I'm 6'5" and am in the market for a new bike. I do mostly commuting but would love to be able to hit the dirt every once in a while, plus the streets around santa cruz are pretty ugly, so i think a cyclocross bike would do the trick. I am currently riding a 63cm vintage Peugeot road bike and it fits great, but I'm having trouble finding anything in that size in a new cyclocross bike. I like the specs and price of the motobecane phantom cross, but the largest size is 61cm. Is anyone out there a tall cyclocross rider, and if so what are you riding? Would a 61cm be way too small? My ideal price range is under 700, but im flexible if the bike is right.

Thanks!
Dude

I am 6'3" and riding a 60cm Soma Double Cross. I actually find it to be too long in the TT (long legs, short torso). Soma also makes a 62cm frame, as does Surly.

In your position, I would take the actual measurements of your current bike, compare it to the geometries of the 61/62cm options out there and see how they really compare (i.e. see what it would take stem- & seatpost-wise to replicate your current, comfortable fit).

Surly Cross Check goes to 62cm with top tube of 61cm. Bianchi Volpe goes to 61cm with a semi-compact frame with effective top tube of 59.6cm. Both of these bikes are a bit over your price range but not by much.

I am 6' 5" too (with 36" inside leg) and for the past 3 years have been riding and racing a pair of Planet X Uncle John, Distributed by Zedsport in the USA, these originate from Northern England and have an aluminium frame, matched carbon fork, rack mounts, mudguard eyelets, comfortable geometry and can do everything from cross races to cyclosportives.

Understated graphics, no nonsense and hard wearing.

Cheap for us in the UK but maybe not so for you with the dollar ;)

Sellwood Cycle is selling a 62cm MountainCycle Stumptown frame for $250.

http://sellwoodcycle.com/bicycles/full/18951.jpg

Some good deals here. (http://sellwoodcycle.com/consignment.htm)

I've had a lot of stuff shipped from them to Canada and it always went smoothly.

They're also selling some nice looking Ksyrium SSL Tubulars for $350...you're almost there.

Not exactly a commuting rig but worth considering.

I'm 6'4" with long legs, short torso and bought a 60cm 2007 Redline, which I'm really happy with. I ride a 64cm Seven on the road, and while the Redline has more drop, it is very doable for me, especially with some spacers, stem with rise and a shallow reach bar. Like always, getting a fit and letting the LBS figure out a frame is the best way, and then you can buy up the bits on the cheap.

I have a 62c surly cross check frame and fork for sale for $250.00. It has only been riden mabey 30 miles. Perfect condition. These are good bikes if you want an all around commuter bike that you can race if you get the bug. It has all the braze ons for racks and fenders. Take care.

Rich

6'3" Long legs, shortish torso.

I ride one of these, but my opinion might be slightly biased...
:thumbsup:

http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z311/jhcakilmer/4.jpg

I ride a 64cm Seven on the road, and while the Redline has more drop, it is very doable for me, especially with some spacers, stem with rise and a shallow reach bar.If you are buying a new bike, you ought to get something that fits, not something that is "doable" with loads of spacers + riser stem + special bars.

If you are buying a new bike, you ought to get something that fits, not something that is "doable" with loads of spacers + riser stem + special bars.Easier said than done for some, especially the very tall and very short. My 60 has a riser stem (upside down 90mm Thomson) and the steerer is uncut. A larger size would have too long a TT. It works for me and if it gives the fit police hives. . .meh.

BTW, Redline's max out at 60.

Easier said than done for some, especially the very tall and very short. My 60 has a riser stem (upside down 90mm Thomson) and the steerer is uncut. A larger size would have too long a TT. It works for me and if it gives the fit police hives. . .meh.Well, one obviously must do what works for him.

But let's take your example for a second; why did you go with the 60 instead of the 62? You say because the top tube runs long. The TT for the 62 runs 1cm longer than the 60, but you would be using 2cm less seatpost on the 62, which would move your butt down and forward and thus shorten the effective cockpit (i.e. distance from seat to bars) by almost exactly that 1cm.

My butt would stay in the same place. Some currently empty space would be occupied by steel tubing but I would be able to use 15 mm less HS spacers and I suppose I could chop 20 mm off my seatpost. Would a 62cm frame with a 90mm, flipped up stem be a better fitting bike? What would the advantages be?

My butt would stay in the same place. Some currently empty space would be occupied by steel tubing but I would be able to use 15 mm less HS spacers and I suppose I could chop 20 mm off my seatpost. Would a 62cm frame with a 90mm, flipped up stem be a better fitting bike? What would the advantages be?
You wouldn't have to have conversations like this. Ha!

Seriously, though, Pretender: almost everyone is between almost every size, and theoretically could ride either bike, given that, most people would advise to go with the smaller bike, as it is usually a bit more forgiving to the fit, and gives most riders more options in the future.

The Redline maxes out at 60 because they ride really long. I ride a 60 cm Soma Double Cross, but if I rode a Redline (I've test ridden a few), I'd ride their 56. It has a longer drop than a 58 or 60, but if you get a Redline, you already know you're getting a non-extended head-tube. As it is, I take full advantage of the extended head tube on the "larger" Soma. If you're mainly commuting, and might possibly do some racing, I'd steer away from the Redline, as it's optimized for racing, while the Cross Check and the Double Cross (and other similar bikes) are a lot more versatile.

My butt would stay in the same place. Some currently empty space would be occupied by steel tubing but I would be able to use 15 mm less HS spacers and I suppose I could chop 20 mm off my seatpost. Would a 62cm frame with a 90mm, flipped up stem be a better fitting bike? What would the advantages be?Your butt would move in relation to the frame, hence in relation to the handlebars.

We're only talking about a size difference in your case, so it's a bit theoretical. But I have seen some really bad examples of obviously undersized bikes that have been kluged to somehow work, with riser stem (a real riser stem, not just a flipped one), stacks of spacers, etc, and they probably still aren't that comfortable. And such a bike won't handle the way it should.

This is different from choosing to ride a small frame because of aerodynamics, stiffness, etc.

Thanks a lot for all the input! I think I'm more comfortable with the idea of getting a 60-62cm bike now that I've heard from you all riding something similar. I think that a smaller frame would be easier to handle off the pavement too, am i right about that? And when you all talk about getting a longer 'stem' is that the portion that connects the handlebars? If so, how expensive is that to replace should i need something longer?

Thanks a lot for all the input! I think I'm more comfortable with the idea of getting a 60-62cm bike now that I've heard from you all riding something similar. I think that a smaller frame would be easier to handle off the pavement too, am i right about that? And when you all talk about getting a longer 'stem' is that the portion that connects the handlebars? If so, how expensive is that to replace should i need something longer?
The smaller bike isn't necessarily easier to handle off the pavement, because you'll get a shorter head-tube as well, and it may be more difficult (or just odd-looking) depending on your preferred position on the bike. Older road bikes are pretty tall, and have relatively short top tubes, so I'm guessing your top tube is something like 61 cm. I could be wrong. Measure that and find a bike that has a similar length top tube. There are some variables at play though (head and seat angles, mostly), so if you can, go to a shop, ride some bikes and ask SPECIFIC questions that you want answers for. It's very difficult to answer "Which one will work better for me?" Those angles are why the Redline rides so long, and LeMond road bikes as well. Spend some time on this decision, and make the right one.

I think that a smaller frame would be easier to handle off the pavement too, am i right about that?A larger frame will have more stability. Stability is something you want on a muddy off-camber turn.

A larger frame will have more stability. Stability is something you want on a muddy off-camber turn.
Which is why mountain bikes are much less stable than cross bikes?

This actually isn't necessarily true. If the wheelbase is longer, or angles lower, then it might be more stable, but a larger frame does not necessarily mean more stability.

Which is why mountain bikes are much less stable than cross bikes?

This actually isn't necessarily true. If the wheelbase is longer, or angles lower, then it might be more stable, but a larger frame does not necessarily mean more stability.I think any reasonable person would understand that I meant within a given line of bikes.

Mountain bikes have longer wheelbases than their road counterparts precisely because you want more stability off-road.