Search
Notices
Singlespeed & Fixed Gear "I still feel that variable gears are only for people over forty-five. Isn't it better to triumph by the strength of your muscles than by the artifice of a derailer? We are getting soft...As for me, give me a fixed gear!"-- Henri Desgrange (31 January 1865 - 16 August 1940)

Bike Too Big?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 09-28-09 | 05:56 PM
  #26  
Newbie
 
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Shorter Stem?? NEED HELP!

Hi,

I just joined this thread today.... Sorry for the 3.5 year delay!

I'm 5'8 - 5'9 and I just bought a used 2008 55cm Duratec Cappel CR1 for $1300... I went to two local shops and without checking me on the bike said it's too big and I should've gotten a 54cm. I can't return the bike so unless someone in MA or NH wants to buy the bike I need to find a way to make this fit me...
I rode it for about 30 minutes and had neck and chest pains for 2 days.. It has a 140MM stem length and by the looks from the above postings I should have it shortened? Is that the best way/only way to do this? How short of a stem should I be looking at?

Thank you!
Dave
davesal227 is offline  
Reply
Old 09-28-09 | 06:54 PM
  #27  
peitrus's Avatar
$free.99
 
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
I ride a 53 kilo and have about inch or more space from the TT to the family jewels. With the stock cranks (165mm) I had a good 6-7 or so inches of seatpost exposed from the clamp. Ever since I switched to newer cranks with 175mm crank arm length I had to compensate with lowering my seatpost and now only show about a fist full.

***edit

wow i didnt even read the 2nd page or previous post dates before I quickreplied *facepalm*

Last edited by peitrus; 09-28-09 at 06:57 PM. Reason: didnt read
peitrus is offline  
Reply
Old 09-29-09 | 12:44 AM
  #28  
hairnet's Avatar
Fresh Garbage
 
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 13,190
Likes: 30
From: Los Angeles

Bikes: N+1

I'm 6'5" and my "sporty" bike is has a ~60cm seat tube c-c (62cm c-t) and about 72cm top length (tube + stem). 36" inseam. This seems a bit small but I can get my palms to touch the ground. This one feels compact to me.

My "comfort" bike is much larger at 67 cm c-c and 72cm top length. With the seats at the same height this one leaves me more upright and a little stretched out while the other has me more crouched low.

So I guess this goes back to the flexibility topic. I have friends my height that absolutely cannot ride my bikes because they just cannot get as compact for the sport bike and cannot lengthen for the comfort bike.
hairnet is offline  
Reply
Old 09-29-09 | 07:28 AM
  #29  
Loose Chain's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,067
Likes: 73
From: USA

Bikes: 84 Pinarello Trevisio, 86 Guerciotti SLX, 96 Specialized Stumpjumper, 2010 Surly Cross Check, 88 Centurion Prestige, 73 Raleigh Sports, GT Force, Bridgestone MB4

The sportier the bike, the smaller the frame size IMO. I am 5-10/11 with a 33 inch cycling inseam (85cm) and I was sized long ago at a clinic that had expert cycle coaches etc and they wanted me on a 56 to 57 frame, center to top. I prefer the 56 frames but on a long distance bike where ride is a concern I like the 57 size. Seat post extension depends somewhat on the frame size, my wife on her little roadie does not have nearly as much extension on her seat as I do yet her bike is a great fit for her, it is just a little bitty thing.

This link has the same formulas I have always seen for the last twenty or so years.

https://www.coloradocyclist.com/bikefit/

People who are short torsos or long arms or short legs, other variables obviously compromises have to be made somewhere. With all that, I want one of those Kilo TT and I simply cannot decide between a 53 and a 55, lol.

This quote is important:

"saddle height will be within a centimeter of .883 x inseam length"


This puts me at a saddle height of 75cm from center of crank to top of saddle measured along the seat tube. It should be the same regardless of the bike, mountain bike, touring bike, whatever, it should be close.

Last edited by Loose Chain; 09-29-09 at 07:38 AM.
Loose Chain is offline  
Reply
Old 09-29-09 | 07:47 AM
  #30  
ThisJauntyGent's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
From: Nashville
A few people mentioned not being flexible enough for a smaller frame a couple posts back. It's actually really easy to develop flexibility through daily stretches: Every morning, just straighten your knees and try to touch your toes. It shouldn't be so far that it hurts, but you should feel it in your legs. Hold for six seconds, repeat a couple times per day. Two weeks ago, I wasn't able to get very far past my knees. With daily stretching, I'm touching the floor
ThisJauntyGent is offline  
Reply
Old 09-30-09 | 09:46 AM
  #31  
Newbie
 
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Thanks everyone for your responses! I did the inseam and it works out to a 55cm! so maybe I can work this bike out with a shorter stem!

Originally Posted by Loose Chain
The sportier the bike, the smaller the frame size IMO. I am 5-10/11 with a 33 inch cycling inseam (85cm) and I was sized long ago at a clinic that had expert cycle coaches etc and they wanted me on a 56 to 57 frame, center to top. I prefer the 56 frames but on a long distance bike where ride is a concern I like the 57 size. Seat post extension depends somewhat on the frame size, my wife on her little roadie does not have nearly as much extension on her seat as I do yet her bike is a great fit for her, it is just a little bitty thing.

This link has the same formulas I have always seen for the last twenty or so years.

https://www.coloradocyclist.com/bikefit/

People who are short torsos or long arms or short legs, other variables obviously compromises have to be made somewhere. With all that, I want one of those Kilo TT and I simply cannot decide between a 53 and a 55, lol.

This quote is important:

"saddle height will be within a centimeter of .883 x inseam length"


This puts me at a saddle height of 75cm from center of crank to top of saddle measured along the seat tube. It should be the same regardless of the bike, mountain bike, touring bike, whatever, it should be close.
davesal227 is offline  
Reply
Old 03-10-10 | 10:40 AM
  #32  
Senior Member
 
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
wow im glad i found this thread.
this has been bothering, me about my kilo. im about 6'1 or 6'2 and i have a 57cm kilo. im wondering if this is too big. at the time i bought it i knew they ran big.but didnt know how big. i now went back to bd and saw they have a chart. and i ususally ride a 58. i have a 31.5 or 32 inseam. so it shows i should have got a 55. so my question is my bike overly too big? i got a short stem to try and fix the problem and got about a fist of seat post and have about an inch between my "area" and top tube.

i mean i ride it and it dont bother me. but im wondering if its big enough problem that i should start looking at bike island for a frame slightly smaller. and change everything over. cause i like the bike alot, im just wondering if me switching stem and stuff kinda evened out the too big problem. and so would me buying a 55cm frame be noticable to how i got it set up right now.

i just want others opinions on the situation.
i saved latin is offline  
Reply
Old 03-10-10 | 11:09 AM
  #33  
monster
 
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 756
Likes: 1
From: NYC
I'm 6'2" and felt that the 57cm Kilo was a little too small for me.
Arm, torso & leg length all come into play when figuring out bike size.
monsterkidz is offline  
Reply

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.