# Frame size. Beginner's mistake.



## lelek45 (May 4, 2009)

Last time I used bike was 20 years ago... (I'm 40 now). But last weekend, suddenly, I decided to buy a bike right now, before stores get closed, so I hadn't time to research the internet, etc. and just went to a first, respective looking, store and bought a bike. I know, this is a bad thing to do in general, but... anyway, I did it.

I wanted a beginner, basic, mountain bike for riding off road (and on, as well), no mountains in my area unfortunately, forest, etc, not extreme things. I'm absolute beginner except of several years of experience in childhood, so I know how to ride bike well, but I cannot make a wheelie, or jump with both wheels over obstacles.

Sale person recommended me this one: Trek 4300 ... and now, after finally I made some research, I came to conclusion, that the frame size is to big for me. I'm 185 cm height with inseam 92cm. The frame I got was 22.5 inch (57cm). I know, if I would apply road bikes rules, the frame size is correct, but for mountain biking, I should get much smaller size(around 18-19 inch).

The problem is that I feel more comfortable on this frame on flat road, I can ride faster, easier, but it is definitely not so comfortable for climbing, and off-road... simply because I have only 2 cm of clearance, which is not good by itself, regardless comfort on the road... what is that? Wrong geometry for me?

The question is, if I would sell this bike, and buy instead bike of 18-19 inch size - it will be definitely better for safety and off-road riding, but I feel, in the same time it will be worse for a long flat trails, which are actually more often happen.

What should I do?

P.S. I have 11 cm seat tube extension on my bike and 12 cm steam (which I feel is too long, but I might be wrong).

BTW! I usually see people on bikes (mtb) with 25-40cm seat tube extensions. So, it seems that they have much smaller, related to their heights, frames then me. Is it correct? For me it seems that long tube will reduce the stiffness of the construction significantly... and the stiffness of the frame is what we all trying to achieve, isn't it? Or I don't understand something...

EDIT: Pictures attached...


__
https://flic.kr/p/3515841689


__
https://flic.kr/p/3516653270


__
https://flic.kr/p/3515841425


__
https://flic.kr/p/3516653074


__
https://flic.kr/p/3516652990


__
https://flic.kr/p/3516652878


----------



## JimC. (Dec 30, 2003)

*How to fit a bike...*

sitting on the bike, rear end in saddle, hands on the bars, you should feel comfortable as in...not too upright, and not too far forward with weight on hands. The store should fit you. I calculate you at 6'2" and a 36" inseam, so it might be close to a good fit.

The frame size is a guide, each bike and mfr can be different, just like shoes.

When riding long stretches or MTB trails, the frame size and Top Tube length do NOT differ.

The store that sold you the bike should, as part of purchase price, ensure the bike fits you correctly, go back and ask them to help.

Jim


----------



## Dragos (Apr 13, 2009)

That sux that you bought it from the store and they didn't make sure you felt comfortable on it. For me is one of the "i made my bed, i sleep in it" type of thing. I bought my bike online and people here said that it is better to go to a LBS and get fitted especially for the first time getting into this sport ride a few bikes, different frames different heights see which one feels better. I didn't and I wish I did. My reason was because I didn't have the extra money to buy the bike that i bought now that would have the same parts.

The info on my bike said its for heights between 5'9" to 6'1" a 19" frame. I am 6" so i thought that is perfect. It may for for what i know but i'm a little worried that it might be on the big side and i should have probably went for a 17" because when i just have my feet on the ground and the bike between my feet not on the seat post the frame almost touches my groin area (dont know how else to put it lol). So i'm afraid that i'm going to fall once and i will probably in a world of pain. 

Out of all this i learned my lesson next bike i will buy a bike it will be from a LBS and i will try a bunch of them before i buy it and make sure i fell comfortable/safe.


----------



## Swannyboy (Apr 19, 2008)

I purchased a Trek 4300 as my first bike 1.5 yrs ago also. I am 6'3" (190.5cm) with a 89 cm inseam and purchased a 22.5 frame size also. I rode both the large (20in) and XL & felt like I was in a more comfortable riding position on the XL. The bike was harder to use at first on technical single track but after lowering the seat a little and learning to use my body more in tune with the bike I was fine. Although I now have a FS bike that is slightly shorter in the top tube and find it much easier to throw around. * In the end though it is what is comfortable for you*. I agree with JimC, if you are uncomfortable go back to the LBS and have them help you fit to the correct frame.


----------



## lelek45 (May 4, 2009)

JimC. said:


> sitting on the bike, rear end in saddle, hands on the bars, you should feel comfortable as in...not too upright, and not too far forward with weight on hands. The store should fit you. I calculate you at 6'2" and a 36" inseam, so it might be close to a good fit.


Thank you for so quick reply! 
I feel very comfortable, but not relaxed (like on the city bike). It is hard to measure the level of comfortability. After a long ride I feel some pain in my wrists, but that might be MY problem, not the bike. I can post the pictures. Will it help?



> When riding long stretches or MTB trails, the frame size and Top Tube length do NOT differ.


This is exactly what I don't understand. I read a lot of guides telling that for road bikes, clearance should be 1-2 inches, while for MTB, it should be at least 3-4, just for safety reasons, in case you fall down. In my case, I feel that top tube lenght is perfect, but heght, can be a couple of inches lower. Meaning, that frame design, in my opinion, shoud be stretched on the horizontal axis....It doesn't bother me on the road, but I afraid to fall down on climbing, and meet the top tube... again, may be I'm wrong....



> The store that sold you the bike should, as part of purchase price, ensure the bike fits you correctly, go back and ask them to help.


I came back to the store, and the sale person told me that, from his opinion, the size is correct... I'm kind of bielieve him, but anyway... Salesmans usually try to sell the stuff that is hard to sell... therefore I'm asking here, just to have second opinion.


----------



## lelek45 (May 4, 2009)

Dragos said:


> The info on my bike said its for heights between 5'9" to 6'1" a 19" frame. I am 6" so i thought that is perfect. It may for for what i know but i'm a little worried that it might be on the big side and i should have probably went for a 17" because when i just have my feet on the ground and the bike between my feet not on the seat post the frame almost touches my groin area (dont know how else to put it lol). So i'm afraid that i'm going to fall once and i will probably in a world of pain.


Yes, this is exactly the same case for me. BTW, later, I tried a 17.5 inch Trek, and it was quite OK as well. So, I can ride from 17 - 22.5 inches frames and they all feel OK, but I really don't know which one is right. Testing doesn't help me, since I'm newbie, and I simply don't know what is right...


----------



## simian23 (Aug 13, 2004)

Well, the short answer is yes, the bike is too big for you, and it will be very uncomfortable for longer rides on trails. As the terrain becomes harder you will have a hard time controlling the bike because you are so high off the ground. You do have a very long inseam for your height though. Maybe that is why they thought you needed the larger size? The 19" might be too small...21" should be just right. 2cm clearance is far too little. 5cm should be the minimum.

Mountain bikes used to be like road bikes, except the frames and wheels were heavier. In the last 10 years though, there have been several changes:

1. Head tube angles have become steeper - this means riders sit more upright, and the front wheel is further forward of the frame, making the bike more stable on steep descents

2. Top tubes are steeply sloped. This makes seat tubes very short, which is why you are seeing those long seat tube extensions (really, these are the seat posts attached to the saddle). This also means sizing by seat tube length (22.5" in your case) is becoming less common - now we see small, medium, large, X-large, etc. The top tubes are steeply sloped to improve "standover," making it easier and safer to mount and dismount in difficult terrain, as well as giving more room to maneuver without breaking your Eier.

3. Stems are shorter now. Your 120mm stem is not strange, but most people use stems of 80 - 110mm now. This, along with the steep head angle, gives quicker steering and a more relaxed riding position.

To help understand all the bike terms, here is a diagram:










I am quite surprised the shop sold you a bike you are too big for, but if you bring the bike back and say you are uncomfortable, they should change it for you. I realize such things can be more difficult in Germany though...I lived in Austria for a while and I soon learned that unlike the US, the customer is not always right. Good luck!


----------



## lelek45 (May 4, 2009)

Swannyboy said:


> I purchased a Trek 4300 as my first bike 1.5 yrs ago also. I am 6'3" (190.5cm) with a 89 cm inseam and purchased a 22.5 frame size also. I rode both the large (20in) and XL & felt like I was in a more comfortable riding position on the XL. The bike was harder to use at first on technical single track but after lowering the seat a little and learning to use my body more in tune with the bike I was fine. Although I now have a FS bike that is slightly shorter in the top tube and find it much easier to throw around. * In the end though it is what is comfortable for you*. I agree with JimC, if you are uncomfortable go back to the LBS and have them help you fit to the correct frame.


Thanks a lot! We are quite similar in size.
What is the seat tube extention heght and steam lenght on your bike? And what is the clearance size, as well?


----------



## lelek45 (May 4, 2009)

simian23 said:


> Well, the short answer is yes, the bike is too big for you, and it will be very uncomfortable for longer rides on trails. As the terrain becomes harder you will have a hard time controlling the bike because you are so high off the ground. You do have a very long inseam for your height though. Maybe that is why they thought you needed the larger size? The 19" might be too small...21" should be just right. 2cm clearance is far too little. 5cm should be the minimum.
> 
> Mountain bikes used to be like road bikes, except the frames and wheels were heavier. In the last 10 years though, there have been several changes:
> 
> ...


THANKS! 
this is what I actually expected to hear. I don't think I can bring it back to the store, because i had around 70 km on it, but I can always sell it with 100-150 EUR loss(plus some headache), which is better then riding a whrong size bike, anyway.


----------



## Swannyboy (Apr 19, 2008)

lelek45 said:


> Thanks a lot! We are quite similar in size.
> What is the seat tube extention heght and steam lenght on your bike? And what is the clearance size, as well?


The height I have my seat at varies by difficulty of terrain. Currently it is 16cm from seat post clamp to the bottom of seat clamp. But that may be lower than normal. I also changed out the stem for a 100mm - 8 degree rise Specialized stem when I switched to the Bontrager Big Earl 40mm rise bars. Switching these sat me upright just a little more making it more comfortable on longer rides. As for stand over height I am afraid I can't get that as my bike is sitting in the shop without wheels, I switched the originals out for a set of Mavic Crossride's and my wife is currently borrowing them for her Marlin...


----------



## Bikinfoolferlife (Feb 3, 2004)

Top tube clearance is overrated, usually plays to guys fears about the family jewels than any actual need. In many cases on trail even extra clearance isn't really going to really help if the ground isn't flat...and in most cases you've got an emergency dismount it isn't flat...

I can't believe you fit well on a 43cm bike. I'm 1.77m and use mostly 46-48 cm mountain bike frames (57-58 cm road bike). Some do like a small frame to flick around like they did when riding bmx or when jumping and doing stunts and such but for regular mountain riding I'd think you'd be more comfortable on larger frames. While the 57cm does seem too large, I'd think a 48-53 cm frame range is more reasonable. 

Measuring by seattube alone though isn't what I use, my top tube measurement is more important plus what stem I plan to use (my top tubes are in the 57-59 range on the mountain bikes, usually a 6-8 cm stem length but with 0-10' rise and low or no rise bars).


----------



## lelek45 (May 4, 2009)

Bikinfoolferlife said:


> I can't believe you fit well on a 43cm bike.


I'm more upright on it, which is comfortable, but again, I really don't know what is proper fit, and I could not ride on it outside. The store had internal small testing area.


> While the 57cm does seem too large, I'd think a 48-53 cm frame range is more reasonable.


Ok, I got it, I most likely, need 1 step smaller frame (20-21). But not 18-19.


> Measuring by seattube alone though isn't what I use, my top tube measurement is more important plus what stem I plan to use (my top tubes are in the 57-59 range on the mountain bikes, usually a 6-8 cm stem length but with 0-10' rise and low or no rise bars).


If I replace the steam with shorter one, or 0cm steam(does it exist?), will it help to fit size for me, or not? Of course I realize , that it will not help with clearance issue, but if it's not that important...

How you measure your top tube (57-59)? As I understand with rising saddle tube you increase the horizontal distance between center of the saddle and handlebar.


----------



## JimC. (Dec 30, 2003)

*more stuff...*

here's what the top tube really is:









a shorter stem might help, they come in sizes down to 50mm I believe, but the shop should let you try one before you buy one.

Jim


----------



## lelek45 (May 4, 2009)

JimC. said:


> here's what the top tube really is:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Thanks!

I have 60.5 top tube (my height is 183). So if Bikinfoolferlife has 57-59 with height of 177, mine seem to be fine, compared to him.


----------



## tmcq (Mar 2, 2009)

*Size it up yourself, before you do anything*

Recently I purchased bikes for both of my sons. The shops did the following simple, but intuitive tests for proper size. (for both of my "still growing" sons, we bought a bit big)

1. Set your saddle height so that your leg is just slightly bent with the pedal at the bottom of it's cycle. (leg angle perhaps 175 deg.)
2. Have someone hold the bike up for you and pedal backwards. Check the position of your upper leg when the pedal is at the top of the cycle. It should not come quite to parallel with the ground - knee just a bit lower than the waist.

If your upper leg does not get anywhere close to parallel with the ground, the frame is too big. If your upper leg becomes parallel or even angles up somewhat the frame is too small.

Next - Check your knee clearance with the handlebars, and the comfort of your reach. You can adjust this longer or shorter through stem length - handlebar rise - handlebar width (larger width will lean you more forward as you are reaching farther out).

Don't worry too much about standover height...it doesn't sound to me like the bike is too high - so as to be dangerous (not being able to control it into a stop)


----------



## poomee (Jan 18, 2009)

thanks for your advice


----------



## lelek45 (May 4, 2009)

tmcq said:


> 1. Set your saddle height so that your leg is just slightly bent with the pedal at the bottom of it's cycle. (leg angle perhaps 175 deg.)
> 2. Have someone hold the bike up for you and pedal backwards. Check the position of your upper leg when the pedal is at the top of the cycle. It should not come quite to parallel with the ground - knee just a bit lower than the waist.
> 
> If your upper leg does not get anywhere close to parallel with the ground, the frame is too big. If your upper leg becomes parallel or even angles up somewhat the frame is too small.


It is about 10-20 degree close to parallel, but it still not. Hmmm, according to this test frame is definitely not big. But It seems to me that angle between leg in upper position and ground, depends only on saddle height, not the frame size.... Am I missing something?


----------



## Bikinfoolferlife (Feb 3, 2004)

lelek45 said:


> I'm more upright on it, which is comfortable, but again, I really don't know what is proper fit, and I could not ride on it outside. The store had internal small testing area.
> 
> Ok, I got it, I most likely, need 1 step smaller frame (20-21). But not 18-19.
> 
> ...


Upright is one thing sitting still, completely different pedaling and maneuvering. The shop doesn't even let you take it for a short spin up and down the street? Best way to test a bike is on trail, I know it's a bit late but next time try and line up a demo in real conditions if possible.

I'm just guessing as to what frame size based on your height, and not all sizes are quoted by the manufacturers using the same method of measurement either. Don't forget it's not just your height/leg length, but your torso and arm length come into play as well. While the starting point for measuring bike "size" is the center of the intersection of the seat tube and bottom bracket (center of your crank spindle in other words), the ending point can be the top of the seat tube, the center of the intersection with the top tube, or even the center of the intersection with the effective top tube. Look at the manufacturer's website to see what method they use.

My top tube numbers are the effective top tube (well, except my road bike, no need there). There are such things as 0cm stems but that's extreme, usually for a dh setup; I think of my 6 cm stem as short. Personally I'm most comfortable with a somewhat upright position using a longish top tube and somewhat short stem with my bars and saddle near each other in height; a contrast to when I was much younger and xc racing setups were the norm when being fit to a bike, with long and low racing position, saddle a few inches above bars and with a bit shorter top tube and longer stem.


----------



## JimC. (Dec 30, 2003)

*everybody's different...*

I'm almost 5 inches shorter than you, and ride with a 24" top tube which is longer than your 60.5 cm. (I have short legs and a long torso).

It all boils down to how it feels to _you_...just like new shoes. You must keep trying and fiddling until it's right for you.

Good luck, Jim


----------



## lelek45 (May 4, 2009)

Thanks a lot for everybody! I just managed to get a side pictures of me riding the bike. May be it will make things more clear. I should do it from the begining...


__
https://flic.kr/p/3515841689


__
https://flic.kr/p/3516653270


__
https://flic.kr/p/3515841425


__
https://flic.kr/p/3516653074


__
https://flic.kr/p/3516652990


__
https://flic.kr/p/3516652878


----------



## simian23 (Aug 13, 2004)

Interesting. Weird. I don't see any reason for the 21 or 22.5 inch frames to exist at all, based on the photos and Trek's measurements on their website.

Between the 19.5 and 22.5 inch frames, the top tube is less than an inch longer, and the seat tube is .5 degrees slacker. Most of the increase in frame size is oriented "up" but not "out." What kind of freak did they design this for - a tyrannosaurs rex (tiny arms, long legs)?

You would be way better off on the 19.5 or at least the 21 with just a longer seat post (400mm or so) and a longer stem (110 - 120mm). That way you can keep the seat high when you are pedaling on the road and lower it for more technical mountain biking. Your initial assessment was correct - most mountain bikers show more seat post, and this is the reason why.


----------



## lelek45 (May 4, 2009)

simian23 said:


> Interesting. Weird. I don't see any reason for the 21 or 22.5 inch frames to exist at all, based on the photos and Trek's measurements on their website.
> 
> Between the 19.5 and 22.5 inch frames, the top tube is less than an inch longer, and the seat tube is .5 degrees slacker. Most of the increase in frame size is oriented "up" but not "out." What kind of freak did they design this for - a tyrannosaurs rex (tiny arms, long legs)?
> 
> You would be way better off on the 19.5 or at least the 21 with just a longer seat post (400mm or so) and a longer stem (110 - 120mm). That way you can keep the seat high when you are pedaling on the road and lower it for more technical mountain biking. Your initial assessment was correct - most mountain bikers show more seat post, and this is the reason why.


Well, not exactly. What I can see here:

http://www.trekbikes.com/uk/en/bikes/mountain_hardtail/4_series/4300/

Top tube of 19.5 = 58.5
Top tube of 22.5 = 60.5

2 inches diference. But anyway, I feel this geometry is somehow wrong to me. As you can see on the pictures, top tube lenght seems to be OK, since I'm sitting quite upright (correct me if I wrong), but heght seem to be too much even for me (and I have longer then average inseam), so it is really wierd for whom they designed it... or my body is totally wrong proportioned....

If I would get 19.5, (which I didn't test, because store didn't have it), I would have 2 inches less top tube, which I don't really want.

It seems to be that I need to try "genesis geometry", what do you think? 
Gary Fisher, Canondalle F5....?


----------



## simian23 (Aug 13, 2004)

lelek45 said:


> Well, not exactly. What I can see here:
> 
> http://www.trekbikes.com/uk/en/bikes/mountain_hardtail/4_series/4300/
> 
> ...


You are getting confused. Look again. 19.5 =/ 58.5.

23 = 58.5 and 23.8 = 60.5. Difference of 2cm = .8 inches!


----------



## lelek45 (May 4, 2009)

simian23 said:


> You are getting confused. Look again. 19.5 =/ 58.5.
> 
> 23 = 58.5 and 23.8 = 60.5. Difference of 2cm = .8 inches!


You are right, sorry, I messed up with inches/centimeters.


----------



## lelek45 (May 4, 2009)

Just found nice 19.5 inch frame from Trek 4300 on ebay. I will try to get it, and then replace my frame.


----------



## ogatec (May 9, 2009)

im in the same boat as OP, i think its a guy thing to over-estimate their size..  

i am 5'10" but i guess i have short legs. i picket out a 18" bike and it just barley clears my "package", i would have been better off with a 16". i think i will ride this 1 for a while until i find a bike with a perfect fit.

just seems wierd because i tried a few different bike brands @ different times. i tried a 16" hybrid and it seemed WAY too small(banged knees on handlebars), i also tried a 18" trek 800, which seemed a little short. now i bought this 18" Raleigh and its a little too big. ugggggg...

but in the end this 1 will do fine for now because i like a big bike...but there will be a time im sure when i will curse it while holding an ice pack to my jewels.


----------

