So I have a possibility of getting a pretty sweet Schwinn Fastback frame on the cheap. The only thing is that I'm not sure how the standover height translates.

I have approximately a 29-30in inseam. I ride my bike through downtown San Francisco everyday, plus up and down some hills. I'm kind of an aggressive rider, methinks.

It's a size M, and this is what Schwinn's website says.

Frame Size
MD
Top Tube Length
560.19
Standover height
742.1
Head Angle
73
Seat Angle
73.5
Chainstay Length
410
Head Tube Length
155
Bottom bracket height
275.0
offset
43
Wheel base
995.09

Actually got that taken care of.

Actually got that taken care of.

was it the right size? Kind of a long top tube with such a short seat tube. the head tube looks right. hows it ride? Schwinn is selling another version of that frame this year.

was it the right size? Kind of a long top tube with such a short seat tube. the head tube looks right. hows it ride? Schwinn is selling another version of that frame this year.
Actually, it was WAY too small for me. My brother got it though, he's shorter than I am. He loves it so far. It's the compact frame geometry. For the price, it was a killer deal, especially once you scrape the schwinn decals off.

Actually, it was WAY too small for me. My brother got it though, he's shorter than I am. He loves it so far. It's the compact frame geometry. For the price, it was a killer deal, especially once you scrape the schwinn decals off.
There is no way a bike with a 56 cm TT is too small for someone with a 29-30 inch bike inseam unless your proportions are way different than average - in fact it would probably be too big. - TF

I can't tell you anything more than what I know to be true. Especially since my brother bought the frame and rides it every day, and he's a good 4 inches shorter than I.

However, I don't see how you got that it was a 56cm frame.

There is no way a bike with a 56 cm TT is too small for someone with a 29-30 inch bike inseam unless your proportions are way different than average - in fact it would probably be too big. - TF

Sounds like a pants inseam. With a 29 inch cycling inseam (ie., measurement from floor to up snugly to sit bones), you wouldn't even be able to stand over that bike.

Yeah, nobody once said "bike inseam". I believe that's what's called the "standover height"?

Yeah, nobody once said "bike inseam". I believe that's what's called the "standover height"?


Well, cyclists have inseams. Bikes have standover heights. When someone on a bicycling board tells their "inseam" and asks a fit question, I assume they're talking about a properly measured cycling inseam.

But you know what they say about assumptions.

But talking about the measurement you need to buy dress slacks while asking about whether a particular bike would fit would seem to suggest that you are giving cycling specific measurements. That's why folks assumed it would be too big.

Well, cyclists have inseams. Bikes have standover heights. When someone on a bicycling board tells their "inseam" and asks a fit question, I assume they're talking about a properly measured cycling inseam.

But you know what they say about assumptions.

But talking about the measurement you need to buy dress slacks while asking about whether a particular bike would fit would seem to suggest that you are giving cycling specific measurements. That's why folks assumed it would be too big.
Even taking the pant's inseam of 29-30 into account (which I kind of thought was the case), that would roughlyy a 32 inseam. Mine is 32.25, pretty much average proportions and a bike with a 56cm TT would be plenty big. I race a 55.5cm TT. I bet the bike is way too big for the shorter guy. - TF

"Especially since my brother bought the frame and rides it every day, ..."

That doesn't mean it fits.

"However, I don't see how you got that it was a 56cm frame."

Because you said the TT= 560.13mm or 56cm.

Sorry, I didn't realize that it was an old thread. But just for info, a Medium Fastback should fit someone around 5'8" - 5'10" or so. I guessed that with a 29-30 pants inseam you would be right in that range. It certainly would not be "way too small."

Maybe I guested way wrong - he!!, knickers could be the standard for pants today and I wouldn't know it. :-)

TF