JITENSHYAniNORU

Hey all,

First I'll just say that I know the engine comes first. However bike fit is very crucial to high performance and staying injury free.

I was at the LBS today checking out my future ride. I wanted to make sure what size frame best fits my body type before my colligate team has our yearly bike order. I was always told that I should ride a 54cm. However, I'm not an idiot so I decided I should at least try a 52/54/56 cm before I come to any conclusions. So the 56 was way too large. The 54 felt normal although I did notice that my arms were fully extended in order to reach the hoods. I could hardly tell the difference between the 54 and the 52 I tried next. The key difference was that my elbows had a slight bend while I was holding the hoods. So I figured that in a 2009 Caad9 I am a 52cm. The weird thing is that I'm about 5'9" and it seems my arms are shorter than normal.

Anyway, the salesperson told me that I can ride either a 54 or a 52 and I am "somewhere in between". That was not very helpful. But when I told him I would be racing this bike he told me to get the 52 because I would get better control out of the bike. He also said the smaller frame would be easier to put power into. I'm guessing his theory was that it would be easier to have my way with the smaller bike.

So now I ask BF... anyone have experience with such a matter? Would you go with the smaller frame of the two?

garysol1 

If you are indeed between sizes than go smaller.

RacerOne

The smaller frame should be a little lighter.

celerystalksme

smaller...

mostly because you can achieve more saddle to bar drop...

entukay

well coming from someone who has owned both a bike that is a hair too small and a bike that is a hair too big, i can say that it was easier on the smaller bike to crank hard and whip it around, but the bigger bike cornered better and was more comfortable on longer rides.

Creakyknees

can you get the saddle to pedal relationship right on the smaller back? knee position over pedal? if so, then go w the smaller one. it's cheaper, right?

celerystalksme

what's the deal with KOPS? keith bontrager says it's a bunch of BS grounded on nothing excepted marketing fit kits...one of my LBS owners agrees...another LBS owner says it's essentially crap, but gets most people comfortable so don't knock it...

JITENSHYAniNORU

Apparently the salesman was right from what you guys are saying. The 52 was very nice, it felt so good to be able to bend my elbows at the hoods without being hunched over too far. Right now I'm riding a late 80's Bottecchia that is a 55 or 56 and that thing is killing me. Not to mention its a pain in the ass to change stems.

The other thing I notice on the Caad9 was how light it was. It was so light I had a hard time balancing myself.

Also, our team's trainer is apparently a bike fitting god, so I don't think knee over pedal will be a problem. Are smaller frames cheaper? I thought they were all the same price...

garysol1 

My feeling on KOPS is that it is a good starting point for most people. Start there then micro adjust till it feels right.

caloso

If I'm between sizes, I tend to go with the smaller frame, at least with traditional level top tube bikes.

Start with KOPS and work from there. And keep in mind that as you get stronger and more flexible, you may want to get a longer stem.

pinky

Going from a 54 to a 52 CAAD9 the biggest change is going to be the headtube (you lose like 2cm). The top tubes are only a cm different, I'd be more concerned with making sure you can achieve the right saddle to bar drop.

MONGO!

The smaller frame will be lighter, stiffer and lower in front.

All good things if you're going to race it.