DrPete 

Name one stock brand of bike whose top tube doesn't get longer with increasing size. Larger frame equals longer top tube equals too much reach for someone with a short torso, if that's what the OP's problem really is.

Saddle to bar drop is much easier to tolerate if you have the correct top tube length, and places the rider in a more efficient position.

DUHI4GOT

I just spent the last 4 hours at a lbs getting fitted, well they tried. I'm 5'11" with a 34" inseem, they were trying to fit me on a 56CM Treck 5200. They had the seat post at it's highest point, tried a variety of stems but could get a comfortable fit. My short torso is my handycap. If I move up to a 58cm, I'll have the perfect size for my legs but I'll be stretched out too much and a 54 would be perfect for my torso but the rest looks too small. They said that the ideal bike for me would be a "woman specific" bike. Another shop said the same thing. I wont ride a "WSD" bike. Their next suggestion is an adjustable stem. Another thing, why are short sleeve jerseys made with elastic bands? The short sleeves cuts off the circulation. This whole bicycle shopping is driving me nuts. Any ideas?

greenstork

People with long legs and a short torso are perfect candidates for a custom fit bike. There are a dozen great small steel frambuilders worth checking out - certainly within your price range.

adun111

What's wrong with riding a WSD frame if it fits you? It's not like anyone else will be able to tell.

I_bRAD

Unless you get a pink one.

aicabsolut

I think it could be hard to find a 58cm WSD bike anyway. But really, what's the problem? You've got the short torso long legs thing that's characteristic of women's geometry. I'm a woman with a long torso, and I don't think I'm extra cool because I fit best on a "men's" bike. You don't have to get a pink one. Specialized makes an S-works Ruby that looks pretty nice. Put on a men's saddle and handlebars if you need to.

What if you go with a shorter stem that's flipped around to be more upright and bike with less aggressive geometry. Did you try any brands other than Trek? I was too stretched out on them, but on a Trek WSD bike my elbows were in my lap.

Smaller bike with longer crank arms?

alanbikehouston

You probably would get a better fit on a Trek that is size 58 or size 60, IF you can "standover" that frame without the top tube pressing into your crotch. A taller frame will reduce the distance from the saddle to the bars, after the bars are raised level with the saddle.

The crucial measurement for long term comfort on a road bike is the distance from the rear edge of the saddle to the front edge of the stem. All of my road bikes have that measurement dialed in at 31 inches, and all of them are comfortable to ride, hour after hour.

Many guys who are about 5'9 or 5'10 have a "Rear Saddle to Front Stem" measurement of 32 or even 33 inches, because their frame is too small, and their bars are set much too low. The result is hand pain, wrist pain, neck pain, and back pain. They look like Lance Armstrong, but feel like his great-grandfather.

Most bike shops put folks on bikes that are way too small (unless they are buying the bike ONLY for crit racing or time trials). A bike that will be used for fitness, recreation, touring, or commuting should have a frame tall enough to enable you to have the top of the bars level with the top of the saddle.

When you ride a "tall" frame, with the bars set level with the saddle, the distance from the rear of the saddle to the front of the stem is several inches LESS than when you ride on a small frame with a long seat post, and are forced to ride your hands three or four inches lower than the top of the saddle. A taller frame greatly reduces the RS to FS distance, even though the top tube is a tad longer than on a short frame.

Reducing the distance from the rear of the saddle to the front of the stem greatly improves comfort for any rider, but reducing that distance is crucial for a rider with a shorter than average torso.

Buy the tallest frame you can stand over. Put on the shoes you wear for riding. Stand over the bike, with your feet about 18 inches apart, with your belly as close to the stem as you can get.

If the top tube does not touch your jeans, the frame is too small. If the top tube is pressing firmly against your crotch, the frame is too tall. The ideal fit is when the top tube, just behind the stem, is just lightly brushing against your jeans.

Dial in the saddle height that provides just a slight bend of your knee with the pedal at six o'clock. Then, put a stem on the bike that puts the highest part of the bars level with the top of the saddle, or a half inch lower than the top of the saddle. If you race (ONLY if you race) put the bars a full inch lower than the top of the saddle.

With just about any modern road bike, that set-up will provide a comfortable fit for a guy with long legs and a short torso. Although guys who race make a religion out of the relationship between the saddle and the bottom bracket, the REST of us can move the saddle forward toward the stem if that is more comfortable. If you are comfortable, you will ride longer, and get fitter.

uptight

We're very close in height and inseam. I'm 0.5" shorter in height and inseam as you. I had much the same problems. My first roadbike was a 56cm. It fit my lower half really well but even with a short 90mm stem I felt too stretched out. While riding I kept moving forward on the saddle and had to make an effort to move my butt back. I got a 54cm which fits my upper half better and the seatpost isn't sticking way too high out of the seat tube. The head tube is shorter which results in lower handlebar height but I'm getting used to it. The 54cm works for me.

baxtefer

standover is the worst way to size a bike.

terry b

Seems pretty odd to me, I'm 5'11" and my inseam is a mere .25" shorter than yours.

The ideal bike for me is 73/73 with a 57 top tube and a 56-57 CTT seattube. I've built 5 custom bikes that way and they fir like gloves. With a pretty standard 120 stem and about 3" drop from saddle to bar.

I know we're all different, but it just seems odd that you can't make something as standard as a Trek work for you given your dimensions which are not all that unusual. A 34 inseam on a 5'11" frame does not indicate a short torso. My wife is also 5'11" with a 38 inseam. She has a short torso.

alanbikehouston

Actually, standover is the first, and most crucial step in getting a comfortable setup on a road bike. Bike companies would love to sell just three sizes of road bikes, and many retailers pretend that a long seatpost and swapping stems will solve any "fit" problem. Not true.

In the 1970's,and 1980's, the best frame makers made as many as eight, ten, or twelve sizes of frames, because they understood "stand over" must be precisely matched to the leg length of the rider to provide a precise fit. Making, selling, and stocking twelve sizes of each model was an expensive proposition.

A comfortable bike fit puts the rider's hands level with the top of the saddle. (Of course, pro cylists are paid to suffer, and ride with their hands much lower than the saddle). The only easy way to get the bars up as high as the saddle is to ride the tallest frame for your leg length. And, the tallest frame for your leg length is a frame where the top tube is brushing against your jeans when you stand over the bike.

In the 1970's, at a time when an "average" male was in the 5'8" to 5'9" range, the best selling bikes were those in the size 23 to size 24 range (size 58 to size 62). Today, when the average male is closer to 5'10" or 5'11", the best selling size of road bike is in the size 54 to size 56 range.

That means that thirty years ago, a typical rider on a road bike had about two inches LESS standover clearance than today's rider, and had his bars up two or three inches HIGHER than today's rider. That was a fit that enabled guys to ride a hundred miles on Saturday, and feel like riding again on Sunday. Today's "too small" and "too low" fit has guys whining about being in pain after the first ten miles.

DrPete 

WTH? Why did I just become the OP?

zimbo

Because you're cool, DrP. No other reason needed.

BTW, AlanBikeHouston's advice about choosing a frame based on the "'til the top tube just brushes the bottom of your balls" technique seems ridiculous to me given the prevalence of compact and semi-compact geometry bikes out there.

To the OP (not DrPete)... What size stem would you need with the 58cm bike to not feel too stretched out.

--Steve

DrPete 

I agree that the "biggest frame you can stand over" technique isn't always the best. All my old bikes have been 60s, and my new bike is a 57 with traditional (non-compact) geometry. This happened because I sized the frame using top tube length as the top priority. It's the best-handling, most comfortable fit I've ever had.

bbattle

Like Hip's Pinarello?

geraldatwork

Did the bikes you tried have a seatpost with a setback? Maybe you can find a bike manuf that makes a 57cm frame, try a seatpost without a setback and try a 90 or 100mm stem.

dsb137

I hate seeing people go thru this... Find a shop that has a 'size' cycle (or an independant fitter/coach...), then spend as much time on it as it takes for you to get comfortable, the more the better. Once you have found a 'fit' that _you_ are satisfied with, take the measurements off of the size cycle and apply them to frames that you're interested in... Spend the time here, comparing you're fit to various frame geometries. If you can't find a match without making 'compromises' be sure to discuss those 'compromises' with the fitter so that you can make an informed decision... If you go to a shoe store that only sells odd sized shoes, and you need a 10... You can possibly make a 9 or an 11 work, maybe even work well... But wouldn't it be better to just get a 10?

DUHI4GOT

The stem sizes were 100, 90 and a 70mm. They didn't have an 80mm stem. The 70mm stem had a 17 degree angle. With the 70mm stem my elbows were half way up my thighs when I'm in the drops. Their next suggestion is an adjustable stem. One shop suggested I just get a bike and adopt to it. Saying it's my first bike I wouldn't know any better. I don't see myself doing that, not after reading all the posts on here about fitment being the most important.

baxtefer

Did you try anything other than the trek? It could just be that trek is not the right brand for you.
Every brand has a different fit philosophy
Given the way trek measures seat tubes (all the way to the top of the collar), their frames tend to have *long* top tubes for a given seat tube length (i.e. the 56, which is more like ~53cm c-c has a 56cm effective top tube) Add to this trek's super-short head tubes and you're going to feel stretched out on whatever size you choose.

You should probably try to find a different brand. One with shorter top tubes for a given seat tube length. Traditional Italian geometry might be a good place to look

terry b

You do realize that between those two sizes there is only .7cm difference in effective top tube by the time the saddle on the 56 is moved backwards to compensate for the steeper seat tube angle?

Do you think that .7cm is really making you feel stretched out, or is it more that you're just not used to how racing road bike geometry makes you feel? While I think that the comment about "adapting to the bike" is a bit extreme, they may have a point. You're going to get used to how a racer feels, and it sounds to me like you're trying to make it fit like a touring bike.

Did you sit on one of their Pilots? Much more relaxed, upright geometry, longer head tubes, easier to get the bars up, etc.

DUHI4GOT

They did suggest a Pilot. However, they didn't have one. The offered me a Pilot 5.2 for $2300 Canadian

aicabsolut

You'll probably adapt to the new position some. How much you do versus how uncomfortable you'll still feel is hard to answer. You should feel happy with the bike, but if you're not 100% sure what stem you need, ride it around some more, swap stems, try that out, swap again. Go with a shop that will let you do that (they'll take back your gently used stem).

Example: I left with my bike knowing I needed smaller bars. I had to order some, but I still rode the bike with too-wide bars while I waited. The guy who did the fitting thought I'd also want a shorter stem (in fact, he recommended shorter stem over smaller bars). But after swapping out 110 for 90 in the store, I still wasn't sure. I did adapt to the longer reach quickly. And once I got the new bars (women's bars with shorter reach to the brakes), I couldn't imagine putting on the 90mm stem. But I didn't really feel that uncomfortable walking out the door post-purchase. You'll only adapt so much.

Maybe they should be willing to order an 80mm stem for you and take the risk you won't like it. Have they tried flipping the 90mm one over to make the angle more upright?

dekindy

+1

Does your budget allow for custom? Looking for road, touring, etc? Frame material steel, titanium, carbon, etc.? Maybe someone could suggest a custom builder in your price range.