Hey folks. Have the chance to buy this lovely BSA but I think it’s a big boy frame and I’m about 5”7 and 30” inseam. Don’t have the chance to look at it til the end of the week so wanted to rule it out or whatever before then based on what people thought? Seller said he measured the seat tube to be 23” but unsure as to how this age of BSA is measured. Any help appreciated!
BustaCon on
Looks like it might be too big. You can always go take it for a test ride. I like small frames for shorter, zippy rides where I am crankin’ like a mofo. Bigger frames where the seat has to be slammed and I’m stretched out work better for distance at lesser max effort.
PJ48N on
I’m mostly with the other commenters that this is too big. BUT… whether it’s just a little too big or deal-breaker too big is really impossible for any of us to say with absolute certainty. Fit is also influenced by your preferred riding position: more upright or less upright.
This may be too big, but a 53 may be a bit on the small side. You really should check it out in person. Ride it, adjust bar height if needed, see how it feels. The stem on this looks to be about 100mm and may already be as high as it will go, or close to that.
I’m closer to 5’-6” and my inseam is closer to 29 and I rode a 56 cm 1976 Trek for about 20 years. Road frame of a similar vintage as this, 56cm top tube. I had 171mm crank arms. I loved that bike, and I still ride it set up with slightly swept back bars which makes a big difference for reach and very comfortable. I’ve also ridden 52’s and 53’s, which also feel good but to get the bars roughly even with seat height requires a very tall stem. Our height does not seem to match well with the sizes most frames of that vintage were designed for.
3 Comments
Hey folks. Have the chance to buy this lovely BSA but I think it’s a big boy frame and I’m about 5”7 and 30” inseam. Don’t have the chance to look at it til the end of the week so wanted to rule it out or whatever before then based on what people thought? Seller said he measured the seat tube to be 23” but unsure as to how this age of BSA is measured. Any help appreciated!
Looks like it might be too big. You can always go take it for a test ride. I like small frames for shorter, zippy rides where I am crankin’ like a mofo. Bigger frames where the seat has to be slammed and I’m stretched out work better for distance at lesser max effort.
I’m mostly with the other commenters that this is too big. BUT… whether it’s just a little too big or deal-breaker too big is really impossible for any of us to say with absolute certainty. Fit is also influenced by your preferred riding position: more upright or less upright.
This may be too big, but a 53 may be a bit on the small side. You really should check it out in person. Ride it, adjust bar height if needed, see how it feels. The stem on this looks to be about 100mm and may already be as high as it will go, or close to that.
I’m closer to 5’-6” and my inseam is closer to 29 and I rode a 56 cm 1976 Trek for about 20 years. Road frame of a similar vintage as this, 56cm top tube. I had 171mm crank arms. I loved that bike, and I still ride it set up with slightly swept back bars which makes a big difference for reach and very comfortable. I’ve also ridden 52’s and 53’s, which also feel good but to get the bars roughly even with seat height requires a very tall stem. Our height does not seem to match well with the sizes most frames of that vintage were designed for.
But if it’s actually too big, keep looking.
Hope this helps.