Quantcast

XXL (62+) bikes

stoney

Part of the unwashed, middle-American horde
Jul 26, 2006
14,575
1,585
Colorado
I am trying to pick up a new roadie that fits a bit better. So far the only bike I have found big enough is the Specialized Roubaix XXL (64cm). A 61cm TT has proven to be too short, so that eliminates most 61cm frames. Can anybody think of other manufacturers that make huge carbon frames?

Out:
Giant
Cannondale
Look
Orbea
Felt
Trek
Scott
 

IH8Rice

I'm Mr. Negative! I Fail!
Aug 2, 2008
24,554
488
Im over here now
Cdale makes a 63 but if youre really tall, it really wont work. its also hard to compare Giant's frames since they are compacts and their largest is 58.5cm and still not ideal for really tall folks.
 

Wumpus

makes avatars better
Dec 25, 2003
8,164
154
Six Shooter Junction
The frame is $2099 new, complete $3499. That's really f*ing expensive. I'm just trying to look at my other options.
The Roubaix Apex comes in 64 and should be around $2200 or less complete.

If you want the SL3 frame, that is going to cost a bit more.
 
Last edited:

stoney

Part of the unwashed, middle-American horde
Jul 26, 2006
14,575
1,585
Colorado
The Roubaix Apex comes in 64 and should be around $2200 or less complete.

If you want the SL3 frame, that is going to cost a bit more.
That explains why the first Roubaix I looked at was $1800 complete... Time to dig a bit more.

I'm 6'4".
 

stoney

Part of the unwashed, middle-American horde
Jul 26, 2006
14,575
1,585
Colorado
Four levels of frames from Specialized. The base(8r carbon), the SL3(10r?) and the SL4(close enough to the Sworks -200 grams or so heavier) and the Sworks.
Confirmed today, they only make the 64 in expert+ levels
 

stoney

Part of the unwashed, middle-American horde
Jul 26, 2006
14,575
1,585
Colorado
Strange. They list this one in 64cm.

http://www.specialized.com/us/en/bikes/road/roubaix/roubaixapexcompact#geometry

Don't work until Friday so I can't check the dealer site.
Yeah... the shop guy showed me the dealer site. If your shop can find a lower model in carbon, I'll buy it.

What all do you guys carry? I'm running out of brands to check

Trek - maybe
Giant - no
GT - no
Spec - yes $$
Kona - maybe
Cannondale - no
Orbea - no
Ritchey - maybe
Ridley - maybe
Felt - no
Look - no
Kuota - no
Blue - no
Colnago - no
Cervelo - no
Calfee - yes $$$$$$$
Scott - no
Fuji - no
KHS - no
 
Last edited:

SuspectDevice

Turbo Monkey
Aug 23, 2002
3,944
36
Roanoke, VA
Now are you sure you really need a 64cm tt?

The majority of my custom frames go to guys in the 6'+ range.
At your size if your're not riding a 140mm stem and 12+cm of drop you're doing it wrong.

You're in CO, go talk to someone who makes bikes, not sells them and get their opinion.
If you head over and see Joe at Primus Mootry in Longmont he can build you an oversized aluminum frameset for less than $1500.


Most consumers try to buy bikes that are too big for them- if you're doing that you're making a world of hurt for yourself!
 

stoney

Part of the unwashed, middle-American horde
Jul 26, 2006
14,575
1,585
Colorado
yo.
I talked to Dan yesterday. His shop on Colorado at Yale has the Roubaaayy Expert in stock in a 64cm. You should go and check the fit.
Awesome. Good thing the people at the shop can properly check inventory... If I can get up there this weekend I'll be riding it
 

stoney

Part of the unwashed, middle-American horde
Jul 26, 2006
14,575
1,585
Colorado
Now are you sure you really need a 64cm tt?

The majority of my custom frames go to guys in the 6'+ range.
At your size if your're not riding a 140mm stem and 12+cm of drop you're doing it wrong.

You're in CO, go talk to someone who makes bikes, not sells them and get their opinion.
If you head over and see Joe at Primus Mootry in Longmont he can build you an oversized aluminum frameset for less than $1500.


Most consumers try to buy bikes that are too big for them- if you're doing that you're making a world of hurt for yourself!
I have been fit at a couple of shops and all are saying that I should be on a 62cm top tube. I'm not jumping right away to.get a frame, I want to get one that fits right. I am getting carbon because my back can't handle the aluminum frame.
 

Nick

My name is Nick
Sep 21, 2001
15,397
3,642
behind you, don't wait up.
alright Mickey ... surely you don't dispute that material = ride characteristic.
You have the know-how and background so answer this; why is it that 'most' if not all aluminum frames ride so incredibly and uncomfortably stiff (IMO), and how would you build with aluminum to a different result?

edit: maybe 'stiff' isn't even the problem, but I think you know what I'm asking.
 

clarkenstein

Monkey
Nov 28, 2008
244
0
Now are you sure you really need a 64cm tt?

The majority of my custom frames go to guys in the 6'+ range.
At your size if your're not riding a 140mm stem and 12+cm of drop you're doing it wrong.
i'm 6'4... and honestly curious why you say that? i have yet to get a road bike that feels "right". and i need one. i just did my first enduro race. i seriously sucked out loud because i was so spent from the climb in just to get to stage one. need moar time on bikez.
 

stoney

Part of the unwashed, middle-American horde
Jul 26, 2006
14,575
1,585
Colorado
"back can't handle aluminum frame".
I love marketing!
I've had both C and Al bikes in the past, both before and after my back surgery. Unless the frames I had were grossly over stiff, the vibrations from the Al frame really bothered my lower back. Weight is of no real concern to me, fit and feel are the most important.
 

stoney

Part of the unwashed, middle-American horde
Jul 26, 2006
14,575
1,585
Colorado
Now are you sure you really need a 64cm tt?

The majority of my custom frames go to guys in the 6'+ range.
At your size if your're not riding a 140mm stem and 12+cm of drop you're doing it wrong.
I have questions with this as well. I'm a casual cyclist, not a racer. The extent of my riding is spinning onhigh mileage rides. The higher front end of the new casual roadie frames are great for me. A 140 stem and 12cm drop sounds pretty aggressive for a casual/weekend rider.
 

SuspectDevice

Turbo Monkey
Aug 23, 2002
3,944
36
Roanoke, VA
alright Mickey ... surely you don't dispute that material = ride characteristic.
You have the know-how and background so answer this; why is it that 'most' if not all aluminum frames ride so incredibly and uncomfortably stiff (IMO), and how would you build with aluminum to a different result?

edit: maybe 'stiff' isn't even the problem, but I think you know what I'm asking.
Yeah, I do dispute the commonly promulgated untruths and generalizations about the ride characteristics of any material.

Ride quality and comfort is mostly about tire size and pressure and then it's about the natural resonant frequency of the material and how it's implemented into a structure- the overall frequency of the bike(fork, wheels, parts) is the main determinant of the butt and hand feel of a bike. The main determinant of overall comfort is the rider position. If the rider is "fighting" their fit(even a bit) it'll make them use muscles they shouldn't be using in ways that are sub-optimal to begin with.

The higher resonant frequency of aluminum actually allows you to have a great feeling bike when you select tube profiles and shapes that make sense since vibrations can be quickly transmitted out of the frame and neutralized by the components. Then we can talk about how the natural frequency of a frame/part system influences the "liveliness"(I know) and feedback a rider senses. Metal bikes feel better to me because you have much more road feel than a carbon bike- that means you can corner harder and get more stoked to smash on the pedals because the frame is asking you to so that it'll sing in a way that the rider will find inspiring. You can also crash the **** out of a metal bike too. That's a huge reason that people who work at mega-companies like Trek buy our bikes. They can't afford warranty replacements on the bikes they can e.p.

I've never heard a single complaint about the feel of our bikes, even from 65 year old recreational riders.
I bet that's because the bikes fit well, have nice wheels that are attached to the best fork you can buy (Enve) and a well designed frame that is made with great care by incredibly experienced people(Every frame I've ever sold has been welded by people that have built multiple world-championship winning bikes) in the United States.

I'd like to think that there is a reason that employees from Trek and Specialized and Cannondale and Seven and Sram/Zipp and I.F. and Hutchinson and Vittoria and Mavic and Michelin and Maxxis and LH Thomson and Enve and Clif Bar and Jamis and Ridley and Rapha and QBP and J&B and Hawley and Bti and Bicycling and Bike and Hi-Torque and Roleur and Dirt Rag and dozens of shop employees, a handful of ex euro pros and a score of Wallstreet millionaires have all bought aluminum road frames from me over the last 5 years. I know of 5 or 6 people that sold their bike, regretted it and bought a new one too, including people who run their own bike brands. I'm guessing that means they don't think that aluminum bikes ride like crap right?

A frame that is hydroformed feels like ****, and so does a less-expensive frame that uses extruded or seam-welded tubing instead of cold drawn and cold formed tubes. Enhanced grain structure from cold working really does make a difference in the feel of a bike because it really does improve the mechanical characteristics and grain structure of the tubing.

That's just my opinion and the opinion of hundreds of stoked Spooky owners.
I've seriously never heard anyone complain about the ride quality of the bikes.
 
Last edited:

SuspectDevice

Turbo Monkey
Aug 23, 2002
3,944
36
Roanoke, VA
I have questions with this as well. I'm a casual cyclist, not a racer. The extent of my riding is spinning onhigh mileage rides. The higher front end of the new casual roadie frames are great for me. A 140 stem and 12cm drop sounds pretty aggressive for a casual/weekend rider.
Taller bars that are closer to you don't really mean d!ck when it comes to fit our comfort. They're sales tools- a shop hack can put somebody on a bike like that and send them out the door "happy".
Is that the best position? Does it have the best weight distribution, the most neutral joint angles, the correct saddle height or setback? The right bars with the hoods in the right place? A saddle that's shaped right? The right crank length? If it comes off the showroom floor it probabally doesn't, especially for people on the extreme ends of the size spectrum. There's a reason I don't make stock bikes outside the range of 55cm to 59cm toptubes. Little people and big people are shaped differently and slight variances in limb length are exacerbated when the variances are so significant from the norm.

There are people with messed up bodies that "need" to ride a shopping cart but unless you have 3 or 4 fused vertebrae there is no reason to fit somebody to a bike in a way that maximizes inefficiency and ignores handling and weight distribution.

Wheelbases need to be as close to one meter as possible for a bike to handle well- It doesn't matter if somebody is 5'2" or 6'4"- a bicycle handles best with less than a 20mm variance either way from a 1 meter wheelbase. By varying seat angle, head angle, fork offset, HT length, CS length, bb drop and TT length you can put somebody on a bike in a neutral position with optimal weight distribution and the right handling characteristics for the intended application.

This isn't wacky Mickey theory either- it is the accepted dogma among all framebuilders and bike designers.
 

jonKranked

Press Button, Receive Stupid
Nov 10, 2005
57,454
5,792
media blackout
This isn't wacky Mickey theory either- it is the accepted dogma among all framebuilders and bike designers.
this statement made my day :rofl:


Also, based on what I know of framebuilding and designing bikes (I've read most of Paterek's, though I've never designed or built a bike), I'm gonna back Mickey up here 100% on everything he's said.
 

OGRipper

Turbo Monkey
Feb 3, 2004
9,758
182
NORCAL is the hizzle
You might also check out Lennard Zinn from Velonews. Big dude that's been making custom bikes for big guys forever. If nothing else you should check out some of his articles about bikes for large humans, he's got lots of good info.
 

Wumpus

makes avatars better
Dec 25, 2003
8,164
154
Six Shooter Junction
Wheelbase and other considerations

Five times a year somebody well meaning and semi-armed with a new vocabulary without much context or history, but a good intellect and a sincere desire to get to the meat of the matter and know facts...calls up starts off the conversation this-a-way:

"What's the wheelbase on your XYZ?"

We're thinking: If you know the other dimensions, wheelbase doesn't matter. And the other dimensions are always known. Wheelbase should never be a design criterion. It is a dependent variable, the result of other criteria (independent variables)--namely, the seat and head tube angles, top tube length and upslope, fork rake, chainstay length, and even bottom bracket drop.

A hundred bikes could have the same wheelbase, but they wouldn't fit or ride the same, or accommodate the same tires, if the independent variables are different.

Frettin' 'bout wheelbase is a vestige of the early '70s, when the country had a major infusion of rookie riders (I was one of 'em) who wanted things boiled down the the simplest understandable form, even if things got lost in the boiling.

Then, if a bike had a 39-inch wheelbase, it was a Racing bike. At 40, it was a Sport-Touring bike. At 42, a Touring bike....and now we move on.

There's a smattering of logic in the wheelbase story. Racing bikes have smaller tires than touring bikes, so the chainstays CAN be shorter, and so they usually are. (I cannot help but mention that Pino Moronni, Italian designer and consultant to the stars on record attempts) thought all chainstays should be about 45cm---more than 2-inches longer than normal race bike chainstays. Whether one thinks Pino was a nut or a genius doesn't matter, but to whatever extent one can call bikes "fast" or "slow" independent of riders, his bikes were fast.)

So back to the wheelbase and how it's nearly meaningless as a solo number. The important numbers are:

Chainstay length....too short, bike is too jumpy.
Tire and fender clearance....too little, can't run a big fun tire or fenders
Seat tube angle....too steep, can't put seat back far enough
Head tube angle and fork rake: Combine to influence how the bike responds.
Fork blade length: Affects front wheel clearance
BB drop: Affects ground clearance, standover height, and bike "feel"

I may be missing one or two, but Wheelbase isn't one of them.

When the independent variables are "right"--whatever your own personal "right" is---then the wheelbase will be right, because it can't be any other way. By definition it must be right, as long as you agree that it's a dependent variable, and not an indepedent one masquerading as a dependent one.

Summary: A good bike designer won't design to wheelbase. Wheelbase is the result of other dimensions. There are tons of ways to achieve the same wheelbase with different tube lenths and angles and offsets, and all those bikes, with the same wheelbase, will fit and ride differently.
 

SuspectDevice

Turbo Monkey
Aug 23, 2002
3,944
36
Roanoke, VA
Not his shop. We just work there. :p



I guess I'm doing it wrong then. I would be miserable on a bike with that kind of drop.
Yeah you might be miserable, but it is pretty spot on as a generalization from my experience doing fittings for shops and building custom frames for individuals.

Where'd you cut and paste the above post from?
Because it's just plain wrong if we're talking about designing a high-performance road bike.

It also completely misses the point of what I'm saying.
A bike that is designed wrong is going to suck, duh.
 
Last edited:

jonKranked

Press Button, Receive Stupid
Nov 10, 2005
57,454
5,792
media blackout
Wheelbase and other considerations

Five times a year somebody well meaning and semi-armed with a new vocabulary without much context or history, but a good intellect and a sincere desire to get to the meat of the matter and know facts...calls up starts off the conversation this-a-way:

"What's the wheelbase on your XYZ?"

We're thinking: If you know the other dimensions, wheelbase doesn't matter. And the other dimensions are always known. Wheelbase should never be a design criterion. It is a dependent variable, the result of other criteria (independent variables)--namely, the seat and head tube angles, top tube length and upslope, fork rake, chainstay length, and even bottom bracket drop.

A hundred bikes could have the same wheelbase, but they wouldn't fit or ride the same, or accommodate the same tires, if the independent variables are different.

Frettin' 'bout wheelbase is a vestige of the early '70s, when the country had a major infusion of rookie riders (I was one of 'em) who wanted things boiled down the the simplest understandable form, even if things got lost in the boiling.

Then, if a bike had a 39-inch wheelbase, it was a Racing bike. At 40, it was a Sport-Touring bike. At 42, a Touring bike....and now we move on.

There's a smattering of logic in the wheelbase story. Racing bikes have smaller tires than touring bikes, so the chainstays CAN be shorter, and so they usually are. (I cannot help but mention that Pino Moronni, Italian designer and consultant to the stars on record attempts) thought all chainstays should be about 45cm---more than 2-inches longer than normal race bike chainstays. Whether one thinks Pino was a nut or a genius doesn't matter, but to whatever extent one can call bikes "fast" or "slow" independent of riders, his bikes were fast.)

So back to the wheelbase and how it's nearly meaningless as a solo number. The important numbers are:

Chainstay length....too short, bike is too jumpy.
Tire and fender clearance....too little, can't run a big fun tire or fenders
Seat tube angle....too steep, can't put seat back far enough
Head tube angle and fork rake: Combine to influence how the bike responds.
Fork blade length: Affects front wheel clearance
BB drop: Affects ground clearance, standover height, and bike "feel"

I may be missing one or two, but Wheelbase isn't one of them.

When the independent variables are "right"--whatever your own personal "right" is---then the wheelbase will be right, because it can't be any other way. By definition it must be right, as long as you agree that it's a dependent variable, and not an indepedent one masquerading as a dependent one.

Summary: A good bike designer won't design to wheelbase. Wheelbase is the result of other dimensions. There are tons of ways to achieve the same wheelbase with different tube lenths and angles and offsets, and all those bikes, with the same wheelbase, will fit and ride differently.
mmmm copy pasta.

also, whoever wrote this completely ignored a critical trait to bike handling which is fork trail.
 

SuspectDevice

Turbo Monkey
Aug 23, 2002
3,944
36
Roanoke, VA
mmmm copy pasta.

also, whoever wrote this completely ignored a critical trait to bike handling which is fork trail.
Well, not exactly, they just chose not to mention it when describing every single possible parameter of hardpoint length and angle. Wheelbase, mass projection and trail are the only fundamental things that matter. Mass projection is the most integrative parameter and the thing that the smallest amount of people can sublimate into something usable to design a bike.

That is the consensus of everyone that designs a bicycle whether they know or not- what they're trying to achieve is different, obviously, but the same fundamental rules apply for everything from a kids bike to a world-land speed bike and everything in between. All bicycles are the same, you can even design a turn-in feel that feels the same(optimally consistent) on your 20" as on your downhill bike because it's your primitive brain that controls the bike and your primitive brain is well, primitive and easy to influence.

Just like human physiology bike frame design is about integrative systems- heck it's a machine and an animal working together in near-perfect harmony.

An ititerative list of every single thing that influences the way a bike handles isn't really worthwhile to mention because everything influences how a bike handles.
 

Wumpus

makes avatars better
Dec 25, 2003
8,164
154
Six Shooter Junction
mmmm copy pasta.

also, whoever wrote this completely ignored a critical trait to bike handling which is fork trail.

No, I just didn't include it.

We also sometime get questions about "trail."

Here's my stance on it, and by default, Rivendell's: Trail is a stabilizing factor in steering. Not enough of it, and the bike lacks what I feel is a good amount of "self-righting," which is the bike's tendency to correct itself and get back on course after it's been jostled. That's a desirable feature in a bike, and it comes with trail.

But I'm not Buddha, and other smart-thinking people (notably, Jan Heine) like bikes with less trail. And Jan Knows Bikes. We just happen to disagree on this, but have agreed to not feud about it or let it affect a long-running friendship.

High trail, low trail....take a stance, or ride them all.

Most of our bikes have trail numbers in the high 50s to low 60s. Combined with a high handlebar---which I think affects steering a lot, but I'm not going into that here---the result are bikes that, for better or worse, but I hope better, ride just the way I want 'em too. It is a rare rider who gets one of our bikes and isn't pleased. Statistically, 100 percent satisfaction is impossible, and so I end up going by what I think a bike should feel like, and coincidentally or not, our bikes are well-received.

Whenever we get a question about trail we know the number the asker is looking for: Mid thirties. Most of the bikes made have trail figgers in the high-fifties to high sixties (for mtn bikes, which need more "self-righting"). Ours, as I've said, are in the high 50s to low 60s depending on the model (and the TIRE!!!!!), and this number is the result of years of experience, certain preferences, and how a higher bar position affects steering. It is not a willy nilly spec.

About asking about "trail" and "bottom bracket height":

You have to specify a wheel, because wheel radius is an independent variable that affects both "trail" and "bottom bracket height." Frames don't have bottom bracket heights or trail. Bikes have both.
 

bean

Turbo Monkey
Feb 16, 2004
1,338
0
Boulder
How about Surly? Cross Check goes up to 62, and is larger than usual (I went down one size from what I rode on others like Felt). They also have a pure road bike, the Pacer. It goes up to 62 though it may not be quite as big as the Cross Check.