Silver Litz

I am 5'8" and wear 30" inseam pants and I ride a 56cm Trek 5200 (2001) and find it comfortable. My seat post extends about 3" out of the frame. My arms are a little short and I change the stem to a 70mm. With the shorter stem my shoulders and elbows are relaxed. My previous bike was a 56cm Trek 1200 (1990 or 91) and I was comfortable on it, but its geometry is different from the 5200; the 1200's stand over height was about 1cm higher, its top tube was shorter, and its handlebars' bend was not as deep. The shorter stem gave me the same reach on the 5200 as the 1200.

Old School

Looks like the collective wisdom here is that this frame may be too large for you. My guess is that just standing over the frame will confirm this with firm pressure against your private parts. But frame size is very individual. At least test ride a smaller frame to see if you notice the difference.

markwebb

You should select a 54cm frame. My sister rides a 51-52 and she's 5'4". A 54 would be your size.

natethaskate

It's not JUST a size issue. It's also about how you're going to use your bike. I'm a shade over 6ft and I've ridden the following: 62cm, 58cm & 56cm. I felt most comfortable on the 58. The 56 was a bit cramped, but good for sprinting. The 62 was very comfortable when doing long distance rides at a relaxed pace, but no good on climbs/sprints.

Ask yourself what you're going to do with your bike most of the time (racing, touring, commuting, etc.) Then pick a frame that fits your need.

ronbridal

I have identical measurements and ride a 54 Trek that I think could be a smudge large for how I like it and just bought a size 52 Motobecane which has geometry similar to a Trek of Fuji. I would think the 56 may be a bit big, but no one can really say but you.

Daz777777

Thanks for the feedback everyone, it's appreciated.

I wouldn't have the option to test the bike so I guess it's best to leave it.
It's tempting becuase it's such a good deal on paper but if it's not the right size it's a waste of money.

I could push to a 54cm but it sounds like a 52cm would be more suitable.

Thanks again.

Darren

rjtokyo

Wise move Darren. Before the next deal comes along, why don't you have someone help you take your measurements with a fit calculator like this:
https://www.competitivecyclist.com/za...LCULATOR_INTRO
or the one here:
https://www.wrenchscience.com/WS1/default.asp (rightside of the page)

With that info you'll have a good idea of not just the frame size, but the top tube measurement, etc. that should be best for you.

Good luck!

- RJ

rockstar

5'8" 30 inch inseam and ride a 53.5 moots compact with a 110 stem.

roccobike

I'm 5' 81/2" with a 29 1/2" inseam. I have three old road bikes. I have two with 54cm frames and that's as tall as I can go. I also have a 48 cm frame. It's a little tight, but not all that bad! No way I would buy a pricey 56 cm. Like jwbnyc, I think a 51 or 52 would be ideal.

Al1943

In a Trek I would say you need a 54. I'm 5' 8" with a 32" inseam and have been riding a 56cm Trek 5500. For me the standover is fine but the top tube is too long. Depending on how flexible you are you may have a problem with the drop from saddle to handlebar. This could be a big problem with a Trek smaller than the 54. Treks are not for short torso people like me, you should be fine on a 54, just don't cut the steerer too short.

Al

C_Heath

iM 5'8.5 AS YOU ARE AND PURCHASED the 2005 Trek 1000 in 56cm. The fit was good but my reach was too short. Ill get the 54 next time. If you have long arms then you be ok, I just couldnt reach it too good and the drops were a pain after a minute or so.

ivan_yulaev

56 is fine for you. I have a 54 and I am 5' 6".

Ostuni

thought of this thread today at the lbs when i was getting fitted on a new build....

am 5'9", 33" inseam, and the lbs guy thought the 55cm pedal force frame was too large - he suggested i return it for a 53cm...

but have a 56cm moto le champ team that is very close to same geometry and top tube length that fits perfectly imo after 1000+ miles....

guess it's a trade off... the reach is a bit long, and i have no seat post showing, but the standover height is just right, and the longer wheelbase feels like a better ride...

that said, probablyl will reduce the reach a little with a stem swap....

ElJamoquio

I'm a half inch taller; I believe my biking inseam is the same, and I have the same size and model of Motobecane as Ostuni. I'm happy (after a long mental debate) that I finally went with the 56 instead of the conventional 54.

All the online calculations said I should use between a 52.5 and 55; the '56' of the Motobecane was actually a 55.

NuBiker

I am 5'9' with inseam 30'.
I have a 54 and a 51, both orbeas. they both fit very good. What I am trying to say, depends on the bike and what you feel confy on. Had a 56 before these ones my inseam was fine but I was overstretched.
chose the one that fits you, if you can not test it. Go test some at your lbs, after trying a couple you will know what feels right.

goody2shoes

56 is toombig for you shorty

Point

Ahhh,

One more thread where somebody asks about frame size and 90% of the responses say the OP is riding or looking at something too big.

I personally prescribe more or less to Dave Moulton's sizing theory in a previous thread here, and Rivendell's theory recommends a larger frame too. Everyone has their own preference, so just ride what's comfy and you like.

thook

I know this is an old, old thread, but in my fact finding searches I ran across this and hope someone can help.

Long story short, I find it very difficult to find off the shelf frames (new or old) to suit my body measurements and reconcile that with my preferences for set up. I'm just a bit over 5'6 with an inseam of 32.5 inches and apparently relatively long arms for my height. In reading this thread and comparing with you folks that are taller than I, that inseam measurement seems odd. However, it's correct. I've measured it myself multiple time plus measured by a frame builder. Plus, men's 9.5 shoe and a bit of a toe dipper, as it were, when pedaling.

I currently ride an old Univega with a 54.5cm top tube c/c and 54.5 c/t seat tube. 73* ST angle and 72* HT angle. And, best I can tell, 65mm BB drop and 170mm crank. Saddle set forward with a reversed Thomson set back post to equate a zero set back post, stem with 17* rise and 90mm of reach, and highway one road bars. I've been riding this frame exclusively for the last few years and still cannot get comfortable enough to eliminate hand discomfort. I've just dealt with it.

I've tried stems as short as 80mm and short reach compact bars with the saddle set way back to get the weight off my hands which then had me too stretched out and caused a tendency to scoot forward to get over the bb better. Then, scooting the saddle well forward necessitating a somewhat longer stem....90mm currently...or I feel a tad cramped, it seems. Also, I like the bars up to saddle level or even 1cm or so higher. I've tried more saddle to bar drop, but don't really like it. Maybe I should learn too? Giving my hands a different resting angle on the hoods? I have considered that.

I just purchased some Campy Veloce shifters, so maybe the shape of those will help verses the 6500 series STI I've been using. Incidentally, I have to use short reach/short drop bars due to hand size in order to confidently reach the levers from the drops and still attain a level transition from the tops to the hoods. Those ergo shifters seem like they will help in that dept., too.

Anyway, I'd really love to acquire a modern frame at some point....one that can accommodate larger tires for off road. You know, like Cross Check, Straggler, Vaya, etc. But, the shorter the TT gets, the shorter the stack height gets. Therein lies part of my conundrum. My sense of aesthetics are offended by huge stacks of spacers under the stem. I even tried 54cm Surly CC several years ago hoping it would work out, but it didn't. And, still had to use a huge stack with an adjustable riser stem to get the bars up.

Something like a Vaya may be my best option for fit....tall stack/relaxed head tube angle...but, the Salsa frames tend to run around $200 more than everyone else's. Plus, the 54cm is a tiny little thing with it's compact design. A 55cm Vaya seems a better option over that with more frame space and a taller stack. It's only off 1cm in ETT due to seat tube angle. Otherwise, it has the same amount of forward reach.

OTOH, to be finicky, I'd really prefer a more classic frame style with a closer to level TT and curved fork. And, it'd be nice if I didn't have to also spring for new wheels for discs. I like the idea of the Black Mountain Cycles cross frame for those reasons, but the 53cm frame is pretty short in stack height, too. Having said all that, for the time being, seems I should be able to get what I'm currently riding to be comfortable given atleast Salsa (for sizing comparison) would put me on a 54.5 TT with a Fargo, or 55cm with a Warbird or Colossal.

So, any of you folks have the same dilemma? What did you do? Something's not right and I'm perplexed and uncomfortable. Greatly discouraging, it is, and I'm quite desperate at this point. I do love riding.

I hope this post didn't ramble/jumble too much.

fietsbob

This isn't facebook try to make your big wad of text more readable with return spaces.

thook

You mean more like your run on sentence without any punctuation? Dude, really? Do you figure me for a facebook kind of person or something? Hm.

I tried to make the post thorough with details. I'm not going to apologize for the way the post is put together. I did try to put it all together so it would make sense. I'll give it another go, though.

thook

Is that better?

shelbyfv

Why not delete your post and start your own thread? I think that will work better for you.

chasm54

If I were you I'd use this post to start a new thread in the "fitting your bike" sub-forum.

thook

I'm sure you guys are right. I should have thought of that. Just seemed like a relevant place/thread. I suppose it's a tired subject, anyway. Perhaps I'll just keep tinkering around with it.

Homebrew01

Correct, it's just confusing to bring back a zombie thread in most cases.