Would a 60cm frame be good for me?
 

I'm looking at buying my first road bike, after riding mountain bikes for over 10 years. I'm 16 years old, but I'll be turning 17 in a month, so I'm not sure if I will be growing any more - although there's a chance I could grow more. As of right now, my height is 71 1/4 inches, or 5 foot 11 1/4 inches. From what I've read places me in the 58cm frame category. However, my armspan is 74 1/4 inches, 3 inches more than my height, so I think I'd appreciate a slightly longer reach. I've measured my inseam, and get about 33-34 inches, although I don't think I was measuring it 100% accurately. My dad is basically the same height as me, maybe 1/4 inch taller, and he rides. 60cm Trek road bike. I am obviously going to test ride a 58cm and 60cm, but if the 60cm doesn't feel bad for me, would there be any reason why it wouldn't fit me? I want s 60cm in case I grow my, and my long arm span. Worst case scenario, I could also buy a shorter stem. Bottom is, though, I want to buy the best size bike for a kid who might grow a little more.

Thanks,

John

Hi John,
First let me say, I find you a thoughtful young man which bodes well for the future of the country. :)

Short answer is no...not a 60. Comparisons with your dad which may seem natural are hampered by a big factor in frame selection...flexibility. As a 16 y.o. young man, you are at the height of your flexibility which allows you to ride more aggressively than your dad or me...I am almost 4x's your age for example. You can use me as a data point....6'1"...longish legs and arms and on a 58.

Truthfully, you could even ride a 56 but...it would be a racy fit and you would need a long stem to satisfy your arm length.

So, what I would do. If you can lock your knees and set the palms of your hands with long arms flat on the ground, definitely go to the bike shop and request testing riding a 56 with long stem and a 58 off the rack.

You could ride a 60 but at 16 you want to take advantage of your youth and flexibility and ride a bike with shorter head tube which allows a lower handlebar to ride more aerodynamically which translates to greater speed. Yes, reach much be satisfied for your size and long arms which can be achieved with a long stem.


Hope that makes sense and good luck.

Thank you for your reply. You've convinced me that a 58cm is probably best for me, and although I'm fairly flexible, I don't think I'm quite flexible enough for a 56cm frame.

I think I'm going to go to my local bike shop tomorrow and test out a 56cm, 58cm, and 60cm bike, keeping in mind that the 58cm is probably best for me. Barring any major issues I have with the 58cm fit, I'll buy that size. The only concern I have is growing another 2 inches or so, but from what you said, the 58 would still fit.

Thank you again,

John

Well John, I beg to differ. At 17, you're almost certain to grow a couple more inches. In my experience, when in doubt, go larger. At 6', most of my bikes are 58cm. One is 57, and one is 61. I don't bother with 56, as it's just too small. Look at the top tube measurement as well, when shopping for a bike. That 61 I have is a hair long in the top tube (59cm), and I adjusted with a shorter stem. 59 cm might be fine for you. Keep your options open. Ride both sizes enough to be as sure as you can be.

If you think you are going to grow some more which is plausible at age 16, then yes, probably best to steer away from the 56.


Other thing not discussed is 'choice of geometry' within a given frame size. At 16, consider a pure race geometry...like a Tarmac or TCR...or equivalent...or on a budget a solid Al bike like Spesh Allez, CAAD12 etc...any short head tube bike to take advantage of your youth and ability to ride low.


Come back and let us know what you went with and if you care to post a pic of you on the bike for feedback on riding position.

.
...if you really get into this cycling thing you'll probably want a new bike in a couple of years anyway. :)

I don't really agree. A carbon bike can last for many years if it isn't crashed. Mine has even been crashed and it is going on 7 years. A strong rider in my group has 95K miles on his Wilier with one repaint. Of course components wear at some level. I have a lot of friends with 5-8 year old high mileage carbon and Al bikes who are good riders who appreciate once a decent bike is purchased, its way more about the rider than the bike.

I would probably steer away from the 60. I'm 6'3 and still ride a 58. Test them out and see what you think, personally i wouldn't want to be on a bike that's too big for me.

I too feel that at 17 y/o he will certainly grow more, at least one inch, maybe two.

I'm 6'4 and ride a 60cm frame, sometimes it feels just right and sometimes I think I should have gone with a 58cm. At your height I'd lean towards the 58.

...it would have come as a huge disappointment if you had.:)

I think I've pretty much narrowed it down to 58cm and 60cm, and I'll see which one feels best for me. However, couldn't I replace the stem with a shorter stem on the 60cm and then if I grow another inch or two, put the original stem back on?

Also, like I said, I'm 5 foot 11 1/4 inches, but my arm span is 6 foot 2 1/4 inches. Would this play a factor? My mountain bike is 19.5 inches and it fits me very well. It's a Trek Fuel EX 5. The road bike I'm looking at is the Trek Emonda SL 5.

.
...frame size, like "fit" is a personal choice, and depends a lot on your needs and expectations for use.

Yes, you have a number or choices in adjusting your saddle to bar distance, including longer and shorter stems. Yes, having longer arms does factor in, as does your personal preference on what "feels good" to you on the bike.

You're in the road forum, so you can expect to get some advice on what would be the best choice if you were anticipating some Cat 5 road racing endeavors. Similarly, guys who ride cross bikes will give you different ideas.


In general, if you can make the standover on your chosen bicycle, you can usually get it fitted to something you will enjoy riding unless you are one of the poor souls with an exceptional anatomy. Getting comfortable on any bike new to you is a process. Good luck with it.

I'll cast a vote for 58, split the difference. The head tube length/stack on that 60 emonda sl5 looks huge at 210mm! While the 56 would start out more aggressive to begin with, and leave you very little room to grow. Test ride the 58 and 60 and see what you think.

FYI-I'm 71.5"/33.75 inseam and both my bikes are 56. Although I'm well into middle age at 48, my fits lean toward more aggressive, racy side 110/120 stems with 3-4" of saddle-handlebar drop. I like getting low to help compensate for my lack of power :). I could probably ride either 56 or 58 on that trek sl5 but likely wouldnt be able to get the bars low enough for my liking on the 58 even with a slammed stem.

How much bike are you getting? In my experience a competition geometry bike that is too big is going to uncomfortable and not handle right. I am just over 6' and 75" wingspan. I have always been faster on a 56 vs 58. At your age I don't know how much cash you have so I would look into used bikes spend 500 a piece on a 56 and a 58 and play around with fit and stem size. Then when you know what you like drop the big money later. Either way both would probably work.

I am able to reach far enough but too far put a lot of strain on my shoulder areas with the 58.

I think reach has more to do with torso length

58. Sounds like your legs are not that long and with tall head tube on a 60 you will have trouble getting the bars low enough.
It is easier to make a small frame "bigger" with bar/stem selection than trying to make a too big frame "smaller".

I think I already mentioned that I've already decided on the Trek Emonda SL 5. I'm going to get the 2018 model, I don't want used. However, I appreciate your input and the used route would definitely be a good way to spend my money if i was looking for a used bike.

My main reason for wanting the 60cm is that my dad, who is basically the same dimensions as me, rode a 60cm Trek road bike for tens of thousands of miles. He liked the fit, and he thinks I should get a 60cm. I'm just a little hesitant to get the 60cm because I'm afraid it might stretch me out a little bit.

I just read through all this and was going to offer almost exactly what @Dean V offered. So I'll save some typing :) :

...there's no physiological reason you would be any more or less stretched out on a 58 versus a 60 with a shorter stem. What counts in this is bar to saddle distance. Saddles are adjustable fore and aft, and even more so if you consider zero setback versus setback posts (available in a variety of setback distances). Bars move fore and aft with changes in stem length (and also a bit with stem angle).

If you measure the (imaginary) linear distance between seat tube top and steerer top (where the stem grabs it) on both, I think you'll find that it is a relatively minor incremental increase with the larger frame.

There are some illustrations you can Google up to see what I'm talking about, usually associated with bike fit articles that show up online.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-FVMR4LAZag...lds_Custom.jpg