Are we all riding bikes which are too small - take two

[2manyoranges]

Right...I look at the Cotic 26 soul website and at 5foot7 I should be on a small. But when I slung my leg over my son’s small Cotic Soul it felt like a bmx bike. Ok so it’s got a 30mm stem on it but the cockpit in TINY. So I picked up a medium on fleabay and it fits like a glove. But even then it’s smaller in reach than some of my other xc builds. The Ragley Marley 26 small is rated on their website as up to 5foot8 and that’s the same size as the soul medium. Ok maybe it’s just that Cotic has it wrong. But increasingly I go back to bikes in the barn which I though were right and they are SO small - with mahooosive stems hanging out front - 130-140mm jobs not uncommon. No wonder I used to be terrified of faceplanting when descending steep single track. The bikes are all 15-16 C to c, B.B. to TT size and really did feel right when I made them up over the last two decades. Oh how things change....is nothing sacred?

 

[The History Man]

no. I'm not.

 

[2manyoranges]

Re:

Well, I’m glad that’s clear.

 

[legrandefromage]

I'm not either and so's my wife.

I'm sparticus.

Mind you, I comfortably ride road bikes with 58 to 63cm frame sizes.

*New frames are built around long suspension forks. It buggers the fork rail so shorter stems are used with wider and wider bars. New bikes have got longer and slacker.

 

[The History Man]

Just like my six pack.

 

[tintin40]

At 21'' i'm not either. Perhaps to big? As i'm only 5.8 tall. But doesn't matter with a Trimble as no top tube.

 

[Anonymous]

There's a lot of yatter in the MTB world at the moment about frame size and the S / M / L thing. There's a couple of brands where the difference in seat tube length is minimal but the length of the top tube changes quite dramatically. I find this really interesting as I'm 6' tall but only have a 29" inside leg so I end up riding a medium frame to fit my legs but have a stupidly long stem stuck out the front to accommodate my long torso.

I think it was On One who reckon we should all be on something like 16-18" seat tubes but the length of the frame should change depending on the rider size. The materials now are so good that a 400mm seatpost isn't at too much risk unless your a proper Clydesdale sized rider.

The downside to frame size being determined by length rather than height is you lose an easily measurable feature in the frame geometry and start to size frames by what is essentially an intangible.

 

[mk one]

Cows, apparently!

Comparing older frames to newer ones doesnt work. Totally different in both geo and intended purpose/components etc

Your old bikes were xc bikes, the ones you keep quoting are trail bikes, its like saying a dh bike is a lot more squishy than you old bikes used to be

 

[mattr]

The downside to frame size being determined by length rather than height is you lose an easily measurable feature in the frame geometry and start to size frames by what is essentially an intangible.

Stack and reach, which is what the road world has been doing for ~10 years, that works and requires minimal input at the design stage. Bit tricky with suspension forks, but not an insurmountable problem. And TBH the length of a frame has been gaining importance within the road racing fraternity for a long long time. Since before i quit racing (so at least 20 years).

I suspect what many are finding is they've actually bought the wrong frame for what they want to do. Or are using an old school frame for stuff it was never really geared up for.

At least in some respects, road manufacturers are way ahead of the MTB curve.

 

[mk one]

^^^ surely there are variable length top tubes for the different events in road cycling, touring, long distance racing and tt etc?

same as mtb, you need to establish what you intend to do with the bike first and find frames built for just that purpose.