Dood, how can anyone make a valid rec without having any insight into your cycling experience, build-type/conditioning, or the type of riding you are aiming for? Racing/aggressive training, touring, cruising in the park? You have two threads running with the same title and I don't see how you can glean anything concrete to help you avoid making an expensive mistake.

At your size and height with short legs and long torso, with the fact that you felt too stretched out on a 54, I'm guessing that you are not in top shape in terms of cycling conditioning and flexibility. If this is true, I guarranty that, as mentioned above, you will need a high stack of stem spacers, or probably a super hi-rise stem with a 52. The latter is not a bad option if it fits into the type of riding to want to do. Take your competitivecyclist fit with a grain of salt. its a ball park figure (a biiiig ball park) that is just as likely to steer you wrong, and it is only as accurate as your measurments.

My demensions (inseam, height) are the same as yours. I ride a 52, but its a racing fit with 9cm handlebar drop. The fit is excellent with 43.5%/55.5% weight distribution (in the drops). Back angle is well below 45% when on-the-hoods/w arms slightly bent. Right now I am 1.5cm behind KOPS.

Exactly the point, nobody on this forum can really recommend properly that's why he needs to help himself.

The Competitive fit is a ball park, however it does give a focused range based on his actual measurements. The competitive fit at least narrows his range of frames and gives 3 options from agressive racing, to touring fit. Even if his measurements are not totally accurate, they are close enough given the recommended size ranges the program spits out for him (51c-c to 54c-c)

I would say that type of information has more bearing than "I'm 5' x", or the same as you and I ride a 58cm, so thats what I think you should ride" That statement does not cover that the person is shaped like Quasi moto, has one leg shorter than the other, is a knuckle dragger, or what ever In that case the Competitive fit guide is a more "Valid recommendation" I believe, and a much smaller ball park (3cm variance) compared to the variance of the sizes suggested in the 2 threads.

I recommended that he use a few fit guides, and then based on that information come to his own conclusion when asked how he would like to ride or where his goals are. However in answer to his original question, a 52cm certainly does not seem "Too Small", based on his Competitive fit and Wrench Science fit, and I agree based on what I think of bike fit. That does not mean I'm right and it's gospel, but it it is more information to consider.

I used the Competitive fit, the Wrench Science online guides and 2 custom bike builder surveys (Everti & Seven), All 4 place me on a 53.5-54cm on average, I think based on that, the online guides are generally reliable enough to be trusted as a good starting point.


I noticed a lot of people on these forums size their bikes larger than I normally would for myself, which is not wrong, just different than how we use to do it.

If he feels good on it, and other points of referenced information correlates well with him, he is one step closer than he was when he first posted.

Agreed. I would add that anyone's 1st roadbike will 90% of the time be a staging point for the next phase--be it the moving on to other things, or the purchase of a bike with a certain level of concrete knowledge gained from the first. Most of us need several bikes to get to the sweet spot (heh, raises hand).

wow, if those fit number recommend roughly a 52 cm frame with 57/68 top tubes, you must be all torso and arms. sure you're not an ape?

I'm guessing its a combination of loopholes in the software, and possibly self-measurments.

57cm was the recommended top tube, 68cm is the effective length with stem so that would make the Stem a 11cm (110mm) stem (68-57= 11cm).

For reference I'm 5' 11" with 32" inseam, my recommended reach (effective Top Tube) is 67.85cm Center-to-Center It's 67cm on my current ride (just measured). I think I look sort of normal

The bike is for fitness, recreation and commuting. No racing... yet. My conditioning isn't bad, but it's good either.


Again, I apologize for my two threads...it was an honest mistake.

sorry.

I checked out the Giant specs. Looks like the ideal size for your needs. Remember, your saddle positioning will be set by the dictates of cycling ergonomics, and all other adjustments for comfort, aerodynamics etc. will come from handlebar positioning. This is accomplished by extending the bars in/out and up/down. The Giant has the specs that will allow you to adjust for a more aggressive position as you gain flexibility. If you need more comfort, add spacers or get a new stem. Better spending extra money on the latter, than getting a comfortable bike (as factory setup) that has no room for growth. The reason I can be specific is that we are both the same height with almost the same inseam. Most shops will steer riders to a bigger frame than they should be riding. Your best bet is to study all aspects of THE BIKE and become more self-sufficient of the very spotty advice available at most bike shops.

Was your inseam measured by forcing a book all the way up against your perineum and then marked on a wall (barefoot)? If so, then it sounds like your legs may be shorter in comparison to me. I'm 5'10.5" and ride a 56 because I like the frame larger (absorbs more vibration) and the seat to handlebar height more equal (I'm old, 49). I do have to use a shorter stem.

With shorter legs you may be wanting a smaller frame.

Viper, the "trend" in larger frame-sizes is just a correction for a temporary drop. Before the mid-'80s, frame-sizes tended to be larger, and somewhere in the mid-80s, people started riding smaller frames. Now the trend is just correcting itself to go back to the previous standard. I think just in the way fit-ideology changes on a cyclical basis indicates that there's no one "perfect" standard. As many people mentioned, we need to customize it based upon each rider's personal geometry.


I think it must've been measured by the same guys who designed my UCSB team-jackets. ALL of the arms were about 3-4" too long; people nicknamed us "the APE team" at one point. As for this rider's sizing, you may have 2-3 different bikes of different geometries & sizes your first couple years as you develop in your abilities. I wouldn't worry about it too much.

Right, that's what I seem to have noticed,

The bottom line is if this is your first road bike then the LBS should explain how a proper fit should be for the type of riding you're going to be doing, not you wondering what you're doing wrong. Riding like Quasi Modo may feel comfortable to you now because that's MAYBE all you've known, however it should be the LBS to educate you on the correct position and break you out of bad habits (if any).

I contend that it's still in his best interest that he educate himself as best that he can, and it seems he's doing a pretty good job of it so far. A LBS may not always have your best interest in mind as they could just be trying to move what stock they have. Thats not to say this is always true, however it's also possible, so knowing the basics about frame sizing will help weed out the signal to noise.

Bike frame sizing isn't a black art science that only a LBS, or frame fitters can do. It's quite simple really. In fact I would bet most times using the old standard formula of .67 x inseam length in CM = Center to Top seat tube frame size, would place many riders within the proper frame size for them.

Humm, lets test that... 0.67x81.28cm (32") = 54.4cm Son of a gun, thats what all those fancy fit calculators tell me and what Seven and Everti also told me


Think about the advent of the compact frame where 3 sizes (S,M, L) fits most everybody. They give you a frame that would fit a wide range of riders and then tune it in with Stems, seatpost and saddle setback. If that works for the most part, then why all the stress over a few cm? It can all be dialed in with stem and saddle afterward. So often we stress so much over stuff that is not required to be.

Armed with knowledge a person can choose more wisely, however sometimes it works in the opposite manner of Paralysis by analysis, meaning we think too much about it.

52cm for a normal frame sounds too small for your size, unless you have extremely short legs for your build. Or perhaps you were talking about a compact frame.