Road Bike, Cycling Forums banner
1 - 10 of 10 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
224 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I have a Surly CrossCheck. Largest size (62). I'm 6'5"ish but always felt a bit stretched if I was to race it.
Should I sell it and get a slightly smaller (60cm) aluminum budget frame (those Scallante frames maybe?) or is it me feeling a bit stretched because I'm used to the positioning on my mountain bike?
I know I'm reaching here, but what the heck.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,270 Posts
It is you feeling a bit stretched because you're used to your positioning on your mountain bike.

Getting a smaller frame won't necessarily make it more comfortable. The handlebars will be lower, which might even give you a longer reach than you have currently.

If anything, you could experiment with different stem/handlebar combos on the current bike.
 

·
Number 2 on the course.
Joined
·
4,405 Posts
How long is the stem on your CrossCheck?

You may be more comfortable with a shorter stem. Below 90mm my opinion is that a smaller frame with a stem in the normal range is going to work better.

Handlebar height is not determined by frame size, it is determined by stem geometry and its position on the fork's steerer.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,270 Posts
PeanutButterBreath said:
Handlebar height is not determined by frame size, it is determined by stem geometry and its position on the fork's steerer.
I figured that the influence of stem length and angle, and the number of spacers, was obvious enough not to mention. Sure, you can put ten spacers and a riser stem on an undersized frame, if you want to.

All else being equal, frame size determines headtube length determines bar height.
 

·
Number 2 on the course.
Joined
·
4,405 Posts
pretender said:
Sure, you can put ten spacers and a riser stem on an undersized frame, if you want to.

All else being equal, frame size determines headtube length determines bar height.
We're talking about 2cm difference in HT length (CrossCheck 62 vs. 60) -- just so you don't spend too much time on hyperbole.

All else being equal, frame size determines seat-tube length determines saddle height? :idea:

There are a couple ways that OP could solve the reach problem. Shorter stem or shorter TT. The better option really depends on a greater level of detail than overall height and some stranger's zeal for conventional wisdom.
 

·
Number 2 on the course.
Joined
·
4,405 Posts
Moreover, while the 62 CrossCheck has an ETT of 610 and a HT length of 180, the 60 Scattante X-560 sizing chart shows an ETT of 585 and an HT length of 202.

Smaller bike, higher bars (all things being equal). Whatta' world. :nonod:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,270 Posts
PeanutButterBreath said:
Smaller bike, higher bars (all things being equal).
All things are not equal; two different makers, different geometries.

Even though the published size is lower, the Scattante 60 is not uniformly smaller than the Surly 62. It is shorter in the horizontal dimension but actually taller in the vertical dimension. The smaller seattube measurement on the Scattante is because of its sloping top tube, while the Surly has a horizontal top tube.

If the OP wished to shorten his reach, perhaps the Scattante 60 would be a reasonable choice, but as you mentioned earlier, a shorter stem could do the same thing, and for considerably less money.
 

·
Number 2 on the course.
Joined
·
4,405 Posts
Exactly -- all things are not equal. In fact, all things are never equal, even within the same model. For example, all CrossChecks 42cm-52cm have the same length HT. This is why rules of thumb that hinge upon all things being equal are useless.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
224 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
Thans for the ideas. I think I'm going to stck with what I got. I was able to go out for a brief spin on it last nite and I think the problem is the fact that it's just a different position that I'm not used to (I'm a mtn biker) .
By that time too, I may have a welder and jig and such and maybe be able to weld up my wn frame anyways (I went to the UBI frame class).
I keep you all posted
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
519 Posts
For a guy 6'5 a 62 is probably about right for a fit. You may want to do some flexibility work off the bike - made a huge difference in my bike fit, but I'm old and clanky. Try a couple of longish road rides and see how the fit changes. If you start feeling comfortable or even a bit compressed after an hour or two, your frame is well within range. If it feels worse and more stretched out over time then you've got something to fix.

Out at the tall range there's more variations in body proportions than among average folks (the ends of the bell curve get unpredictable). I've got monkey arms and can almost touch my knees without bending - other guys my height can barely reach their pants pockets, so it's kinda hard to get too general. If you've also got ape arms you may want a shorter, lower bar position. The shin to thigh ratio also makes a diff. Some of us have really long shins and shortish thighs and need either less setback on the seat or a straight post. Then there's the other extreme of long femurs and wayback seat settings.

Don't make big changes but don't be afraid to experiment in small increments and don't be afraid to stubborn it out until it starts falling into place.
 
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top