I know this sounds like a Newbie kind of question...BUT.....

Have a few questions about my first bike, and what you think about the size. It's a newer one, an 05 Trek 1000SL. I've ridden, maybe 300 miles this year on it (not alot) but I did do a 2 day, 150 mile ride a little while ago. While the size doesn't bother me, do you think it's too small? I'm 6'1", and have about a 32" inseam. Top tube (center to center) measures *about 58cm, seat tube, c-c measures 54cm. Standover is 32.25"

Too small? Where do you typically determine the "XXcm" sizing dimension from? Seat tube?

I have 2 other road bikes (vintage), wonder if one of them may fit better.

1984 LeTour - 34" Standover (too big IMO), top tube c-c 57cm, seat tube c-c 62cm

198? Cilo - 31.75" standover, Top tube c-c 56cm, seat tube c-c 56cm.

The Cilo is kind of similar dimensionally to the Trek, but the Geometry is VERY different, and thus *feels* smaller.


I do know that I have been starting to get some knee pain, which could be my seat height, of poor form on long rides...

What do you think?

Well, the Trek is modern geometry, so a 54cm may fit, but the 4cm "oversquare" sizing makes me think that frame is made for your size after all, as a 58cm reach on a 54cm seat tube is pretty elongated. The only thing I can say on that frame is make sure the seat post is high enough, and yoiu may have issues with minimum insertion limits there, but I don't know.

The LeTour seems a lot taller than you need, and I notice it's 5cm "undersquare," while your Trek is 4cm "oversquare." This seems like a huge difference in bike geometries for the same rider.

By comparison, the Cilo is a "square" 56cm. It feels smaller because it's shorter.

Fit can be all over the map. I'd be willing to bet a square 58cm classic bike would fit you fine, give you plenty of range for adjusting the seat and stem.

My opinion is the LeTour is too big, and way too undersquare to fit most folks. It's best owner would be one with long legs, shorter torso.

My opininion is the Trek reach is probably about right, since you're not complaining about back, shoulders, arms. If your knees bother you, check the seat height and where it sits on the seat post. On many modern bikes, if you get that fit correct on the "back end," you'll be fine. My modern bike frame is 10cm in height shorter than two of my other bike frames, but it can easily be made to fit, and does.

My opininion is the Cilo would be right if it were 58x58; and classic bikes, if they feel "too small," they generally are. I've not been successful using longer stems and seat posts on them, though logic says I should be. I get caught up in a pretty bike that's too small, try to make it fit, and it doesn't.

And knee pain has lots of causes. Fit first, then ride a bit. Then, see if your pedals are close to the crank arms. Those spindle extenders can make a world of difference, and so does the way your cleats are mounted, if you're using clipless. I have a couple of friends who buy SPD's because they can get a long spindle on certain models of pedal, and they say their knees can definitely tell.

Another issue is float. If you have no flexibility in the pedal/shoe connection, that can also cause some knee pain. For a tri, I use "no float" cleats, basically locking my shoes to the pedals with no movement whatsoever. For a long ride, I use cleats that move a bit, and pedals with some variable float.

That's what I think, right now, at this given moment in time. Good luck to you. I envy that 56cm Cilo, which is my size.

Robbie,

Thank you! I mean, between 60-75 miles in one sitting, and my lower back started to hurt a little. I can only assume that it was due to being hunched over for hours at a time.

I wish the Cilo was a tad bigger....Thats part of the reason it's sat in the basement for the past 2 years untouched. My Fiancee didn't like downtube shifters, so I got her a modern bike with brifters, which she loves. The Cilo collects dust

I think I'll get rid of the Schwinn, as it's just really way too big.

Going to have to take the Trek to the store and get fitted properly I think...

Very good explanation/advice!

Nominal frame size is measured along the seat tube from the center of the crank spindle to either the center of the top tube (c-c, great for specifying frame geometry/angles) or the top of the top tube (c-t, a more pratical guide to how the frame fits the rider, although one has to add bottom bracket elevation to obtain standover height). Top tube length (almost always measured c-c) is arguably even more important in determining how well the bike fits you.

For what it's worth, I am 5" shorter than you and my inseam is 2" shorter, so our respective relative proportions are comparable and pretty average. My ideal size in a traditional European road bike is 55cm C-T.

Bikes with that "oversquare" geometry are really rare, especially with newer bikes. Almost everything made now is "sqaure" (top tube and seat tube the same) in the mid range sizes. I'm about your size and I like a 56 (c-c) or 57 (c-t) seat tube size with a 56 top tube. I also a 110 stem.

So I'm thinking the top tube length might be fine depending on the stem size you have but the seat tube is on the small size. Do you have a lot of seat post showing?

What would really help is posting a picture of the bike, especially one of you on it so we can see how you fit.

Here is just the bike:



And here I am riding it (although, not a straight sideshot)

Your knee appears to be still bent when the pedal is in the down position. That bike is too small for you.

Hard to judge completely, as your pic is not in the full down position, so I am guessing a little.

I use this guide for vintage bikes. I find it pretty accurate. Modern bikes have different geometry where the guide is less accurate.

Try this and see how your cutrrent setup is different from the recommendations, especiallit saddle height and knee position.

https://www.coloradocyclist.com/bikefit

The two things that need a closer look at from the pictures are your saddle height and level. We can't tell where your leg is at the bottom of the pedal movement from the picture so you might be too low. I'm basing that on the more upright position you are in being in the drops. The other thing is your saddle is pointed down. It works best for most people being level. The way you have it forces more of your weight onto your wrists and hands that also makes your shoulders tired.

That tells me :


Frame Size

Road - 54 cm

Mountain - 44 to 42 cm

Saddle Height

72 cm


I presume saddle height it lists is from the center of BB along seat tube?? Measured to where? Top of the saddle?

You need to use your bicycle inseam, not your pant inseam. The Colorado site explains it pretty well. It would be very unusual to be 6-1 with just a 32 inch bicycle inseam. Possible I guess, but very unlikely.

My bicycle inseam is about 2 inches longer than my pant inseam.

Hah..guess I should have checked more..let me re-visit that. 1.5" more than pants inseam. 33.5"

Frame Size
Road - 57 cm
Mountain - 47 to 45 cm
Saddle Height
75 cm

From the pic only, I'd do three things:
2cm up on the saddle height
1cm forward on the saddle fore/aft position

now:

Measure the height from concrete, etc to the bottom of the drops, at the bar end. If you don't get the same on each side, average them. Now, loosen the stem and roll the bar forward until the bar ends are 2cm higher. Given the seat height adjustment, we're "even." Now, roll the bar forward until the ends are 2 more cm higher.

Ride it and get back to me...If it isn't more comfortable, I'll send you a water bottle.

We're fitting the drops, and when that's done, you'll be fine there and in the hoods...

Thanks Robbie, I'm going to give your suggestions a try tonite! Will report back!

Tonite is upgrade time, and fitting the bike to me. I'll report back with the results...hah...

Scored these for $30 bucks. :-)

Well, put the crank, and drivetrain parts on. New Crank has 175mm arms as opposed to 165mm arms.
Flipped the stem back up, rolled the bars up (towards me), seatpost up, and saddle back a tiny bit. Took Robbie's suggestions, my cousin works at a local Trek dealer as a mechanic, he watched me ride it, and adjusted it like he thought it should be. He was spot on. He said with the way the stem was, how the bars were, and saddle tipped down a little bit that I was transferring all the weight to my hands, which would explain why they started to get a little numb on 50+ mile rides. Haven't had a chance to give it a whirl, but I'm hoping to today after work!











Lost a chainring up front, but now have a nice robust Hollowtech set, with a much nicer BB, and 175mm arms.
We made the Triple Sora shifter work with the double crankset.... I was going to ride to work today, but had no interest in riding in the rain. I did take it around the block last night. I have to say that the 105 parts shift WAY BETTER, than the 2203 FD, and Tiagra RD. Can't wait to actually ride it.

This crankset is MUCH nicer than the Bontrager Sport with the stamped steel rings that came on the bike....can kind of see here:

Looks good, set up for riding the hoods, plenty of room on the steerer for any future adjustments. You'll be happy with the FD/RD, I'm sure, and now the miles will be much more enjoyable. Good job...

Update: He reports the bike is fitting well and riding great.