would i fit a 41cm bike if Im 46cm.
 

Hi,
Im looking at this bike.

2017 ARGON 18 ELECTRON BIKE

the XS size is 41cm the next size up is 51cm. I've tried a 50cm bike which I have right now and it's too big. I've been told that I'm more of a 46cm frame. Would the 41cm frame be too small and I should find another bike or would it work and I would just need to raise the seat much higher.

Thanks in advance.

Also, my other option would be

2017 PINARELLO ALU PISTA BIKE at 45cm

What are the top tube lengths of each bike?

The geometries of this frame gave me a headache...

Stop. Sizing. Frames. By. Seattube.

^^Seriously. I don't even understand how this is still a thing.

some people are more concerned about standing over their bike than riding it.

What size and what make/model is your current bike?

Also, a Fit Calculator might help you determine what size you need. The top tube is far more important than the seat tube in determining size.

my bike is a 50cm iro mark v.

what on your bike is too large for you? is it too long? is it too tall? it's hard to say whether you need to downsize without looking at your current setup.

IRO Mark V geometry, for reference.

the bike is too tall. the seat is slammed and can not go down anymore. when I pedal, I can feel my body shifting to accommodate the length of the pedals. Also when off the bike I'm sitting on the cross bar. I've been to serval shops in my area to test track bikes and the smallest I have found and tried was a 49cm Bianchi which I had the same issues.
I'm 5'4 and my inseam is I think 28. Most manufacturers don't make bikes in my size

I'm 5'-3" with a 28" inseam and normally ride bikes with 49cm seat tubes and 51cm top tubes that fit me well. My saddles are definitely not slammed, but I can't stand over the top tube w/o contacting my junk. I also have bikes with 43cm seat tubes that have a bit more seatpost showing, but still fit because the top tube lengths are the same. If you get something with a shorter seat tube, the only real difference will be that the top tube will slope more, such that you will have more standover clearance, which is really not an issue when riding the bike. I even fit ok on frames with 50cm seat tubes, so maybe your inseam is less than 28".

Edit. To further illustrate, I've attached a photo of my vintage Mercier SS conversion, which has a 50cm seat tube and 170mm cranks. Note that the saddle is certainly not slammed. Also, the wheels are 27", so I definitely don't have any standover clearance, but have yet to damage my junk when stopping.

https://m.imgur.com/a/BQq8f

I am 5'10 and 28 in inseam (yes, I have 5 extra inches in my torso than "average") and can fit on a stock bike.

The real trick is finding 162.5 or 165 crank arms, that will make a huge difference in fit. Typical 170+ arms add a lot of reach and bring the knees up too high for shorter legged people.

I doubt it. I really, really doubt it. ;)

Oops. :lol:

It's the going back and forth between inches and CMs that does it. Almost every bike fit article/blog contains the same goof, or reversed, like a 58" top tube. :lol:

Actually, as an engineer I dealt with this problem all the time. I'd get drawings with dimensions, and would forget to look at the notes to see what units were being used. Domestic drawings would be English units, but foreign ones would be Metric. Sometimes I'd look at the dimensions and say to myself, "man that thing is huge !"

165mm crank arms are extremely common.