Every time this topic of proper frame size comes up it takes me back to the early 70's when I was just beginning to get serious about riding. I am 5' 9", but have a SOH of about 30.5" (in theory, I should either be about 6' tall, given the length of my torso; or maybe 5' 6" or 7", given the leg length. But my ancestors were a bunch of bandy-legged farmers on one side and 6' 2" on the other and I got an interesting mix of both). Anyway, back then the only "common" frame sizes from most LBS's were the well-known 21", 23" & 25" (sort of 53.5, 58.5, & 63.5cm). My first couple of bikes were 23", because I let the LBS's talk me into them. You want a larger frame so you can "stretch out" more, they said. Well, they were miserable to ride and, worst of all, I kept buying shorter and shorter stems because the TT's were just too darn long. And I could barely stand over them on tip- toes, definitely not with feet flat on the ground.
Then, I bought a better quality bike that came in "half sizes" in about 1977 set up with a 22" frame. This was better (about 56cm), but not quite perfect. Finally, in the late 70's I got a custom made frame in 54cm, built the bike up with top-of-the-line components and had never been happier - it was a great ride. Unfortunately, I had to sell it in the early 80's for economic reasons, but later bought a used Fuji Finest in 21" and rode it through several decades, finally settling on a 54cm Rambouillet in 2004, which is a bike I wish I would have owned during the entire time. In the final analysis, I don't agree with Grant's hard and fast rule about erring to the next largest frame size. We all come with different builds, proportions, and even flexibility. Moreover, since Riv now offers frames with mildly sloping TT's and extended head tubes you can get the bars up to a comfortable height without having to go to the next largest size. I'd say, if possible, ride one of the smaller ones for a while, see how you like it. You may be glad you did. On Jan 22, 10:41 am, JimP <thefamil...@gmail.com> wrote: > I have a Sma Hillborne which I absolutely Love. It is the best > bicycle I have ever owned. Orange frame, Cream Delta Cruisers and > Honjo hammered fenders. A Magnificent and Functional work of Art. > > I can't help but think about another Rivendell at some point, > perhaps an A. Homer Hilson or Atlantis. The question becomes whether > or not to get a smaller frame. > > When I ordered my Sam I did the best I could with measurements and > read that most people buy frames too small for them. I ended up buying > a 56 cm Sam with 700 tires. It feels great when I am riding BUT, when > I stand over the top bar I am right on it, and I mean right on it. I > lean the bike over when I get on, but at stoplights I do fine with one > foot (toe) down. That suggests I should have gotten the 54 but the > bike feels great when I am riding. I guess that shows you can adjust > seat height and saddle position and come up with a bike that "fits" > while mounted even IF it is too large. > > So, if I ordered an AHH would you recommend a smaller frame? If so, > what effect would there be, if any, moving back and forth between a 56 > Sam and a 54 AHH? > > Thanks for any thoughts. > > best, > > JimP -- 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.
