Hi, i am looking to get back on to a bike after a 20+ year gap.
I will cycling mainly for pleasure in parks, canal paths (anything flat as the missus will be with me).
I need some advice on whether to go large frame, short seat post or smaller frame and longer seat post.
I am 6'4" so I have been looking at a 22" or larger frame, but out on my travels I see some prettty tall guys on smaller frames and long posts and wondered what the adavantages/disadvantages of either are.
Any advice greatfully received.
I'm the same height and have long legs. I think you need to be looking at 20"+ frames if you want the saddle to go up to a height you can pedal properly on. I ride a 21" Orange and would not want it any smaller.
Cheers for the reply, will probably go for a 22", but just wondered if there were any advantages to the smaller frame and longer seat post.
Inside leg of 34" by the way.
Hi There, I'm the same height as you and have a similar inside leg, the small frame thing is fashionable and will give some extra clearance if things get 'interesting' but for the sort of riding you describe I'd just get a larger frame and avoid putting a load of unnecessary leverage through the frame as you would with a small frame/long seatpost combo. Does mean you won't be able to describe it as 'flickable' though 🙂
I think also the smaller the frame you get the lower your bars will be or the more steerer spacers/higher rise stem you'll need to bring them up.
Suggest going to a bike shop and seeing if you can take a test ride. You could also ask them if they can fit/swap a stem to fine-tune the reach.
Same problem, 6ft 4in, however my legs are "relatively" short at 34in compared to mates around my size.
I generally go on top tube length. I.e need to ride a 24.5in to 25in.
Problem you have, depending on your weight / power, is the extended seatpost puts a strain on a smaller frame, particularly carbon, even though you may be within the requirement of the seatpost / frame / seatpost insertion.
A fair bit shorter than you but still tall (6.2"), my personal preference is for, smaller than bigger bike wise but with in reason. I find a smaller bike is a bit nipper (although of course this is a generalisation, due to different geometry e.c.t) but find the bigger bike can get too long and find you end up with a bit of a feeling of, front wheel...then the rear come along a while later, a bit disconnected.
But I used to prefer a longer bike as it was more stable but tended to like smaller bikes as my skill level has gone up.
But saying that I am talking about riding a 19" instead of a 20/21" not 17/18". Think it does come down to personal preference but also staying with sensible parameters so you can still have a good reach to the bars and a reasonable amount of seatpost still in the frame.
I am considerably shorter than you but find myself in a similar dilemma. If I go large I benefit from the long top tube which makes the bike feel more like a road bike. I find a stretched position more efficient for mile crunching. It is also extremely stable on single track or long swooping downhills. I currently ride a frame one size too big for me (according to the manufacturer) and fit a short stem and riser bars when I want to ride technical stuff. It works for me.
I'm 6'4" with 36" legs and ride a 22" Cube AMS 130, I was going for the 20" and a bit more seatpost but they have a shortish top tube so went for the 22".
You need to check out the geometry of particular bikes you like and try them out, I liked the 54cm Zesty but had heel rub on the flared rear end.
I'm thinking of a 29er next time which are supposed to be a good fit for tall fellas.
Im 6' 3" and have a 22" orange, had 20" for the last 5yrs+ and always thought they were a good fit but the 22" really makes a difference and I can finally say ive found something that feels right
