Small frames
04-11-11, 04:48 AM
#1
Duckslayer
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: AR
Posts: 301
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Small frames
I used to ride a 56, but my new bike is a 54 and i can feel the difference. Its not really bad just not the same and I feel a little funny when out of the saddle. I have my bars and saddle height where they need to be. Does anyone else ride a bike thats on the small end of the ridable spectrum for their height? Did you downsize from a larger bike and will I eventually get used to the new size?
Thanks
Thanks
04-11-11, 07:40 AM
#3
Former Hoarder
Yup...mine is dialed in and comfortable but it does have have very quick steering for my tastes. Would rather have the next size up.
__________________
04-11-11, 07:48 AM
#4
Administrator
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Delaware shore
Posts: 13,557
Bikes: Cervelo C5, Guru Photon, Waterford, Specialized CX
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1106 Post(s)
Liked 2,171 Times
in
1,462 Posts
I'm right at a 56. When I ride my 54, it feels like a sports car with very quick steering. I got rid of a 58 (actually was stolen) and it felt sluggish by comparison although comfortable for long cruises along a trail.
04-11-11, 07:51 AM
#5
Senior Member
Without any more information other than frame "size" numbers you guys are referring to this discussion is completely meaningless. Its entirely possible to have a 54 and a 56 frame that fit exactly the same depending on how other aspects of the frame geometries differ.
04-11-11, 07:58 AM
#6
Iconoclast
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: California
Posts: 3,176
Bikes: Colnago Super, Fuji Opus III, Specialized Rockhopper, Specialized Sirrus (road)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I've downsized significantly as I've started riding more. I started on a 58cm frame that fit more like a 60cm in stack height. Now I'm down to a 55cm that fits more like a 53 in stack height. Few people need that big of a change, but my body geometry and riding preferences/style are what put me on a smaller frame. Here is the obligatory pic:
This is true. Stack and virtual reach play a big part in actual fit. I prefer a 56cm stack. On a CAAD 10, that's the 56cm frame. On some frames, that's more of a 54cm frame size.
This is true. Stack and virtual reach play a big part in actual fit. I prefer a 56cm stack. On a CAAD 10, that's the 56cm frame. On some frames, that's more of a 54cm frame size.
04-11-11, 09:45 PM
#8
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Boulder County, CO
Posts: 4,390
Bikes: '80 Masi Gran Criterium, '12 Trek Madone, early '60s Frejus track
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 513 Post(s)
Liked 445 Times
in
335 Posts
Remember that by the late 1980s, most frames got longer in the top tube, and by 2000, they were getting longer in the head tube, too. The bikes I raced on in the '70s and early '80s were 60-61, cm, with 57-57.5 cm top tubes. These days, to get a that length of top tube, the range is 57-59.
But by the old "stand over the bike and see if your nuts clear" standard, my bikes have always been too small.
But by the old "stand over the bike and see if your nuts clear" standard, my bikes have always been too small.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
deerocker
Long Distance Competition/Ultracycling, Randonneuring and Endurance Cycling
3
04-29-10 01:52 PM
