Canonndale Synapse fitting
 

6.1, 140lb, long hands and wear a 33 shirt size. Also long legs and 34 inseam

https://www.cannondale.com/en-us/blo...bike-do-i-need

guys - in market for a used bike but went into a Trek shop anyways to try sizing. The Madone 60cms felt nice and not too aggressive and fast enough for me. I can't find a Madone on FB but found a Synapse with similar geometry here -
I thought I'll need the Synapse 60cm but measuring per their guide, looks like 58cm may be a good fit. Problem is Cannondale doesn't public the old aluminum bike's geometry so I used the later carbon bike and 81.28cm standover correlates to 58cm. 34 inseam - 2 inches = 32 inches or 81.28cm. Another data point - my current Trek Alpha 1.5 is 58cm but feels a little small for me

Any thoughts if I'm thinking through this correctly?

Thanks!

Try here


bikeinsights.com

'Fitting' on the internet - Bike Forums - is an iffy thing - too much to consider and too little real info...
In consideration of bike types and models...
The Trek Alpha is a 'Hybrid', intended to be ridden more upright, city type, short reach to upright straight bars...
Trek Madone is a performance/race bike, intended for forward/lower lean to torso, so geometry of the bike will be quite different.
The Synapse is in-between, but more oriented towards the 'performance' side of riding.
Based on info you give, and saying the Madone 60 felt 'good', I would say the 58 Synapse would be closer to the Madone 60. and still be a bit more upright than the Madone...
If you'd like a closer comparison to the Synapse, and want something a TREK dealer has, try the Domane. I think you'll find it closer to how the Synapse will 'fit'.
Agian, based on your limited info, long legs/arms, 6'1", I would lean towards the 58 Synapse...
Ride On
Yuri

That’s incorrect. Cannondale markets their Synapse as more of an endurance bike, not a performance bike like the Madone.

I am 5’ 11’ with a 32 inseam and I find the aluminum version of the Synapse fits me well in a 58, but you are taller and may find that a 61 fits you butter than a 58. Only way to know is to test drive them. You might find a rental shop where you can rent one to see what works best before you buy one.

Realize also that the bikes spoken about here have all had some differences in their geometry over the many differing versions of frame. As is typical of many, Though other bikes haven't changed geometry hardly one iota over decades of production.


So what feels the best for fit may not be the same stated size even for two bikes with the same brand and model name .

Hi Steve, not looking to argue, but I'm wondering where I was incorrect?
I didn't infer that the Synapse is the same as a Madone, nor any other 'race' posture oriented bike. I did note that the Synapse was also not similar to a 'Hybrid'... In-Between.
There's nothing to say a Synapse can't provide 'performance', more similar to other 'performance' bikes, than a hybrid.
I didn;t label the Synapse as 'Endurance', the idea of which is the ability to easily provide a more upright posture/position, which seems a commonality with other 'Endurance' designs.
All these terms don;t mean much and better to review the bike geometry and how the bike actually rides.
Hence I mentioned the TREK Domane might be a better comparison to the Synapse.
The OP mentioned using the Cannondale sizing for himself, and that came up with a 58 Synapse... prolly a good choice... Although Standover height is hardly the most important consideration.
NOT having standover clearance would be a complete fail, anything lower than that has so many other considerations of more importance.
SO, Yes, The Synapse would be an 'Endurance' design within the Cannondale stable. And certainly not the same as a Madone., so comparing dissimilar designs, from 2 different companies, in two different sizes is prolly not a good comparison... if one expects 'smiliarlity' of anything, including 'fit'.
Ride On
Yuri
EDIT: An once again I've learned a lesson learned so many times in the past. Trying to discuss even basic things about 'Fit', posture, on the Interweb, is always a 'Fail'.
Best to avoid those discussions, a lesson learned all over again... and results being Deja Vu, all over again (Thank You Yogi ! ) LOL!

FWIW. I interpreted your post as you meant it to be, but I can see how others might misread it.

On the Trek website, the Madone is in the Performance section, where as on the Cannodale website, the Synapse is listed in the Endurance section. You (cyclezen) are correct that a Synapse would be comparable to a Domane in terms of how the manufacturer intends the bike to be used and how they market them. A Madone is clearly oriented towards a different “style” of riding, racing etc…..

So is it unreasonable to think that the geometry of something that the maker classes as a endurance bike might lean more toward performance than other bike models classed as endurance?

Back in my day, all road bikes were considered endurance bikes. Some with a aggressive or race fit. And some with a relaxed or touring fit. Those race fit bikes are made to endure 100 - 150 or more miles of riding with no load very fast in a single day. Touring type road bikes were made to endure those long rides with a load equipment and clothes for days away from home.

I don't quite get that. Can you name some bikes with an aggressive/race fit that the manufacturers labeled endurance? And if they did label a bike with an aggressive/race fit an endurance bike, how did that bike differ from the race bikes that they didn't call endurance bikes?

Race fit bikes simply had a lower frame stack that allowed for the bars to be low and the rider more aero. The seat tube angle was sometimes just a tad steeper, generally to allow for more power to be put into the cranks.

They weren't so aggressive that they'd be classed as time trial bikes which are not endurance bikes. And are only intended for very fast short rides.

The bikes with more relaxed fit broke down into other sub categories that included touring bikes, which typically had a slightly slacker seat tube that made a little bit more upright position comfortable and was better for grinding away at slower speeds with lower gear ratios and bikes loaded up with extra weight. And of course a touring bike will be expected to have the frame accommodations for paniers and other stuff that might be attached to the frame for touring multiday trips.

I've felt for a long time that the sub-classes that came to be known by many as the only bikes that are endurance bikes, is because they weren't specifically touring bikes, and they weren't specifically race bikes. And the ad people for the websites had no other way to classify them, so they were endurance bikes, just with no special purpose as have touring bikes and race fit bikes.

It use to be common on the bike brands website that they had a category called endurance bikes. Then going into that category, they broke down into racing, touring and other sub categories that had the ad men desperately trying to figure out a name for those categories that would sound magical.

What do you think makes your version of a endurance bike any more endurance than a race bike. People still ride both just as far each and every day.

I can’t recall from 20-30 years ago bikes other than a race bike that sometimes might be designed and specified for criteriums, but were generally ridden by anybody racing, any distance, or Sport Touring bikes, being relaxed fit road bikes designed for light loaded touring. Or touring bikes and cyclocross bikes. That’s my memory at least,

OK. But I hope you don't mind if I persist in asking for a specific answer to my previous question:

Can you name some brands and models of bikes with an aggressive/race fit that the manufacturers labeled endurance bikes?

Trek, Specialized and Giant fifteen years ago. Probably Cannondale too. Most the very same models they make today.

Lemonds were always understood to be designed for comfort over long race courses.


Talking about this stuff removed from the actual numbers doesn't help matters. "Endurance" doesn't mean anything concrete. It could be a fit, or a kind of handling, or an ability to absorb vibration. And a race bike might have any or all of those traits.

Exactly... The recent one which comes to mind (because I have one and note the difference) is the Spec Roubaix. It was an overall geometry and frame construction adaptation of what was the Spec Race bike - the Tarmac - for difficult race conditions. The 1st generation of that design didn't fair so well with racers, but it did find a market with non-race riders who wanted performance along with a more 'forgiving' ride.
The latest development in the 'Endurance' area has been tires to complement the 'frame' ride. Something which has migrated into all segments of bike riding, even racing. Wider tires with very little of a handling/performance penalty - if there is even one, now... Even gearing and saddles have expanded in selection over the decades. 53/42 and 12-25 is no longer the 'Standard' configuration for high-performance 'road'....
It is just an expression of the expanding universes of all human activities...
Ride On
Yuri
Ride Now

In case this is still germane five months after the OP:

I am 6'0" with a 32" or 33" inseam, and I've been riding a size 58cm Cannondale Synapse since 2006
...and it has always felt just a little too big for me. (Plus, the two custom made-to-measure bikes I had built for me subsequently spec out a bit smaller than the Cannondale.)

So I would bet the 58cm would indeed be a good fit for you.