Road Cycling - Did I get the right size bike?

I narrowed my search down to 3 different bikes, the Lemond Zurich (I got to ride the Buenos Aires which I was told would be very similar to the Zurich), the Trek 5200 and the Cannondale R2000. I ultimately went with the C'dale because I got such a good deal on it and couldn't get any off retail on the other two. I had to buy the C'dale sight unseen as there was not one in the showroom (I had a R400 so I was reasonably sure I would be happy with the quality).

Here's the question. I am 6.1 in height and was told by my LBS that a 60 would be the right fit. I got the bike and was fitted for it in terms of seat post and saddle position. I have proper leg extension so from that perspective, it seems to work well. I have very little standover on the top tube however and can only touch the ground with tiptoes when sitting in the saddle. LBS says that it absolutely does fit. I feel that the bike may be a bit to tall for me. The seat post is almost to the bottom and I can't go any lower on it. If I understand things correctly, it is a good thing to have it lower cause you get less flex. Should I have maybe have gotten a size 58 and then raised the seat post a little giving me more standover height? I seem to be awfully high from the ground on this bike. I can get this sucker going now don't get me wrong, I just wonder if maybe it isn't too big for me. I know fit is everything but like I said before, I had an entry level bike which in the case of the R400 comes in small, medium, and large. I had the large which isn't quite as big as the 60. I really don't have a lot of experience with a lot of different bikes so I can't really make comparisons. Thanks for any input any of you might have!

6'1'' 60cm sounds right. The first time i got on my c'dale road bike i felt very high and you shouldnt be able to reach the ground from the saddle.

Does it ride well?

I narrowed my search down to 3 different bikes, the Lemond Zurich (I got to ride the Buenos Aires which I was told would be very similar to the Zurich), the Trek 5200 and the Cannondale R2000. I ultimately went with the C'dale because I got such a good deal on it and couldn't get any off retail on the other two. I had to buy the C'dale sight unseen as there was not one in the showroom (I had a R400 so I was reasonably sure I would be happy with the quality).

Here's the question. I am 6.1 in height and was told by my LBS that a 60 would be the right fit. I got the bike and was fitted for it in terms of seat post and saddle position. I have proper leg extension so from that perspective, it seems to work well. I have very little standover on the top tube however and can only touch the ground with tiptoes when sitting in the saddle. LBS says that it absolutely does fit. I feel that the bike may be a bit to tall for me. The seat post is almost to the bottom and I can't go any lower on it. If I understand things correctly, it is a good thing to have it lower cause you get less flex. Should I have maybe have gotten a size 58 and then raised the seat post a little giving me more standover height? I seem to be awfully high from the ground on this bike. I can get this sucker going now don't get me wrong, I just wonder if maybe it isn't too big for me. I know fit is everything but like I said before, I had an entry level bike which in the case of the R400 comes in small, medium, and large. I had the large which isn't quite as big as the 60. I really don't have a lot of experience with a lot of different bikes so I can't really make comparisons. Thanks for any input any of you might have!

Height alone isn't enough to be sure of the size. True inseam (crotch to floor) and arm length are much more informative.

6.1 on a 60cm does sound rite but having the seat post all the way down seems wrong. I would'nt want anything that is maxed or in your case minned out to fit rite. Does it have a bit of seat tubing above the top tube? is the 60cm measured center to center? what is the TT measurement

Try www.competitivecyclist.com and input your measurements.

Yes, that is the right size.

I am 5'11" and I ride a 59cm
but then again i ride one of those strange bikes that only goes on the odd number sizes

Years ago, I rode a 60 cm. (I'm 6' with a 33.75" inseam) Now I ride a 57 and a 58. All of them were/are correct given their specific geometric differences. However, I've grown to prefer the smaller sizes as they afford me more adjustment options.

55/Rad

I dunno everyone is different, Im 6'4 and ride a 58cm and i guy i work with is 6'5 and rides a 58cm too...and we BOTH go to different LBS's, so everyone is different

try the pubic bone height * .67 test for an approximation

most importantly, tho, ride it for a fair distance... thats the best way to judge. i mean, if a 7 footer feels great on a 52cm bike then who cares (slight hyperbole, tho :D)

all my measurements have me out to a 56cm... im riding a 60cm... my balls straddle the top-tube on the standover test.. but with a bit of tweak (shorter stem, lowered seat), i rode 25 miles saturday and felt completely fine. :)

I narrowed my search down to 3 different bikes, the Lemond Zurich (I got to ride the Buenos Aires which I was told would be very similar to the Zurich), the Trek 5200 and the Cannondale R2000. I ultimately went with the C'dale because I got such a good deal on it and couldn't get any off retail on the other two. I had to buy the C'dale sight unseen as there was not one in the showroom (I had a R400 so I was reasonably sure I would be happy with the quality).

Here's the question. I am 6.1 in height and was told by my LBS that a 60 would be the right fit. I got the bike and was fitted for it in terms of seat post and saddle position. I have proper leg extension so from that perspective, it seems to work well. I have very little standover on the top tube however and can only touch the ground with tiptoes when sitting in the saddle. LBS says that it absolutely does fit. I feel that the bike may be a bit to tall for me. The seat post is almost to the bottom and I can't go any lower on it. If I understand things correctly, it is a good thing to have it lower cause you get less flex. Should I have maybe have gotten a size 58 and then raised the seat post a little giving me more standover height? I seem to be awfully high from the ground on this bike. I can get this sucker going now don't get me wrong, I just wonder if maybe it isn't too big for me. I know fit is everything but like I said before, I had an entry level bike which in the case of the R400 comes in small, medium, and large. I had the large which isn't quite as big as the 60. I really don't have a lot of experience with a lot of different bikes so I can't really make comparisons. Thanks for any input any of you might have!

You ought to have about 5-6" of seatpost showing if the bike fits.
Your height is not as much of an issue as the distance from where your seat will be in your pelvic area to the floor..shoes off. NOt everybody is equadistant between the waist and top of the head vs bottom of the feet. That's why they make different stem lengths. Some people have really long legs that are six feet tall, others have really long torsos that are six feet tall.
I sell many road bikes a year and fit people daily. I also work with a professional fitter who does custom work, as well as bike fitting for most of the category I and II racers in our area. He is Serotta certified.

Do not worry as much about standover height. There are so many frame geometries now...

Here's some bikefit info, again (http://www.coloradocyclist.com/bikefit/)

You can use this to do your own calculations. It's not a secret only known to shop people. I will say that I see a lot of people riding very nice bikes that do not fit. They are either hitting their chest with their thighs while pedaling, spending the majority of their time riding on the top of the bars, or their knees or bent outward due to lack of space on the bike. Or in the drops, you can see their knees inside of their elbows..too short on top.

This calculation is a good way to check your size.

I wonder how everybody can tell the right size online? You guys are good.

I was just going to post the same concern! This is the exact problem I have except that have an R1000 and I am 6'0 with a 34" inseam on a 58cm, and feel that I may need a 56cm. I also can only touch the ground with my toes when in the saddle, and I barely have enough standover. I too am concerned with the amount of the seat tube showing.

This may not be related, but I've noticed that on longer/more agressive rides, that my back muscles will ache a bit. This could be to the new geometry, my old bike had the same issue when I bought it, and it subsided. But it could be related.. we'll see.

I had been sold on the Treks, for which I take a 58cm, so I test rode the C'dale I tried the 58... and it won me over. I asked the LBS and they assured me that the 58 was for me. After reading the geometry of the bikes, I see that a C'dale standover for a 56cm is just .5cm shorter than a trek 58cm. The C'dale 56 is 80.5cm 58 is 82.5 and the 60 is 84.2. The Trek 58 is 81cm and the 60 is 82.9.. so the standover on the 60 is just .4cm higher than the 58 of the Trek. It's not the BB height as the C'dale is just .2cm higher. The top tube MUST just be higher on the frame than on the trek, making the seat tube start about 2cm higher... Now, standover isn't that big of deal(I've got a little over and inch), neither is the tiptoe thing, but the seat height vs the the bars COULD be an issue.

The bike rides wodnerfully, I've added 1mph+ to my average with this just this bike. It's fun, reponsive and fast! But I wonder if I shouldn't have bought a 56.

The drop line tests all work out... when on the hoods, the stem blocks the hubs... when i the drops with my head at 45 degrees a dropline from my nose is 1" behind the bars.. a drop my my knee intersects the spindle, and my knee has the proper bend. I don't know...

Attached is a photo, let me know what you think.

how about a pic of you on the bike?

6.1 on a 60cm does sound rite but having the seat post all the way down seems wrong. I would'nt want anything that is maxed or in your case minned out to fit rite. Does it have a bit of seat tubing above the top tube? is the 60cm measured center to center? what is the TT measurement

I agree. IMO, saddle all the way down is a strong indicator that it might be too large. How does the cockpit length feel? Do you feel like your arms are reaching too far?

Cannondales are measured center-to-top-of-top-tube but also have 2-2.5cm of additional seat tube sticking above the top tube. They also tend to size "larger" than they really are. I ride a 54cm Trek and had a 52cm Cannondale but they both fit me about the same.

Here's some bikefit info, again (http://www.coloradocyclist.com/bikefit/)


Be aware that Colorado Cyclist's fit info is based on KOPS (the plumb bob method) which has been proven wrong. If you are interested in learning about bike fit there are several very informative links in my sig line.

RE: Is your bike too big?

We can't know that without seeing you ride but 59 or 60cm sounds about right for your height. I am 6'3" and prefer a 61cm but I can get comfortable on a 60cm or 62cm also. It isn't a big deal if your frame is slightly too large. So long as you can straddle the top tube while standing flat footed you will be OK. You will probably get a more comfortable ride because of the higher handlebar.

It does however, worry me a little that you need the saddle all the way down. As others have said, that is a strong indicator that your frame may be too large. Or it might just mean that your saddle is set too low. When you are on the saddle with one pedal in the 6 o'clock position (at the bottom) how much bend do you have in your knee? A little or a lot? Raise your saddle some and see if you like it.

I rode a 60c 'Dale for years, and shelved it for a few months when I got my Orbea. Both are 60c frames. Once I got the new roadie bike set up, including many adjustments to saddle height, etc. over the first months of riding it, I decided to builid the 'dale up into a fixie. I used to have my saddle quite a ways up on the 'dale, but have discovered that it was indeed too high for my riding style. Now, as a fixie, the saddle is considerably lower than it was before. I'm about 6'1" as well, but my inseam measures out in the high 33" area. I have about three or so inches of seatpost showing on the 'dale. It fits well, always has.

That said, there's no real way to tell you if your bike fits you. The fact that it is the right size according to anyone is beside the point. While I would agree that you might try raising the saddle a bit to see if you might not have it set up too low, it's still possible that the bike frame fits you a little larger than what you're used to. Like shoe fit, bike fit is very individualized. Have a qualified fit guru check you out, either at the shop where you got the bike or at another shop. Beats plugging numbers into a website. Just remember that, even after a pro fit, your personal riding style might call for further adjustments. A fit will just give you a well educated starting place.

And I can't touch the ground with my foot from the saddle of any of my bikes. I've seen few folks that could do that on bikes that were properly fitted for their pedalstroke. Don't use that to judge frame size.

I rode a 58 for years and would have shoulder and neck problems on rides over 1.5 hours.My new bike is a 56 and have had no problems yet with some rides well over 2 hours.Im 6'2" so sometimes bikefit isnt for everyone.

Thats the first time,ever,that i've heard that bike fit isnt for everone. I hate to say this but,thats the dumbest thing i have ever read on here,imo of course.

Thats the first time,ever,that i've heard that bike fit isnt for everone. I hate to say this but,thats the dumbest thing i have ever read on here,imo of course.

Who said that?

First of all, you should not be adjusting the seat height by trying to reach the ground while on the saddle. The height deals with standing over the top tube, NOT on the saddle.


You ought to have about 5-6" of seatpost showing if the bike fits. That seems like quite a bit for classic geometry.

I would go to one of the on line fit calculators. Do the measurements a couple of times and average them. You may find that things are fine.

The seat all the way down sounds scarey. But, you should be adjusting it to reach the pedals properly, not the ground. So that may be the issue there.

I am 6'0 with a 34" inseam

I am 5'11 3/4" tall with a 33.75" inseam. Thay could make manikins from my dimensions I am so evenly proprtioned. I ride a 58cm frame for all around road use, a 57cm for road racing, and a 56cm for criteriums and track racing.

Back pain may be related to size but I am guessing that in your case it is not. It is probably more a factor of conditioning. Miles, strength training, and stretching are probably the answer. A 56cm frame is probably within your range of sizes, but it is probably on the small side for all around road use unless you ride alot and are pretty flexible.

If the numbers all seem to fit like you indicated in your post, you should be just fine.

The inseam measurement used to size a bike is not the length of your Levis. It is the measurement from your crotch to the floor in bare feet. This is usually longer than your pants inseam. Unless you need some fasion help.

Thanks to all for the great comments. The bike in terms of arm reach and pedal stroke seem to be just right. My leg is slightly bent at the down stroke as it is supposed to be. My concern is that I am kind of high on the bike and it seems that it might feel more comfortable to be lower especially at high speeds on decents. If you are familiar with the C'dale seat post, it is all the way down to where is starts to bend. Thanks again!

I am 5'11 3/4" tall with a 33.75" inseam. Thay could make manikins from my dimensions I am so evenly proprtioned. I ride a 58cm frame for all around road use, a 57cm for road racing, and a 56cm for criteriums and track racing.

Back pain may be related to size but I am guessing that in your case it is not. It is probably more a factor of conditioning. Miles, strength training, and stretching are probably the answer. A 56cm frame is probably within your range of sizes, but it is probably on the small side for all around road use unless you ride alot and are pretty flexible.

If the numbers all seem to fit like you indicated in your post, you should be just fine.

Those are my dimensions also. I have a 56 which I got ten years ago for crit racing. When set up, I had a 9 cm drop to the bars with the seat post all the way up. I just got a 58, and now have a 5 cm drop.....it's a more comfortable overall position for longer club rides.

Be aware that Colorado Cyclist's fit info is based on KOPS (the plumb bob method) which has been proven wrong. If you are interested in learning about bike fit there are several very informative links in my sig line.

RE: Is your bike too big?

We can't know that without seeing you ride but 59 or 60cm sounds about right for your height. I am 6'3" and prefer a 61cm but I can get comfortable on a 60cm or 62cm also. It isn't a big deal if your frame is slightly too large. So long as you can straddle the top tube while standing flat footed you will be OK. You will probably get a more comfortable ride because of the higher handlebar.

It does however, worry me a little that you need the saddle all the way down. As others have said, that is a strong indicator that your frame may be too large. Or it might just mean that your saddle is set too low. When you are on the saddle with one pedal in the 6 o'clock position (at the bottom) how much bend do you have in your knee? A little or a lot? Raise your saddle some and see if you like it.

Theories are great. Unfortunately, the average cyclist cannot work with this because "feeling this" and "equidistant that" are things that people who have not ridden very much or had bikes that fit properly in the past can feel or visualize. It's like trying to learn how to hit a golf ball off a video.
So....there are landmark points that are established to get the rider to "center" or "neutral" to determine fit. Fit and riding position are two different things. A tourist and a racer will not, most likely, want the same riding position, although they may ride the same size bike. When I raced, I was more "behind", about a cm. Since I do not race anymore, I like a more neutral position. But then I have been fortunate to work with fitters and ride top equipment. I've read Bontrager's article before. It's interesting but 1. he's talking about building frames and changing seat angles and the like and 2. most racers like to be a bit behind the bottom bracket while he espouses being in front of the BB (with various seat tube angles).
When we do custom fits (http://www.serotta.com/pages/size.html) we establish these points throughout the process and then they are modified based on the rider's feedback. The small box at the top if clicked, tells more. It's in the rider feedback as these points are established that we can "modify" from fit to riding position. What's difficult is that many people have not ridden good or fitted bikes, and as a result they truly have no real standard from which to work to give us feedback. Another reason to use landmarks to help them understand the fit and then to slightly modify for additional comfort.
BTW...we put riders, in the cases of getting fitted on existing bikes, on a cyclocomputer to look at the measurements and see, graphically (we can see their pedal stroke and measure how effective and efficient it is, all a sum of fit), what's working and what does not. This is not a theory. It shows us that more neutral positions for riders who do not ride all the time are the most efficient, due to their conditioning. The computer does not lie. I have seen riders put into the positions espoused on the links to see graphic evidence on the computer that, for that rider, it does not work.
Like everything else, one size does not fit all.
But you have to start someplace.

BTWII...if you get Velonews, the Buyer's Guide that just came out, on page 90 and 91 has a lot of very good fit advice written with self-help advice that can be easily used.
On saddle fore-aft positioning, they use examples to show the impact of moving the seat.
There are saddle height self-checks and on-bike reach checks to help with self-sizing.

The article was written by Leonard Zinn...he has written several books on maintenance.

whitemax, you mention that the seatpost is down to where the bend is in it. I think that the post you have is a Thomson setback, correct? That actually means that you do have some seatpost showing above the seat collar, right?

And, just to stress mine and avalanche's point again, do not adjust your seatpost according to where you can touch the ground. As I mentioned in a longer post before, I've never ridden with anyone that could get their feet flat on the ground in the saddle and was also at all concerned with their knees.