Am I a freak of nature? Bike sizing...
08-30-16, 11:55 PM
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Goleta, CA
Posts: 56
Bikes: 2015 Trek Madone 2.1, 2015 Niner RLT 9 2-star build, Vintage Trek Road bike
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 36 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Am I a freak of nature? Bike sizing...
So I have a 56cm Trek Madone 2.1
I am 5'9 with approx 31.5 inch inseam.
To get my knees over the pedal axle I have to push my saddle pretty much all the way back. But when I do so, the bars are REALLY far away and I have to really stretch out. It is not comfy.
I also feel a bit of a struggle sometimes during the 12 o clock "dead spot" of the pedal stroke. Are the cranks too long for me? (They are 172.5mm) I have my saddle set to 27.75 inches (BB to top of saddle) I think this right?
The handlebar issue makes me feel I should be on a 54 or even a 52 frame, but the fact that I have to slam that saddle all the way back on a 56 seems to contradict that? I'm confused!
Also, does cleat fore/aft adjustment mimic changing the crank arm length?
I am 5'9 with approx 31.5 inch inseam.
To get my knees over the pedal axle I have to push my saddle pretty much all the way back. But when I do so, the bars are REALLY far away and I have to really stretch out. It is not comfy.
I also feel a bit of a struggle sometimes during the 12 o clock "dead spot" of the pedal stroke. Are the cranks too long for me? (They are 172.5mm) I have my saddle set to 27.75 inches (BB to top of saddle) I think this right?
The handlebar issue makes me feel I should be on a 54 or even a 52 frame, but the fact that I have to slam that saddle all the way back on a 56 seems to contradict that? I'm confused!
Also, does cleat fore/aft adjustment mimic changing the crank arm length?
08-31-16, 12:13 AM
#2
Senior Member
That's a guideline that came into practice because it just happens to work as an okay starting point for fitting most people.
There is no value whatsoever in forcing a fit to match that guideline. If the bike feels better with the saddle farther forward, move the saddle farther forward.
Your knees should be slightly bent at the bottom of a comfortable pedal stroke.
If your legs have to straighten out completely and/or you have to use your ankles to reach your foot down at the bottom of the stroke, lower the saddle. A rough guideline here is to place your heel on the pedal while in the saddle: if your heel just barely retains contact with the pedal when it's as far from the saddle as possible (roughly six o'clock), you're probably pretty close to correct.
If, in this condition, you feel as though it's hard to push at the top of the stroke because your knee is too bent, then maybe consider shorter cranks. Note, because the bottom of the pedal stroke will be closer to the saddle with a shorter crank, you may have to compensate for it by raising the saddle.
There is no value whatsoever in forcing a fit to match that guideline. If the bike feels better with the saddle farther forward, move the saddle farther forward.
I have my saddle set to 27.75 inches (BB to top of saddle) I think this right?
If your legs have to straighten out completely and/or you have to use your ankles to reach your foot down at the bottom of the stroke, lower the saddle. A rough guideline here is to place your heel on the pedal while in the saddle: if your heel just barely retains contact with the pedal when it's as far from the saddle as possible (roughly six o'clock), you're probably pretty close to correct.
If, in this condition, you feel as though it's hard to push at the top of the stroke because your knee is too bent, then maybe consider shorter cranks. Note, because the bottom of the pedal stroke will be closer to the saddle with a shorter crank, you may have to compensate for it by raising the saddle.
Last edited by HTupolev; 08-31-16 at 12:19 AM.
08-31-16, 12:16 AM
#3
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: SoCal
Posts: 6,496
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 276 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 6 Times
in
3 Posts
First of all KOP is one theory about bike fit that can be used as a general starting point but it's not a hard rule. Secondly unless you have another person measuring your knee/pedal position with a plumb then you have no idea how close to or far from KOP you are.
Crank arm length is also highly overrated. I have had 165,170 and 172.5 on bikes and I can't tell enough of a difference on the bike to really care. There are a lot of articles you can read with varying opinions. Most people are using cranks that are too long, most people are using cranks that are too short etc etc
You make no mention of stem length? You are certainly in the ballpark for a 56. Unless you get custom frames then nothing is ever going to fit you like a glove and that goes for anyone. Read about fit and play around with stem lengths, rise, saddle fore and aft and height and get comfortable. Or if you are really OCD pay for a professional fit
Crank arm length is also highly overrated. I have had 165,170 and 172.5 on bikes and I can't tell enough of a difference on the bike to really care. There are a lot of articles you can read with varying opinions. Most people are using cranks that are too long, most people are using cranks that are too short etc etc
You make no mention of stem length? You are certainly in the ballpark for a 56. Unless you get custom frames then nothing is ever going to fit you like a glove and that goes for anyone. Read about fit and play around with stem lengths, rise, saddle fore and aft and height and get comfortable. Or if you are really OCD pay for a professional fit
08-31-16, 03:11 AM
#4
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 15,491
Bikes: 2015 Workswell 066, 2017 Workswell 093, 2014 Dawes Sheila, 1983 Cannondale 500, 1984 Raleigh Olympian, 2007 Cannondale Rize 4, 2017 Fuji Sportif 1 LE
Mentioned: 144 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7652 Post(s)
Liked 3,475 Times
in
1,836 Posts
Sounds like my situation---long limbs, tiny torso. I am over six feet tall and I ride a 56 .... and everyone I meet immediately wants to put me ona 58 at least, but a 56 is a stretch and for some frames I need a 54.
As far as the sdaddle being far back .... the saddle is supposed to support your weight and locate it .... short-torsoed people with long limbs often need the saddle further back not to reach some inventedd"KOPS" standard but so that thheir weight is more supported by teh saddle than the handlebars. if you have to reach way forward your center of gravity shifts, your hips rotate, yor shoulders and arms have to carry too much load ...
I read a good article---if i can find it will post it----that said essentially that you should be able to sit in the saddle, lean your body forward with your arms back and your hands clasped loosely behind your hips, and still be able to pedal comfortable with zero support from your arms (obviously you will need a trainer to test this.) if yuo can do that, you have your weight properly placed to deliver it to the pedals. If you cannot then you need to move the saddle back.
Bike Fit Calculator | Find Your Bike Size | Competitive Cyclist can give you some idea about various proportions... of course it is generic and you are specific, but it is a much better starting point than "I am X tall with an X inseam."
NEVER let a bike shop salesperson push you towards the "right" frame based on height. For most LBS employees, if you can reach the bars but it feels wrong they think you are lame and out of shape and need to get used to stretching, because they haven't bothered to look at you as opposed to "generic customer X".
Test it for your self, but I can assure you that I spent a Lot of time researching and working with proper positioning for a long-limbed, short-torsoed person and unless the salesperson is similarly proportioned they will Always steer you to the wrong bike and expect yo to adapt.
You probably want a longish seat tube (and run with a lot of seat post exposed,) with a short effective top top tube, medium or long head tube, and a short stem----you can use the stem length and angle, and spacer stack height, to get a more upright or aggressive riding position without distorting your pedaling position.
Oaky, i found these teo articles. I strongly recommend checking them out--interesting ideas on seating position and cleat placement as well.
https://www.stevehoggbikefitting.com...or-road-bikes/
https://www.stevehoggbikefitting.com...leat-position/
IO also recommend signing this petition--- https://www.dafoh.org/petition-to-the-united-nations/
As far as the sdaddle being far back .... the saddle is supposed to support your weight and locate it .... short-torsoed people with long limbs often need the saddle further back not to reach some inventedd"KOPS" standard but so that thheir weight is more supported by teh saddle than the handlebars. if you have to reach way forward your center of gravity shifts, your hips rotate, yor shoulders and arms have to carry too much load ...
I read a good article---if i can find it will post it----that said essentially that you should be able to sit in the saddle, lean your body forward with your arms back and your hands clasped loosely behind your hips, and still be able to pedal comfortable with zero support from your arms (obviously you will need a trainer to test this.) if yuo can do that, you have your weight properly placed to deliver it to the pedals. If you cannot then you need to move the saddle back.
Bike Fit Calculator | Find Your Bike Size | Competitive Cyclist can give you some idea about various proportions... of course it is generic and you are specific, but it is a much better starting point than "I am X tall with an X inseam."
NEVER let a bike shop salesperson push you towards the "right" frame based on height. For most LBS employees, if you can reach the bars but it feels wrong they think you are lame and out of shape and need to get used to stretching, because they haven't bothered to look at you as opposed to "generic customer X".
Test it for your self, but I can assure you that I spent a Lot of time researching and working with proper positioning for a long-limbed, short-torsoed person and unless the salesperson is similarly proportioned they will Always steer you to the wrong bike and expect yo to adapt.
You probably want a longish seat tube (and run with a lot of seat post exposed,) with a short effective top top tube, medium or long head tube, and a short stem----you can use the stem length and angle, and spacer stack height, to get a more upright or aggressive riding position without distorting your pedaling position.
Oaky, i found these teo articles. I strongly recommend checking them out--interesting ideas on seating position and cleat placement as well.
https://www.stevehoggbikefitting.com...or-road-bikes/
https://www.stevehoggbikefitting.com...leat-position/
IO also recommend signing this petition--- https://www.dafoh.org/petition-to-the-united-nations/
Last edited by Maelochs; 08-31-16 at 03:34 AM.
08-31-16, 04:54 AM
#5
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 28,682
Bikes: 1990 Romic Reynolds 531 custom build, Merlin Works CR Ti custom build, super light Workswell 066 custom build
Mentioned: 109 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6556 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 58 Times
in
36 Posts
Yes, you are confused. It appears that the bike is too big for you. Here are the principles that are operating:
First, you never let reach to the bars affect where you put the saddle. You have to put the saddle where it works best for you with regard to pedaling. Reach to the bars is separate from that and has to be addressed after you get the saddle right. So ignore advice to push your saddle forward to reach the bars. That is just wrong.
Second, the fore-aft adjustment will always be just about the same on any bike size, because it only depends upon the seat tube angle and the distance of the seat from the bottom bracket. So with a smaller frame you would have your seatpost more extended, but the saddle would be in exactly the same position on the post. The seat tube length may be different, but the total length to the saddle from the bottom bracket has to stay the same. And combined with the same seat tube angle, the distance behind the bottom bracket must stay the same That is just simple geometry. Or is it trig? Whatever. The important thing is that a smaller frame will help you reach to the bars because of the likelihood of having a shorter top tube, not because it will bring your saddle further forward.
The one exception to the rule about fore-aft adjustment not changing from one frame size to another is the relationship to seat tube angle. Sometimes STA changes from one frame size to another. If the STA goes down, the seat will be more forward on the post in order to provide you the same relationship to the bottom bracket. If the STA goes up, the seat will need to be more rearward. The relationship between difference in STA and saddle adjustment is just about 1 cm/degree. IOW if the seat tube angle decreases by 0.5 degree, you will need to bring the saddle forward 0.5 cm (5 mm) to get the same position over the bottom bracket. But the nominal frame size won't matter to that adjustment at all.
First, you never let reach to the bars affect where you put the saddle. You have to put the saddle where it works best for you with regard to pedaling. Reach to the bars is separate from that and has to be addressed after you get the saddle right. So ignore advice to push your saddle forward to reach the bars. That is just wrong.
Second, the fore-aft adjustment will always be just about the same on any bike size, because it only depends upon the seat tube angle and the distance of the seat from the bottom bracket. So with a smaller frame you would have your seatpost more extended, but the saddle would be in exactly the same position on the post. The seat tube length may be different, but the total length to the saddle from the bottom bracket has to stay the same. And combined with the same seat tube angle, the distance behind the bottom bracket must stay the same That is just simple geometry. Or is it trig? Whatever. The important thing is that a smaller frame will help you reach to the bars because of the likelihood of having a shorter top tube, not because it will bring your saddle further forward.
The one exception to the rule about fore-aft adjustment not changing from one frame size to another is the relationship to seat tube angle. Sometimes STA changes from one frame size to another. If the STA goes down, the seat will be more forward on the post in order to provide you the same relationship to the bottom bracket. If the STA goes up, the seat will need to be more rearward. The relationship between difference in STA and saddle adjustment is just about 1 cm/degree. IOW if the seat tube angle decreases by 0.5 degree, you will need to bring the saddle forward 0.5 cm (5 mm) to get the same position over the bottom bracket. But the nominal frame size won't matter to that adjustment at all.
08-31-16, 05:31 AM
#6
Senior Member
As others have noted, forget KOPS. Saddle position should make your knees happy and make you feel balanced on the bike. When you get there, you are done.
There is also nothing magic about 110mm stems which your frame likely has. If you feel comfortable with the saddle far back, try a 100 or 90mm to compensate on the reach. Any change in handling will evaporate in a matter of minutes on your next ride. You can also consider adjustments to your handlebar angle and/or brifter location, or even shorter reach handlebars. If you have standover clearance and enough room to adjust your saddle down to the right height the frame is not too big. The aesthetics of a low-looking saddle might not please the discerning BF eye but if it works for you, it's good enough. I haven't seen your bike so can't comment on the looks but if you are actually riding a frame one size 'too big' (by modern standards) you may not have the 6"+ of seatpost showing most cyclists expect.
There is also nothing magic about 110mm stems which your frame likely has. If you feel comfortable with the saddle far back, try a 100 or 90mm to compensate on the reach. Any change in handling will evaporate in a matter of minutes on your next ride. You can also consider adjustments to your handlebar angle and/or brifter location, or even shorter reach handlebars. If you have standover clearance and enough room to adjust your saddle down to the right height the frame is not too big. The aesthetics of a low-looking saddle might not please the discerning BF eye but if it works for you, it's good enough. I haven't seen your bike so can't comment on the looks but if you are actually riding a frame one size 'too big' (by modern standards) you may not have the 6"+ of seatpost showing most cyclists expect.
08-31-16, 05:38 AM
#7
Senior Member
If you didn't have the dead spot before moving your saddle way back, go back to the original position.
08-31-16, 05:50 AM
#8
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 28,682
Bikes: 1990 Romic Reynolds 531 custom build, Merlin Works CR Ti custom build, super light Workswell 066 custom build
Mentioned: 109 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6556 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 58 Times
in
36 Posts
As others have noted, forget KOPS. Saddle position should make your knees happy and make you feel balanced on the bike. When you get there, you are done.
There is also nothing magic about 110mm stems which your frame likely has. If you feel comfortable with the saddle far back, try a 100 or 90mm to compensate on the reach. Any change in handling will evaporate in a matter of minutes on your next ride. You can also consider adjustments to your handlebar angle and/or brifter location, or even shorter reach handlebars. If you have standover clearance and enough room to adjust your saddle down to the right height the frame is not too big. The aesthetics of a low-looking saddle might not please the discerning BF eye but if it works for you, it's good enough. I haven't seen your bike so can't comment on the looks but if you are actually riding a frame one size 'too big' (by modern standards) you may not have the 6"+ of seatpost showing most cyclists expect.
There is also nothing magic about 110mm stems which your frame likely has. If you feel comfortable with the saddle far back, try a 100 or 90mm to compensate on the reach. Any change in handling will evaporate in a matter of minutes on your next ride. You can also consider adjustments to your handlebar angle and/or brifter location, or even shorter reach handlebars. If you have standover clearance and enough room to adjust your saddle down to the right height the frame is not too big. The aesthetics of a low-looking saddle might not please the discerning BF eye but if it works for you, it's good enough. I haven't seen your bike so can't comment on the looks but if you are actually riding a frame one size 'too big' (by modern standards) you may not have the 6"+ of seatpost showing most cyclists expect.
08-31-16, 05:52 AM
#9
Senior Member
I agree with you about forgetting KOPS with regard to pedaling efficiency and knee comfort. Do whatever it takes to get that right. But I stress again for the benefit of OP that departing from the proper saddle position just to be able to reach the bars is not recommended. KOPS or no KOPS, get the saddle right, then worry about reaching the bars.
08-31-16, 07:29 AM
#10
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Alabama
Posts: 52
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 43 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
For kicks I paid the store bike fitter to adjust all of my bike to me when I first bought it, but I hated the feeling the pose put me in. I rode it that way for a year or so, (I tired) and just slowly adjusted it back to the way it was. I felt like the guy wasn't listening to me as he was adjusting it. "Sure, it's uncomfortable. It's supposed to be."
I now set more upright, and my hands don't go numb any more. I feel like it is more important to have fun on my bike. If I am loathing the idea of contorting into a "specialist's" studied ideas of what proper form and adjustment is, I probably won't ride the thing very much. Besides, I am not riding in competitions, I just ride for kicks.
YMMV
I now set more upright, and my hands don't go numb any more. I feel like it is more important to have fun on my bike. If I am loathing the idea of contorting into a "specialist's" studied ideas of what proper form and adjustment is, I probably won't ride the thing very much. Besides, I am not riding in competitions, I just ride for kicks.
YMMV
08-31-16, 08:03 AM
#11
post-ironic
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 802
Bikes: CAAD 12, Lemond Maillot Jaune
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 75 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
As others have said, your frame is too big. But if you can make it comfortable, hey, why not? How long is your current stem? You can probably bring it down to a 90mm, which would give you about 2cm to work with assuming you have a 110mm on there now.
08-31-16, 08:36 AM
#12
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Goleta, CA
Posts: 56
Bikes: 2015 Trek Madone 2.1, 2015 Niner RLT 9 2-star build, Vintage Trek Road bike
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 36 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Hello all, thanks for your input.
I should have mentioned that I'm coming off a nasty knee injury: patellar tendonosis, quad tendonosis, chondromalacia (degeneration of cartilage) all caused by a maltracking patella. My saddle height used to be 29 inches. I think That was way too high. It caused me to: hyper extend knee at the bottom of the stroke and internally rotate my femurs to reach the pedals. That bio mechanical "crime" led to my complications (along with weak hip abductors).
How did I let my condition get so bad? Well,I think I just assumed a higher saddle was the safer thing for knees! And by the time the pain was so bad/consistent I had already done damage...
Lowering my saddle over an inch and moving it way back so that my knees are over the ball of my foot helped a lot!! I think this is similar to proper squat form: you do not want to engage the quads too much. Rather, one wants to strike a balance between the anterior chain (hip extrnsors/quads) and the posterior chain (hamstrings/glutes). I am trying to figure out the right bike fit to optimize performance but also prevent future injury....
Some details I left out:
Stem: 100mm
When I stand over the bike, the top tube touches my "man bits". Not painfully, but there is essentially no space between.
I have a vintage bike with 170mm cranks and it feels easier to pedal that bike (less effort to get over the top of the stroke)
I should have mentioned that I'm coming off a nasty knee injury: patellar tendonosis, quad tendonosis, chondromalacia (degeneration of cartilage) all caused by a maltracking patella. My saddle height used to be 29 inches. I think That was way too high. It caused me to: hyper extend knee at the bottom of the stroke and internally rotate my femurs to reach the pedals. That bio mechanical "crime" led to my complications (along with weak hip abductors).
How did I let my condition get so bad? Well,I think I just assumed a higher saddle was the safer thing for knees! And by the time the pain was so bad/consistent I had already done damage...
Lowering my saddle over an inch and moving it way back so that my knees are over the ball of my foot helped a lot!! I think this is similar to proper squat form: you do not want to engage the quads too much. Rather, one wants to strike a balance between the anterior chain (hip extrnsors/quads) and the posterior chain (hamstrings/glutes). I am trying to figure out the right bike fit to optimize performance but also prevent future injury....
Some details I left out:
Stem: 100mm
When I stand over the bike, the top tube touches my "man bits". Not painfully, but there is essentially no space between.
I have a vintage bike with 170mm cranks and it feels easier to pedal that bike (less effort to get over the top of the stroke)
08-31-16, 09:03 AM
#13
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 15,491
Bikes: 2015 Workswell 066, 2017 Workswell 093, 2014 Dawes Sheila, 1983 Cannondale 500, 1984 Raleigh Olympian, 2007 Cannondale Rize 4, 2017 Fuji Sportif 1 LE
Mentioned: 144 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7652 Post(s)
Liked 3,475 Times
in
1,836 Posts
here are a pair of articles I found interesting about bike fit and cleat placement:
https://www.stevehoggbikefitting.com...or-road-bikes/
https://www.stevehoggbikefitting.com...leat-position/
Not really much you can do with your bike except get a short stem, short-reach bars, and suffer----or get a frame that fits. You really cannot compensate much for too big a frame.
That dead sport in your pedaling? Too long cranks by 2.5 mm ... or too tall seat. I wouldn't think you needed cranks that long at 5'9" but in any case, sounds like your saddle is too tall. Drop it a couple mm or a bit less and see what you think.
Here is a petition I'd like people to read and sign: Petition to the United Nations - DAFOH DAFOH
https://www.stevehoggbikefitting.com...or-road-bikes/
https://www.stevehoggbikefitting.com...leat-position/
Not really much you can do with your bike except get a short stem, short-reach bars, and suffer----or get a frame that fits. You really cannot compensate much for too big a frame.
That dead sport in your pedaling? Too long cranks by 2.5 mm ... or too tall seat. I wouldn't think you needed cranks that long at 5'9" but in any case, sounds like your saddle is too tall. Drop it a couple mm or a bit less and see what you think.
Here is a petition I'd like people to read and sign: Petition to the United Nations - DAFOH DAFOH
08-31-16, 09:18 AM
#15
Senior Member
I feel your pain, I have the same problem, short torso long limbs. However, I managed to make it work.
Get your saddle position correct first, so that it is comfortable to pedal. (fore/aft position and height).
THEN, experiment with getting a shorter stem, to get your hand position more relaxed, closer to your body. You can go as short as 50mm. This can make a huge difference. Stems also come in different angles, and can be put on the steerer tube both ways "upside down". Put the stem angled "upwards" to get the bars closer.
Also you can get shorter handlebars, which have less of a "reach" to the hoods. They make handlebars in different geometries. Try getting shorter handlebars. This will not make as much of a difference as a shorter stem though.
If you've got steerer tube left, add some spacers to get the handlebars higher. This also contributes to a more upright and relaxed position that feels less "stretched out".
If all of that doesnt get your hands close enough, you need a smaller frame.
Get your saddle position correct first, so that it is comfortable to pedal. (fore/aft position and height).
THEN, experiment with getting a shorter stem, to get your hand position more relaxed, closer to your body. You can go as short as 50mm. This can make a huge difference. Stems also come in different angles, and can be put on the steerer tube both ways "upside down". Put the stem angled "upwards" to get the bars closer.
Also you can get shorter handlebars, which have less of a "reach" to the hoods. They make handlebars in different geometries. Try getting shorter handlebars. This will not make as much of a difference as a shorter stem though.
If you've got steerer tube left, add some spacers to get the handlebars higher. This also contributes to a more upright and relaxed position that feels less "stretched out".
If all of that doesnt get your hands close enough, you need a smaller frame.
08-31-16, 10:31 AM
#16
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: SoCal
Posts: 6,496
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 276 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 6 Times
in
3 Posts
For the record, I'm a couple of inches taller and generally ride a 54 so bike might be a little too big for OP. But there are people that are 5'9 who prefer a 56. And we don't know what size stem he's using
08-31-16, 12:27 PM
#17
OM boy
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Goleta CA
Posts: 4,369
Bikes: a bunch
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 517 Post(s)
Liked 644 Times
in
438 Posts
So I have a 56cm Trek Madone 2.1
I am 5'9 with approx 31.5 inch inseam.
To get my knees over the pedal axle I have to push my saddle pretty much all the way back. But when I do so, the bars are REALLY far away and I have to really stretch out. It is not comfy.
I also feel a bit of a struggle sometimes during the 12 o clock "dead spot" of the pedal stroke. Are the cranks too long for me? (They are 172.5mm) I have my saddle set to 27.75 inches (BB to top of saddle) I think this right?
The handlebar issue makes me feel I should be on a 54 or even a 52 frame, but the fact that I have to slam that saddle all the way back on a 56 seems to contradict that? I'm confused!
Also, does cleat fore/aft adjustment mimic changing the crank arm length?
I am 5'9 with approx 31.5 inch inseam.
To get my knees over the pedal axle I have to push my saddle pretty much all the way back. But when I do so, the bars are REALLY far away and I have to really stretch out. It is not comfy.
I also feel a bit of a struggle sometimes during the 12 o clock "dead spot" of the pedal stroke. Are the cranks too long for me? (They are 172.5mm) I have my saddle set to 27.75 inches (BB to top of saddle) I think this right?
The handlebar issue makes me feel I should be on a 54 or even a 52 frame, but the fact that I have to slam that saddle all the way back on a 56 seems to contradict that? I'm confused!
Also, does cleat fore/aft adjustment mimic changing the crank arm length?
Using the front of the patella will set you way too far back, initially.
I won't get into the yea or nay of KOPS, but its a good starting point for someone who's never really put themselves in a road bike position and doesn't plan to do the extensive program from the start.
also good to have someone help get the plumb done properly - plumb placed at the tuberosity - side of tibia. Starting point.
given what you say as your general body dimensions, done properly, this should be a good start.
cleat fore/aft - yes, fore/aft does affect how a small change in crank length is experienced - we're talkin 5 mm max difference on road cranks...
you will likely adjust to whatever fore-/aft you set...
you may find cleat rotation to have a more discernible effect, especially when you ride longer times (multiple hours over more difficult terrain.
likely a std 54cm road frame will work better than a 56
The steve Hogg articles are good and worth digesting - however he throws out KOPS because he's happy to get into the entire micro universe of his fit ideas and techniques.
KOPS is like the'Intro' page of a major book on all the things which eventually get you thru 500+ pages of the book/books of fit. (simile)
saddle extension START point - I'll prolly catch more **** from tweakers for this - use the lemond formula to start - LeMond multiplier is 0.883 - times the actual measured 'inseam' (book jammed into crotch), set from PEDAL to plane on saddle. What affects this? saddle planar shape, shoes/sole thickness - anything which affects leg extension, like pedaling style...
enjoy the journey - get a 54... my personal observation is that TREK Madone sizing is a wee bit smaller than same label on other frames... so 56 may not be ideal, but certainly should be workable
Nos morituri te salutamus
Last edited by cyclezen; 08-31-16 at 12:31 PM.
08-31-16, 12:40 PM
#18
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Goleta, CA
Posts: 56
Bikes: 2015 Trek Madone 2.1, 2015 Niner RLT 9 2-star build, Vintage Trek Road bike
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 36 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Here is a pic. I have the seat pushed back as far as the marking on the rails say I can go. I realize I'm probably where I "should" be according to experienced cyclists, but farther back seems to place less pressure on my kneecap. In this pic, I feel too stretched out and my back hurts a bit.
08-31-16, 01:00 PM
#19
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Goleta, CA
Posts: 56
Bikes: 2015 Trek Madone 2.1, 2015 Niner RLT 9 2-star build, Vintage Trek Road bike
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 36 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
saddle extension START point - I'll prolly catch more **** from tweakers for this - use the lemond formula to start - LeMond multiplier is 0.883 - times the actual measured 'inseam' (book jammed into crotch), set from PEDAL to plane on saddle. What affects this? saddle planar shape, shoes/sole thickness - anything which affects leg extension, like pedaling style...
08-31-16, 01:08 PM
#20
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Goleta, CA
Posts: 56
Bikes: 2015 Trek Madone 2.1, 2015 Niner RLT 9 2-star build, Vintage Trek Road bike
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 36 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Check out this link to a Lemond sizing chart: My World From a Bicycle: Lemond's Sizing Chart and Hamley's Method Charted
It says with a 31.5 inch inseam i fit on a 52cm frame!? Seems a bit small, but it would certainly solve my "reach" problem!
It says with a 31.5 inch inseam i fit on a 52cm frame!? Seems a bit small, but it would certainly solve my "reach" problem!
08-31-16, 01:32 PM
#21
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 58
Bikes: 2015 Wilier Cento 1 Air, 2014 Trek Remedy 8 27.5
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
FWIW I am about your size (5'10" and 32.5") I run a 54 and it fits me well. Either get the right size bike (best option) or you will deal with issues making your current one fit you...
08-31-16, 01:51 PM
#22
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 142
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
saddle extension START point - I'll prolly catch more **** from tweakers for this - use the lemond formula to start - LeMond multiplier is 0.883 - times the actual measured 'inseam' (book jammed into crotch), set from PEDAL to plane on saddle. What affects this? saddle planar shape, shoes/sole thickness - anything which affects leg extension, like pedaling style...
08-31-16, 02:01 PM
#23
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 209
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 12 Times
in
8 Posts
Lots of opinions, and mine is no more valid than the others, but I'll throw it out there. I looks to me like there is enough adjustment in that bike to make the frame work without compromising comfort. I also have a 31.5 inseam (although I am 5'11") and ride a 56 cm Trek that fits me beautifully. I agree with the advice that says to get your pedaling comfortable first. If you like/need your seat rearward on the stem, an option is to get a setback stem. Trek has them, and there may be availability from other mfr's as well. Then you could run the seat even farther back, if that's what you want, or you would at least be more in the middle of the adjustment range per the markings on the seat. As for your back/reach, I notice you have a 90 degree stem. Everyone has been talking about stem length, and you might enjoy a shorter stem since you feel too stretched out. You may also want to consider a more angled stem. They make all kinds of different angles and lengths. A stem with a 7 degree rise and the same 100 mm length would raise your bars and bring them just a little closer to you. The more upright position might be more comfortable. If you are still too stretched out, you could get a shorter stem, or you could go to a 10 or even 17 degree stem. It might not make the style police happy, but if it helps your comfort, who cares? I have a 7 degree stem on my bike, and it allows me to be comfortable on centuries since I'm not too leaned over the bars. Best of luck to you.
08-31-16, 02:20 PM
#24
OM boy
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Goleta CA
Posts: 4,369
Bikes: a bunch
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 517 Post(s)
Liked 644 Times
in
438 Posts
yeah, right you are... my transposing - been using 109 to pedal for so long (well before Lemond was junior)... comes up with the same ext as Lemond formula, but Lemond formula is easier to put out there - has more web references...
but sometimes shoes and crank length do make a difference...
anyway, thanks for the White-out
and OP - just my .02, that bike seems very workable for fit.
you don;t seem greatly extended in the pic, but based on how you currently are is really what you have to adjust to...
any amount you can unlock the elbows, will help with riding comfort...
I'd also add some ongoing flexibility work if how you appear in the pic is uncomfortable...
Yoga, Pilates works wonders for us olde pharts...
but sometimes shoes and crank length do make a difference...
anyway, thanks for the White-out
and OP - just my .02, that bike seems very workable for fit.
you don;t seem greatly extended in the pic, but based on how you currently are is really what you have to adjust to...
any amount you can unlock the elbows, will help with riding comfort...
I'd also add some ongoing flexibility work if how you appear in the pic is uncomfortable...
Yoga, Pilates works wonders for us olde pharts...
Last edited by cyclezen; 08-31-16 at 02:27 PM.
08-31-16, 04:03 PM
#25
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 15,491
Bikes: 2015 Workswell 066, 2017 Workswell 093, 2014 Dawes Sheila, 1983 Cannondale 500, 1984 Raleigh Olympian, 2007 Cannondale Rize 4, 2017 Fuji Sportif 1 LE
Mentioned: 144 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7652 Post(s)
Liked 3,475 Times
in
1,836 Posts
It looks like you are running a 120-mm stem? And those look like some large bars. If you decide to keep the frame you could go to a 90- or 100-mm stem and short-reach bars.
Definitely if that is your preferred body angle the bike is too long .... you arms should be much more bent at full extension, in my uninformed opinion. Stem and bars .... or a new frame.
Definitely if that is your preferred body angle the bike is too long .... you arms should be much more bent at full extension, in my uninformed opinion. Stem and bars .... or a new frame.