Is this frame too big for me?
I bought a Fuji Cross Pro after finding a good deal at the local Performance: $1,299 + 20% of the total purchase as a credit on my club card (ended up being about $300).
It's a 54cm, which is my "usual" size. I'm 5'7", with an inseam length of 30" and an overall reach of 64 cm.
According to Wrench Science, I should be on a 51/52 cm frame -- which seems VERY small.
When I straddle the 54, I've got about an inch until I hit the pubic bone (not the wedding tackle, which is pretty much just barely clearing the TT). According the the Rivendell site, that's enough clearance.
I just got it home, and I'm already second guessing. I'll be bringing it back to the shop to get it dialed in later this week, but I could swap it for the smaller frame.
What do you folks think? This is my first new bike in 16 years, so pardon my ignorance.
I'm 5'6 with an inseam of 30 and I ride a 52 bianchi san jose. The wrenchscience site recommended 52cm. I don't have much stand over, but everything else is good. 54 seems a bit too big, but if the reach is fine and you have "some" standover, you're probably ok. I know many people would recommend a size smaller for cyclocross. you could always go down a size and make your adjustments.
I'm 5'7" also with a 30 inch inseam. I ride a Motobecane 52" (I think it has the same geometry as the Fuji)--and it fits me very well (although I did switch to a 10 mm longer stem than what came on the bike).
I'm 5'7" and my road and 'cross bikes are both 52cm (c-t). I would think that 54cm is a little too big for a 'cross bike unless you have a really long reach.
Well, that was a quick consensus! The manager at the Trek shop said that my torso was long for my height, so I could end up in one of those situations where a good fit in one direction may not be so good in the other.
Originally Posted by gobes
Looks like I'll have to see if they can get a 52cm in.
Does it matter that most of my riding will be on road, as opposed to off?
If the cockpit length is good, the standover doesn't matter unless you find yourself straddling the top tube with a foot down on each side. How often does that happen in your cycling life?
Standover height is a nonsense, please try to eject it from your mind as quickly as possible. The only place it should have any bearing on your frame decision is in extreme mountain biking, where you may need to get off the bike in mid air or in a tight spot etc.
For 100+ years of bicycling people rode frames of a size with little/no standover in great comfort, until the 80's when pro racers starting riding the smallest frames possible to be more aerodynamic. This filtered down to all kinds of riding, people want to look like racers, usually with little reason to and a significant lack of comfort. Recently this has been contorted to make people believe a frame without x amount of standover is dangerous, although no-one seems to be able to quantify just how so.
I'd say the 54cm is far closer to being the right size frame than 51cm/52cm. Aslong as the reach is correct and you can get the handlebars where you want them you are good to go.
Standover is indeed overemphasized (for easy sales?).
It [comfort] depends on so many other things.
One, are you a cross racer? If not, Rivendell's advice is sound: get a bike you can lounge on (without excessive reaching of course). Mind you, their bikes are touring oriented or long-ride oriented.
Two, a lot of ride comfort and avoiding squirrelyness depends on having the handlebar distance (and handlebar width) dialed in. If the stem is short and you are too close to the frame with your hands, your steering will be unusual and uncomfortable. Similarly if your stem is long -- comfort aside you will be affecting the response of the front wheel (ie your steering). Twitchiness or squirrellyness (damn spelling) makes a ride miserable.
Actually, the best way to figure out this vexed question of comfort is to try 52, 54 and maybe 56 bikes. And then choose the one that you feel best about, aesthetics and budget perhaps being taken into account.