New bike - frame size? Top tube or seat tube most important?
B.M.R.
Posts: 72
Hi all,
I'm looking at new bikes to replace my ageing Ribble (and indeed I have posted up a couple of times with ideas - first a newer Ribble, and then a swanky Pinarello, so apologies for yet ANOTHER "should I buy" thread from me).
I'm looking more seriously at the Felt AR4, but have a dilemma. The 2012 models are now at reduced prices due to the arrival of the 2013 models, and the older ones are £700-£800 cheaper. The only catch is the limited sizes - with Wiggle being one of the places still with some in stock.
But the biggest frame they have is a 56cm one. Now, according to their sizing on the page for the AR4, 56cm is recommended for people 5 foot 9 to 5 foot 11 and I'm 6 foot and almost 1 inch, with a 33inch inseam so I should be looking at a 58cm frame (not available). But, here comes the other thing, I'm long legged but my torso is a little shorter by comparison so by getting a bigger frame I also feel I'm stretching a little in my back.
My current bike (I've just measured) is a 60cm frame and the top tube is (C-C) 58cm with a stem of 12cm, and when I'm sitting on it I can see the front hub under the handlebar by quite a way. If the toptube+stem was 5cm shorter it would obscure the front hub, which I gather is a low tech way of making sure the length is moderately in the right place for your arm length and position.
The 56cm AR4 frame has a top tube of 55.5cm and a stem of 10cm, making it 65.5cm in total which would be spot on for putting the handlebars over the front hub obscuring them.
Sooo, in a nutshell, is it better to get a bike where the toptube is closer to what you need (using a stem to adjust as needed) as you can obviously adjust a saddle height easily. Or should I be focusing primarily on the correct recommended frame size for my height as regards leg length. Would 2cm in the frame seat tube make a HUGE difference to the fit of the bike? Like I said I'm slightly concerned as my legs are long in proportion to my body, and although I don't want the frame to be too small for my legs, I equally don't want a frame too big for my torso/arms.
I'm looking at new bikes to replace my ageing Ribble (and indeed I have posted up a couple of times with ideas - first a newer Ribble, and then a swanky Pinarello, so apologies for yet ANOTHER "should I buy" thread from me).
I'm looking more seriously at the Felt AR4, but have a dilemma. The 2012 models are now at reduced prices due to the arrival of the 2013 models, and the older ones are £700-£800 cheaper. The only catch is the limited sizes - with Wiggle being one of the places still with some in stock.
But the biggest frame they have is a 56cm one. Now, according to their sizing on the page for the AR4, 56cm is recommended for people 5 foot 9 to 5 foot 11 and I'm 6 foot and almost 1 inch, with a 33inch inseam so I should be looking at a 58cm frame (not available). But, here comes the other thing, I'm long legged but my torso is a little shorter by comparison so by getting a bigger frame I also feel I'm stretching a little in my back.
My current bike (I've just measured) is a 60cm frame and the top tube is (C-C) 58cm with a stem of 12cm, and when I'm sitting on it I can see the front hub under the handlebar by quite a way. If the toptube+stem was 5cm shorter it would obscure the front hub, which I gather is a low tech way of making sure the length is moderately in the right place for your arm length and position.
The 56cm AR4 frame has a top tube of 55.5cm and a stem of 10cm, making it 65.5cm in total which would be spot on for putting the handlebars over the front hub obscuring them.
Sooo, in a nutshell, is it better to get a bike where the toptube is closer to what you need (using a stem to adjust as needed) as you can obviously adjust a saddle height easily. Or should I be focusing primarily on the correct recommended frame size for my height as regards leg length. Would 2cm in the frame seat tube make a HUGE difference to the fit of the bike? Like I said I'm slightly concerned as my legs are long in proportion to my body, and although I don't want the frame to be too small for my legs, I equally don't want a frame too big for my torso/arms.
0
Comments
-
No simple answer as the dimensions are all relative to each other in the end.
You need to be able to obtain the correct correlation between saddle,BB, bars and top/bottom of pedal stroke so there are so many variables.
As long as the frame allows you sufficient to tweak these (by seat post height, stem length, crank arms etc) you will be fine.
It will probably be a compromise on the top tube and seat tube in the end to get in the right range to allow the bolt on bits to fine tune everything.Yellow is the new Black.0 -
Reach - toptube length and seat-tube angles. You 'fit' a bike by first adjusting seatpost height, then saddle set-back and then determine the position of the bars / stem length. Compensating for reach by adjusting saddle setback or reducing stem length is wrong.Make mine an Italian, with Campagnolo on the side..0
-
Effective top tube length (reach).'Happiness serves hardly any other purpose than to make unhappiness possible' Marcel Proust.0
