After using some online fit calculators, I was looking around at some bikes and frames. Surly says to pick one based on the effective top tube, for which a recommended length for me is 53.5 cm. Some shops have told me to ride a 54 cm frame, others 52 cm, mostly just based on standover height. I have been sampling some bike geometry and noticed that CX/touring bikes sometimes tend to be very long for their height:
Bike | Purpose | Size | Effective Top Tube | ETT − Size |
---|---|---|---|---|
Surly Straggler | CX | 52 cm | 54.6 cm | 2.6 cm |
Jamis Quest | Road | 51 cm | 53.0 cm | 2.0 cm |
Giant Defy | Road | Small | 53.0 cm | |
Jamis Aurora | Tour | 53 cm | 55.2 cm | 2.2 cm |
Jamis Renegade | Adventure | 51 cm | 53.2 cm | 2.2 cm |
Jamis Renegade | Adventure | 54 cm | 55.1 cm | 1.1 cm |
Jamis Bosanova | Tour | 51 cm | 54.0 cm | 3.0 cm |
Jamis Bosanova | Tour | 54 cm | 55.5 cm | 1.5 cm |
Soma Smoothie | Road | 52 cm | 53.0 cm | 1.0 cm |
Soma Double-Cross | CX | 52 cm | 55.6 cm | 3.6 cm |
Soma Double-Cross | CX | 46 cm | 53.1 cm | 7.1 cm |
Trek Domane | Road | 52 cm | 53.0 cm | 1.0 cm |
Trek 720 | Adventure | 52 cm | 53.8 cm | 1.8 cm |
So, for example, if I wanted to get a Soma Double Cross, by the effective top tube recommendation, I should go for the 46 cm frame? That seems tiny. By the top tube recommendation, Surly doesn't even make a Straggler small enough, but the extra 1 cm could be handled with a smaller stem? Is there a reason the CX/touring bikes are relatively longer? Wouldn't that result in a less upright, and therefore less comfortable position for long rides?