Large Road Frames and the Myths

Since 2001, over 90,000 cyclist's have joined Cycling Forums to discuss topics from general cycling to equipment, training, racing and travel or vacation destinations (especially in europe during the tour de france). We also feature an great deals in our online store, 100's of articles, classifieds and product reviews.

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

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 wrote:

> 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 http://bike.terrymorse.com/

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 wrote:

> 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

apoman60612@yahoo.com (Mark) writes:

> 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.

> 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.

> 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.....

On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 08:58:54 -0700, Mark wrote:

> 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.

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

Seems to be in line.

>
> 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.

>
> 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.

>
> 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.

> 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.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | You will say Christ saith this and the apostles say this; but
_`\(,_ | what canst thou say? -- George Fox.
(_)/ (_) |

Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> writes:

> 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.

apoman60612@yahoo.com (Mark) wrote in message news:<68236fb6.0404150758.69a0bb08@posting.google.com>...
> 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

Dick Durbin
Tallahassee

In article <68236fb6.0404150758.69a0bb08@posting.google.com>,
Mark <apoman60612@yahoo.com> wrote:
>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.

>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="http://www.poohsticks.org/drew/">Home Page</a>
Life is a terminal sexually transmitted disease.

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 <usenet-forum@cyclingforums.com> wrote in message news:<WZyfc.45421$dq3.3635@fe13.usenetserver.com>...
> 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.
>
>
>
> --

On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 17:12:29 -0700, Mark wrote:

> 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.


>
> (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
> 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 wrote:

> 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 wrote:

> 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, >><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
http://www.vecchios.com
"Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 21:46:26 -0400, "David L. Johnson"
<david.johnson@lehigh.edu> wrote:
>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 wrote:

> 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 <bclewis@cs.sfu.ca>
wrote:

>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.

On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 10:04:59 -0400, Rick Onanian wrote:

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

"Adjust" does not really mean "replace parts". But you are also not
thinking about anything particular to threadless stems. What makes it
easier to swap out is the fact that there is a separate end cap with 2 or
more bolts, not the old 1-bolt handlebar binder. I have 2 quill stems
like that now. Not only would they be easier to swap out than a
threadless setup (don't have to mess with bearing preload), the height can
be adjusted in seconds.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | "Business!" cried the Ghost. "Mankind was my business. The common
_`\(,_ | welfare was my business; charity, mercy, forbearance, and
(_)/ (_) | benevolence, were, all, my business. The dealings of my trade
were but a drop of water in the comprehensive ocean of my
<business!" --Dickens, "A Christmas Carol"