So I’ve been looking at secondhand frames recently and I had the opportunity to sit on a couple bikes on saturday to try and see what size is good. I’m 5′ 10″ so reckoned I’d probably be a medium on most frames.
First bike I on was a large Commencal Meta SX (with 50mm stem), which was pretty much perfect. Commencal’s sizing has me being either at the top end of a medium or bottem end of the large. I like a chuckable frame and usually the smaller size is the way to go but anything smaller than that large would be cramped. (it has a top tube of 605mm)

Next was was a Specialized Stumpjumper. Once again, a large (again with 50mm stem) but strangely in comparison to the Meta SX it felt smaller/almost cramped in comparison.
When I got home I had a look at the measurements and that was even more confusing. The stumpy has a top tube of 616mm. So the stumpy should have felt longer rather than shorter.

Ofcourse to complicate things further when looking at Commencal Meta frames, I found a 2012 Meta AM large, (which I though was basically the same frame as an SX but with a different rocker link) however looking at the measurements for it, it has a 620mm top tube rather than 605mm of the Meta SX.

So is it basically impossible use top tube lengths to compare full suspension frames.

Stack and reach are more useful measurements.

I reckon height is irrelevant for frame sizing, except as a guide; inside leg and reach are far more important.

When I got home I had a look at the measurements and that was even more confusing. The stumpy has a top tube of 616mm. So the stumpy should have felt longer rather than shorter.

And don’t trust manufacturers specs, take a tape-measure.

Can’t find reach for those bikes, but yeah I guess it’s a much better/useful measurement when you can find it.

I’ll be honest I don’t know much about stack height, just whatever ‘feels’ right.

In that regard I definitely liked the feel of the meta sx, but don’t see any secondhand one’s about atm and it’s fair stack of cash for one 2013 frames from commencal’s outlet (~£1500).

Anyone know how lapierre’s size up in comparison to specialized and commencal as I’ve seen a few lapierre frames come up second hand recently.

Height by itself is a bad measurement, 2 people the same height can have different leg v torso v arm ratio’s which will make a huge difference. Next S,M or L is a letter not a regulated size, as somebody posted a while ago it’s like clothes – buy the one that fits not the label you want to fit.

The best thing I can suggest is to keep an eye out for the bikes your thinking of and try and throw a leg over them. Sunday at Llandegla used to showcase most bikes from the last 3 years.

I like a chuckable frame and usually the smaller size is the way to go but anything smaller than that large would be cramped. (it has a top tube of 605mm)

6’2″ here and like you I prefer chuckable

My size L Ramones has a 588 mm top tube and my L Scott Voltage is even smaller at 556 mm. The longest is my Cannondale Rize and that’s 598 mm which feels proper stretched out in comparison. Easy to ride yes, good at going uphill yes but not chuckable.

Sometimes the top tube measurement in isolation can be confusing because the geometry of the rest of the bike is important. My Voltage is compact but not short due to slack geometry and the only time it feels cramped is out-of-the-saddle climbing. Otherwise it feels very manoueverable and quite difficult to crash esp compared to the stretched out Cannondale.

Hey guys, this is my first post on SingleTrackWorld. I Just bought a 2014 Meta SX frame in size Large, and I’m worried it may be too short in the top tube. Commencal’s size chart says it’ll work for 5’10”-6’2″, but I need this thing to be able to pedal OK. What do you guys think?

rockohardpack – Member

Hey guys, this is my first post on SingleTrackWorld. I Just bought a 2014 Meta SX frame in size Large, and I’m worried it may be too short in the top tube. Commencal’s size chart says it’ll work for 5’10”-6’2″, but I need this thing to be able to pedal OK. What do you guys think?

What height are you?

The 2014 Meta SX it’s got a really slack head tube angle so that may also make you feel it’s a tad shorter than what you’re used to (not because of top length but because of feel).

Stem length and bar width also make a big difference in feel/reach, though looking at the specs the 2014 SX has a 50mm stem and 780mm bar but I’m doubting you’d ideally want to go longer on either of those.

What element of the feel of a bike does ‘Reach’ really dictate? I know That reach is calculated as the horizontal distance from the bottom bracket to the top of the head tube, but does a longer reach mean a more ‘stretched’ fit when seated pedaling, standing pedaling etc?

Specialized seem to go for seat posts that don’t point at the bottom bracket. This means that reach varies with seat height. So a smaller specialized might well have more reach than a larger one as the post will be further out. But this reach, when sat down, is from the seat going back further behind the bottom bracker. Frankly I found it hard to get on with

What element of the feel of a bike does ‘Reach’ really dictate? I know That reach is calculated as the horizontal distance from the bottom bracket to the top of the head tube, but does a longer reach mean a more ‘stretched’ fit when seated pedaling, standing pedaling etc?

ETT is length sitting down, reach is length standing up.

Thanks chiefgrooveguru 😉

Gaz, I’m 6’2″. Im a little worried, but Ive seen some other people my height on the Large as well. My Scott voltage im selling has a top tube of 583mm, so 605mm will be at least an inch better than that. I just hope its still not too cramped for climbing. I have an XC bike for longer rides, wanted a “quiver killer”.