I'm 5'10" in bare feet on a level, hard surface, but I have an Asian build so my legs are definitely shorter than yours, since my saddles are about 73 cm high from the center of the spindle.. I have been sized for a 60 but generally prefer 57s or 58s depending on the height of the head tube. But with a non-extended head tube and a non-sloping tt, and if i wanted my bars level, I'd probably opt for a 60. But my 57 and 58 Riv customs have sloping tts and extended heads, and I can get the bars plenty high using normal stems.
A stock 60 would have a longer tt than I care for -- I like 56-57 effective and I would guess that a 60 would have about a 59 cm tt -- but then I like my bars low. If your arms are Anglo in length like your legs, and you want your bars level with saddle, a 59-60 cm tt might be fine. On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 12:49 PM, jim g <yoj...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I'm trying to figure out the right frame size for a possible next > bike-project. I want a "Rivendell fit" with bars about level with > saddle, and somewhere around "a fistful" of seatpost showing. I'm > about 5ft 10in tall; PBH is 86cm in bare feet, 87cm in my SPD bike > shoes; preferred crank length is 172.5 or 175mm. Saddle height on > current bike is comfortable at ~77cm. > > I'm reading Riv's fit guidelines at > http://www.rivbike.com/article/bike_fit/choosing_a_frame_size and am > finding some confusing points. Starting from "How to Size any Bike, > Including Ours", they use an example PBH of 85cm, and suggest that a > corresponding saddle height is 75cm -- or 10cm less than the PBH. So > far, I'm OK with that: my saddle height is around 10cm less than my > PBH (especially accounting for my shoes). > > Next Riv suggests that a good bike size is saddle height minus 15cm. > In my case, that's 86cm - 15cm = 61cm, or accounting for shoes, 87cm - > 15cm = 62cm. Again, I'm in agreement with that: Most non-Riv 62cm > frames I've straddled have been a bit "snug" but not overly so in > standover height -- that is to say, the top tube touches but not > dangerously so. And I could definitely fit on a 60cm frame, but I'd > need a taller quill stem, or some extra spacers in a threadless setup, > and of course there'd be more seatpost showing. > > Now, on to the next section on Riv's page: "Sizing Rivendells (the > bikes we design)".... If you look at the frame-size chart they > provide, for 86-87cm PBH measurements, they recommend 59-61cm frame > sizes! Here's where I'm confused -- most Riv frames have a lower BB > than a typical/average frame, up to 1cm lower. Most of Riv's sizing > theory says something like "you can straddle a bigger one-of-our-bikes > than one-of-theirs", so I've always thought that a correct Riv size > would be 1cm larger than a "typical" frame size (and by typical frame > I mean 1980's UJB steel frame or similar). Taking the previous frame > size result of 61-62cm, that'd put me on a 62-63cm Riv. HOWEVER that > chart points to a 59-61cm Riv frame for my body size -- which is > SMALLER than the first recommended "normal" size, and frankly sounds > too small! > > For example, the 61cm AHH has an 8cm BB drop and standover is just > under 87cm -- that'd maybe be slightly too big for me (no clearance, > since it's the same as my shod PBH). I guess the "Riv Size = usual > size + 1cm" formula doesn't directly apply to the AHH because the > larger tires cancel out the added BB drop? The 59cm AHH frame has > 85cm of standover, which seems about right (about an inch of PB/TT > clearance)...BUT a friend of mine rides this size, and he's always > been on shorter/smaller bikes than me...so a 59cm sounds too small > somehow. > > In contrast, the 61cm Atlantis has a standover of 85cm, so that'd fit > me with the right clearance. Why that frame would fit but the > same-size AHH wouldn't, isn't clear to me -- looking at their > geometries, both have the same BB drop, similar size tires, the same > seat-tube angle, and both have slightly-sloping top tubes. > > The Legolas frame is more typical since it has a standard 70mm BB > drop. (Ignoring the fact that it's intended as a CX bike, which might > indicate more-than-usual SO clearance) I could ride a 62cm size since > its standover is 86.2, but clearance might be tight. The next smaller > size is 59cm with 84.3cm standover. > > The Quickbeam frame is also fairly "normal" with a 73mm BB drop. The > 62cm frame size has a standover of nearly 87cm (too big), but the 60cm > size's SO is about 85cm. > > Now let's compare those data points with a fairly typical non-Riv > steel frame: A Surly Pacer (level top tube, 72.5-degree seat tube > angle, 72mm BB drop). The 62cm frame size has a standover measurement > of just under 86cm, and the 60cm size's SO is 84cm (based on 700x25mm > tires). Riv's Rambouillet frame has similar values at the same sizes. > > Overall, it sounds like I could ride a bigger Pacer frame than most > Rivendell frames -- which seems utterly counter-intuitive to me, since > most Riv frames have lower BBs! > > If anyone has a PBH of 86-87cm, I'd be very interested to hear what > size frame(s) you've chosen (both Riv and non-Riv) and why. > > Thanks! > -Jim G > > > > -- Patrick Moore Albuquerque, NM Professional Resumes. Contact resumespecialt...@gmail.com --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
