That's a long way to fallMost bikes fall into the too small category for me. I'm a tad over 6'5", and on my vintage steel bikes (24.5") I have around 5" of seatpost showing. I use 400mm seatposts on pretty much all my bikes and even with 175mm cranks that's barely enough.
I'm just over 6ft, I prefer 24-25inch frames. Most new bikes seem too small, it's not just the frame size, it's the geometry. With an extended stem I feel like I'm too far over the front wheel.
Very true.One of my bikes is 19.5 inch and another 57cm (almost 22 and a half inches) - both are fine. Someone suggested that the first bike was too small for me and that there was too much seatpost exposed but I have checked and it is fine - has been for 20 years.A lot of bollox used to be talked about frame sizing, with riders endlessly pondering about whether they should get a 22. 1/2" or a 23" frame. In truth most of us could easily cope with a 3" tolerance with no difference at all, as long as post adjustment and stem size put you in your ideal position.
I'm 5'2" and my bikes look absolutely diddy compared to most others.
Which is excellent reasoning except for two small flaws: 1. A lot of people who cycle gave up on sports because most sports are an excuse for thugs to kick lumps out of you; 2. cycling isn't necessarily a sport.Thinking about it, it's possible that most people who are into athletic pursuits are taller than average because they performed them more easily as children due to being taller, stronger etc. And so didn't give up on sports at a young age. Before I get shot down in flames , obviously shorthouses are good at sports too.
Which is excellent reasoning except for two small flaws: 1. A lot of people who cycle gave up on sports because most sports are an excuse for thugs to kick lumps out of you; 2. cycling isn't necessarily a sport.