Can a frame be "too big"...I mean actually bike size.

[SoCalSteve]

Serotta stock geometry at the end had a size 61.5 with a 61.8 top tube...

I am not sure I have ever seen a "stock" bike with that long of a top tube. Longest has been 60.

Is there some kind of general wisdom or rule of thumb where a bike can be just "too big"? Or, am I way off base on this?

The other numbers are pretty normal...head tube 21.1, seat tube 56 with a 6.7* slope, 42 chainstays, etc. Angles are not whack at all.

Am I missing something, crazy (don't answer that) or, is this just "normal" for a big bike?

As always, thank you all in advance!

Steve

PS: I am 6' 5" with very short legs...I have always ran 60 cm top tubes with 13 cm stems. Would this be an 11 cm stem on a 61.38 cm top tube? Seems very foreign to me. Am I way off base or???

[ultraman6970]

IMO when you are that tall like 1 cm up or down in the size wont make that big of an impact and probably besides from not using like 1 cm of spacers under the stem I doubt you will notice big of a difference even using the same stem. in the larger frame. The other detail is that the reach between the 61.5 and the 60 is just 7 mm, doesnt look like a lot to me. Since apprenlty the whole set of frames use sloping unless you have super short legs i would not worry about the seat tube, why? 56 at your height and just guessing probably you are around 74 to 79 saddle height and with 56 that's plenty of seatpost showing.

IMO and w/o seeing you (im guessing blind here) probably the largest one will do better because is just longer (longer torso?). But that's just my personal opinion, no idea if you like to ride like a bear riding a 80cc motorcycle, or if you like racing position, or if you like to have 5 feet of seatpost showing you know.

Good luck tho.

[Hepmike]

I've wondered the same thing, I'm also 6'5" (with a relatively short 35.5" inseam), I'm riding similarly sized bikes to yours.

I'd wondered if perhaps there is just some wisdom that stock bikes should not have a TT that exceeds 60cm, due to it's effect on handling, or??
I'm also weirdly self-conscious in the way that I don't like the way bikes larger then that look, even if it's what I should be riding...

[Peter P.]

I had a 6'5" friend who I measured for a custom Gunnar. He gave the numbers to the bike shop and they built a frame with a 61cm top tube.

The UCI does have a limit on certain frame dimensions which makes it difficult to build frames for some of the taller top pro riders such as Taylor Phinney and Johan Van Summeren. I think the constraining factor is wheelbase.

[oldpotatoe]

Serotta stock geometry at the end had a size 61.5 with a 61.8 top tube...

I am not sure I have ever seen a "stock" bike with that long of a top tube. Longest has been 60.

Is there some kind of general wisdom or rule of thumb where a bike can be just "too big"? Or, am I way off base on this?

The other numbers are pretty normal...head tube 21.1, seat tube 56 with a 6.7* slope, 42 chainstays, etc. Angles are not whack at all.

Am I missing something, crazy (don't answer that) or, is this just "normal" for a big bike?

As always, thank you all in advance!

Steve

PS: I am 6' 5" with very short legs...I have always ran 60 cm top tubes with 13 cm stems. Would this be an 11 cm stem on a 61.38 cm top tube? Seems very foreign to me. Am I way off base or???

http://gunnarbikes.com/site/bikes/roadie

68 has a 62cm top tube..for one example.

[Zoodles]

I think the reason you don't see larger is the limited market for big bikes as well as the fact that they don't do manufacturers any favors in the aesthetics department.

At 6'4" I ride 58-60 cm bikes comfortably (120-110mm stem). I like riding the smallest frame size possible to avoid massive head tubes, sloping top tubes can help with this

[bikinchris]

Typically, tall people have long legs and comparably short torsos and or arms. That's why top tubes are generally short on these big bikes.
Top tubes need to be as long as they are needed for that rider. Long top tubes are not bad or good. You guys need to get over that. Maybe you want your knees to hit the bars when you stand up? Or you want to look like you are riding the superman position?

[e-RICHIE]

Typically, tall people have <cut>

Typically larger and taller frames have shallower seat angles (more setback) and steeper head angles
(to keep the distance from the central movement to the front axle from becoming a toll call atmo...),
so the actual top tube measurement matters less because the cockpit is opened up by dint of these
adjustments. That's typically, by the way.

ps

arrange disorder

:p:p:p
;);):)
:rolleyes::cool::cool:

[Ahneida Ride]

At 6'4" I ride 58-60 cm bikes comfortably (120-110mm stem). I like riding the smallest frame size possible to avoid massive head tubes, sloping top tubes can help with this

My Bedford is a 65 with a 2 deg top tube slope making it a 66 up front.
My Legend is a 64. The Bedford just fits better.
TT on both bikes is 60.

[ultraman6970]

If you notice tubes arent manufactured longer than 63 or 64 (persnally never seen a columbus sl longer than 61 I believe), besides the "looks" the other problem is that if they manufacture bikes longer than 62 or 63 the frame gets way too flimsy, and a super tall guy no matter how thin he is, he will weight at least 70 kg to 90 kg, put that in a frame that is giant the frame gets too flimsy.

Some manufacturers, because haven't seen this in centuries, to give larger frames more reach they used to built the frames with steeper angles, since steeper angles at least here in the states is a no no they won't sell pretty much the concept is not seeing too much, as i said before havent seen it in a while. IMO steeper angle will give more reach and the bike in general gets more balanced in the handling, if the frame is too tall and too shallow in the seat tube the rear end needs to get longer to balance the bike but that's when opinions come along, I'm not a builder anyways...

I've wondered the same thing, I'm also 6'5" (with a relatively short 35.5" inseam), I'm riding similarly sized bikes to yours.

I'd wondered if perhaps there is just some wisdom that stock bikes should not have a TT that exceeds 60cm, due to it's effect on handling, or??
I'm also weirdly self-conscious in the way that I don't like the way bikes larger then that look, even if it's what I should be riding...

[fuzzalow]

A bike frame is just a rolling chassis made to offer rider contact points along an available range and designed to carry weight within an approximate location along its wheelbase. Nothing more than that although IMO that sentence still encompasses a lot of ground.

When the topic centers predominantly around the frame sizing as the precursor, I think it misses the point of what are the key, crucial factors that should be reviewed instead:

From the rider perspective - do you know your own fit numbers and can you overlay that fit & position onto the frame in question and intersect your rider contact points within the range of adjustability offered by the frames hard mount locations for post, spacers and stem
From a builder's perspective - a longer frame is easier to torque but the structural integrity needed to mitigate the added toptube length is easily countered by tubing gauge, diameter or both. So if the builder is any good at all, as a rider, don't worrybouddit.
So in answer to the OP, the frame can be too big or too small depends on nothing that pertains to a vague idea of "normal". It's kind of binary in the sense that it can either work for how a rider needs it to work or it doesn't.

In fairness, knowing your own numbers is not that simple when a rider has spent a lifetime conforming to the fit a bike offers rather than bringing the bike to the rider. A rider always conforms (contorts?!) in balancing himself into the available space given to him by his bike, whether he recognizes or accepts this or not. This feel in riding a bike, is for many riders, the "normal" way it feels. When the ergonomic spacing via the fit is sized correctly, the rider no longer has to conform to what the sizing the bike offers. A proper fit has a relaxed rider with the contact points brought to the rider - staying effortless and relaxed while balanced on the bike like a blob of jelly. With only the legs, heart and lungs doing the work.

[Lewis Moon]

Really, the TT measurement can't be viewed by itself. How it affects the rider also depends on the STA and HTA.
I just swapped frames from a Salsa Primero with a 59 TT, 72.5* STA and a 74* HTA to a Felt F2 with a 60TT, 73.5* STA and a 74* HTA. Suffice it to say the bikes set up and handle VERY differently. Not worse or better, just different. With the steeper STA and a 1cm longer TT, the bike actually has a 2+ cm longer RTT (real top tube) with the same saddle set back.
When I set up a bike I base all the other measurements off my saddle set back. I keep a notebook with the measurements.

[SoCalSteve]

Thank you all so far for your great responses!

I think I need to rephrase my original question:

Is there a downside to having a top tube that is very long (over 60 cm)? The construction/material is lugged carbon. Will the bike be flimsy? Will it handle weird?

I am sure it will "fit", just wondering how it will ride. I am 6' 5" with a 33 inseam. So yeah, very long torso and very short legs.

Thanks!

Steve

[JAGI410]

Is Rivendell the only maker that adds a double top tube on larger sizes? Or is this "marketing"?

http://rivercitycyclingsociety.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/DSCF7366.jpg

[Lewis Moon]

Thank you all so far for your great responses!

I think I need to rephrase my original question:

Is there a downside to having a top tube that is very long (over 60 cm)? The construction/material is lugged carbon. Will the bike be flimsy? Will it handle weird?

I am sure it will "fit", just wondering how it will ride. I am 6' 5" with a 33 inseam. So yeah, very long torso and very short legs.

Thanks!

Steve
Given the same saddle setback, a longer front center will give you less toe overlap (I ride loooong cranks) but it also biases the weight more onto the rear tire, requires a shorter stem (shorter "tiller" length) and lengthens the wheel base. The last two make the bike a bit more stable and slower handling. (I'll add an e-Richie ATMO here)

[gdw]

"Is Rivendell the only maker that adds a double top tube on larger sizes? Or is this "marketing"?"

Marketing. The Rodeo is offered in 61 and 63cm sizes and doesn't have the double top tube.

[Hepmike]

Very interesting/useful perspectives on fit for a tall guy. It seems to me you can scrutinize and stress about all of the tangible measurements- and after they've been applied to two different bikes still get something that rides/feels different anyway. It all comes down to what is comfortable and effective for my needs.

Just to raise one more point- somebody recently told me (at 6'5") that my fit/position looked pretty good on what I am riding, but that the perspective was odd- considering someone at my size/height rides the same wheel size as someone 5'5". I wonder-albeit at impractical costs (not to mention availability) if the industry manufactured a larger wheel size- more proportionate to a taller rider- would it offer some geometry improvements in stability/ride for the larger frames?

[Elefantino]

Love this thread. I'm also 6-5 with a 35.5 and I feel more comfortable with a 59TT, 110 stem and 2cm bar drop. I briefly had an Atlanta that had a 61TT and even with a 90 stem it just felt wrong.

I'm wondering if the 64x60 Legend would work with a 100 stem.

[Lewis Moon]

Love this thread. I'm also 6-5 with a 35.5 and I feel more comfortable with a 59TT, 110 stem and 2cm bar drop. I briefly had an Atlanta that had a 61TT and even with a 90 stem it just felt wrong.

I'm wondering if the 64x60 Legend would work with a 100 stem.

Me: 6'5", 37 inseam, 60TT, 11cm stem, 11cm seat set back 10cm bar drop.

[e-RICHIE]

a 33 inseam
with a 35.5
37 inseam

Inseam isn't a driver when it comes to frame size or position atmo. Unless I'm guessing wrong, you're
telling us about how you order or finish your pants. Anatomy measurements and foot length are more
likely needed for making these choices.

ps

arrange disorder

:cool:;):p
:):rolleyes:;)
:cool::p:p

[JLNK]

Serotta brochures from 1998 and 1999 listed a 62cm toptube for all of the 62cm road bikes in the brochure. I have a 63cm CSI and a 65cm Colorado, both with 62cm toptubes. I use a 14cm stem. For years bike shop people sold me on bikes that were "roadrace" bikes that were too small. I am 6'4' with long arms and legs (relatively). The wake up call came when I got a Richard Sachs frame. It had longer chainstays, lower bb, and a front end and fork with wonderful feel and accuracy in comparison to what I had been riding. I have not looked back since.

[hockeybike]

Really, the TT measurement can't be viewed by itself. How it affects the rider also depends on the STA and HTA.
I just swapped frames from a Salsa Primero with a 59 TT, 72.5* STA and a 74* HTA to a Felt F2 with a 60TT, 73.5* STA and a 74* HTA. Suffice it to say the bikes set up and handle VERY differently. Not worse or better, just different. With the steeper STA and a 1cm longer TT, the bike actually has a 2+ cm longer RTT (real top tube) with the same saddle set back.
When I set up a bike I base all the other measurements off my saddle set back. I keep a notebook with the measurements.

This is something I wonder about. While I buy that a changed HTA (all else held equal) will change handling, I don't see how only changing the STA would change handling. Assuming the wheels are in the same place on two bikes with different seat tube angles, they should handle the same, right? Just an aesthetic thing.

[Lewis Moon]

Inseam isn't a driver when it comes to frame size or position atmo. Unless I'm guessing wrong, you're
telling us about how you order or finish your pants. Anatomy measurements and foot length are more
likely needed for making these choices.

ps

arrange disorder

:cool:;):p
:):rolleyes:;)
:cool::p:p

... other than if the femur to tib/fib ratio stays the same, which would mean with at 50/50 my femur would be about 3 cm longer than SoCalSteve.

and I have a 45 foot.

[mhespenheide]

Way, way back in "the day", in the late 80's I was a 6'3" junior USCF racer in central NY. A brief time on the then-current Serotta Fit Kit suggested that I should ride a 60.5cm TT with a 14cm stem.

Today I'm 6'4" and am quite comfortable with a 59cm TT, 12cm stem. I don't have the back/hip flexibility I once had...

I've seen geometry for bike listed up to 62cm or even 64cm from what I'd consider reputable builders. I suspect it's partially convention, partially the fact that we're hitting the end of the bell curve, and partially given the geometry noted by e-Ritchie.

[Lewis Moon]

Today I'm 6'4" and am quite comfortable with a 59cm TT, 12cm stem. I don't have the back/hip flexibility I once had...



Yoga...it's not just for ogling the yogabutts.

[velotrack]

You all are so tall.

This probably came from some big dude also..
http://sellwoodcycle.com/collections/used-frames/products/64cm-independent-fabrications-road-frameset

[fuzzalow]

I think I need to rephrase my original question:

Is there a downside to having a top tube that is very long (over 60 cm)? The construction/material is lugged carbon. Will the bike be flimsy? Will it handle weird?

This statement combines two qualities the are not necessarily related:
"flimsy" which is more the result of the frame design of the builder or manufacturer as good or bad, and
"handle weird" which is a confluence of both what the builder has done and the way that a rider fits into and uses a frame. Because it is rare that a modern bike be so far off from serviceable as unrideable by downfall of a bad design, if a bike rides poorly it is usually setup & rider error that makes this happen

I am sure it will "fit", just wondering how it will ride. I am 6' 5" with a 33 inseam. So yeah, very long torso and very short legs.
How it will ride is determined in large part by how it fits. I am not trying to sound like I am always prattling on about fit & position as if from the saying that "when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail". But it is easy to see from any rider's setup and position on the bike where the drivers for that position are. For example if the "fit" has the undue use of the riders arms buttressing weight into the bars and frontend of the bike, the bikes handling is adversely effected from both the cockeyed weight distribution and the smothering of the frontend handling characteristic of the bike. If the rider locks in saddle setback like some golden rule, it will disproportionately pitch weight forwards of the BB and put the weight not on the pelvis but into the bars. The correct way is simply to establish a new balance point along the longitudinal axis of the bike using a combination of saddle setback and stem length. The bike handles sweetly only when it is allowed to run.

I am open to different views, it is what makes the discussion interesting. But I admit to being flummoxed by mentions of magic ratios, formulae and claims of insight into precise skeletal bone lengths in making a fit & position. Yes, there is more than one way to skin a cat but I have seen very few setups based on these "rules of thumb" that look balanced and comfortable - all seem to make a setup on a bike that a rider must fold into. And for the most part, all require undue use of core and look injurious to the spinal discs in working at getting bar drop like an overt display of Belgium hardman HTFU.

This is not to be militant about my views or attitudes on fit but I am conscious that my view is often the only contrary view given different from the general flow and thought process of the discussion. But I know what I am talking about and I think that most readers that follow the repeated ad naseum "rules of thumb" are doing it wrong. I took that incorrect path too a longtime ago.

[jerk]

hi! long time lurker. first time poster.

it's got nothing to do with most of the guesses posted here. the reason most bikes don't have top tubes much longer than around say 60ish... is because the tubing manufacturers never really made top tubes longer than that...

why? mostly because they didn't need to. with 700c wheels most race bike designs work best with the wheelbase within a pretty narrow range. for big bikes, most builders accomplish this by slackening the seat angle, steepening the head tube angle, maybe lessening the fork rake and using long stems....for giant guys- there might not be enough "there" there...but 700c wheels were settled upon because they're the right size for most post-war european roads and most post-war european bodies...

i did once see a 66cm serotta with a 70cm top tube- and serotta used non-bike specific pipes to make that thing- it fit the guy great- but handled terribly and he eventually had a new bike made with a 10cm shorter top tube- the fit wasn't as good- but the bike was much more rideable and he could race it, ride it and love it.

plus if you're 6'9, what's 10cms? next to nothing. :)

[Elefantino]

hi! long time lurker. first time poster.

it's got nothing to do with most of the guesses posted here. the reason most bikes don't have top tubes much longer than around say 60ish... is because the tubing manufacturers never really made top tubes longer than that...

why? mostly because they didn't need to. with 700c wheels most race bike designs work best with the wheelbase within a pretty narrow range. for big bikes, most builders accomplish this by slackening the seat angle, steepening the head tube angle, maybe lessening the fork rake and using long stems....for giant guys- there might not be enough "there" there...but 700c wheels were settled upon because they're the right size for most post-war european roads and most post-war european bodies...

i did once see a 66cm serotta with a 70cm top tube- and serotta used non-bike specific pipes to make that thing- it fit the guy great- but handled terribly and he eventually had a new bike made with a 10cm shorter top tube- the fit wasn't as good- but the bike was much more rideable and he could race it, ride it and love it.

plus if you're 6'9, what's 10cms? next to nothing. :)

Welcome back, CG! :banana:

[johnny_flapjack]

Every now and then you see an article about a custom bike for one of the guys that's an outlier - even by NBA standards - but they never seem to list the specs on the frame. I don't know the tt measurement on Yao Ming's bike, but the seat tube is long as hell...

http://www.unlikelywords.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/Yao-Ming-Bike.jpg

http://25.media.tumblr.com/3446b2abf492f59cc1d026590ef77d82/tumblr_mi18zhorCl1s40webo1_500.jpg

http://www.adventurecorps.com/mlbc/2010/2010show5/images/DSC04033.jpg