OK, after doing exhaustive research on here and elsewhere I headed out to a bike shop to ride a couple road bikes today. It turned out to be a HORRIBLE experience but i won't get into that in this thread. Suffice it to say, customer service was awful and i left without a bike.

What i did discover is all of this talking about measuring every bone in your body down to the last millimeter may be all for naught. Here is why i think that. OK, i left armed with my wrench science and competitive cyclist online fit calculations. Both put me on a bike around 62cm. OK, so i head to the Allez Sport which is a 62 cm. It feels like i am REALLY stretched out. He tries a 90 mm stem and then i try again. It still just doesn't feel right.

It feels like i am really having to reach to hit the hoods. The seat tube seems fine on the 62 but the top tube is too long. The LBS "rep" tells me that i have long legs and a short torso. He then puts me on a 58 which is the next step down in the Allez.

Well i have to jack the seatpost up quite a ways to get full leg extension and it still feels like i am reaching a bit but not as bad. I then grabbed a Trek 1000 58 and that thing seemed to fit like a glove. No reaching and i didn't have as much post sticking out.

So my question is, if you have to go 4 cm between bikes (58-62) like in the Allez then how can an EXACT fitting really matter all that much? I can see if i was having a custom frame made but with such huge discrepancy, i don't see the point. I say, i just get the bike with the best fit in the top tube and hope for the best. No?

(BTW, I am 6'2" with either a 34.5" or 36.5" cycling inseam depending how hard i jack that derned book up in my crotch. The 36.5 is with me singing soprano.)

You're right, I think. Numbers don't mean much, unless you sit on the bike, and see if you like it

IF IT FEELS RIGHT, IT PROBABLY IS
IF IT FEELS WRONG, IT PROBABLY IS

Been there. I knew the exact bike I wanted -- a Y2K Lemond Zurich -- but not the size. I read up on and measured everything and then I bought it at a bike shop that was owned by a someone who had tried out for the Olympics. He measured my inseam and applied a few calculations and concluded my size for the Lemond was 59 cm, not 61 cm. 59 cm was the same size my research indicated, although even a 61 cm seemed small to me, having previously owned 25.5" bikes.

I loved the bike but it took me quite a while to get it dialed in -- almost -- it still was not as good a fit as the 63 cm Bianchi that replaced the Lemond. The Vig took some adjusting too though -- setback seatpost to get the knees in proper positon and a very short stem. Even so, the positon was too aggressive to make the drops very useful, which is a bummer in a headwind.

My latest, a 63 cm Trek Pilot 5.2 works for me right out of the box. Chances are, the reason you are having fit problems is because your upper leg is relatively long compared to your lower leg, which puts you too far away from the hoods when your knees are in proper position. And, your upper leg length will make it difficult to reach the bars without getting stretched out, especially if the bike has a longish top bar like the Lemond.

I wouldn't worry about a lot of exposed seat post except that there is a limit on how much steer tube will be left on most bikes, and with a shorter stem (I retrofitted a 6 cm stem on the Bianchi which was the shortest avail.), you will get less benefit out of the rise on a stem. What you want to look for is if the riding position is too agressive. I like to have the saddle and tops of the bars at the same height.

I'm using the stem that came on the Pilot -- I think it probably is about 13 cm and has a lot of rise -- which makes this the first bike that I feel was actually designed to accommodate my geometry. I've never had a custom bike and I do not feel like I need one now. (I'm 6'3" and the leg length on pants usually says 34").

Wagathon,

I found this at the Cervelo website (look under Soloist)

"Aside from the problem with cockpit length, there is another reason not to slacken the seattube angle. Bigger size frames already put the saddle further behind the bb if the seattube angle is constant (simply because the seattube points rearwards and hence the higher you go along that line the further back the seat goes). Slackening the seattube angle adds another setback onto that already increased setback, thereby decreasing the hip angle of the rider to a point where power delivery is no longer optimal, or forcing the rider to raise his bars to keep the hip angle open, which would have negative aerodynamic implications with no advantage to show for it (compared to the same hip angle on a bike without the double increase in seat setback).:"

I have found this to be true myself. You can get still get the setback you need by moving the seat slightly foward for every increment you extend the seatpost (that keeps the knee position constant).

I never like a lot of setback because I couldn't ride in the drops anymore. I don't think setback has anything to do with femur length unless you are committed to a very upright position. You can get the same amout of "effective setback" by rotating your tosro forward and down. The "setback" won't be entirely in the "horizontal plane" anymore though-----since you femur isn't in the horizontal plan anymore either.

But, things are not so simple anymore with Trek's new compact geometry. The seat tube, which is as slack as a old touring bike, is placed slightly ahead of the bottom bracket, so that changes all of the old wisdom.

The laser lights that they use in the fitting stations at the new bike shops takes all of the guesswork out of optimum knee postion though. Instead of dropping a plumb line from your knee, which is not possible to do accurately by yourself anyway, the laser projects a vertical line that you can see in the mirror as you are pedaling with your body in a correct postion. It is easy to see where the "line" is relative to your knee and the pedal spindle at 3 o'clock .

So if your body is rotated and your knee travels 11 o'clock to 5 o'clock position (rather than a 12' oclock to 6'clock) this laser can tell?

KOPS (knee over the pedal spindle) is not an accurate way to set your setback if you have a more agressive position.

The way the fitting was done for me began with a large protractor that was used to set the seat height, so that there was a 30-degree bend in the leg with the pedal at 6 o'clock. That objective method seemed to correspond to what I considered the right amount of bend.

The laser provides a verticle line perpendicular to the ground and it is positioned so that it crosses the knee in the right spot when the pedal is at 3 o'clock. The line is very bright and it is easy to see its position relative to the pedal spindle so you can tell if your knee is over the spindle. At that point, you probably can adjust the seat to fine tune your postion, depending on what you want. Some bikers like to be in front of the spindle but not me.

After that, the suggestion was that any changes should be limited to no more than a cm in any direction as I was probably pretty close to the preferred riding positon. That was true. The other variable that was involved is where I like to have the tops of the bars relative to seat height. I like the bars about even and not more than an inch below the seat. With all of that, it is just a matter of personal preference as to whether you feel like the hoods are too far to reach. If it feels to far, there's not much you can do but swap for a shorter stem.

Modern laser fitting may be very precise, but that doesnt mean it is accurate. It may give you a setupup eactly 5mm (+- 0.5mm) wrong!!
Many fit guides make assumptions about the style that you want to ride (ie racing) and what shape your body is in (athletic cyclist).
For many riders, the racing position is simply not right. Racers have traditionally spend their growing teenage years riding a bike and grow into that position. If you come to cycling as an adult, then you may want a riding position closer to a tourist than a racer.
One of the aims of the triathalon riding position is to permit a non-racer to achieve a comfortable, aerodynamic position by disregarding the rules set by the UCI (governing road racing)
f you dont race, then you dont have to work with the limits of UCI regulations.
For a less race-biased guide to fitting, see
www.peterwhitecycles.com/fitting.htm

A couple of you have mentioned having the saddle near the handlebar height. That was my goal as well. However, is it going to be possible for me to find a bike with a long enough seat tube, that also has a short enough top tube? IOW, since i am disproportianately longer in the legs, i need a longer seat tube.

To get that most bikes have a longer top tube as well, which creates a problem of reach.

Have you tried this calculator?
https://www.competitivecyclist.com/za...LCULATOR_INTRO

It takes inseam, trunk and arms into account.
It spits out correct numbers for me-- I'm 6'2", regular proprotions.

I will weigh in as I agree with all the above and have just bought a new bike as well and am on the tall side. You are asking all the right questions and doing the right things. A real good fit means you have to sweat the details which you are willing to do by your post and some are not. Ranger my sense is you are not a racer type and prefer a more upright bike. I do too. Wagonathon made several accurate observations. FWIW the 62cm Allez does have a very long top tube and if you are long legged as many tall people are relative to their height...you will likely be too stretched out. Biggish bikes with shorter top tubes do exist...what I just bought. A shorter top tube is a bit of a mis-nomer...shortish relative to overall frame height is a more apt description. I am built like you though not quite as tall, I recently purchased a 61cm c-t Bianchi with 58.6cm (virtual/sloping) top tube with 72.5 deg seat tube angle. Having a more slack seat tube angle is the same thing as having a shorter top tube compared to a more upright seat tube for reach. My Bianchi has a monster steerer tube at 200mm which I love and allows me to get my bars up close to the seat with only a bit more than a fistful of seat post with its very modest sloping tube. Many of the new Bianchis have this more forgiving geometry in the same vane as the Trek Pilot which is also a wonderful bike. If you don't like stretching out over the top tube Ranger you will likely end up with a shorter stem relative to your frame size. Many have commented this will adversely affect the handling of the bike which is rubbish. I put a 80mm stem on my new Bianchi just for testing and if anything the handling was more stable than with a 130mm stem...and I rode both extensively. I am posting a pic of my bike because it is close to the size you will likely prefer and you can see the visual relationship between the shortish top tube relative to the overall height of the bike which many prefer to get the bars up to the seat height. Bike fitting isn't rocket science but there is huge variability in not only techniques used but recommended bike sizes specific to body proportions. Also, frame geometry varies quite a bit from model to model and your objective is to choose the frame that best matches your particular body and riding style.
Good Luck,
George

lower-end bikes tend to have fewer sizes than higher-end bikes, there is no 60cm in the allez, but there is in the allez elite, and i think you might have found a good fit on that. bikes with proportionally shorter top tube, like a trek 1000/1200, just fir you better. they also come in a 60.

if you have the wrench science report, you should have some idea of their recommended top tube length. what is it?

i'm not defending the bike shop you went to -- they sound like hacks -- but you were not fitted for a bike, you were sized. the goal of the sizing, rather than a fitting, is to find a bike that is in your size and can be made to fit you. it is much less precise than fitting. almost no one will fit you until you've paid for the bike or put down a deposit.

The three most important things in buying a bicycle are fit, fit, and FIT! Unfortunately, every manufacturer's frames are slightly different - even at the same "size." This causes the online fit calculators to be less than definitive. The guy who said that in-store fit calculations assume a racing position and a fit cyclist were dead on, also. ONLY you can determine what fits you. Unfortunately, this means that you'll have to spend a LOT of time trying out different bikes before you find one that clicks (unless you're REALLY lucky). This means that you may need to cultivate a friendly relationship with more than one LBS in order to check all possibilities before buying. Needless to say, do your best to somehow compensate the shops who work with you for their time & trouble, even if their bikes don't fit you.. Happy shopping!

That's true it could be very precise about being inaccurate.

I agree.

Sometimes I try to look past the bike set-up (usually handlebar/ stem is a little off etc) and try to evaluate the bike itself. Do you guys do this too? Becasue I'm not against swapping out parts if I think the frame is good quality.

Test rides can be like comparing apples to oranges sometimes.(handlebars are too high (cuz stem is flipped) for example on one bike and not on the other)

Well they recommend an overall reach of 69.725 cm. The 62cm Specialized Allez Sport with the 90 mm stem has an overall reach of 69.5 cm. So in other words, they were WRONG. Taking the wrenchscience measurements into account, the 62 would be the perfect fit for me. Problem was that it felt horrible to ride. I was REALLY having to reach.

The Trek 1000 in the 58 cm has a TT length of 57.3 and i assume it would have a 100 mm stem. That would give an overall reach of 67.3 cm. So according to Wrench Science my ideal bike should have a 63 or 64 cm seat tube and an overall reach of 69.725.

Unforutunately the bike that felt the best was as much as 6 cm shorter in the seat tube and the overall reach was a couple cm shorter as well. I don't think you can rely on online fit calculators and i am very glad that i didn't use one to buy a bike online like i once thought.

So maybe this isn't Rocket Science but it sure ain't Wrench Science either.

The reach of the handlebars matter too (not just stem). That's what can throw the measurements off.

The saddle fore/aft and seat tube angle affect the top tube length too. A 58cm top tube with a 73.5 STA is going to feel 1.0 cm longer (at least) than a bike with a 58cm top tube and 72.5 STA.

Wrenchscience almost dead nuts nailed the exact specs you see on my bike above. In fact, it was a bit short on top tube length recommendation compared to CompetitiveCyclist's on-line system. I end up between the two on overall top tube + stem length. Wrenchscience though not perfect and less comprehensive in some of its inputing metrics, does factor in flexibility which tweaks the algorithym slightly affecting reach. Based up what you have written and your size, my guess it you don't like to lean over a bike much when you ride.
Good Luck,
George

another thing to consider is the fact that a road bike is gonna be more stretched out than a mountain bike, and as I recall, you had a trek 4300 mountain bike.

about the long legs, short torso thing, try a smaller frame, a raised post, and a stem with some rise on it. it'll look funny, but it might just be the ticket.

You guys might be partially correct. I have ridden a lot of miles on my Mountain Bikes. So i was sort of thinking the same thing as you when i started this other thread.

Maybe i don't know how it is supposed to feel? Again i have ridden over 9000 miles on my Mountain Bikes since Sept. 03. I ride around 150 miles per week and they are more comfortable to me than my own skin. Can anyone help me determine how the road bike should feel in my hands and in my arms?

Lastly, the LBS people yesterday were seconding the notion that the 62 was too stretched out for me. He was saying that i have the longer legs and shorter torso and would be a candidate for a custom built frame. I'm thinking i need to find a compromise between a bit smaller frame and also a better understanding of how a road bike should feel.

Partially correct?...lol. Most of us are pretty happy with our fit. Bring your digital camera when you go for a fitting. A decent rule of thumb is your back angle..not slumped...should be about 45 degree with your hands on the hoods with slightly bent arms. You can almost do it visually or if more analytical...with some inexpensive photo editing software.
Purchasing a custom made frame for someone that isn't a freak in proportions whose intent is recreational cycling is a joke.
George

There are several custom frame builders that will be glad to build a frame that fits you properly. I normally ride one of three bikes, a MTB, a touring bike and a road bike. If I spend a lot of time on my MTB or touring bike I also feel stretched out when I first start out on my road bike. Within a few miles though, I am happy for the top tube length. I find my elbows with a slight bend, and the hoods or the drops both very comfortable. I have always contributed the feeling of reaching to old age and when everything loosens up it is very comfortable. I have had my wife snap some pictures from the side as I rode along and the geometry looks fine in the pictures.

what you've discovered is what most competent bike shop guys already know:

you can't fit a bike just by the numbers, and you can't fit a bike alone.

there are just far too many variables:

1. you have a two-inch range of inseam sizes. which one is correct?

2. what kind of flexibility do you have in your back? in your pelvis? in your knees? this is a big one, since it will help to determine your reach, the headtube length, whether you like steep or relaxed angles, and your handlebar drop.

3. do you have proportionally long thighs or shins? what is the crank length on the bike you're trying?

4. how is the size of the bike measured? to the centre of the top-tube or to the top of the seattube collar?

i'll give you my own experience. i have been riding a 50 cm marinoni leggero with a 52.75 cm tt [measured to the centre of the tt; it's about 52.5 cm to the collar], 170 mm cranks and a 4 cm handlebar drop. the stem is 120 mm, the seatpost has a 2.5 mm setback and the saddle is pretty far back on the rails. the bike fits perfectly, and i've been riding it for five years.

i recently bought a litespeed teramo. it has a sloping tt [i have proportionally shortish legs] and in the medium size [a "virtual" 53 cm], it has a 54 cm tt. i went with 172.5mm cranks this time [long thighs]. it fits me perfectly with a 100 mm stem and a 4 cm drop. my saddle is in the middle of the rails on the 2.5 cm setback seatpost.

so... how could this be? how could i feel just as comfortable on the litespeed with a longer tt and a 64 cm reach as on my marinoni with a shorter tt and a 64.74 reach?

well... there are differences... the marinoni has a 74 degree seat angle and a 71.6 degree head angle. the litespeed has a 73.5 degree seat tube and a 73 degree headtube. the headtube lengths are about the same. and then there are those cranks... and they have different saddles that give slightly different pelvis and leg positions...

the point is that there are so many variables to consider. the vertical frame size and top tube length are important considerations. but they're a starting point. the important thing is to find a bike that you can be fitted on, and then remember all of the metrics of the perfect fit. if this is your first road bike, i can understand the frustrtion and confusion. the best i can say is "be patient" and only use online fit calculators as a starting point.

I meant partially correct about the mountain bike background causing problems. Is it uncommon for someone 6'2" to ride a 58cm? Anyone else do it?

I'm 6'2" and I ride a 59cm.

If you like your bars up high you may have to use some spacers though or reverse the stem possibly.