i would think 55 would be tiny.

With your short legs/ long torso dimensions you need to be careful. People with average proportions and position just need to get in the ballpark for frame size and adjust the stem and saddle for fit. But your short legs would tend to put you on a small frame, while your long torso would put you on a large. And the big unknown here is that you don't really know how much drop you want, and what you've been accustomed to is very little. So forcing yourself into a lot of drop seems unwise... plus it may be impossible for you to get adequate reach on a small frame anyway.

The 59 has a 180mm headtube, which is 10mm less than your current frame. Plus you can get rid of the 40mm of spacers... plus if you need to you can get a horizontal stem to give you another 20mm of drop. That's 70mm more drop than you have now. I'd guess that 70mm is plenty of room to experiment, and you shouldn't have any reach issues with the 59 and normal stems (up to 130mm). I'd go with that one. Or at least the 57.

I'd still see if you can get on a fit bike and play with the measurements. Call CycleSport or someone local and throw them a few bucks to play on the adjustable bike, or go get a fit. I'm almost the exact same measurements, and inflexible as hell. I'm on a Felt 56cm with a 14cm headtube and 30mm of spacer/cone. I couldn't ride a 57+ comfortably at all. Every fit I've had, had come up with a 56cm TT and 100-110mm stem. The cost of a true fit would be beneficial in the fact that if you buy a Kestrel in a 57 and it's too big, you'll lose that money vs getting a fit and finding a bike that actually fits you.

Here's mine, which has a larger stack of spacers that I would like, but I'm inflexible and any longer would be uncomfortable to me.

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y16...e/DSC_6321.jpg

For somebody 6'1" with a 32in inseam that is very unusual... like really, really unusual. But of course you could ride a bigger frame with a shorter stem, since you have a lot of spacers. Most competitive riders with your dimensions would have the opposite problem... not able to get a long enough stem and/or enough drop.

Maybe your "inflexibility" also effects your reach... as in a very rounded back? Is your neck unusually long? My buddy who is 5'9" and has short legs and a flat back, rides a 55 with a 140mm -17 stem. He is barely able to get both the drop and reach he wants with typical frames.

So yes... it's very individual.

Frankly, I think the OP should get a cheap adjustable stem and experiment with different bar positions on his current bike. At least then he'd have a better idea of where he wants to end up.

Yeah, I'm fat, have only ridden 10 times in the past year, I'm sick, I'm going to bed and my house is a mess. That should about cover it.
But here are a couple of pics. It's on the trainer with no shoes, but you get the point. It does look like my back is a bit rounded. Maybe that makes up for the shorter tt measurement. I don't know. I've been fit by a teammate "certified" by Serotta on a fit bike, one that uses plug in measurements like Competitive Cyclist and one from the local Tri guru who has done over 4,000 fits(now started his own company Veritas Fits) on a fit bike. Either way, from the first day I ever got on a bike a 56 just felt good. The 58 w/ 110 stem Fuji I borrowed to get into cycling just made me feel too stretched.

I am pedaling in the pics with light resistance.

Your hips are really vertical, which necessarily pulls your shoulders back, resulting in a short reach feeling 'comfortable'. You actually look really cramped. If you were to rotate your hips forward in the saddle, your back would be flat(er) and you could accommodate a longer reach, and likely more drop as well.

Just my .02.

you look cramped to me as well

I know I do. Evey pic I look at I feel that I look cramped. I can't figure it out and for some reason all three fits have put me on a 56. The only change I would think might work looking at that pic would be to a longer stem and drop some spacers. But again, I am totally inflexible. Last year I finally got to stretching religiously and at the end of the year was able to touch my toes. Once I had surgery and a bunch of setbacks, I gained a bunch of weight due to extreme inactivity, so I lost the flexibility and I got fat.

I was considering a Wobble Naught fit from a local guy, but then I think about how comfortable I am with my present setup, I hate to spend the money.

That position is fine if it's comfortable... but your hoods position is very upright, and in the drops your arms seem cramped. I think it is less drop and reach than most would like. One crude rule of thumb is that the bars obscure the hub when in the drops. If you look at how most pros are set up, the reach is even greater than that.

My reach is longer than the "hub" method and it made my lower back pain go away.

How far is the nose of your saddle from the center of your bottom bracket? It looks like it's pretty far back in the rails on a set-back seat post. If you can imagine if you took that to an extreme and kept sliding your saddle back further and further while your feet stayed on the pedals, you can see that your hips will close up. But, if you move the saddle forward, your hips will open. Now that you are more forward, you have to adjust for your upper body by extending the stem outward and/or downward.

I would suggest considering moving your riding position forward and rotating it clockwise. Here are John Cobb's thoughts on the idea.

To clarify: This would entail
- Moving your saddle forward to around 5cm back from the BB spindle
- Raising your saddle slightly because you have to compensate for moving it forward.
- Extending and/or lowering your bars.

Horses for courses, of course.

When I'm on my bike the front hub is obscured. That is how I was originally told how to "fit" a bike.

Carleton, my nose is around 62mm back, give or take a few mm based on not getting exactly the center of BB. I'm aware of the rotating forward as I come from a triathlon background. I'll push it forward a few cm tonight and drop a few spacers and see if anything changes. The funny thing is my TT position is excellent according to most people. I just can't get very low on my road bike, never really have been. These pics make me realize how far up in the air that I am.

Jesus, Cobb went crazy with that stem change. I'll have to rotate forward and pull my cone/spacers and see what happens.

Looks like you'd need ~20-30mm longer stem to get that while in the drops.

I can obscure my hub with my bars using a 90mm stem. All I have to do is rotate my hips way back and round my back.


Edit: It's a crappy rule of thumb anyway, but thats not the point of my post :)

I was told that rule was only in the hoods. :shrug:

Okay, so say I push my saddle 2 cm forward and a little up then get a 2cm longer stem(130mm), obviously this rotates me clockwise and flattens my back out, but doesn't the reach stay the same?

You should start a fit/position help thread for yourself in the 41. Include a video, in your cycling gear.

Interesting in the video that at the end after she says it "feels good", she bails out of the drops for the hoods at the first chance she gets.

Lol.

I don't get why that's so funny. This is another person's thread, and you're in your PJs.

Because I don't listen to about 85% of what goes on in there. There are a few people in this forum that know what they are talking about with fits. The 41 would be 121 replies with 6 constructive ones from the same people replying here.

the bike looks silly, but honestly after she is on it, it looks like a decent fit.

i didnt go that crazy, but i did co about 10mm lower and 20mm longer and it was a HUGE improvement. i used to get pack pain at about 20 miles but this year did a ~500mi week with zero back pain.

As Cobb alludes to; I think she might have even stood to go a little lower.