Road Cycling - Bike fit question

I just bought a new 56cm Cannondale R600 road bike. I was wondering if I bought the wrong size frame. I'm 5"11 with a 31.75 inseam. When I plug my numbers in over at wrenchscience.com it comes back with a 54cm frame. However, when I road the 54 my arms felt a bit cramped, I have a long upper torso. My seat post is only up about 3 inches or so. This is my first road bike and everything feels pretty good. One of the bike shops I went to recommended a compact frame Specialized Allez to fit my build. Does anyone here with a similar build ride a 56? Did I make the right choice with a 56cm non-compact frame? Thanks in advance.

- dan

Here's a photo of my new bike, notice how low the seatpost is with the Brooks saddle.

http://forums.dealcatcher.com/upfiles/2/asppg_Vt565866071.jpg

5'8" - inseam 31.6" and I ride a 56cm Trek 5200, fits perfect with no need to change stem. 54cm I felt cramped and binded, 56cm is perfect, purchase what fells right and let the numbers just guide you to the general area of fit.Then you do the final fit and decision to what feels correct for your stature and comfort. Nice looking bike thou :)

wow, there's hardly any seat tube showing!

As long as you're comfortable, it's fine. However, I would've probably gone with a 54cm and swapped the stem for something with a longer length and less rise.

Yea there's not to much, howerver the Brooks is a fairly large saddle. I could always flip the stem to lower the rise. Coming for a mountain bike its hard for me to judge if its comfortable. It feels great overall very smooth and fast. The stem is a 110mm, I thought about trying a 120mm.

As long as you are comfortable riding it I wouldn't worry too much. I had a bike that was too small for me and I could never get it to fit right. Seeing as you are coming from MTBing it might be a bad idea to jump right into road biking with a low aggressive postion. Later on if you want you can get a differernt stem and achomplish the same thing.

I would think the major thing would be too long of a reach with a large frame, if you are not in pain and comfortable I would just ride it and not worry how it looks!

I just bought a new 56cm Cannondale R600 road bike. I was wondering if I bought the wrong size frame. I'm 5"11 with a 31.75 inseam. When I plug my numbers in over at wrenchscience.com it comes back with a 54cm frame. However, when I road the 54 my arms felt a bit cramped, I have a long upper torso. My seat post is only up about 3 inches or so. This is my first road bike and everything feels pretty good. One of the bike shops I went to recommended a compact frame Specialized Allez to fit my build. Does anyone here with a similar build ride a 56? Did I make the right choice with a 56cm non-compact frame? Thanks in advance.

- dan
Nice bike! I have the exact same inseam as you except that I'm 5'10. I ride a 56 cm with no problem.
You will need to eventually flip the stem to get a little better body angle. When I started biking It took a while for my back to stretch out so that a road position felt comfy.
I did the fit measurements at www.competitivecyclist.com and it came out to 56cm. You might try their site and plug in your numbers to see what you get.

to be brutally frank -- since you already bought the bike -- 56 cm is too big for you. period. the problem with the 'dale is that it is a square bike -- that is, the top tube and the seat tube are the same length. like a lot of guys, you have a long torso, so consequently, you need a longer top tube. in a square bike, that means going up a couple of sizes. a bike that would fit you better would be a 54 with a 55.5 cm top tube or, as you have been told, a compact 55 or 56.

since you've already bought the bike, there's not much that you probably want to hear about this, but in my opinion, the 'dale is the wrong bike for you. you were poorly served by your bike salesman.

I wouldn't worry about it if you can stand over the top tube with out the pitch of your voice changing. I bought my last road bike (used) too large to get a long enough top tube. I just wanted that bike and new if I waited for the right size it would take too long. It was out of production. It's just comfortable that way. Some writers recommend low crotch clearance for road bikes any way. It's given me zero problems in over 3 years.

That said, I'm about to get a new frame which I will get allowing about a half inch or more of crotch room. I've going with a manufacturer who has longer top tubes. At my age, it's just harder to lift the old leg that high.

Al

A bike that would fit you better would be a 54 with a 55.5 cm top tube or, as you have been told, a compact 55 or 56.

Why would this be a better fit? Imagine the seat, pedals & handle bars in the same place. Essentially, you would be lowering the top tube and laying the seat angle back. More seat post would be exposed, but what difference does that make?

Personally, I think bikes should be sized by the top tube instead of the seat tube; changing the seat post to accommodate the seat tube is probably the easiest adjustment on a bike. Changing the stem to accommodate the top tube, however, affects balance, steering & handling.

A 54cm would be too small, IMHO. I’m 5’5” and I ride a 53cm with a 54.5cm top tube. Quit worrying and enjoy the ride :p

-murray

i agree that bikes should be fitted by the top tube rather than the seat tube, but with the amount of seatpost showing on the picture above, deal's testicles are probably just about squashed on the top tube when he's straddling the bike. that's dangerous. period. ideally, bike fit should be a function of both st and tt, a balance of both, using stem length as a variable up to a point. after all, st and tt lengths are relative. the fact is that not all bike geometries fit all riders, and riders with long torsos should stay away from square bikes.

the problems arise when people shop for bikes by brand rather than fit. deal could not get an ideal fit on the 'dale, so he should have looked at another brand, no matter how much the 'dale sang to him.

[by the way, according to cyrile guimard's formula, deal's optimal st height is 53.8 cm, and guimard is quite liberal with seat height. it is not difficult to find a bike with a 54 st and a 55.5-56 tt. such a bike would have been an ideal fit.]

i agree that bikes should be fitted by the top tube rather than the seat tube, but with the amount of seatpost showing on the picture above, deal's testicles are probably just about squashed on the top tube when he's straddling the bike. that's dangerous. period. ideally, bike fit should be a function of both st and tt, a balance of both, using stem length as a variable up to a point. after all, st and tt lengths are relative. the fact is that not all bike geometries fit all riders, and riders with long torsos should stay away from square bikes.

the problems arise when people shop for bikes by brand rather than fit. deal could not get an ideal fit on the 'dale, so he should have looked at another brand, no matter how much the 'dale sang to him.

[by the way, according to cyrile guimard's formula, deal's optimal st height is 53.8 cm, and guimard is quite liberal with seat height. it is not difficult to find a bike with a 54 st and a 55.5-56 tt. such a bike would have been an ideal fit.]

*yawn*

there are many bikes that would fit any one, including dealcatcher, depending on what kind of riding is desired. a 52, 54, or compact frame would give him a nice racing geometry. a 56, 58, etc., would give him a more comfortable geometry.

judging by the height of the dealcatcher's stem/handlebar, it's clear he would NOT be fit well on a smaller frame. "frankly", on a smaller frame, his stem would be extraordinarily high with tons of spacers.

dealcatcher: competitivecyclist.com has a rudimentary fit calculator that would give you results that would fit you on at least 3 different size bikes, probably. they call it the "race", "eddy merckx", and "french fit" bikes. you probably have fit that's somewhere between merckx/french, that is, a comfortable road bike. if that's what you're looking for, then your bike fits you fine. if you want something racier, then you can look at compact/smaller frames next time.

sd

FWIW, I ride a cannondale 54, my inseam is 30.25" and I have a whole lot more seat post showing. That makes me think your saddle may be set too low.

A little late for this question?

Exposed seatpost doesn't mean much in this case - look at how thick that saddle is. With a racing saddle set to the same height, more post would be exposed.

Dealcatcher - I wouldn't worry about it as long as you are happy. Yes, you might have gone with a more aggressive fit as opposed to comfort, but you are in well within the zone of what is considered a good fit.

As far as Wrenscience goes - I love them and recommend their sizing program all the time. But they say my ideal frame size is a 56. What I've discovered that REALLY means is a frame with a 56 cm top tube. I'm 6' with a 33.75 inseam. The 58 Trek/57 Lemond/55 Lemond I own all have a top tube within 1 cm of each other, making it real easy to match them

55/Rad

judging by the height of the dealcatcher's stem/handlebar, it's clear he would NOT be fit well on a smaller frame. "frankly", on a smaller frame, his stem would be extraordinarily high with tons of spacers.
I have to disagree. On a smaller frame the saddle would be a little higher, the top tube would give more crotch clearance, and the stem would be about the same. On most road bikes the stem is lower than the saddle.


Dealcatcher, did someone at the bike shop fit you to this bike or did you just walk in, like it, and buy it?

I just bought the exact same bike. I'm a little over 5'11" and ride a 56 frame as well. When I was getting sized from my bike at the LBS they put in all my measurements and at first I came out with a recommended 54 frame. The guy doing the fit figured that can't be right - he did the measurements again and realized he measured my arms incorrectly. After putting in the longer arm measurments it came out to a 56 frame.

Mine fits me perfectly - and my seat post is quite a bit higher too.?.?

:o

i have almost the excact same body as you, i could not get comfortable on the R600/56cm, i test rode it several times. finally they put me on a 57cm lemond and it fit like a glove. my seat sits rather low as well, but its comfortable and rides well.

shoot, i meant to post a pic of my bike in the previous post, here it it, i've tweaked the seat up just a bit from where it is in this picture. you can see the compact geometry gives me sufficient clearance for my, um, gear while the size fits my long torso nicely.

-- michael

If the Cannondale had a 'straight' (not gowing upwards) stem, the top of his saddle would be a little heigher than his steer. This combined with a normal 'saddle' would make the bike look normal

I just found out Cannondales are measured center to top. So there 56cm measured center to center is 54.61cm. My stand over height on the top tub is pretty good, I can still lift the bike up 1.5 inches from the ground. I was setup at the bike shop, they said I could go either way 54 or 56. I have a long upper torso and I felt a bit cramped on the 54cm. The top of my seat is 71.12cm from the center of the bottom bracket.

Looks like a very good fit to me. Don't worry about how much seatpost is or is not showing. The key thinkgs are 1) can you set the saddle to the correct height? Answer: Yes. 2) Can you set the handlebars to the desired height? Answer: Yes, and there's room to lower them plenty by flipping the stem and/or removing spacers. 3) Can you get the saddle-to-bar reach set correctly without an extremely short or long stem? Answer: Yes.

Yes, a custom or compact frame will give you more standover clearance, but that is not really an issue on a road bike - at least not as much as it is on a mountain bike.

Is it comfortable to ride? Can you straddle the frame without the boys touching?

Personally I feel more comfortable with your kind of setup than with a smaller frame. Online fit guides seem to want to put me on a 56cm frame (6', 34" cycling inseam), as have a couple of LBS employees, but I've felt cramped on every 56cm frame I've ridden (Fuji, Bianchi, Surly, Specialized, Trek, Klein + more). If I were a racer, a 56cm might be fine. As a recreational rider, a 58cm is a better fit. I have a bit more seatpost showing than you do (Fuji and Surly), but not really by much.

The Brooks (B17 by the look of it) is a very tall saddle. Every time I've installed a Brooks, I've ended up putting the seatpost down a bit. If I were you, I'd try flipping the stem so you're a bit less upright when riding it.

I agree with Shaq-d about the competitive cyclist website. I ride in a more agressive frame position, so when my uncle purchased a nice Raleigh road bike, I questione why he got such a huge frame. It looks like he is riding a horse, but after reading about the way competitive cyclist does the fitting, I realized my unlce went for comfort. He keeps up pretty well with the fast rides because he is comfortable, so the bigger frame works for him. The only thing he asked them to change were the stem length and the handlebars to fit them to his reach. I recommend you check out the competitive cyclist fit calculator, even if it's to give you another point of view.

I was grappling with the same issue of proper size, but I think it all has to do with the type of riding you do. If comfort is a priority the larger frame might be the choice. If you race, the smaller is your choice. I'm 5'8" and have an inseam @ 31.75 and ride a 53cm ti c to c frame. If I went with the 52 cm my seat would have to be higher and the bar would be lower(with the same stem 110) and at my age with neck problems that would not be desireable. Its all about comfort if you ride long. Try riding a 54cm just to satisfy your curiosity. Hopefully it will reinforce your having made the right decision and eliminate the cognitive disonance.

I was grappling with the same issue of proper size, but I think it all has to do with the type of riding you do. If comfort is a priority the larger frame might be the choice. If you race, the smaller is your choice. I'm 5'8" and have an inseam @ 31.75 and ride a 53cm ti c to c frame. If I went with the 52 cm my seat would have to be higher and the bar would be lower(with the same stem 110) and at my age with neck problems that would not be desireable. Its all about comfort if you ride long. Try riding a 54cm just to satisfy your curiosity. Hopefully it will reinforce your having made the right decision and eliminate the cognitive disonance.


Fit is fit and if you race,ride or poop around the block,it needs to fit right. If i have 2 CD 2000's and race one and just ride the other,they will both be 58cm if thats what fits me.

If fit is fit then why would competitivecyclist offer three different sizes for a given set of measurements??? Race/Merckx/French
Your statement may follow for some of the people some of the time but not all the people all of the time. Everybody is different.

Ok, my wife must have measured my inseam wrong. She measured 31.75 however I can stand over my Cannondale bike which has a 32 stand over height. I can even lift the bike up about 1.5 inches off the ground.

Hey, enjoy your new bike.

I am 5' 11" i ride this a 59cm frame... Im comfortable.

Ok, my wife must have measured my inseam wrong. She measured 31.75 however I can stand over my Cannondale bike which has a 32 stand over height. I can even lift the bike up about 1.5 inches off the ground.
if this is the case, then your saddle is too low. apart from the incorrect measurement, the thing that made me worry most about the standover height was the picture of your bike, where the distance from top tube to saddle appears quite a bit less than the distance of the top tube from the floor.

about bike fitting: the bottom line is that it is impossible to fit a bike by numbers alone. you have to see the person on the bike to really get an exact fit. the problem with people is that no two are proportioned quite the same way and, consequently, different people fit better on different geometries. and there are so many variables -- length of torso, length of limbs, shins, whatever.

however, there are two things i look for in a good fit: adequate standover clearance, adequate top tube length. perhaps i'm wrong, but i have found that, as much as i consider length to be important, it is a mistake to put someone on a size up, or to compensate with a long stem. it is better to find a bike with different dimensions and a longer top tube. not all people are suited to all bike geometries. deal started this thread by asking if he had bought the right sized frame. he wouldn't have asked if he hadn't had doubts. in my opinion and from the information we have, he did, indeed, buy the wrong size, though i can't say for sure without seeing him and the bike. if i had been his salesman, i would have steered him to a comparably-priced bike with different dimensions and a longer top tube.

sounds like a crackpot idea, i know...

http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/6061/asppg_Vt565866071.jpg

I have a question, then...

I'm 5'4" with a 29 inch inseam. I just bought a 52cm bike (c-c), with a 53 cm top tube. I can straddle with my boys touching the top tube. There isn't much clearance, maybe 1.5 inches at the most. I'm comfortable on the bike, feel good on the long top tube, and the standover doesn't bother me. The seatpost doesn't show much, like dealcatcher's. My question is: Is this the right size for me? I just sized myself using wrenchscience.com and they said I should be on a 49cm bike. The bike shops I've been to said I'd be good on 50-52.

I know in road riding things like fit have to be a little more precise, to make the ride and rider more efficient. Am I on the wrong sized bike?

This is a segment from "CompetitiveCyclist.com" write up about fit. Its worth a look.

"Your new bike's seat tube height should fall within this range. "Center-to-Center" signifies the length of the seat tube as measured from the center of the bottom bracket spindle to the midpoint of where the seat tube intersects the top tube. The seat tube height is most important as it relates to your head tube. If your seat tube is too short, your head tube will almost certainly be too short. This results in too low of a handlebar position placing an inordinate amount of stress on your neck and back. For this very reason, if you feel as though you could go with either of two sizes, going with the bigger frame is normally advisable. Please keep in mind that many frames come with a sloping or "compact" frame geometry in which the C-C seat tube measurement is artificially short. In the case of compact frames, you should primarily focus on the top tube measurement."
They also address sizing up for comfort if you are a long distance rider. Check it out. I tend to agree with them. What's comfortable for you may not be for someone else at your size and measurements.

I think the problem could be the reflectors ;)

I'm comfortable on the bike, feel good on the long top tube, and the standover doesn't bother me. My question is: Is this the right size for me?

your first 5 words answered your own question. your bike fits.

sd

I just bought a new 56cm Cannondale R600 road bike. I was wondering if I bought the wrong size frame. I'm 5"11 with a 31.75 inseam. - dan

It may be oversize for you. I ride a 56 now and my inseam is 33.75, but the fit calculators all say 55.3...which I could never find; so I could also fit a 55. I also have long arms so I went with the 56 because it seemed a bit more comfortable in the arm reach area.

Here is one method of measuring: Measure your inseam ( in my case: 33.75 x .65) and error on the next size down if in-between, so for me that would be 55.3 cm frame, thus the distance from top of saddle to center of bottom bracket axle should be 29.6 inches or 75.1cm; this measurement in turn produces (as a rule of thumb) the amount of seat tube showing which should be about the same as the inside length of the head tube. And to double check this measure this: Measure frame from the center of crank axle to the center of the top tube, and as a double check this should produce 4 to 5 inches of exposed seat post when saddle height is correct.

An article on the subject:
http://www.rivendellbicycles.com/html/rr_comfposition.html

Al

My B-17 was rather high profile in compairson to the standard race style ones. Going to something like an Aspide or along that line would probably bring the post up 1.5" . Tried Brooks but just wasnt for me. Back to Aspide *smile*

An article on the subject:
http://www.rivendellbicycles.com/html/rr_comfposition.html

Al
Al, Thanks for the link. Very interesting how Rivendell takes a somewhat contrarian approach to sizing. I tend to agree. At age 50 and with neck issues, I can't imagine sitting as far above the handlebar as I see many riders. It hurts my neck just to look at them. And besides, I'm not racing I'm riding. My seat is currently about 1 inch above the bar. This article has me wondering if I should change out my stem with one that has a rise. It would probably be more comfortable. Its interesting how todays trend is probably in the long term, an unhealthy one.
Jsh

And you can read 5 other links on fitting that sound good and they all have something to offer but none are a bible written in stone. All of them should be used as guides and after you do what they suggest,then adjust as needed to feel right and ride comfy.

I have a question, then...

I'm 5'4" with a 29 inch inseam. I just bought a 52cm bike (c-c), with a 53 cm top tube. .... The seatpost doesn't show much, like dealcatcher's. My question is: Is this the right size for me? I just sized myself using wrenchscience.com and they said I should be on a 49cm bike. The bike shops I've been to said I'd be good on 50-52.

I know in road riding things like fit have to be a little more precise, to make the ride and rider more efficient. Am I on the wrong sized bike?

I'm 5'7" with ~29inch inseam. And I would never ride or buy a frame larger than 50cm (c-c). My frame is 49cm with a ~52.5cm top tube. But its custom made:

http://www.fototime.com/983A47FB436C42B/standard.jpg

I could ride a 52cm or a 55cm I suppose, but why??? Because the bike shop needs to get rid of stock, or because 52cm is a very common size? Seems to me wrenchscience was very accurate.

I would say a 52cm IS too big for you, but that doesn't mean its unride-able. BTW, how long is your stem? 9cm, 11cm? How stretched out are you? How is your weight distributed? You should be equally balanced with a "centered" and low center of gravity. (Most comfortable bike "fits" call for most of the weight on the rear wheel.) How is your leg extension at the bottom of the stroke? Do you have a gut...a beer belly? Are you inflexible? Are you in shape? How much you weigh? 120...150?

I've seen small women ride large frames with only an inch or so of seat post showing, and they say its a "great fit!" Bull****! Its because the salesperson in the bikeshop told them so.

I remember riding my old schwinn AL bike; had a 9 or 10cm stem, handlebars level with the saddle, the saddle raised as low as dealcatcher -- all based on the recommendations of the bike shop.

I eventually raised my saddle height, lengthened the stem to 12cm, and lowered my handlebars. All to my riding benefit. More efficiency, power and comfort. (I can remember the first ride with the new lengthened and lower handlebars: I felt like I was falling off a cliff!) At the end of the day I wound up ordering and buying a custom frame from Dean USA. (I now use a 13cm stem and the saddle is raised ~2-3mm higher than it is in the above picture.)

I sized my bike by reading Lemond, Hinault and Davis Phinney amongst others.

I also sized my bike based on my fitness level, abilities, desired improvement factors and most importantly my "flexibility."

Alot of people size their bikes to fit their bodies, without bothering to condition their bodies to fit the bike. They should be doing both.

Here of a few remedies for the common complaints here :D :

sore neck: ride more, and when you do ride, angle your head while you are in the drops

sore back: stretch

legs hitting diaphram or stomach at the upstroke: lose the weight

sore butt: dance on the pedals

sore legs: use an after-ride muscle relax cream

sore everything: get younger

I'm 5'7" with ~29inch inseam. And I would never ride or buy a frame larger than 50cm (c-c). My frame is 49cm with a ~52.5cm top tube.

Nice looking bike! You must have a long torso - I’m 5’5”, 30” inseam. I ride a 53cm LeMond with a 54.5cm top tube. My bars are about even with the seat while yours appear to be much lower than the seat. Your stem appears to be quite a bit longer than my 90mm. I have no complaints about my fit, plus I was fit by one of the best bike fitters in the area (Waterford recommended going to this guy rather than using their in house fitter).

My wife has a 48cm with a shortened top tube and it is WAY too small, not even close!

Without seeing tobism on a bike, I would say the 52cm w/ 53cm TT would be close based on my fit and size comparison, but then maybe I’m way off :eek:

-murray

Sorry for dragging this thread back up (I'm new so I'm not sure if this is bad manners here). I have a quick question on topic though.

I've been riding mtb for 10 years on very small frames so I'm pretty used to having my hands close and low compared to my seat. But I'm just about to buy a roadie and am trying to sort out my sizing. I live quite out of the way so it's hard to sit on a lot of bikes to try and work out my fit. Basically I'm 5'9 with a 33.5 inseam so relatively short bodied long legged. From doing a bit of research on bikes I've decided on a Lemond Zurich but then thought I should try and find out how they fit. From reading a few posts on this forum it seems that people recomend Lemond bikes for those with long torso's but I'm definitly not one of those.

So my question is, will I be able to make a Lemond fit me? Coming off small framed mountain bikes, I'll have to teach myself again what feels right size wise. But I'd rather do that riding on a bike that really does fit me properly rather than adapting to something that isn't quite right.

Sorry for dragging this thread back up (I'm new so I'm not sure if this is bad manners here). I have a quick question on topic though.

I've been riding mtb for 10 years on very small frames so I'm pretty used to having my hands close and low compared to my seat. But I'm just about to buy a roadie and am trying to sort out my sizing. I live quite out of the way so it's hard to sit on a lot of bikes to try and work out my fit. Basically I'm 5'9 with a 33.5 inseam so relatively short bodied long legged. From doing a bit of research on bikes I've decided on a Lemond Zurich but then thought I should try and find out how they fit. From reading a few posts on this forum it seems that people recomend Lemond bikes for those with long torso's but I'm definitly not one of those.

So my question is, will I be able to make a Lemond fit me? Coming off small framed mountain bikes, I'll have to teach myself again what feels right size wise. But I'd rather do that riding on a bike that really does fit me properly rather than adapting to something that isn't quite right.
Did you go to www.Competitivecyclist.com and try their bike fit process. It will take you through the measurements you will need to have. It may help to narrow down the sizes that might work for you.

Did you go to www.Competitivecyclist.com and try their bike fit process. It will take you through the measurements you will need to have. It may help to narrow down the sizes that might work for you.

Yeah I did. In Lemond depending on what measurement I go by I'd either get a 57 or between 53 and 55. I'm a bit all over the place. Other bikes like Giant and Felt seem much closer stock. I know you can get close with seat position, stem and the like. I guess I will just have to sit on the things and take them for a ride to really find out.

Thanks. :)

Just this weekend I paid for a Professional fitting to my bike.
http://www.bicycleranch.com/fitting.shtml

Had it done at the Bicycle Ranch in Scottsdale Az. The whole process took about 2 hours and Chris (the Fitter) measured everything about the bike and me.

He tested my flexibility, my core strength and asked me a ton of questions about how I ride and how I feel when I ride. Asked he I had any problems with... And then went down a list from my neck to my feet and asked about every joint inbetween.

It was well worth the time and money spent. My bike feels so much better and I thought it felt pretty good before this.

End result was to move the seat up just over an inch, and back as far as it would go. Also had to replace the stem with a longer one with more raise to it.

An awesome experience I would recommend for anyone that has it available to them