I had the same issue with my wife. She wants to step over the top tube and have her feet on the ground when in the saddle. What the?
She does not want a "girl bike" or an MTB. She wants a road bike that looks good. Sooo she'll come around soon enough. For now she's pregnant so no more riding.


As for fit: I'm not sure I have a bike in my ideal size. I think I have short arms which make the top tube reach an issue even when legs are fine. 5'9", 31" cycling inseam.
I've been looking for a 54cm frame for a bit. I feel that the 56 is too large and I need short stems and forward seat (would like a no-setback seatpost). I figured I'd better post here just to see what others think.

I've got a 56 Steel Trek and a 52 carbon Trek. I "made" the carbon fit but it is obviously out of proportion.
I'm now going to sell the carbon frame as seed money for a much nicer frame.

The carbon is 20.5lb and the steel is 23lb.

Think I should keep the 56 or go for 54 based on the pic of the steel bike? A longer stem might make it nicer for control?

It's fairly comfortable, and other than me getting over the mental excuse of +2.5lb, it rides smoother (not as whippy). A bigger difference than weight is that the crank is 42/52 so the climbing gearing is higher than the 39/53 carbon bike.
I plan to rebuild it with Ultegra crank and BB, CF fork, then maybe look for lighter wheels.

I ride bikes that are probably considered too big, not not greatly so. Just under 6', favorite size 58x57 w/120+/- stem. More than a fistful of post, but no one will accuse me of having too much showing.

I have short legs and a really long torso. It took me forever to realize that the "standover height" fitting method and trendy racing geometry do not work well for people with odd proportions. I've finally learned to look for frames with long, sloping top tubes, and usually have to live with very little, if any, standover height - even on MTBs.

I also have a very long torso and short legs. My bikes range in size widely because I'm a bargain hunter and I'm not picky. I think my smallest bike has a 54cm seat tube, and my biggest has a 58cm seat tube. On the smallest bike, I was uncomfortable leaning over so far, so I put upright handlebars on it. I still lean forward, since the bike is small.

I'm 5'9" or so, and my inseam in jeans is 30 inches. When I sit in a chair, I'm taller than most people.

I hate you guys. You make me wonder if I picked a size too small for my newest bike. 55cm

I used the fit chart at Comp. Bikes. IIRC 34" inseam with short to avg. arms. I was debating getting the 57 which came with a 175mm crank instead of a 172.5. Bars seem a little low, but flipping the stem solved that. Still, this stupid thread... @#%@&#

Yup. For a while my wife was collecting them. She quit when they threatened to crowd us out of the house.

Need to get 'em a crank forward frame and set it up like a road bike

Actually my wife loves her recently acquired Peugeot mixte frame bike even though she hasn't ridden it and it doesn't solve the feet on the ground issue just because it looks so "cute". She really needs a crank forward frame in the mixte style with a Shimano 8-speed IGH that she can just click shift.

How tall are you? How long are your arms and torso compared to legs? That makes a big diff too.

Modern bikes can have small seat tubes and longer top tubes. Your reach may make it comfortable for you at that frame size.

I feel that I can be a little less stretched out, hence the short quill stem. But I'd also like to try some bars that have less drop and less length to them which puts the hoods farther out. Soo many options!

The setup on both bike tells me you'd be happy on a 54 with a shortish top tube. Think Madone Performance Fit geometry. Look for a top tube of 54 cm or shorter. A moderately extend head tube will be helpful, too.

I'm 5'9", she's 5'6" and her legs are longer than mine. So the fit is odd, but that tends to be true for women's frames, much shorter torso and more leg. She isn't used to riding either which starts the "I feel too leaned over" complaints even when her form looks good. She just needs to man up! Oh wait, that wouldn't be good.

Damm! I was going to go on a mini rant about people who talk about their bike size without saying how tall they are. 5'10.5"

danarnold, as we pointed out, a smaller bike is generally more nimble and more eager at climbing than a larger bike. If you feel you're too bent over, you can get a taller stem (if you have a threaded headset).

That's why I'd like to try one size smaller. See if i can tell a difference in climbing etc. Probably not for the amount I ride and I wonder about how tall I'd need the stem to be on a smaller frame.

Correct! Body dimensions and proportions are key. I'm 5'8" with a 34" cycling inseam -- long legs, short torso, long arms. I find those dimensions will parallel my fit on a bike. In other words, I will always have a lot of seatpost, medium TT (54-56) and medium to long stem (110-120). Here is a somewhat extreme and aggressive example of my cockpit, but it rides well and is comfortable for me in the drops.

6'1 34" inseem stupid long arms

Touring/Recreation I ride large 63cm / 25in

Cyclocross or "Trying to look like a rodie" I'll scale it back to a 61cm

It's almost impossible for me to ride a 58cm.

I'm not a very tall guy -- 5'-10 or 5'-11 and wearing 32 inseam trousers -- but I definitely prefer larger frames, because I like to spin with my legs more stretched out that others do, apparently. I'm also high-waisted, so you think that I'd be uncomfortable on a 62 or 63 cm frame, but older frames that I have don't vary a lot in top tube length: 57 or 58 cm mainly. Based on the standard rules of thumb, I bought my first "serious" bike 25 years ago, a 57 cm. It's a really nice frame, but I have come to the conclusion that it's just to small to work for me. I went the other way (63 cm) with trepidation, but found that I had no problems whatever with standover, and the bike just has a good ride "feel."

I am still amazed that RobbieTunes rides such large frames.

I am 5'8.5" and the 3 bikes I ride are 52,54,56cm. The 52 and 54 both have a 54.5cm tt and both have a 70 to 80mm stem. The 56cm has a 56 cm tt and it has a 60mm stem with Randy bars. It definitely has a more upright riding position. The 52 and 54 feel very similar. When in the saddle the front axle is forward of the bars in my sight line.

I'm about 6' 0.5" and I have a 64cm c-t frame that feels absolutely perfect. It has a about a 7.2cm bb drop and a 72 ST angle, and I can stand over it fine. I also have a 56cm c-t mountain bike with a 'compact' geometry so the HT is tall, which i also love dearly.

I was fortunate enough to be able to work directly with a master frame builder to have a frame made exactly to my body type and riding style. To this day (26 years later) it still fits me like a glove, and I'm an unusual build, long body, short arms and legs and solid (5'7", 185lbs). I really wanted a very nimble (twitchy ?) bike and that's what I got and I love it. In updating it for riding again after fifteen years in storage, I replaced almost everything except the key components that affect geometry and riding position (seat, bars, stem, frame, cranks).

I'm never going to be that fast, I'm built more for rugby than cycling but I still appreciate the wonderful feeling of a well fitting bike cruising at speed on a nice stretch of road. The modern updates (better brakes and indexed DT shifting) have just made it better. I'm not sure of the exact frame measurements because they were all custom but I think it's somewhere between 20" and 21". As a bonus I've always liked the look of the aggressive stance of short wheelbase frames, sort of looks fast standing still - but maybe that's just me being nostalgic.

What no one seems to have mentioned is the different riding qualities of a smaller bike. Apologies in advance for the cliche', but, for me, smaller bikes are, indeed, quicker, more responsive, etc. That can add a very important element to the fun of a ride.

How long is the wheelbase of that bike?

I couldn't have said it better. I'm just not into that huge saddle to bar drop the young guys are into.

The wheelbase is 38" exactly. The top tube is about 19 1/2 " and the standover height is 32". Not the kind of bike you ride no hands unless you're really good (and I'm definitely not).

True. However, I've always found there's a certain amount of twitchy that needs to be first overcome, which is sometimes a bit unsettling.

(Since many of us cannot post new posts, we are stuck with responding to old ones)

True, however, once fit is tweaked, there can be much more of a "locked in" cockpit feel that does not exist to the same degree with a large bike.