Oddball
New Member
- Location
- Manchester, UK
I'm currently looking at a racing bike which has a 51cm frame size. Me being 6'1", 34inch leg, would this be too small?
Cheers
Cheers
Frame size
- Thread starter Oddball
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Nick1979
New Member
- Location
- London (SW11)
Almost certainly! But it's difficult to be sure in advance, as sizing is different amongst brands/frames, you have to try really. But I'm afraid 51cm for 6'1" is definitively too small.
OP
OP
Oddball
New Member
- Location
- Manchester, UK
Thanks Nick
I am 6 ft and ride a 56cm and a 57cm bike. I think you need to look at the 56 - 58 cm bracket. Final fit will depend on a number of factors. You can extend reach and saddle height, but eventually your saddle height to bar height would be out of proportion so in my opinion the 51 cm is for the vertically challenged cyclist.
first thing is be sure what 51cm refers to.
'Frame size' usually refers to the top tube length. At 6'1" a 58cm would probably be in the right ball-park.
51cm as a seat-tube lengthg is completely different. If it's a compact frame then a 51 ST probably equates to a 56 TT. As rich P says, depends how it's measured though
'Frame size' usually refers to the top tube length. At 6'1" a 58cm would probably be in the right ball-park.
51cm as a seat-tube lengthg is completely different. If it's a compact frame then a 51 ST probably equates to a 56 TT. As rich P says, depends how it's measured though
mickle
innit
- Location
- 53.933606, -1.076131
The universal frame sizing system is woefully out of date. The only time it really made sense was after most quality manufacturers adopted Eddy Mercxes' 'square' frame design (where the top tube length matched the seat tube length). Now that compact frame have been thrown into the mix it's become a minefield. How this for lunacy? We did this on Spandexes Paddy Wagon recently. To establish the frame size we had to measure from the centre of the bottom bracket to a horizontal line projected from the top of the head-tube. ie measuring to a point in mid air as far as the frame itself is concerned.
Frames are described using the seat tube dimension, which is area of the bike with the most adjustment, on a mountain bike for example the range of adjustment can be eight inches or more. The length of the seat tube is totally irrelevant.
The critical dimension is reach, a combination of top tube length and stem length, I buy my bikes for their top tube dimension, it matters not where the top tube is as long as I have enough stand-over clearance, whether that's two inches or twenty two inches doesn't matter so long as the frame is designed to accept a seatpost long enough to reach my saddle.
Frames are described using the seat tube dimension, which is area of the bike with the most adjustment, on a mountain bike for example the range of adjustment can be eight inches or more. The length of the seat tube is totally irrelevant.
The critical dimension is reach, a combination of top tube length and stem length, I buy my bikes for their top tube dimension, it matters not where the top tube is as long as I have enough stand-over clearance, whether that's two inches or twenty two inches doesn't matter so long as the frame is designed to accept a seatpost long enough to reach my saddle.
I am 5' 8.5'' and not very flexible.I have a 55cm Pinarello, which fitted me better (straight out of the box) than the 56cm Trek I had previously, which was too small. All I had to do in order to get the Pinarello perfect, was to fit a 100mm stem instead of the original 120mm item. Using the wrenchscience.com fitting system, I should be riding a 53 or 54cm frame tops, but I have found that this size is definitely too small on the couple of bikes I have tried.
Moral: Sizing a bike is very personal and not a precise science. It takes a bit of time and luck to get right.
Moral: Sizing a bike is very personal and not a precise science. It takes a bit of time and luck to get right.
Totally agree with Mickle. It's about time the bike industry got their fingers out their arses and stopped using seat tubes to size bikes. It means nothing. One manufacturers 56 is anothers 60.
At 6'1" you're about an inch shorter than me and I ride anything between a 57 and 60. Top tube length is the most important measurement and I'd guess you'd be looking at something between 56.5 and 58.5. At the moment I ride a 60cm with 58.5 top tube with a 110 stem but I've got wee legs and a big body. I could have gone down a size and used a longer stem but the head tube length would have been too short meaning I was bent over too much and I've never been a fan of stems that point upwards.
Aim to get your reach right and you can't go wrong no matter how the bike measurement is taken.
At 6'1" you're about an inch shorter than me and I ride anything between a 57 and 60. Top tube length is the most important measurement and I'd guess you'd be looking at something between 56.5 and 58.5. At the moment I ride a 60cm with 58.5 top tube with a 110 stem but I've got wee legs and a big body. I could have gone down a size and used a longer stem but the head tube length would have been too short meaning I was bent over too much and I've never been a fan of stems that point upwards.
Aim to get your reach right and you can't go wrong no matter how the bike measurement is taken.
Bigtallfatbloke
New Member
6'4" here and currently on a 64cm frame...which is probably a bit big for me...a 61cm is probably more 'me'.
