Fifty Plus (50+) - Getting a road bike need help on size

Well , I'm ditching my hybrid and getting a Trek 1000. I am discussing size with my shop owner. The 54 cm he feels is on the small end of my range, but not totally out of the question. His main guideline was stand over. I have a 32 in inseam, and 5 ft 11 1/2 tall. Then we tried the 56 cm, and I felt a little shaky and not maneuverable enough, especially in trying to do quick turns.
Do you guys think I should get the 54? Or will I be able to handle the 56 like the 54 with practice?

Thank you for any help and advice.

With your height and inseam I would think the 54 cm frame is too small. Standover height is not the only measurement that counts. I am not sure what you mean about the 56 cm bike being a "little shaky and not maneuverable enough". If you are used to the feeling of riding a hybrid, a road bike may feel a bit awkward at first.

Old School Thanks for the reply.
I feel like I'm not able to turn as sharply or as much in balance with the 56 as I can with the 54. That's the wobbly feeling I get and which I tried to describe. I don't feel nimble, so far at least. It's like an suv feeling as opposed to a sports car, or like I'm on "stilts" to some degree. Also I feel like I need lots more room to turn myself around.
I agree that the 54 is probably smallish for me. So I am hoping that if I get the 56 I'll be able to be more nimble like I am with the 54 after I get used to it. That's what I was driving at.

In an old-school road bike, 55cm is my size, and I am shorter than you. Go with the 56, which simply may not be set up quite properly for you.

Standover height is the LEAST important measurement. I have very short legs, but am almost 6 feet tall. My SO height is about .25 inch. I do just fine the past 8 years. Much more important is top tube length.

I would check out another shop. This guy seems to be obsessed by one relatively unimportant item

This is one of the problems with the so called experts at many LBS's - some really don't know much at all and don't give you much value over internet info and/or sales. Standover is a crude and incomplete way to size a bike, plus many expect to see more standover than is necessary.

I suggest that OP go to www.competativecyclist.com (http://www.competativecyclist.com) or www.wrenchscience.com (http://www.wrenchscience.com) and do their fit calculators to get an idea of the ballpark they should be looking at. As you'll see from those sites, inseam is one of the less important measurements.

Also, when it comes to inseam, you probably know that when talking about bike fit, you should be talking about a measurement from floor to pelvic/butt bones rather than pants inseam. The reason I mention this is that I am 5-8 and my pants inseam is 30 and my "bike" inseam is 32.25. I'd expect a longer inseam from you unless you have unusual proportions.

The modern trend is to sell bikes that are too small for you. Even good bike fitters make the same mistake, especially if they are racing orientated, and it's expensive to fix and the bike looks horrid. Yes, I'm narky, having carefully chosen a bike to 'last me forever' that now looks stupid with it's ultra long adjustable neck set at an extreme angle and seat balanced on the back of the seat stem (that's to get the knee right, not for the reach). I didn't upgrade my old Europa because I'd let myself be told it was too big for me, somehow ignoring all those years on her saddle, but she's now the comfortable bike that looks good, the 'correct sized' bike looks like 'stupid hair'.

High top tube isn't the scary thing people have made it out to be - my Europa's top tube touches my crutch and I've been riding her since the eighties without ever being bitten. If you read the Rivendell site, they talk about clearing the pelvic bone, not the soft tissue and my experience supports that. Actually, they say a lot of stuff that fits in with my experience ... once you overlook their somewhat 'boutique' atmosphere and attitudes.

But after spending a lot of money buying a good quality bike, I've now got the thing to fit me comfortably (almost but I'm chasing small things now) and it looks stupid. It'd hurt a lot less if I hadn't gone to so much trouble and thought so carefully about making this mistake. There's no alternative to personal experience and it is very satisfying, but by cripes the process can have some speed humps.

Richard

Multiply your inseam by 0.65, if you have a long body, or arms and need alonger top tube, use 0.7 as a multiplier, good luck with your new bike.

Well , I'm ditching my hybrid and getting a Trek 1000. I am discussing size with my shop owner. The 54 cm he feels is on the small end of my range, but not totally out of the question. His main guideline was stand over. I have a 32 in inseam, and 5 ft 11 1/2 tall. Then we tried the 56 cm, and I felt a little shaky and not maneuverable enough, especially in trying to do quick turns.
Do you guys think I should get the 54? Or will I be able to handle the 56 like the 54 with practice?

Thank you for any help and advice.

I am 5'9' and ride a 55 cm and sometimes wish I had a bigger bike. Get a fitting FIRST. Most bike shops charge for a GOOD fitting (I think $150-250 in this area) and often credit that charge toward the price of a new bike if you buy from them. A GOOD fitting is about the best money you can spend on a bike. A road bike will feel a little "squirrelly" at first, but that is the nature of the beast--I promise you will adjust, just like you will adjust to clipless pedals--you are getting clipless pedals soon aren't you? Once you get the feel of it, you will wonder how you ever got around on your hybrid........

Thanks so much everyone! Based on the consensus here, I'm going to have the LBS guy adjust the 56 cm. First is making the seat height correct for me on the 56. Second, I'd like the stem adjusted (lengthened) so that it reduces my reach. I do feel a little "reachy" on the 56 (the 54 felt like I was out over the bars).
Thursday is my day to choose my bike. I'll report back here. I can't wait to ride!!!

I'm 5'11.5" tall with a 32" inseam too and you're right, we're right on the cusp between 54 and 56cm sizes. I recently bought a 56cm Pilot 1.2 Trek and it fits just fine. Frankly, I couldn't feel much of a difference between a 54 and a 56 while riding. The only difference I felt was when standing over the bar. I was going to get a 54 but a couple of reps suggested I'd be better off with the 56.

I'm 5'11" with a 32" standover and my last road bike was a '95 Trek1000 in 56cm. I always thought it was a bit too small. A 54? Whew, not in a Trek anyway! Maybe other brands have longer top tubes.

I'm just a hair under 6' with a pants inseam of 32" or a cycling inseam of 34" (to the pubic bone). My normal size road frame is a 58cm and I would be more likely to move to a 60cm than to a 56cm. I would think a 54cm would be way small for the OP. But a fitting or at least some first hand advice from a knowledgeable person would be more useful than any of our speculation.

Denver is right regarding the importance of top tube length. At 5'8" with a 30" trouser inseam, I suppose I am pretty average in my proportions.

Bikes which have worked for me (all frame sizes C-T):

55cm 1981 Bianchi and 1959 Capo, 56cm (22") 1974 Schwinn Varsity -- darn near perfect :)

54cm 1970 Peugeot UO-8 -- OK because of the long top tube for its size

58cm 1971 Nishiki Competition -- too tall, but OK because of the very short top tube for its size (I even exchanged the stem for a long-reach one)
It replaced the 54cm Bianchi of my youth, but there was no way I could ride a 53cm Nishiki, because of the short top tube. If Nishiki had offered a 22" frame instead of just 21, 23, and 25, that would have been a very welcome option.

Bikes which have not worked well for me:

53cm 1980s Fuji -- elbows on knees, due to short top tube

57cm 1980 Peugeot PKN-10 -- between the criterium-height bottom bracket and the long top tube, this one always felt uncomfortably big, although installing the minimum-reach stem from the Fuji helped


I always enjoy comparing circa 1960 Tour de France or even early (circa 1980) Ironman photos against their modern equivalents to see the dramatic shrinkage in preferred frame size with respect to cyclist height. Racers show alot more seatpost today than back then. The simultaneous trend toward higher bottom brackets accounts for only 1 to 2cm of the difference.

In your picture in the above post, check out the rider to the left. His left leg is nearly at the bottom of the stroke and it's still quite bent. To my eyes, it looks like his seat is still WAY to low, regardless of his frame size. It almost looks like the bike is setup so that he has to stand to get best efficiency - witness the rider on the right.

You can not trust any of the "measure something and multiply it by a magic number" formulae. They work for the 'normal' body, but who the hell is normal? I'm beginning to suspect that my upper leg bone, whatever the thing is called, is a bit longer than is 'normal' and I think this goes partway to explaining my fit problems. A bigger part of the problem is that genetically, I am inclined to having a paunch (pot belly, beer gut, that blubblery thing that stretches the belt) and this I believe affects the fit of my bikes. Further, at my time in life, I have lived a life full of exercise and fitness derived from hard work ... until about eight years ago. Then my life became attached to this weird computer thingy and something called the 'internet'. This has shaped my body in a way that is probably rather removed from the ideal, and this does affect my bike fit - the bike the fitted me in november doesn't now ... well, it didn't until I spent a lot of money buying different bits.

Mate, you are an individual. The bike that suits you will suit no-one else. Sadly, if you are just starting on this cycling obsession, it probably won't fit you in twelve months time. Just do the best you can and embrace the pursuit and purchase of bits to 'improve' your ride - it's a time honoured tradition :D

Richard
it's far too late at night for me to be coherent, please forgive the ... well ... oh stuffit, you lot know what I mean ... sort of

My son is about 1/2" over your height & prefers 59 cm frames, although he adapted to a 57 x 57 Zeus bike I gave him. I once was 5' 7" but shrank to 5' 6" due to osteoporosis. I still ride mostly 53-54 cm frames & predict the 54 will be to small once you ride a while & get more flexible.

I do agree with others on the importance of top tube length as I have a Bianchi with a 51 cm seat tube X 55 cm top tube that works for me, so you might be OK with the 54 cm frame if it has a long top tube. Don

One of the best bike sites I've ever found on the Web regarding fit -- and just about everything else bike-related -- is by a guy named Jim Langley. His advice on how to set your saddle height is the best I've tried, and I use it on all my bikes. (He says put your heel on the pedal in the shoes you're going to ride in and pedal backwards. At the bottom of the stroke your leg should be extended all the way, no bend. Set the saddle. When you clip in, your leg will have the correct amount of bend.)

Anyway, back to the rest of bike fit, check out Jim's website. The fit part is at http://www.jimlangley.net/crank/bikefitchart.html

One of the best bike sites I've ever found on the Web regarding fit -- and just about everything else bike-related -- is by a guy named Jim Langley. His advice on how to set your saddle height is the best I've tried, and I use it on all my bikes. (He says put your heel on the pedal in the shoes you're going to ride in and pedal backwards. At the bottom of the stroke your leg should be extended all the way, no bend. Set the saddle. When you clip in, your leg will have the correct amount of bend.)

Anyway, back to the rest of bike fit, check out Jim's website. The fit part is at http://www.jimlangley.net/crank/bikefitchart.html

+1 Many other guides to seat adjustment agree with this. I have found it is very good for me and the people I've fitted. Try 1 cm (1/4 - 1/2 inch) above and below this as well for tweaking.

http://www.prodigalchild.net/Bicycle6.htm#FrameChart

Multiply your inseam by 0.65, if you have a long body, or arms and need alonger top tube, use 0.7 as a multiplier, good luck with your new bike.

This is the formula that Andy Pruitt used on thousands of people. It's probably the base and then you do minor adjustments, when your close.

In your picture in the above post, check out the rider to the left. His left leg is nearly at the bottom of the stroke and it's still quite bent. To my eyes, it looks like his seat is still WAY to low, regardless of his frame size. It almost looks like the bike is setup so that he has to stand to get best efficiency - witness the rider on the right.


That's my reaction, as well, but the chap is Adolph Christian, who competed for Austria in the TdF in 1957 and 1958. (I suspect this picture was taken a couple of years or so later, since those Campagnolo cranks, high-flange hubs, and centerpull brakes are a 60s thing. My picture of a 1957 Capo Sieger shows sidepull brakes, cottered steel cranks and Simplex suicide derailleurs.) Perhaps he would have placed higher in the TdF if he had raised his saddle. :)

Multiply your inseam by 0.65, if you have a long body, or arms and need alonger top tube, use 0.7 as a multiplier, good luck with your new bike.


This is the formula that Andy Pruitt used on thousands of people. It's probably the base and then you do minor adjustments, when your close.

There's a huge difference between .65 and .7. For example, an 81 cm inseam (32 inch) inseam

.65 = 53 cm frame
.70 = 57 cm frame

Just makes me think that it's not a useful rule of thumb. Something else is going on if the guy successfully fits a lot of frames, not just inseam measurement and a multiplier.

I don't know for sure, but I thought he might be talking about a person 5'10" to say 6'4".

Well , I'm ditching my hybrid and getting a Trek 1000. I am discussing size with my shop owner. The 54 cm he feels is on the small end of my range, but not totally out of the question. His main guideline was stand over. I have a 32 in inseam, and 5 ft 11 1/2 tall. Then we tried the 56 cm, and I felt a little shaky and not maneuverable enough, especially in trying to do quick turns.
Do you guys think I should get the 54? Or will I be able to handle the 56 like the 54 with practice?

Thank you for any help and advice.

You are taller than I am. And, I think you are confusing your slack's inseam with your leg length. Your leg length is probably 34 inches or even 35 inches (measured from the floor to the pubic bone).

If I were to buy a Trek 1000, I'd get the size 58. That would make it easier to get the bars up to my preferred position, close to level with the top of the saddle. Riding with the bars three or four inches lower than the saddle is uncomfortable when you are twenty, and painful when you are fifty.

I have bikes that are a size 60 and 62. A bit taller than my "perfect" size 58 bike. But, after I'm on the bikes, and riding down the road, these bikes handle just as well as my size 58 bikes. It takes an hour or two of riding to get used to any new bike, a five minute test ride is not a good clue as to how a bike will feel after you have the saddle and bars dialed in, and get a few hours of riding time.

By the way, several posters have implied that a size 54 has a shorter top tube than a size 56. Yes, but the difference in top tube measurements is less than an inch, and that difference is NOT relevant to how a bike actuall fits its rider.

The relevant measurement is "reach": the distance from the rear of the saddle to the front of the stem (the rider's "reach"). A size 56 will make it easier to raise the bars up to their correct height. As the bars are raised, the distance from the rear of the saddle to the front of the stem gets smaller.

As a result, a rider who is on a size 56, with the bars one inch lower than the top of the saddle has a SHORTER reach than a guy who is on a size 54 with the bars three inches below the top of the saddle. (This ain't rocket science...just get a yardstick and do the measurements). So, the folks who buy a 54 "because I have a short torso", are likely making their "reach" longer, not shorter.

Folks with a "short torso" can solve their fit problem by getting the tallest frame they can stand over, and then raising the bars so that the bars are level with the top of the saddle.

It's worth it to go to a good fitter or LBS that knows their stuff.

For me, getting the right fit is an ongoing task.

...By the way, several posters have implied that a size 54 has a shorter top tube than a size 56. Yes, but the difference in top tube measurements is less than an inch, and that difference is NOT relevant to how a bike actuall fits its rider.

The relevant measurement is "reach": the distance from the rear of the saddle to the front of the stem (the rider's "reach"). A size 56 will make it easier to raise the bars up to their correct height. As the bars are raised, the distance from the rear of the saddle to the front of the stem gets smaller....

I agree with you totally that a larger frame, other factors being equal, will get the bars up higher and this is what was the norm years ago, and what competativecyclist.com calls the "french" fit. That's why I went with a 54 instead of a 52. I can get both to fit seat height-wise and reach-wise, but it's easier to get the handlebars up where I need them without resorting to odd looking high angle stems or steer tube extender (threadless fork).

As for 1 inch (2.5 cm) being irrelevant - I don't agree with this. 2 cm can indeed make the difference between achieving good reach with a conventional sized stem (say 9 - 12 cm) vs. an unusual stem (say, 8 cm or 13 or 14 cm). I fit my current bike with a 9 cm stem, and can get the bars up to a comfortable enough level (about 1" below saddle), with a mildly angled stem. If I had a top tube a "mere" inch longer, I couldn't fit it unless I used an odd stem like 8. Yes, the added head tube height would move the bars back a little, but I don't think it would be that much.

That said, certainly there are frame sizes and people for which a 2 inch difference in top tube is not significant as far as reach goes - for example they could fit the larger one with a 9-10 cm stem, and the other with a 11-12. Handling might be subtly different, but both are well within "normal". The difference could very well be irrelevant for these folks and they should decide which frame makes sense for them in terms of head tube height, and other features.

Alan Thanks I ended up with a 60 cm Kona dew. It's a terrific bike. No way I could handle the heavy feeling of the Trek in that size. Apparently some bikes I can feel nimble in a large size. I am very comfortable, and it handles like a cat. I almost gave up on hybrids til I discovered the one Kona remaining in the store, and luckily in my size. Once I test rode it in the parking lot, I knew it was the one.
Thanks again and I agree totally with your well reasoned fitting analysis. It's just that Trek had me feeling like I couldn't ride a bike with proper control in my correct size.