Originally Posted by Garfield Cat

Likewater, your post had a few responses. Now let's hear your response to the response. Sounds like a voter's guide?

Originally Posted by Camilo

This is how I choose - and for me, given being in the ball park with a 52 vs a 54 frame in any given brand, I'm much happier with the 54 because it will have a taller head tube. I also know that almost without fail, I can get a 53.5 - 55 cm ETT to work, no matter what with a reasonable rise and lenght of stem. I'm in my 60s, but I've felt this way for about 20+ years.

The opposite would be true if I were more flexible, aggressive, and concerned with speed rather than just enjoying the ride. - I'd probably opt for the shorter/smaller bike if the two were in the ball park.

But I have no idea what advice to give the OP since he's just using frame size, which may or may not (I haven't read the whole thread) indicate anything other than the manufacturer's way of labeling frames. It doesn't tell us the ETT, HT, or even the seat tube lenght (it could be a compact type frame or a horizontal TT frame - and a "50" would be night and day difference in size, depending).

If we knew his cycling inseam and the two bikes' ETT and HT length, and least important, standover, we might be able to advise. A competent bike salesman should be communicating to him in those terms.

Originally Posted by indyfabz

What was the size of the bike you bought and returned?


And a 46cm at 5'7"? My GF is 5' even and rides a 42cm touring bike.


I smell something.

Originally Posted by FBinNY

There's plenty of room to adjust saddles on modern bikes. In fact there's MUCH more room than in the days of horizontal top tubes and 250mm posts. This allows you to consider a shorter frame without worry about limited handlebar height. So, the 2cm difference saddle height is meaningless.

What may matter more is the height at the front, which determines the range of handlebar heights, and the overall length. Generally (but not always) taller frames are slightly longer saddle to stem. Frame length and handlebar height are also adjustable by changing the stem, but having them properly fitted helps ensure that your position is properly centered with stems in the normal range.

In your shoes, if a 50cm was snug, I'd probably skip the 48 and go with the 46 because there's no reason to work so close to something you know is wrong. OTOH id the 50 was kind of OK, though a bit high, then the 48 might make sense.

I'm not a proponent of paid for fittings for mot people, but if the hop offers the option, you might ask for an abbreviated version for free as part of the buy the bike deal. However, as I said, there's plenty of room to adjust, and fitting isn't a complex rocket science.

Originally Posted by pdlamb

Is there another bike shop that'll do a bit more work to fit you to a bike near you?


Or is there another model or style you might look into?


There's a lot of variation between models as far as effective top tube length for a given "size" (=seat tube length). And if you're just getting into cycling, it's worth looking for a (free) second opinion before you plunk down the credit card.

Originally Posted by Retro Grouch

You're in the negotiating process of buying a new bike. Broadening the negotiating process is always a good tactic.

Originally Posted by fietsbob

What kind of cycling you do and what type of bike you want to ride doing it,

Seems a secret you dont want to share, so IDK what to say.



'/,

Originally Posted by wgscott

Any shop that wants to sell you a bike should be able to make a few measurements in 5 or 10 minutes that will at least get you in a general direction of a good fit (or eliminate bad fitting options). I also have the problem of having short legs for my height, which makes finding a good fit hard. Before I got a custom frame, I would have to choose between too short a top tube and too high a seat tube. (Standover height does mean something if you haven't yet had children.)

Originally Posted by pressed001

Yeah. 5 foot 7 inch on a 47? What is your inseam? Also stand straight and measure from your foot bottom to middle hip bone. What is that measurement? What bike have you been fitted on?

I am 5 foot 9 inch and I ride a 54, but I also ride a 56 and a 60... I modified the stem lengths or saddle positions and they are all very comfortable. FYI, i have a longer torso than legs so I like a longer top tube.

But yeah, I would hit up another bike shop. Try a totally different bike and get another opinion.

Originally Posted by jefnvk

Both of these. I'm 5-9.5ish, with midget legs, and I ride a 57 and two 23" (58). There is no bike that my torso could fit on in the <50 range, even 52-54 is on the small size.

You spend hours hunched over the TT, seconds standing over it, which measurement is really more important to you?

Originally Posted by Maelochs

Bike Fit Calculator | Find Your Bike Size | Competitive Cyclist
Road Positioning Chart | Park Tool

Originally Posted by FBinNY

I agree, but just to clarify a detail.

Most frames use the same angle seat tube for all frame sizes, except sometimes for the smallest. Since the seat post is simply an extension of the seat tube, the saddle position will be identical whether achieved with a long post on a short frame or with a short post on a tall frame.

Other than top tube height and stepover clearance (where it's a factor) the more significant effect of frame size is head tube height at the stem, and overall length if length is proportioned, which isn't always the case.

Folks get overly wrought about small differences in frame size, but for most people, just being in the right ballpark is all that matters, then they may decide based on the secondary considerations of head height and effective (horizontal) top tube length.

Using that theory, short leg/long torso people may do better with a frame size at the high end of the acceptable range, and long leg/ short torso folks the opposite.

Originally Posted by Meathorse

5' 7" on a 46cm bike? I hope you're wearing lipstick for the salesman, cause you're getting f*#%@d.

Originally Posted by 1989Pre

I can't see a 50cm frame being a problem for you if you are 5'7". Either a 50 or a 52.

I ride a frame that gives me no standover, but is perfect when I ride. Like Jefn, I am 5'9.5" and my seat tube is a 58 and top tube 57. It's awesome. Try something bigger than 46cm. Did you ride the one that was 46?

Originally Posted by Maelochs

Every frame is different, every manufacturer measures its frames a little differently, and every body is different, even if every measurement seems identical. I don't say "I ride a 56" or "I ride a 58" because I can fit on a number of different frame sizes ... but it really does change bike to bike.

Originally Posted by Loose Chain

So you are saying that if you stand over the 50cm bike that you cannot lift both wheels from the ground without it being hard against your pubic bone?

Usually these weird new fangled "compact" frames with the odd sloped top tubes can accommodate people with odd body proportions a little more easily that traditional level top tube bikes.

The top tube is the more important measurement.

J

Originally Posted by thin_concrete

5'7" on a 46cm frame?! Unless they give it you for free, you're talking to the wrong salesman.