Sizing issue on Surly CC
 

WARNING: This post is lengthy, detailed, and individual. Only read if you have the patience and willingness to help me understand what's going on with my fitting.

Okay, here's the thing. I bought a Cross Check last fall. The LBS [Orange 20 in Hollywood] felt I was between a 58 and a 56. We ordered both and the 58 was way too big for me, so I bought the 56 which fit me okay. However, I've always felt a bit stretched out on it. I've done everything I can to make it smaller short of buying a new frame. I bought cross levers, so I could reach the brake levers in comfort and now I pretty much almost always ride the tops. I am able to reach the hoods but I just can't stay on them for very long due to the discomfort. I bought a 90mm adjustable stem to replace the stock 100mm stem, and I've been fitted by the LBS [a local suburban LBS] so all the adjustments have been made and everything is where it should be. I've mentioned to the LBS that I feel a little stretched out reaching for the hoods and they said it is more or less normal to usually ride on the tops. They rotated the drop bars to bring the hoods closer to me, but nothing. Still cannot ride on the hoods for any length of time. It seems like everything I've done has been band-aids on a more serious problem.

I need a smaller frame, it's the last and most expensive thing I can do to get a better fit. I am volunteering at the Bicycle Kitchen co-op that happens to be across the street from Orange 20, so I walked on over there and told them about my problem and they agreed that I may just need a smaller frame. I test rode the 54 CC and it felt great. Instead of riding default on the tops, I was able to ride the hoods the entire time; my neck felt less strained to look up even without the rise of the adjustable stem I'm running ATM, and I gained about a half inch of stand over height. I just liked it much better and that is the bottom line. I don't need affirmation. I know what I want.

What I don't understand is the math, why does the 54 feel better?

54cm [stock configuration]
eTT 560mm + stem 100mm = 660mm
56cm [current configuration]
eTT 570mm + stem 80mm = 650mm

Because the adjustable riser stem is shorter than the stock them, the current configuration on the 56cm is shorter than the stock configuration on the 54cm. It's shorter by a cm.

Alternatively, I can use the adjustable 90mm stem which when raised up completely shortens to 80mm. That would result in a reach of 640 to 650mm.
54cm [with the current smaller stem]
eTT 560mm + stem 90mm [80mm] = 650mm (640mm]

How tall are you and what's your inseam? I'm a little over 5' 9" and have a longish 32.5" inseam. I'm also torn between the 54 and 56. I was thinking the 54 might be better. Problem is I don't know if I can get the bars level with the seat, my preferred ride.

1. Are you measuring from post-center-top-of-saddle to top-center-of-bar?
2. Are you measuring from post-center-top-of-saddle to top-center-of-hood?

Those will give you reach numbers...but won't tell anything about height. I.e., you also need to detail height of saddle versus height of the top-of-bar.

=8-)

I myself am finding that my reach is fine - but I'm falling too much onto my bars and hoods - resulting in palm pain and neck pain. Getting ready to swap stem for same size stem but much higher rise angle. Getting old I guess...

=8-)

If you look at the frame geometry for different sizes, you'll see the top tubes and the seat tubes get longer and longer with larger frames. If you had your saddle adjusted exactly at the same height, the larger the frame, the higher and farther away the headset would be. (I'm saying headset because you have some control on where the stem ends up on the steering tube.) Anyway, that's my thought on it so I think it may explain why a different frame feels different.

I have an idea what you mean by being confused on frame sizes. My inseam was measured at a Trek dealer and they showed me in a book I could take either a 51cm or 54cm Trek 520 (with an inseam of 835mm). Then I took a bunch of measurements as described on the competitive cyclist website. They told me at first I could take 51cm or 54cm then emailed me again telling me the ideal might be around 52cm or 53cm. I currently have a 54cm Nashbar touring frame but when I tried wheels on it with 45mm tires, I didn't have much standover left if I wanted to put my foot down on a steep trail. Since I ordered almost two of everything I needed to buy a bicycle because I kept changing my mind what I wanted on the bike, I ended up choosing to build two bikes so I could try a 52cm as well. Then I might sell the other one. (And I have no idea why I'm rambling, lol, but hopefully someone will get something out of it.)

There's more to fit than effective top tube and stem lengths:

1) Though he 56cm has a 10mm longer eff. TT, the seat tube angle is 0.5 degrees slacker. If you put the saddle in the exact same position relative to the bottom bracket for both frames, the saddle on the 56cm will acually boe more forward relative to the TT, making the TT effectively shorter. In other words the 56's TT will feel a little less than 10mm longer than the 54's.

2) Stem length itself is only relevant if the stem is parallel to the ground. If there's any angle, then the effective length of the stem is actually shorter.

3) The difference in height between the saddle and handlebars makes a big difference. Since the saddle position should be fixed relative to the BB, the only way to affect the relative height of the handlebars is the head tube length, spacers below the stem, and the rise of the stem (affected by the stem angle and extension).

I'm 5'11 and my inseam is 32, on jeans at least. I'm not sure what it is technically. I clear the 56's stand over height of 31.9 by about a third of an inch, not much. I would focus more on the eTT because the saddle is much more easily adjusted than the reach. A rule of thumb about stand over I heard is that you should be able to clear the top tube by 1 in to 1 1/2 in. Someone correct me if that's wrong! If I were you, I'd think about a 52 even. a 52 and a 54. The 56 is likely too big. The LBS said if you normally ride a 56 on any other road bike, you should get a 54 on the CC because its top tube runs long. Good luck.

Good point. Wider tires reduce stand over height. One point for smaller frames.

Also, you have the option of moustache handlebars on smaller frames since moustache handlebars elongate the reach.

Maybe I should have been able to clear the top tube by more than a third of an inch. I'm still not understanding how to calculate reach. Intuitively, I know what feels better but I want to understand, too. Maybe someone can suggest a link. I know, I know...Sheldon Brown but sometimes I just get overwhelmed by the amount of technical information on there.

to get the eTT, I'm just using the geometry spec's on the surly website.

1. so if the 56 current set up feels less than 10mm longer than the 54, then it wouldn't feel like much of a difference, but it does to me. Thanks for the insight, though.

2. The LBS measured my 90mm adjustable riser stem and measured it from the center of headset, on the bolt, to the center of the clamp on the handlebar. They said it was shortened to 80mm because of the rise. Does that sound right?

3. My saddle is a little higher than my handlebars, by about an inch.

2. You could use trigonometry to figure it out, or go to this nifty link: http://alex.phred.org/stemchart/

For both stems, use "90" for the reach, "72" for the head tube angle, and the same number of spacers.

For red, use an angle of "0" and for blue use the angle of the stem you have. It'll probably be somewhere between 7 and 35 (this is the angle the stem rises out from perpendicular to the steerer tube). If the stem is flipped, then this value will be negative.

It will tell you how much shorter reach the blue stem has compared to red; subtract this from 90mm to get the effective reach of your stem.

Wow, this is getting complicated. How and why would people use that website?

Red
Reach: 90
Angle: 0
Spacers: 35(mm)

Blue
Reach: 90
Angle: 35
Spacers: 35

Steer Angle: 72

Results:
blue stem has 31mm less reach and is 44mm higher.
steerer: 72
red stem: 90mm reach, 0 degrees, 35mm of spacers
blue stem: 90mm reach, 35 degrees, 35mm of spacers



Did I do it, right?! But wouldn't this be comparing the 90mm adjustable riser stem with an angle of 0 degrees with the raised height of 35 degrees? What if I want to compare the blue stem [current configuration] with the the red stem of the stock configuration with a 100mm stem and I'm not sure what angle.

Then, I want take the length of the stems and add it to the eTT lengths of both the 56 and the 54cm Cross Checks. Help me out, dude. I gave that website a shot.

To determine the effects on height and reach of going to a different stem or spacer configuration.

The tool assumes it's on the same frame. If you want to compare two totally different bikes, then put in the two stems in the tool. You'll have to adjust the spacer height to account for the different length head tubes. For example, if the "blue" bike has a 10mm taller head tube, then give it 10mm more spacers to account for the taller head tube.

Compare the difference in reach that the tool determines to the difference in the effective top tubes of each bike.

For example, if the "blue" stem is 10mm shorter than the "red" stem and the "blue" frame eTT is 20mm shorter than "red" frame, then the overall reach of the "blue" bike will be 30mm shorter. This assumes the same or roughly the same seat tube and head tube angles.

my inseam is 82.5cm or 32.5 inches.

Completely off topic here, just wanted to comment that I almost bought a Surly Crosscheck but the geometry was so wonky I went elsewhere. I never actually tried any out. Just based on the published dimensions and angles I was thoroughly confused.

A lot of people seem to be satisfied with their CC's and I think I just need a smaller size. Just out curiosity, what about the geometry is wonky exactly? and what bike did you end up getting?

I'll do this later when I have time to really focus. I'm going to take the 54cm for a good hour to two hour test ride. That will be the only way to get an honest feel for the smaller frame, regardless of this trigonometry stuff that I only want to know to satisfy my own curiosity. After a year riding the 56 geometry, I think I'll be a little more discerning with the subtle differences in fit and feel, too.

Can't really explain your particular situation, but ran into the same thing with CC sizing. Bought a 52, should have bought a 50. Don't buy based on their seat tube sizing measurement; figure out what tt length works for you and buy accordingly.

Wonky wasn't a fair word. As mconlonx describes above, it quickly became obvious that you need to size via top tube, which is fine. But I couldn't work out (virtually) how much drop I'd acquire and I was worried I'd spend too much effort fiddling with the fit. I normally ride a 54 to 56 frame, basically a 55 top tube. So in the Surly model I was torn between a "52" or a "54" (which have top tubes of 54 and 56). Anyway, it put an awkward taste in my mouth when I started thinking about the height of the head tube along with everything else.

That's what I meant by wonky. I didn't mean to imply anything was wrong with it. It was just causing me confusion and uncertainty. I don't have a local dealer withou driving almost 2 hours.

I agree that choosing a size has to be based on the top tube length. The seat post can easily be adjusted, the reach...not so much. The 58 was obviously way too big for me. Way too big. The other one the LBS ordered and built up for me was a 56. I got the 56 only because it fit better than the 58 but the same LBS told me when deciding between 2 sizes on a CC, people generally choose the smaller of the two. I shouldn't have had to choose between the 58 and 56. It should have been between the 56 and the 54. Now I know.


I could get an even shorter stem but that would cost another $45 for a quality stem and leave me with two unused stems. I figure I might as well eat the cost of selling the 56 to to buy the 54. It'll only cost slightly more.

I can sympathize with the lack of quality bike shops in rural areas. I passed through quite a few rural areas on my tour, stopped at a few LBS and was surprised by the lack of selection. I was lucky that Orange 20 is a larger LBS and was willing to order two sizes for me with a down payment and agreement to buy one of them. So what bike did you end up getting?

I bought a closeout model Uncle John frame from Planet-X for $299: http://www.planet-x-usa.com/pUNCLE%2...-Frameset.aspx

I like the price, lighter weight, and *hopefully* a little less worry about the salt from the roads (being an aluminum frame)

I have the frame in hand and will probably have it built up tonight or tomorrow. It's been a slow process acquiring parts.

I was in your boat. I found someone on craigslist to trade frames with. We had each other's sizes. It worked out well.

Funny thing is, my ideal size is usually 56cm, and that's what he said he was trading me. When it arrived, it turned out to be a 54cm. But it fits me well.

Good luck.

I'll have to give CL a try. So you were a 58 looking for a 56?