briscoelab

This is actually not true. Those two bikes have nearly the same reach. The larger size has a more slack STA, so you would have to move your saddle further forward to mimic the position on the 56. That eats up a LOT of the extra TT length and makes the reach within a cm or so of each other. You can't compare effective TT lengths without taking into account the effects of the STA on reach.

A 58 Specialized would likely have been too big for you, but probably not for the reason you think.

The major difference between those two bikes is the head tube length.... the 58 has a much taller HT. It's often that the HT length is the only meaningful difference between two bikes (from one manufacturer) that are adjacent in size.

hoodooguru

6' 1' I ride a 55 (55.5 TT) with a 130 mm stem.

Andy's bike in that pic looks like his climbing rig which may be set up in a slightly higher position, notice the hoods are tilted up.

Ratfish

I've never felt right on my 57cm Bianchi and this is making me think that 55 would be perfect. Whoops.

rangerdavid

Is it just me, or does it look like his bike is too small???? probably just me, I know..........

(it still looks small for him)

MONGO!

Smaller frame will be lighter and stiffer as well as having a shorter head tube.

Reynolds 

That stem is already long, and moving the saddle back would affect his pedaling position.

StanSeven

Why do you think he and others "size down"? From his pic and what others have said, a 56 looks like the best size for him.

SteelCan

Most all the bikes there are "weighted" to meet the min 6.8kg regs.
Stiffness is a factor but more so for aerodynamics of the frame - less drag from headtube (as well for the compromise of aero riding position and comfort) If they were riding for pleasure or at retirement, you would probably see them on larger frames.
BTW, I think they lie about their height & weight just like other athletes. My hunch is he not quite 6'.

tkm

Armstrong rides a 58cm with a 120mm stem. He's what, 5'10", 5'11"? But, the Madone frame runs a bit small for its measurements.

I ride a 58cm Madone with 90mm stem, but on a Cannondale I'd be at a 56cm or possibly even a 54cm frame.

Just depends what fits you.

blamire

i had a 58 and found it way too stretched out, my boss is a little shorter than me and recommended a 56. i find it much more comfortable

rufus

Yeah, but he looks all hunched up over the bike, sorta like Sean kelly did. A bit larger frame would have a longer toptube, giving him more reach, and bringing his back down lower and flatter instead of being hunched over. The position might be a bit higher, but it would be more aero.

urbanknight

Did any of you geniuses stop to think what might happen if he bent his elbows just a bit more (which I'm sure he does during descents and other crucial moments)?

His fit's just fine. He's just more flexible than us old fatties.

twentysixtwo

5'11" with 34" inseam.

I'm on a 56. Just right for me, though the saddle looks kinda high to a lot of people. (I have long arms - fingertip to fingertip ~1.5" longer than my height)

Don't forget, a larger bike will also weight slightly more.

armybikerider

<<<5'8 riding a 51 cm C'dale with the saddle positioned a little farther back and a 120mm stem.

I admit that when I bought the frame I succumed to the "smaller is lighter and stiffer" theory.

jbarham

6-4, 34" inseam, 59 cm frame

Fit feels better than the 58, 60 and 62 cm frames I've ridden

signalnc

I think it all comes down to personal choice and what you can afford. You can't compare the real world with a pro.

TestyEPOCERA

Smaller CF frames are not any stiffer than larger frames. This myth was a throwback to metal frames.

6"4" , 58cm - 130mm stem, 35 mm post setback -I prefer the compact frame geometry and the shorter wheelbase for handling. I also re-sell my frames after three years and it's difficult to sell 62cm frames. Sizing frames exactly to body size was the thing to do 20 years ago, but now with so many stem and seatpost setback options, plus CF posts, you can get identical fit dimensions between two frame sizes.

It has nothing to do with weight, +/- 150g no sense.

DScott

Oh, c'mon! I bet he went to his fitter, and they checked the standover on the bike and fitted him to the frame that way. No doubt they verified it with a quick check of the CC Fit Calculator, using the "competitive fit" recommendations, of course. He is, after all, a pro.

It's pretty clear, though, that Andy needs to spend a little more time on slowtwitch.com to work on his TT position and skills.

andr0id

Because you NEVER adjust reach by sliding the seat forward or backward. The seat slides to adjust the saddle to BB setback and position of legs over the pedals.

You adjust reach by getting a frame with a longer top tube or getting a longer stem.

If a "fitter" is attempting to adjust your reach by moving the saddle, please kick him or her in the crotch and go to a different bike shop.

redfooj

it looks small for him

TestyEPOCERA

of course it does, that's why he lost the TDF.

Alberto Contador checks in to BF every day.

nycphotography

When you draw a triangle, and then draw a parallel line to one side, have you noticed how that line will be longer than the line next it? Have you considered that raising the seat is ALSO moving it back? Have you considered the possibility that the length of the top tube doesn't actually matter at all, what matters is seat tube angle, head tube angle, bb height, head tube length, and stem length and angle?


What fitter would attempt to adjust reach without considering BOTH saddle AND bar position?

Tsuru

6'1", long legs for a male, ride a 58.

Beck

I'm 5'8" and I ride a 70cm frame.













V

JeffS

Why would you move your seat to adjust reach?