# 6 foot 2. What frame size?



## BIGSESAL (23 Aug 2008)

With the advice of those on cyclechat I decided to avoid Halfords and look in a couple of LBS for my first road bike. Most people thought that with my budget the Giant SCR4 was one of the best buys. When I got down the shop the salesman tried me on a medium frame (50cm) and said this was a 'perfect fit' and said he would try and get one in for next week. However after looking on some websites I saw that the medium was designed for those between 5 foot 6 and 5 foot 11. I am 6 foot 2. Would the large frame (55.5cm) fit me better as I believe this is designed for those between 5 foot 11 and 6 foot 3.

Thanks,

Scott


----------



## gkilner (23 Aug 2008)

I'm also 6 2" I would assume you would be better off with a large. My bike is a Ridgeback and is actually a XL 60cm, however I also think the Large would have been OK.

My inside leg is 33" - I suppose if you have short legs and a long body a Medium could be right?


----------



## kyuss (23 Aug 2008)

I'm the same height as you and ride a large Giant. Fits perfectly. I wouldn't want to ride a medium.


----------



## BIGSESAL (23 Aug 2008)

Cheers guys


----------



## John the Monkey (23 Aug 2008)

+1 for large (I'm 6'2" with 33" inside leg) - my SCR2 is a large frame.


----------



## wlc1 (23 Aug 2008)

I'm 6ft 3 and ride a specialized on an XXL frame 60cm. inside leg is 34 cm.

Don't get a medium unless you really trust the LBS bloke. Is he just trying to shift stock ?


----------



## swee'pea99 (23 Aug 2008)

How could 6'2" possibly be 'medium'? Unless you've got *reeeeealy* stubby little legs.


----------



## kyuss (23 Aug 2008)

Even with short legs someone at 6'2" would need the large cause they'd most likely have a longer body to compensate and therefore need the longer top tube for correct reach to the bars.

I don't understand why people still use inside leg measurement when fitting themselves for a bike, or why manufacturers keep using seat tube length in their sizing. 20 years ago when bikes where 'square' (ie a 22" bike had a 22" seat tube and top tube) and standover clearance was an issue, these sizes may have been relevant, but with modern compact frames it's completely redundant. Correct reach to the bars makes a bike comfortable not how much seatpost is showing.


----------



## Noodley (23 Aug 2008)

IMO there is no way you should go for a medium. 

It's quite easy when you are over 6 foot to pick a frame size as it's usually the biggest one on offer...


----------



## mickle (23 Aug 2008)

kyuss said:


> Even with short legs someone at 6'2" would need the large cause they'd most likely have a longer body to compensate and therefore need the longer top tube for correct reach to the bars.
> 
> I don't understand why people still use inside leg measurement when fitting themselves for a bike, or why manufacturers keep using seat tube length in their sizing. 20 years ago when bikes where 'square' (ie a 22" bike had a 22" seat tube and top tube) and standover clearance was an issue, these sizes may have been relevant, but with modern compact frames it's completely redundant. Correct reach to the bars makes a bike comfortable not how much seatpost is showing.



Yes, yes yes and yes.


----------



## goo_mason (25 Aug 2008)

6ft 3" and my SCR2 is an XL.


----------



## Steve Austin (25 Aug 2008)

I'm 6'2" and ride a XL TCR


----------



## yenrod (25 Aug 2008)

kyuss said:


> Even with short legs someone at 6'2" would need the large cause they'd most likely have a longer body to compensate and therefore need the longer top tube for correct reach to the bars.
> 
> I don't understand why people still use inside leg measurement when fitting themselves for a bike, or why manufacturers keep using seat tube length in their sizing. 20 years ago when bikes where 'square' (ie a 22" bike had a 22" seat tube and top tube) and standover clearance was an issue, these sizes may have been relevant, but with modern compact frames it's completely redundant. Correct reach to the bars makes a bike comfortable not how much seatpost is showing.



Very true Kyuss.

TT lengths should be put in, in measurements as standard.

I feel they are not telling the true picture really esp. where size of the bike is concerned.

I'm sure Ridley bike's offer different lengths of TT's with differing sizes of seat tube length ! - yet i'm not TOTALLY sure.

_You'd be hard pressed if you do have short legs than upperbody length - to find a long top-tubed bike with a short seat tube sized bike !_


----------



## Bigtallfatbloke (26 Aug 2008)

I reckon around a 59 0r 61cm would be more your size approx....50 sounds to small to me.


----------



## kyuss (26 Aug 2008)

Bigtallfatbloke said:


> I reckon around a 59 0r 61cm would be more your size approx....50 sounds to small to me.



But, that depends on the bike. My Giant Bowery is a 55.5cm and my Kinesis Racelight KiC2 is a 60cm, both have sloping top tubes, yet while the manufacturers stated sizes are miles apart they both have exactly the same effective top tube length and both fit like a glove. One is measured centre to centre, the other centre to top. One frame slopes more than the other. Take all these infinate variables between bikes into consideration and you think it would make sense for manufacturers to size their bikes by effective top tube length. It's no wonder people find bike sizing confusing.

EDIT: The OP still should get at least the large, the medium is going to be far too small.


----------

