I can't figure out what size bike I should have. I have been to 2 different "fitters" and many on line sizing programs. I continue to get many different answers.
I'm almost 6 ft tall, but have a short inseam of 86 cm. My current ride is a 56 Calfee that actually measure 54 ctc in the seat tube, and 55 ctc on the top tube. I have found a comfortable position, but have 4 cm of spacers and a rise in my stem. There is also 12 cm of exposed seat tube.

So The Rivendell site says 58
Wrench Science says 57
Competitive Cyclist says 57
inseam x .65 = 56

So it's obvious that my current frame is too small, but it is comfortable the way it is now, I just don't like how I got there!

The big question is what size should my next bike be?

go to a local shop and get on a bike...

pinky,

that's how I got the "too small" Calfee. From the "top" LBS in my area with just a great reputation. This was my first bike so I let him make all the decisions, but as I ride and learn it seems that I should have gotten at least a 56 ctc or a head tube extension...I hate the look of the 2 spacers.

I have a little more then 4 inches of seatpost and full spacers and a 6d rise on my stem.I'm on a 58cm fuji.I'm getting a 110mm stem with a 80/100d rise.My bike fits me fine.6',33.5inseam.

Now that you know how a road bike should fit you're more prepared to check the fit of other bikes. I also suggest you go back to your LBS and ride some bikes. It will be different this time around. Although I'm satisfied with the fit of my current bike, if I knew how a road bike should feel at the time I bought it I would have tried out more bikes.

Go to the shop that sells the bike you're looking at and let them do the fit. After your bike is "set up", you tell them what feels right and wrong about it so they can make the changes.

Yes, good advice, but I was hopoing to buy a winter/trainer bike on-line, and don't know what to get. I guess a bike 2cm bigger than my current ride would be safe, but I'm guessing it should even be a little bigger.

Not all frames listed to be a certain size are the size. Sizes vary by manufacturer and frame type (standard, compact).
Can you go to a local shop and test ride the bike you're thinking about? Once you decide whch size fits you can buy it on-line.
Of course you could support your LBS. If you don't they might not be there when you need them.

I do support my LBS to the tune of over $8,000 US last year (4 bikes plus all the "stuff"), but they don't deal in used bikes, and I'm simply looking for a winter/trainer bike. When I buy my next nice bike it will be through an LBS.

mike,
the rivendell guys tend to size up, a riv fitting will always
result in a larger bike. I'd say 56 or 57 should be fine.
54 seems a bit small (the calfee) lots of seatpost and
stem showing, and its not a compact frame.

Marty

I think that if the bike is comfortable, then for another bike, you should just set it up the same way.

I think that your bike is too small if you've had to rig it to fit like you want it, at least to that extent. That's a lot of modification, and pretty extreme modification, for a roadie bike. I'd guess that you're on too small of a frame, but that's my opinion from seeing how you're set up. It's one thing to put a slightly longer stem on a bike because you like a long cockpit, or tweak your saddle position a little, but your bike definately looks like you've had to work hard to get it to fit.

I'd suggest narrowing your online search and then finding some bikes in local shops to ride. Companies tend to build their bikes to similar fit characteristics year after year; the differences come when they move to compact geomoetry or change their philosophy on bike fit. If you find a Trek from a couple of years ago, riding a Trek new today will give you a good idea of how that used bike will fit. Make sure you compare the same material and, if you can, the same model within a line. Even if they're separated by a couple of model years, the fit might very well be identical.

the inseam calculation is really just a rough estimate for seat tube size. the range is .65 to .68 your inseam, and i usually calculate it as .665 [which gives you 57.2]. a centimetre either way wont really matter as long at the most important metric -- the top tube and stem length -- is right. basically, you want your top tube length to be long enough that you don't need a stem longer than 120 mm or shorter than 90 mm to feel comfortable. i'd say you should look for a bike with at least a 57 mm top tube and go from there.

Velocipedio,

Thanks for the response. My current stem is 110 mm, and my top tup measures 55
ctc along the tube, but they call it an effective 56. Does this mean that my current top tube is good? If yes, what happens if I go from my current 55 to a 57
(ST ctc)

I agree with Velocipedio. Concentrate on getting the right top tube length. If your inseam is relatively short, you'll probably wind up with a larger frame, and less seatpost and stem height.

roadbuzz,

So I need the same TT, but a ST that is 3 CM taller?

It's odd that a shop would miss fit you by that much...but 4 cm of spacers is not that unusal. And the seatpost is a little tall, but how does the bike ride and feel? You said you found a comfortable position. I know a couple of friends that has about the same amount of rise on their bikes. It sounds like you have some other bikes that you could measure and compare, but in the end, it about how well the bike feels when you're riding it.

fogrider,
It's the first and only road bike I have ever had. I love it, but don't have anything to compare it too. I think the LBS owner fit me by reach. I am comfortable on the bike just don't like how I got there, and don't want to repeat the "mistake" on my next bike(s)

If the reach is good...did the fitter do the best he could ST wise? If I got a bigger frame would the reach have been to long?

i'd suggest that you try a 56 cm top tube for now, maybe 57, but nothing as short as 55 cm. if you have a long back, you should stay away from short top bikes. period. the ideal thing would be to go to your lbs and see if they have anything with something like a 56-7 cm seat tube and a 57 cm to tube.

if i may, mike, how old are you, and would you describe yourself as flexible?

Consider taking the bike (as you have it set up now) to a custom frame builder. He could reproduce the same critical dimensions, minus the extra spacers, etc. From your description of your problems, you would seem to be an ideal candidate for custom geometry.

Hi Velocipedio,
I'm 42 and would describe myself as very inflexible.
Mike

I would consider a compact frame (or at least moderately sloping top tube design) with your body type.

Cheers

karesz3 might be right. most of the traditional frame sizing rules assume that the rider is younger, athletic and flexible. absolutely, positively size your bike by top tube and not by the seat tube. you might want to consider a compact frame because it will have a proportionally longer [virtual] top tube compared to the seat tube. go to one of the online sizing calculators and see what it recommends for top tube and reach.

Thanks for all the time and effort on my behalf. I tried the Fit Calculator from Competitive Cyclist and it came up with a TT length of 56.1, and a ST length of 56.5 c-c

Funny, it specifies c-c for the given seat tube dimension of 56.5, but just 56.1 for the top tube...where is this taken from?