote:I'm not sure I understand what you're saying there Mickey. Are you saying that if you bring the bars closer by choosing a shorter top tube then that is ok for your wrists, but if you bring the bars closer by moving the seat forward that it's not ok on your wrists?

That is correct. The further forward you have the seat vs bottom bracket, the more of your weight is on your hands = numb wrists. Try to stand with your back against the wall, then bend forward - you will feel the loss of balance. Then do the same with your feet just 20cm away from the wall - your butt will move back towards the wall and you will stay balanced.

uart
Posts: 1540
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2016 9:15 pm
Location: Newcastle

Re: Bike frame size - is this for real?

Postby uart » Fri May 11, 2018 8:18 pm

Mickey1980 wrote:Try to stand with your back against the wall, then bend forward - you will feel the loss of balance. Then do the same with your feet just 20cm away from the wall - your butt will move back towards the wall and you will stay balanced.
Ok that makes sense. Thanks. :)

owly
Posts: 125
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:11 am
Location: Inglewood

Re: Bike frame size - is this for real?

Postby owly » Fri May 18, 2018 6:48 pm

MUFC :twisted:

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot]