| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 1068.1 | Fit-kit measurements | DELNI::GRACE | life is unpredictable; eat dessert first | Tue Mar 28 1989 14:12 | 11 |
| FWIW, I was fit-kitted about 1 yr. ago (haven't grown any since).
The following lists my "tale of the tape":
Height = 5' 7-1/2" (barefoot)
Inseam = 28-1/2"
Frame size = 19-1/2" or 50 or 51 cm
Russ
|
| 1068.2 | | EST::CRITCHLOW | | Tue Mar 28 1989 14:35 | 19 |
| height 5' 10"
inseam 31" on a good day.
Frame size 57 cm. This is what I have ridden since I was 14 It is also
what was recommended by fit kitting.
There is a lot more going on here though. The next important dimension
is top tube.
I have a long torso so even a 57 cm frame has a top tube length less
than recommended by fit kitting. Take this with a grain of salt because
fit kits are designed around racing scenarios. I tour exclusively. So I
actually prefer the slightly under sized top tube.
I maintain that it matters very little what other people do. Ride the
bike. If it fits, it will feel good.
JC
|
| 1068.3 | LONG LEGS | WMOIS::C_GIROUARD | | Tue Mar 28 1989 14:45 | 12 |
| Hmmmmmm. Here's my FIT KIT measurements and results done in January.
Height: 5' 6 1/2"
Inseam: 29 1/2"
Frame: 53cm (C-DALE)
Yeah, my legs are definitely long for my torso. Along with everything
else, my shoulders are 44" and max's out the standard production
handle bars. I had a lot of switching and adjusting after the FIT
KIT.
|
| 1068.4 | | USCTR1::PJOHNSON | | Tue Mar 28 1989 14:48 | 5 |
| height: 5'9"
inseam: 30"
frame: 55 cm.
Phil
|
| 1068.5 | Subjective Schtuff follows:- | ULTRA::BURGESS | | Tue Mar 28 1989 15:05 | 45 |
|
OK, a topic of its own.
I think that top tube length is probably far more critical
than seat tube length. Seat posts(pins) give easy adjustment, stems
are harder to replace and affect handling if too short/long. It seems
that top tubes on "standard" frames are usually about the same
length as seat tubes (centre to centre, in the 23 inch / 58 cm category
anyway). For people with long legs (relative to their height) it is
probably wise to look for a standard frame that has a top tube ~1 inch
shorter than the seat tube, alternatively buy the smaller frame to get
the top tube length right and raise the saddle another inch. People
with short legs (relative to their height) should be looking for the
opposite, the important thing is top tube/stem length with a practical
(handling) limit on the stem length. Women typically are longer
legged relative to their height than men are, hence if the seat post
length formulas are used they finish up stretched out too far. I
don't know if this is accounted for in Mixte frames, but the guideline
for women should probably be to chose a smaller frame than the inseam
formulas recommmend. Rumor has it that many women quit cycling after
a very short period because they can't get comfortable on the drops, I
suspect that its because they are very uncomfortable being so
stretched out. {specualation}
There's also some subjective stuff. I *_PREFER_* a frame
with a relatively short seat tube. I think this may mean that I can
get a more comfortable position on a frame with a shorter top tube
due, in part, to my relatively short upper body but long arms - DUNNO !
For whatever reason a 23", 58 cm frame seems about right for me.
Doesn't mean its optimum for performance, I might be able to shave 2
minutes off my century times if I changed, so what ?
BTW, I used a track frame for a road bike for a long time when I was
much younger (the dawn of time) they're tight, stiff, twitchy and
rough, so I may have become used to some things that others wouldn't
put up with - just a comment. I also prefer to ride fixed, maybe
thats an influence (???)
I suspect that there's no right or wrong in this, however
there are guidelines and preferences.
Run what Ya brung and enjoy it...
Reg
|
| 1068.6 | I LIKE THEM BIG | USCTR2::DRIVETTS | | Tue Mar 28 1989 15:27 | 3 |
| I'm 5' 11" with a 31 inseam, I ride a 63cm touring bike and a 60cm
sport touring bike. I like them big. After 25 years of riding
bikes, non-competitive, I have learned that if it feels good, ride it.
|
| 1068.7 | Now if Columbus would only start shipping MS again | CESARE::JOHNSON | Truth is stranger than fiction | Tue Mar 28 1989 16:12 | 18 |
| My current bike is 61cm center-to-top, 60cm center-to-center.
Its top-tube to seat-tube ratio is greater than 1:1. I use
a 115mm stem.
I'm 6' 1 3/4", with a 34 inch inseam.
My next frame will be 60cm center-to-top, with a long top tube. At my
size, I crave a stiffer bike.
Still, I can easily understand recreational riders who choose frames
that are "too big" for them: for years, I had a 25" FUJI, and it was
the most comfortable thing on two wheels. Stable as a Mack truck...able
to absorb potholes without fuss...I always felt like it was carrying
me, rather than me riding it. When I started racing, I wanted to
be the one in control -- hence the switch.
MATT
|
| 1068.8 | Interesting Chart | ICBB::JSMITH | I Bike Solo II | Wed Mar 29 1989 13:34 | 40 |
| Here's what it's starting to look like:
Inseam/ Frame Size/CM
Inch 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
27 |
27.5|
28 |
28.5| X
29 |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
29.5| X
30 | X
30.5|
31 | X X
31.5|
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
32 | X
32.5|
33 |
33.5|
34 | X X
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
34.5|
35 |
35.5|
36 |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64
This is interesting, not the | x
typical chart that I expected at | x
all....it could get normalized | x
if more people participate | x
though. +___________x___
Keep those measurements coming in!
Jerry
|
| 1068.9 | I was NOT fit-kitted | WITNES::HANNULA | Cat Tails & Bike Wheels Don't Mix | Wed Mar 29 1989 13:38 | 5 |
| 29.5 inch inseam
21 inch frame
You can convert to centimeters.
|
| 1068.10 | | AMUN::CRITZ | A noid is annoyed | Wed Mar 29 1989 13:45 | 4 |
| 35.5 inch inseam
25.25 inch frame
Scott
|
| 1068.11 | | LEVERS::LANDRY | | Wed Mar 29 1989 14:00 | 6 |
| 5'11"
34" inseam
58 cm frame
As I recall the fit kit said somewhere in the 58-59 range.
|
| 1068.12 | what to measure? | TALLIS::JBELL | Ceci n'est pas une pipe. | | Wed Mar 29 1989 14:18 | 8 |
| I forget, does inseam go from crotch to floor, or crotch to pant cuff?
Would it be useful if we specified touring or racing?
Should we measure the frame size center-to-center or center-to-top?
Some manufacturers list their bikes one way, some the other.
-Jeff
|
| 1068.13 | bikes on the larger side... | SUSHI::KMACDONALD | drywall 'til ya drop! | Wed Mar 29 1989 14:58 | 21 |
| > Should we measure the frame size center-to-center or center-to-top?
Well, IMHO the frame size goes from center of BB axle to the top of the
top tube. In the most basic sense of frame fit, the top of the top tube
is whatcha wanna avoid hitting when you dismount. C-to-C is probably
more of interest of frame builders, I suppose.
As for the specs... I'm about 6'5", have around a 35"-36" inseam
(measured by the 'pants size' method), I've never been fitkitted, and my
bikes go roughly 25", 25 1/4", 25 3/4 and 26" or so. That's 63.5 to 66
cm, roughly. Top tube lengths and wheelbases are all over the map with
those 4 bikes. Oh well.
Sizing strictly by the feel good - ride it school. The 25 is sorta on
the congested side, in that getting less leg extension for me causes the
old knees to really hate me. The 26 seems pretty large, but is real
comfortable to ride, and it has some fairly strange geometry anyway.
Besides, when confronted with a chance to own one of Albert from
Oakland's machines, well, who could resist! Overall, I guess you can put
me down as a 25.5" frame kinda guy.
ken
|
| 1068.14 | | RECAP::FORBESM | Life's A Mtn. Not A Beach | Wed Mar 29 1989 15:14 | 4 |
| 32 inch inseam
23 inch frame
Mark
|
| 1068.15 | | EXIT26::SAARINEN | | Wed Mar 29 1989 15:22 | 6 |
| 6'3"
36" Inseam
63cm Frame
-Arthur
|
| 1068.16 | | MAILVX::HOOD_DO | | Wed Mar 29 1989 16:07 | 6 |
| 6'.5"
35" inseam
21" frame (mountain....add appx 3" for street)
-Doug
|
| 1068.17 | sizing trends
| VERVE::BUCHANAN | Bat | Wed Mar 29 1989 17:25 | 12 |
| Height 6' 1"
Inseem (crotch to floor) 33.5"
frame size 58 cm
I believe that it was the trend for many years to get the smallest racing frame
that you could possibly fit on. Lots of seat post showing and long stems. I
believe that this trend is dieing.
I do not agree with those who say whatever feels best is what you should ride.
I say this because what feels best is just what you are used to. I think that
it is best to get what the "experts" say is the best and then "learn to like
it".
|
| 1068.18 | nice to have a selection available to try | SUSHI::KMACDONALD | drywall 'til ya drop! | Wed Mar 29 1989 18:14 | 15 |
| >I do not agree with those who say whatever feels best is what you should ride.
>I say this because what feels best is just what you are used to. I think that
>it is best to get what the "experts" say is the best and then "learn to like
>it".
How about if we restated it as "whatever feels worst is what you
shouldn't ride?". In the course of getting my biking habits straightened
out (well, as much as they are, anyway), I had time to try every size of
bike in the interval from 14" frame/18" wheels (roughly) to some of the
27" FRAME beasties, and had time to get used to quite a number of the
sizes. Even after I got 'used to' bikes smaller than 25" I couldn't ever
quite get used to the pain of riding them. The 14" frame was MUCH too
small, and I didn't ride it enough to get used to it, however :-).
ken
|
| 1068.19 | You want numbers? | NOVA::FISHER | Rdb/VMS Dinosaur | Wed Mar 29 1989 18:48 | 5 |
| I'll assume you're talking center to center. Ht 5'10", inseam 30 (no,
that's not center to center), frame sizes (center to center) 1 53, 6
55's, a 58, a 60 and my tandem is 53 on my end.
ed
|
| 1068.20 | K.I.S.S. Method Used Here | ICBB::JSMITH | I Bike Solo II | Wed Mar 29 1989 18:54 | 14 |
| Lets keep it simple. What we want to know is what you already
know about yourself when you go to try out a bike:
Your height in Feet. and Inches (For further evaluation later)
Your inseam in Inches (Not your fit kit but your pants leg size)
Your Frame Size Preference in Inches or CM.
If you have several frames your most comfortable is
what were after.
Keep those stats pouring in.
Jerry
|
| 1068.21 | 9 Bikes in the Stable? | ICBB::JSMITH | I Bike Solo II | Wed Mar 29 1989 19:30 | 35 |
|
Definately establishing some trends;
58-59 cm frame is most popular
Reg is begining to look normal
31 In. Inseam w/ 63 cm frame is begining to look abnormal
most people *do not* measure inseam center to center
Inseam|in 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Inch |cm 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
27 |
27.5|
28 |
28.5| X
29 |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
29.5| X X
30 | XX
30.5|
31 | X X
31.5|
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
32 | XX
32.5|
33 |
33.5| X
34 | XX X
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
34.5|
35 | X
35.5| X X
36 | X
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64
|
| 1068.22 | 33" inseam, 58 cm frame | BUFFO::BUFFO | David Buffo | Wed Mar 29 1989 21:27 | 6 |
| Height: 5"11"-6'0"
Weight: 155 lbs.
Mother's maiden name: Smith.
Inseam measured by the "pants-I-buy" method.
Frame measured center-to-center.
I'm taking my mother's word for the maiden name.
|
| 1068.23 | Correlation .NE. causation | ULTRA::BURGESS | | Thu Mar 30 1989 09:33 | 6 |
|
Hey folks, IMHO we're looking for correlation between the wrong
pair of variables........
R
|
| 1068.24 | Another 58cm | AKOV11::FULLER | | Thu Mar 30 1989 09:34 | 7 |
| Height: 5'11 1/2"
Pant leg: 33"
Frame size: 58cm (Center to center) 23.22" center to top
(Have not deviated from that frame size for 15 years)
steve
|
| 1068.25 | A 55 cm | CURIE::HUPPERT | | Thu Mar 30 1989 12:32 | 4 |
| Height: 5' 7"
Pant leg: ~30" (fit kit length = 82 cm)
Frame size: 55 cm (C to T)
|
| 1068.26 | | RMADLO::HETRICK | George C. Hetrick | Thu Mar 30 1989 12:37 | 5 |
| Height: 5' 11"
Pant leg: ~30"
Frame size: 54 cm (C to T)
Used on of those adjustable sizing bikes, rather than a fit kit.
|
| 1068.27 | | CIM2NI::SKINNER | | Thu Mar 30 1989 15:36 | 8 |
| height: 6' 4"
inseam: 36
frame: 27" (C to T)
Next frame Purchased will be 66cm c to t
|
| 1068.28 | | DEMON3::CLEVELAND | Famous Potatoes | Thu Mar 30 1989 16:27 | 7 |
| Height: 5'10�"
Inseam: 33"
Frame: 23"
Now I know why I can't find pants or frames in my size!
Tim
|
| 1068.29 | MORE FRAME SIZE DATA | BLKWDO::HUFFAKER | | Thu Mar 30 1989 19:34 | 5 |
| HEIGHT= 5'9�"
INSEAM= 31"
FRAME(RACING)=54cm
FRAME(TOURING)=56cm
|
| 1068.30 | short but strong legs | AKOV11::COHEN | Andrew B. Cohen | Thu Mar 30 1989 21:41 | 13 |
|
HEIGHT= 5'3"
INSEAM= 28"
FRAME(RACING)=48 or 49cm (whatever I can find, had a 46cm vitus once)
FRAME(TOURING)= don't tour
What's relevant is that my top tube is something like 53 or 54cm. As has
been said before, seat tube length isn't that important; top tube length is.
I can use a standard frame but I would need a very loooooooooooong stem.
Therefore I have a custom frame (Peter Mooney, great frame) with the
custom top tube length.
|
| 1068.31 | average - but not average | USMRM5::MREID | | Fri Mar 31 1989 09:30 | 14 |
|
Height: 5'10.5"
Inseam: 33"
Frame : 58cm (center-top) = 56.5cm (center-center)
I use and extra long handlebar stem (120mm), and extra long seatpost
(need at least 200mm; I'm max'ed out on the regular 180mm Dura Ace).
Most would probably say "get a larger frame", but I like the feel
of the smaller frame. The fit kit also recommends this smaller frame
for me.
Mark Reid
|
| 1068.32 | The Results Are In ! | ICBB::JSMITH | I Bike Solo II | Fri Mar 31 1989 09:46 | 39 |
| Remember were trying to find what your most "comfortable"
frame is. If you could choose only one frame (road) what
size would it be?
Inseam|in 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Inch |cm 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
27 |
27.5|
28 |X
28.5| X
29 |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
29.5| X X
30 | X XXX
30.5|
31 | X X X
31.5|
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
32 | XX
32.5|
33 | XXXX
33.5| X
34 | XX X
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
34.5|
35 | X
35.5| X X
36 | X X
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64
Looks pretty typical until you get to the 32-34 inseam group.
Do we tend to ride what fits us best or did a lot of us
adapt to the most common frames available, i.e., 23 Inch?
Keep them measurements coming in !
Jerry
|
| 1068.33 | | WITNES::HANNULA | Cat Tails & Bike Wheels Don't Mix | Fri Mar 31 1989 09:49 | 12 |
| SO's data for you:
Height: 6' 0"
Inseam: 32"
Frame: 57.25 cm.
In .9 I didn't give you my height, which is 5' 7.5"
(inseam is 29.5" frame is 21")
|
| 1068.34 | More DATA more DATA errrrrrrrr | CIMAMT::CHINNASWAMY | OH Bother! | Fri Mar 31 1989 10:16 | 13 |
|
Height: 6' 1"
Inseam: 33-34"
Frame size: 60 cm center to top. (don't know what it is CC)
I have the seat pretty high due to doctors recomendation for knees. But
I think I will need a shorter stem so I don't have to reach as much.
Mano
|
| 1068.35 | Yet more data... | BCSE::OROURKE | | Fri Mar 31 1989 14:25 | 6 |
|
Height: 5'8"
Inseam: 34"
Size: 56cm
|
| 1068.36 | | WLDWST::J_POLLARD | | Fri Mar 31 1989 17:32 | 4 |
| Height: 6'0"
Inseam: 34"
Frame: 58cm, plenty of seatpost showing, 172.5 cranks.
|
| 1068.37 | two more | HANNAH::PORCHER | Tom, Terminals Firmware/Software | Mon Apr 03 1989 09:53 | 10 |
| Me:
Inseam: 30"
Height: 5'11"
Frame: 23" (smaller frames usually have too short top tubes)
My wife:
Inseam: 31"
Height: 5'8"
Frame: 21"
--tom
|
| 1068.38 | more stats | IAMOK::WESTER | | Mon Apr 03 1989 10:41 | 3 |
| height: 5'8"
inseam: 30"
frame: 53cm c to c
|
| 1068.39 | Need Input | MCIS2::DELORIEA | Common sense isn't | Mon Apr 03 1989 11:19 | 5 |
|
height: 5'10"
inseam: 30"
frame: 54cm c to c
|
| 1068.40 | Mountain Bike | DELNI::S_HELMREICH | | Mon Apr 03 1989 14:33 | 11 |
|
For Mountain Bike
Ht. 5'11�"
Inseam 34
Frame 20.0"
I wanted a bit larger frame for more road riding; also tired of too-small
frames.
Steve
|
| 1068.41 | | ASIC::NBLIAMPTIS | multiprocessing as a way of life | Mon Apr 03 1989 15:12 | 4 |
|
height: 5' 9.5"
inseam: 31"
frame: 54.5 cm (racing)
|
| 1068.42 | All the votes in yet? | ICBB::JSMITH | I Bike Solo II | Mon Apr 03 1989 20:30 | 33 |
|
I think we have just about everyone now.
Inseam|in 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Inch |cm 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
27 |
27.5|
28 |X.
28.5| X.
29 | .
+---+---+---+.--+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
29.5| X. X
30 | X. XX XXX X
30.5| .
31 | X X . X X
31.5| .
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---.---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
32 | X. XX
32.5| .
33 | XXXX.
33.5| X . X
34 | X XXX .X
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+--.+---+---+---+---+
34.5| .
35 | X .
35.5| X X
36 | X . X
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+--.+
50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64
Ok...how many people were supprised at the results?
|
| 1068.43 | More charts anyone? | BANZAI::FISHER | Rdb/VMS Dinosaur | Tue Apr 04 1989 07:56 | 4 |
| Ok, let's do some new charts on crank-length, favorite chainwheel size,
freewheel size, and number of crashes.
ed
|
| 1068.44 | hold the press! | CSCMA::J_BUSH | | Tue Apr 04 1989 14:11 | 4 |
|
73"-34"-59cm
Jonathan
|
| 1068.45 | | MEO78B::SHERRATT | | Wed Apr 05 1989 00:52 | 6 |
| Height: 5'10.5" (that .5 is important)
Inseam: 32.5"" (to floor - it's no good taking pant length, we
tend to wear ours longer than typical USA fashion)
Frame size: 22.5" centre to centre.
|
| 1068.46 | Me too | PLAYER::MACFADYEN | Snail Killer | Wed Apr 05 1989 10:22 | 8 |
| Been meaning to do this for a while...
height : 5'11�" 1.82m
inside leg: 32"
frame size: 23�" 59cm
Rod
|
| 1068.47 | Two more | DUB01::OSULLIVAN | | Wed Apr 12 1989 10:08 | 13 |
| Those weeks out of the office are a killer when it comes to keeping
up wit this file.
HT 5' 6.5"
inseam 29"
frame 53cm
my wife
5' 4"
inseam 28"
frame 52cm
|
| 1068.48 | the other end of the graph | ICBB::GAWRONSKI | Pedaling is my way | Thu Apr 13 1989 12:06 | 17 |
|
Jerry,
Now you need to add one more data point to your graph on
the other end of the spectrum!
Height 5'2"
Inseam 27"
top tube 19.3" (49cm)
seat tube 18.5" (47cm)
Laura
|
| 1068.49 | | THOM::LANGLOIS | DT Data Networks | Fri Apr 21 1989 11:37 | 18 |
|
Height: 6'2"
Inseam: 34"
Frame: 25" (8 year old Fuji Royale)
Only the second bike I've owned as an adult so I can't really compare
it to anything else. Never ridden anyone else's. It's felt good
for 8 years though and I was on a training run with an ex-professional
racer once and he said I had good form while riding the bike (while
5 year olds on Big Wheels are blowing by me, :^)) and that it looked
like it fit me well, whatever that's worth. I'd be interested in
getting Fit-kit'd though to see what they say. I have long arms
(35" sleeve) so I suppose that would factor in.
Thom...
Thom...
|