Old 04-02-18, 03:24 PM
  #690  
badger1
Senior Member
 
badger1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Southwestern Ontario
Posts: 3,929
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 958 Post(s)
Originally Posted by dmnk View Post
Thanks, I was never a fan of test rides as I thought it's too short too tell for me to feel uncomfortable. Currently I have trek FX 7.7 56 (4 years) and I think I would've been better with 54. But this one, between the sizes seems like a big difference that's why I'm hesitating.
At 178cms, you will fit on either the M or the L on this particular bike.

Take a glance at the geometry chart: the difference between the two sizes comes down to stack (iirc, 593mm for the M, 611mm for the L). The static reach is virtually identical -- 2mm different iirc -- as is seat tube angle.

So, which you'll find the 'better' fit will depend on your leg length (cycling inseam, which dictates saddle height) relative to your overall height. If your cycling inseam is longish relative to your height, and/or you want a quite upright riding position, probably the L. If your leg length (cycling inseam) is average-to-short for your height, and/or you want a slightly more aggressive (low/stretched) riding position, probably the M.

Simple really, but the only way to know is to get fitted to and ride both sizes.
badger1 is offline