Road Bike, Cycling Forums banner

1 - 6 of 6 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
33 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I had the GF measure me using the Competitive Cyclist fit calculator and I think we may have messed it up. It recommends what seems like a ridiculously large frame for me. I'm 6'1" with a pants inseam of ~34".

Here are my measurements and the recommended fit according to CC:

Measurements
-------------------------------------------
Inseam: 93.5
Trunk: 66.5
Forearm: 41
Arm: 80.75
Thigh: 66.5
Lower Leg: 60.5
Sternal Notch: 153


The Competitive Fit (cm)
-------------------------------------------
Seat tube range c-c: 60.6 - 61.1
Seat tube range c-t: 62.4 - 62.9
Top tube length: 60.2 - 60.6
Stem Length: 13.2 - 13.8
BB-Saddle Position: 83.3 - 85.3
Saddle-Handlebar: 62.1 - 62.7
Saddle Setback: 8.1 - 8.5
Seatpost Type: NON-SETBACK

Look at that top tube length! If I'm reading that right, it calls for a ~60cm top tube AND a 130mm stem. It doesn't seem like there are many bikes that long.

Do my measurements look right? Out of curiosity, what size frame are you guys with similar height and inseam (6'1", 34" pants) generally using? I do know it depends on the bike but I'm curious.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
132 Posts
Your inseam seems a little long to me. For a height of 6'1" to have a 93.5cm inseam would be very long-legged. I'm 6'3" and my inseam is 90.5cm. Check that measurement again for starters.
 

·
Say "nuke-u-lar"
Joined
·
453 Posts
93.5 cm is 36.8 inches; I know the "cycling" inseam is a bit longer than the pant inseam, but almost 3 inches? You floodin'?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,434 Posts
Re-do the numbers

You are 1 inch taller than me, but you say your cycling inseam is 2.3 inches longer. That is certainly possible, but it suggests that your torso is relatively short compared to me. I have always fit very well with "off the rack" standard dimensions in a 59 or 60 cm frame with a 130-140 mm stem. Those frames have a much shorter top tube than you calculate. Per the other posters, it sounds like you need to re-do the measurements.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
333 Posts
I did the CompCyclist thing, among others, when shopping for my current bike. I'm 6'2" and generally wear a 34" pants inseam; here's what it spit out for me:

Inseam: 90.5
Trunk: 70
Forearm: 35
Arm: 75
Thigh: 64
Lower Leg: 59
Sternal Notch: 155


The Competitive Fit (cm)
-------------------------------------------
Seat tube range c-c: 58.6 - 59.1
Seat tube range c-t: 60.4 - 60.9
Top tube length: 57.8 - 58.2
Stem Length: 12.2 - 12.8
BB-Saddle Position: 81.7 - 83.7
Saddle-Handlebar: 58.1 - 58.7
Saddle Setback: 6.8 - 7.2

Looks like you're a bit ganglier than me, i.e. longer arms and legs and shorter torso.

I'm currently riding a 58.2 seat by 58.5 top tube (c to c; this is the 62cm size C-50), with a 12 cm stem, and I'm liking it very much. I could probably add a cm to the stem without compromising comfort, but the frame just right.

FWIW I really like the CompCyclist calculator, because it gives you various fit options and ranges for each, so you can get a "within the limits" frame and then dial in your fit to the kind of riding you intend to do. I'd re-measure, if possible with a different assistant unaware of your previous numbers, and see how the new numbers compare.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
499 Posts
I tried that calculator too and it was wrong. It said I should ride a 54 cm bike - I'm 5'10" with a 32 inch inseam. Every LBS I visited said I was at least a 56, maybe a 58. I ended up with a 56 and it fits perfect.
 
1 - 6 of 6 Posts
Top