I am a small dude all around, 5'5-5'6ish, everyone has told me I should ride a 52cm through all my years of riding, bike shops, sizing charts, friends etc but I have always found a 48 or 50cm way easier to control and just better overall movement and speed. Who else rides a smaller size than what the charts and sizing says they should?

Never really been a fan of smaller frames. I'm a hair over 6'1 and both my bikes have 56cm top tubes, pretty much in line with fit calc recommendations. I used to go larger, around 58 or so.

I ride a 59cm or a 60cm which according to a fit calculator is a bit big for me. I find them more comfortable since I am not racing and don't want an aggressive position.

Racers tend to prefer smaller frames alleging they can be lighter stiffer and more maneuverable.

I'm around 5'8ish and I've always rode a 53/54cm. On my Surly I felt like the top tube was a little long so I just bought a smaller stem. I would keep it at 50cm at the smallest if I were you, you could always just add a longer stem and raise your seatpost. If you're comfortable on a frame a little smaller go for it, some frames run smaller than others so just make sure you ride before you buy. If you've never rode a 52cm for an extended period of time I would try that out though, you might end up liking it better. I did ride a smaller bike for a few weeks probably around a 50cm but I was way too cramped, put a lot of stress on my wrists.

I don't wear shoes or pants that are too small for me, so why would I ride a bike that's too small?

I ride bikes that are WAY too big for me because it makes me feel like a grownup.

I bet Bill Cosby is sad that he lived longer than Johnny Cochran.

I'm 5'8", and I ride a 50cm evo and a 49cm steamroller. 130mm stems are my jam. Properly undersized with #slamthatstem going on

Most of my bikes are, when compared to normal fit thoughts, one size smaller. I have a broken and fused neck, so going one size smaller can reduce stress on my neck when combined with the right stem. If you have a reason for it that has some logic, and it works for you, go for it.

This sums it up. Personally, I feel like I look like a giant if the frame is too small. Being all torso really sucks.

Where is that guy who always posted the Competitive Cyclist bike fit calculator...when you need him?

So, below the waist you are exceptionally small....

Sounds like a Marco Rubio joke to me.

For his sake, TenspeedV2, I hope it is only a joke. As for Trump and Rubio, I am fine with it being true (given how angry they seemed last night, something must be bugging them).

It's ok to have a small dick but it's another thing to be a dick.

"If the girl takes a drink, you can stick in your dink!"

I earned this one. Well played sir.

Can we now call you LittleTenSpeedV2 ?

I want to laugh but I feel like I'll get struck by lightning.

ITT I learned that I must be riding undersized frames. I'm 5'8" or so, my Cross Check is a 52 (CtC), My Fuji Track Comp is a "52" (CtT - about 50 CtC) and my BMC is a "51" - they have an effective TT of about 540mm. They all feel pretty good to me, though I had to put an 80mm stem on the Surly for it to be comfortable. I never really considered how I look vs the size of my bike, I just want my body to be happy when I'm on it.

From my understanding, top tube length is really what most people go by when they talk about frame size.

Seat tube measurements don't really mean much especially with sloping top tube frames that are common on modern road bikes.

Personally my road bike is a 56 and fixed gear is a 55 with track geo and it feels a lot smaller but also more manageable for urban riding. Also risers on the fixed gear vs regular road bars on road bike add to that.

Smaller causes me issues as does larger. Too upright and you put too much pressure on your wrists and too stretched out can tweak your neck. Generally, if you are younger you can kinda ignore but as you get older the aches and pains add up.

I've heard people say that if the bike doesn't fit you with a standard 100mm stem, it's probably not the right size. So if you find yourself going extra short or extra long, you probably should be on a different frame. I've found this to be mostly true.

Jaytron doesn't really ride bikes anymore. He's like a powerlifter now.

Apparently, I do. I finally did a PBH measurement, and it was a whopping 31.7" or 31.75" (80.5 or 80.6 cm) to go with my 30" inseam — I have super-short legs for my (5'9 and a half ") height. According to the Rivendell chart, I should be riding a 55cm frame (with 700s). According the the eBicycles site, I should be riding a 54 (with a range of 53 to 56), but I have a 53cm Rivendell that seems like about the max I can handle with 28mm 700s, and ditto for a 53cm 1980s Peugeot with 26" 1.5s.

The concept of a larger frame seems great, since I'm long in the torso and could use the room. I just can't seem to throw a leg across anything much over 53.

Rivendell chart here:

I prefer frames with a 550ish toptube, my new steamroller has a 565 TT and I just ran a shorter stem on it, fits me fine but it's definitely not gonna be a race bike. So count me in on riding a smaller frame size by choice.