6' 2'' on a 56cm?
 

Is it strange that I feel better on a 56cm than anything larger? Top-tube clearance seems just right with 1-2'' clearance, and I can adjust my saddle to give me a position that is comfortable and powerful on the bike.

It's not all that uncommon. You must have proportionally longer legs than upper body. Many people of averge build at 6'2" ride a 58 so you're really one size difference. But if it works and you are comfortable, there's really no question.

It's not that strange. I'm 6' 1" and I fit best on the smallest of 56cm frames, (frames with with a true 56cm stack height).

Something that a lot of people overlook is, if the distance from the top of your shoulders up is disproportionately long, that can mean that the rest of your body (for practical purposes related to bike fit) may be similar to the proportion of a person say, 2-3" shorter.

I'm 6'2" and have 2 58's. I also have a 56. Once set up, they all feel the same.
56=longer stem, 58=shorter stem, etc. You can tweak to fit your needs.

Nope.

Someone in here said: "Bodies adjust and bikes are adjustable"

doesn't sound unusual to me either... i'm 5'11" and was told by the LBS that i "needed" a 56 or 58 cm frame. i test rode all of them and felt most comfortable on a 54, so that's what i ended up buying. my legs are slightly shorter than the average 5'11" human (by a little less than an inch, but enough that the 54 frame felt best).

Me too. I went through 2 bikes before I stopped listening to the experts. Mostly they say you will fit best with whatever they have in stock. I ride a 54 now (not a 58) and I love it. I don't really care what Lance rides.

I can ride anything from a 55 to a 59 tt. All with 120-130mm stem and feels comfy.

Do you get any toe overlap? If so, does it bother you?

I'm 6' 1-1/2". I ride a 56 Pinarello, a 54s Colnago, and 56 Cervélo. Anything over a 565 TT doesn't work in my case.

no never bothered me because you lean the bike more then you turn the handlebars. Toe overlap is more an issue on MTBs IMO

Ignore the top tube clearance measurement. It's irrelevant. I'm 6'1" and have a 55 cm bike and a 57 cm. (different brands and geometries - they fit equally.) My legs are shorter than most people my height.

I am five foot 9 and ride 52-56 cm frames with my road bike being 555 (square) and most of my regular rides being 55... most can ride within a certain size range and not all frames are square... my 52 cm road frame has a 54cm top tube.

Your total height might suggest that you should ride a 58 but some people are proportioned differently with shorter than average legs and longer torsos relative to their total height and the biggest issue I find with fitting folks like this is that they might find things cramped up top or need to fit a longer stem to adjust for a longer reach.

Stand over is not as critical as the top tube measurement although one should be able to stand over their bike without crushing their bits.

Not odd at all. I'm similarly most comfortable on bikes with much shorter top tubes. I might add that if your body proportions are such that you are most comfortable on a smaller bike than what someone your height normally would ride, you might be a good candidate for a custom frame. When Specialized, Giant, Cannondale or whatever manufacturer design a bike of a certain size, they do so with a certain height range and proportions that are with a standard deviation or so of the norm in mind. When we try to stuff a square peg into a round hole, we end up distributing weight on the bike in ways other than what it was designed for and screwing up the way the bike handles.

I recently had a custom frame built, which has a 55cm top tube, and 59 cm seat tube. On my old bike, I could never take my hands off the handlebars or get in the IAB position, holding my line while reaching for my water bottle took ever bit of concentration I could muster and I always had to take corners slower than other riders. I blamed these things on my own bike-handling skills, but as soon as I got on a bike that fits, I instantly discovered that I actually have pretty freaking good bike handling skills. The difference is night & day.

That's a first in cycling.

im 6 foot and my race bike is a 50cm

http://lolwut.com/layout/lolwut.jpg

That seems like a huge disparity..

Do you have any pictures of you on it?

i do not but in sizing dfence its a gt and its prolly closer to a 52 in true sizing and i have a short inseam and arms but long torso

I'm just the opposite. I'm 6'-2" and just finished building up a 57cm frame for a bike I already have in 61cm. The 61cm feels Okay but still a little cramped; the 57cm has the seatposts and stem at the height limits and still feels way too small.

But I agree with what everyone is saying; there is no right/wrong here and each person has different dimensions and different preferences.

- Mark

the only wrong direction u can go is getting 2 large of a bike

Thats me. Long head and neck. At 6'1'' bike shops I frequent always suggest a 58 but a 56 fits me just right.

actually, bikes are somewhat adjustable and bodies are somewhat adaptable.

Yeah, that was it. Both within reason but I think for a wider range than most people are led to believe.

Same here.

I'm 5'9" and am most comfortable on a 56cm.
I tried 54 & 58. 56 was the "just right" fit for me.
I probably could've ridden a 54 with a different stem/saddle set-up.
But the 56 with a 110mm stem felt right from the get-go.
I have a 3" saddle top to handlebar top drop.

What is someone "supposed" to ride?
Whatever fits them best IMO.

I'm right at 6'2, and ride a 58 on one bike and a 61 on my other. Both are comfy.

But I disagree that too large is worse than too small - both are uncomfortable. Having gone through life trying to find shirts with sleeves long enough, having a large frame is a dream.