OK here I go...I'm a newbie btw...I just purchased a CX frame at a great price, measured my 54cm Orbea Lobulars top tube (virutal top tube length actually) and ordered the frame based on what I've gleened here and on some other respected sites. I've got the bike 80% built up and hopped on for the first time, and goodness gracious its snug to the family jewels! The reach to the handlebars is spot on and I have a good fistful of post showing but I can't for the life of me imagine being able to race the bike without ending my chances for future children. The frame is a 54" and I'm 5'9" with a 31" inseem (lots of torso). Is this normal? How much "nad" clearence are folks riding with? Should I have looked at a 52"? Thanks!

JR

i'm new to this too, so take it for what it is. i would guess you'ld want more clearance then less. my first ride was too tall. i could straddle the frame but it was very snug and not very confidence inspiring. especially if you plan to hop on and off the bike. i bought another frame, but one size down and it's so much better and i don't feel i'm going to hurt myself.

nad clearance, now thats hilarious. 10 mins later and i'm still laughing out loud at that one!

man, i know exactly what you mean (i'm 5 7.5" with about the same inseam as you). i'm right between a 52 and a 54 on most frames and i never know what to do. on one hand you could end up in a cramped position and/or with a long stem (like a 120 mm), neither of which are ideal. on the other hand you could end up too stretched out and/or with not enough standover. so what the heck do you do?

i was recently pretty serious about getting a kelly knobby-x and chris kelly was really pushing me towards the 55. his reasoning was that riding postion is more important than standover (and he knew i planned to race it) and that i should just "not worry about standover." he also told me that some of the riders on his team are in the same boat (mostly females) and that they just ride the bigger bikes and dont worry about it. well, i wasn't so sure how i felt about all that so the kelly is on hold for now. i *kind of* see his point though. i mean, for me, when i'm wearing shoes its a difference of 0.5 - 0.75 inches clearance-wise between the two sizes. i could be completely wrong here, but even though you would normally measure your cycling inseam in socks, you are never going to be riding your bike in socks, so your inseam will actually be a little longer with shoes on -- but then there's always the tires and you have to account for how they might change your actual, real life clearance.

since you had the opportunity to give your bike the real life test and it felt perfect other than the lack of "nad clearance" (LMAO, still) i might stick with it if it were me. i hate feeling all cramped on a too-small frame, so even though its a mental leap, i'd go with the chris kelly school of thought that position is more important than standover. as someone on this board so eloquently put it...if you mess up a re-mount so badly that you land on your TT, chances are an extra 1" of clearance wouldnt have helped you that much.

ultimately i think there is no 100% right answer to your question. in the end it might just come down to how safe/comfortable you actually feel on the bike, and the tradeoffs you are willing to make. personally, i am sick of dealing with this issue and i think i might just end up going custom so i can finally put it to rest.

Okay, I'm female, so I guess I never thought of "nad clearance". But in reality, does it really matter? You're jumping upwards to hop on your bike, and you should make contact with the seat with the inside of your thigh first before sliding onto the saddle... so I'm not too sure clearance is a problem.

Landing on your top tube: ow.
Landing on the rear brake/tire: ow.
Not landing the saddle on the thigh first: ow (even for a chick).

Just jump high!!! :p

but I guess I'd like to hear more feedback from those folks who feel like their frame size is "perfect/spot on" and what the average standover is. I know that's totally subjective but if the average is .25 to .5" I probably won't feel so bad about my frame.

You don't tend to fall on your top tube, it's not a big issue. The bigger issue is the overall height of the bike, as you have to jump on the thing many, many times in an hour. If the top tube length seems to be correct, I would guess the bike would be good, maybe try measuring from the floor to the top of seat and compare w/ your road bike to see how much taller it is. I personally don't like a bike that is tall, I think it handles poorly and has no advantage, but some makers like to reach for the sky and some riders must like this geometry.

How often do you plan on straddling the tup tube of your bike?

Now... How often do you ride mud, rocks, roots, dirt, or bunny-hop curbs and barriers on your road bike?

Two different tools, two different measurements. The top tube on your cross bike should be a bit higher than your road bike. Simply due to the larger volume tires for one. Factor in better clearance (cross bike should be more like a crit bike with a higher BB) and you're going to be perched yet higher.

I've never measured my 'nad clearence, but if I had to guess it's probably pretty minimal and at least an inch less than my road bike. But I really don't care. The bike corners on a rail, and it rides exactly the way it was designed to. Fast. (well, if I have the legs to get it up to speed anyway)

How often do you plan on straddling the tup tube of your bike?

exactly. and i imagine that if you do end up in that position you'll manage to lean your bike slightly to one side to increase the clearance.

Okay, I'm female, so I guess I never thought of "nad clearance".


well, maybe its about time you start.

i think "standover height" should henceforth be known as "nad clearance."

but what would be the female equivalent?

i think "standover height" should henceforth be known as "nad clearance."

but what would be the female equivalent?

I don't know that I'm allowed to say it on RBR. "[rhymes with Dolores] clearance"

My clearance is about 1/2", BTW. My bike fits me great, and I had no problems dis- and re-mounting last year.
(Well, not related to crotch clearance, anyway... pedals refusing to unclip at full speed are another story...)

[rhymes with Dolores] )


great seinfeld episode....

I've muffed a few remounts. Every single time, I didn't get quite enough height on the jump and caught my shorts on the rear end of the seat. Most of the time I was able to squiggle up onto the seat and get going. In any event, I have never, ever missed a remount on the front side of the seat and can't really understand how I could ...

As many others have already said, I think standover s overrated.

Agree that standover is not any big deal. It's more important that the bike fits, thus allowing for the best handling in different situations. I'm very close to your dimensions and I'm using a bike that overall has very similar dimensions to my road bike as far as the "cockpit" measurements are concerned. There are only slight differences on the cross bike, e.g. the handlebars are a touch higher. A CX frame will have a higher BB, longer wheelbase, and more slack fork angle to increase stability and handling in off-road conditions.

First off, I have 0 nad clearance, I may even have to suck em in a little to straddle it properly.

I went through the same thing buying my first 'Crosser recently. Based on all the info here and cyclocrossworld, I ended up going with the larger size that has the perfect TT fit. I'm glad I did. I have about 10 hours of riding now (cross, singletrack, and road) and it hasn't been an issue.
I heed and hawed forever about it and now I'm glad I took everyones advice around here on it instead of what seems like common sense.

thanks!

....Mulva?

that .5 to 1” (and for some, -.5 clearance ) of nad clearance is fairly normal in terms of a properly fitted frame. I 100% understand that your probably not going to muff a remount on the top tube but I was more concerned about everyday riding (I plan on using the bike as a commuter as well) and normal dismounts/remounts. Does that sound about right?

I bet I've ridden close to 100,000 miles on a bike over the years and have never once landed on the toptube under any circumstances. I see kids do it all the time and remember doing it when I was a kid, but I just don't think it is an issue worth basing a bike fit on.

There's no reason to worry about top tube clearance for your crotch. On a re-mount, you're going to be taking flying, crotch-first leaps onto your saddle. If you completely biff it and land nuts first on the top tube, a little clearance isn't going to save you.

On the re-mounts, try to land on the inside of your thigh and slide gently into the driver's seat, Bo Luke Duke style.

Okay, I'm female, so I guess I never thought of "nad clearance". But in reality, does it really matter? You're jumping upwards to hop on your bike, and you should make contact with the seat with the inside of your thigh first before sliding onto the saddle... so I'm not too sure clearance is a problem.

Landing on your top tube: ow.
Landing on the rear brake/tire: ow.
Not landing the saddle on the thigh first: ow (even for a chick).

Just jump high!!! :p

you don't "jump" on to your saddle...that's just asking for, as you put it "ow" to happen. or maybe a broken saddle...

....Mulva?


I still use that one randomly with friends and usually get a perplexed look. Every once in a while I'll find someone who gets it and you get that knowing laugh.
220, 221, whatever works. :D

you don't "jump" on to your saddle...that's just asking for, as you put it "ow" to happen. or maybe a broken saddle...

Ok, smarty-pants. ;)

How would you describe it?

I leap off the ground with my left foot (that would be a jump) hurl myself over my bike somehow, land on my saddle with my right thigh and slide into place. I think you're taking me a little too literally...

Although I have actually mislanded and had a very serious "ow".

If done correctly, it isn't really jumping "up". More like jumping forward. The saddle is approximately at hip height as you're running anyway. All one needs to do is swing that leg over the top of it.

..but yeah, it's all a technicality.

All one needs to do is swing that leg over the top of it.

Maybe that's all you need to do! If I don't jump up in addition to swinging my leg over, I end up with my thigh on the rear brake. Ow!!! But maybe you've got daddy long legs... me, I got tree stumps.

OK here I go...I'm a newbie btw...I just purchased a CX frame at a great price, measured my 54cm Orbea Lobulars top tube (virutal top tube length actually) and ordered the frame based on what I've gleened here and on some other respected sites. I've got the bike 80% built up and hopped on for the first time, and goodness gracious its snug to the family jewels! The reach to the handlebars is spot on and I have a good fistful of post showing but I can't for the life of me imagine being able to race the bike without ending my chances for future children. The frame is a 54" and I'm 5'9" with a 31" inseem (lots of torso). Is this normal? How much "nad" clearence are folks riding with? Should I have looked at a 52"? Thanks!

JR
http://www.cyclocrossworld.com/Tech.cfm?Action=Edit&MenuKey=3&theKey=43&ShowDisabled=0

btw my CX frame is 2 size smaller than my road bikes... my 51cm CX frame's BB/ TT sits higher than my 53~54cm road bikes... smaller frame dos give me more clearence, which I like, and also gives me more of upright riding position as well which works for me...

Ok, smarty-pants. ;)

How would you describe it?

I leap off the ground with my left foot (that would be a jump) hurl myself over my bike somehow, land on my saddle with my right thigh and slide into place. I think you're taking me a little too literally...

Although I have actually mislanded and had a very serious "ow".

on the phone or something...:p

on the phone or something...:p

The serious ow? Clumsy cross-style remount on a road bike with flip-flops and no chamois.

Landed right on the "girlie bits" with no padding.

OW. That really smarts.