I race road and crit and tend to like a tighter race fit for my bike.
I am buying a Kestrel in such a way that I can't test fit the bike before I buy. I'm interested in hearing some fellow racer opinions on which size you might go with if in my position.
I am about 6'1" with a 32" inseam. I ride a 56 cm specialized and according to CC fit chart, I should ride about a 56.5 top tube. Kestrel bikes run uneven sizes. The 57 frame has a 57 top tube and the 55 frame has a 55.6 top tube.
here is a link to the bike and size chart at the bottom of page.

thanks for your input

I'd probably size down and get a longer stem.

I'd size down, because you can adjust the bike up. If some is too long or high you can't shorten it past a certain point. Plus, if you are a weight weenie it will weigh less.

Is this something that should be subject to a poll or just some good advice?

Rule of thumb is to go smaller within reason. I would go with the 55 and get a little longer stem.

6'1" with a 32" inseam? Is that you're real inseam or your pants inseam? If that's real, then you have a long torso. I suspect the 55 is going to be too small. Might be able to make it work. But, if your weight distribution is off, handling is going to suck.

I would check the head tube dimensions of each size. In general, the smaller frame may have a shorter head tube and offer a greater seat to bar drop.

While my wife keeps telling me size doesn't matter, I'd probably go with the 55 and longer stem.

55

this.

I'm 5'7 with an inseam of 80cm, which is darn close to 32"

pant leg is 30 though

and I ride a 52

The ETT you're looking at (56.5 to 57cm) is what I use as well (with a 110mm stem) . But I'm 6' with a 35.5" cycling inseam, and my knees hit my elbows so it's pretty short for me. It sounds like that would be really short for you.

The problem with going to a smaller frame is seat to bar drop. Smaller frames have a shorter head tube. So you will need more spacers and/or a flipped up stem to get it to fit. It if fits at all. I have a significant (10cm or so) drop on my R3SL and that's with 20mm of spacer and a turned-up stem. I like the look of the turned-up stem and it makes for a more direct connection between fork and bars, but some people don't like it on their bikes because it does not look "pro".

Where are you now on spacers and stem length? What is your current headtube length? Need to know that before we can go further... but most likely either will be fine.

I am 6'1" as well with a 34in cycling inseam. theoretically, this gives me a shorter torso than you but I would still need a 140-150mm stem to keep a 55 from feeling too cramped.

I'm 6'1 w/ a hair under 32" inseam on a 55.5cm toptube and 110 stem. Everyone says it shouldn't fit, but it's perfect IMO. I've been fit 3 separate ways and all of them have come up with a 56cm toptube and 100-110mm stem. It works.

And since you're local, you should just buy my SL1 and get it over with.

thanks all for the honest responses


I do indeed have a longer torso- my actual inseam is 32". I had thought about the bad weight distribution, but I think of the two, I would rather not have a real short stem with twitchy response.

hahahahah

my current headtube is 190 mm on an endurance type frame. I have no spacers and a -7 120mm stem sitting above a headset cone that is about 40 mm in length. The Kestrel head tube on the 55cm is 140 mm and 160mm for the 57cm. I'm not too worried about an aggressive saddle-bar drop as I've been wanting something more aggressive (a 50mm shorter head tube would definitely allow for aggressive).
It seems that if I have the proper stem length, elbow interference shouldn't be a problem... not sure, that's just how it seems in my head
hah I had sent you a message about your frame a while back. I believe it was a bit more than I was looking to spend at the time...


to better tell what I think about the two sizes, I wouldn't have a problem going with the 57 if that is what I needed to do to get a proper fit. If I could go with the 55 (as it seems most are saying), I would rather do so to get a lighter, stiffer frame with a longer exposed seatpost to look cooler (hah!)

Do your thighs hit the top of your bars on a fast standing climb?

I have a 58.5tt and 120 stem and I get close.

I wouldn't call a 50mm increase in drop aggressive... I'd call that stupid... as in you are totally taking a shot in the dark by forcing yourself into that. Do you really have a 40mm spacer cone now with a 190mm headtube? That seems extreme... plus, if you want a greater drop, then why haven't you removed it?

I mean even if you got the 57 and had a 20mm spacer, that is still 50mm more drop than you now have. I'm not saying you couldn't do it... I'm 6' with a 34in inseam, and ride a 145mm headtube with no spacers. So with your shorter legs it wouldn't be nearly as much drop as I have. But still, it's a huge change to make all at once. And because you have a long torso, it might be impossible for you to get enough reach even with a long stem.

I'd say go with at least a 57 to get enough reach. That frame would look good with a -17 stem, if you decide you want more drop at some point.

I climb pretty far back(barely raising my butt out of the saddle), so I've never had an issue with that. I have short legs though for being 6'1", I assume your femur is probably longer than mine and a possible reason that it affects you more.

Yeah, that would be a huge drop compared to where you are now. The 55.5 Fuji SL1 has a 160 headtube, which is what the 57 Kestrel has. This is me personally, but if those were MY choices, I would move to a different bike. The 55 has too short of a headtube and the 57 has too long of a toptube(again, this is me). There's got to be something that fits with your numbers that is slightly more relaxed.

I had not changed out my headset because I knew that at some point soon, I would have a new and improved frameset/bike
here is an older picture of my setup. you can vaguely see the size of the cone, underneath the stem:

if the frame has the potential for that much drop, I don't necessarily have to use the full drop.
I agree, however, with your perspective: my only worry in going with the 55 frame was that I might not be able to get the proper fit no matter how I changed the stem

correct. my femur is fairly long and on a big climb i come way out of the saddle and ride over the front of the bike. if you did the same, i would expect you to "run out of room". however, if it is not a problem, it is not a problem.

When I first started riding, I climbed way over the front end and occasionally may have made contact but nothing that sticks out as a huge problem for me. I watched(or read) something talking about proper climbing technique being far back so the weight is more on the rear wheel. Once I switched to that, I got faster up the hills(which is relative because 1. I'm in Ohio, we don't have hills where I'm at and 2. I climb like a semi truck) and any potential problem went away.
When I first started riding, I borrowed a friends 58. He's the same height but leggy. I was uncomfortable from day 1. I ordered a 56 and the team fit guru called before my order came in and said, no way, let me measure you. He came out shaking his head suggesting a 56 TT. The local tri geek fitter came up with the same measurements, 56tt and 56 seat tube. He said, "You are the reason I hate generic fit charts." Somehow it just works. My new bike is a 56stx56tt and it fits like a glove. I had no adjustment period to it at all. Comfortable all day. Now if I could just find a saddle that worked like that.

my forward climbing technique is probably a result of my track (running) background. i'm not alone though:



edit: it looks like he ran a large frame for his size as well. probably for tt length like myself. look at how close his knee is to the bar.

further proof showing that bike forums can not fit you.

Nope, you do what's best for you, and I think that guy in the pic is known as a climber too. I actually try to stay seated as much as possible because I feel I waste less energy. I tend to go to the front before the climb so I can be at the back as the group crests the hill and not lose too much contact.

Your last sentence says it all though.