• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Can I ride this frame size?

Jun 20, 2010
19
0
0
Visit site
I just ran through the competitive cyclist fit calculator, and the sizes it produced are smaller than what I ride now. Currently I ride a 59.5x59.5 (c-c)
11 cm stem and 11 cm setback,(for KOPS) and I'm 6' 2", 36" inseam, 67cm trunk.
the calculator offers 3 fit styles, and the TT ranges from 56cm to 58cm with about the same stem sz as I use now, and a seat tube range 57cm to 60cm,

Is anyone my size riding these smaller sizes? does it work well?

If I could get away with a 58 cm (57.5 tt) that would be great,
 
Mar 13, 2009
571
0
0
Visit site
The general trend for a few years has been for smaller sizes, with longer stems ans higher seat posts. The lengthened out "Pro Look" is a bit of a ****, most people are not flexible enough so they end up with a less efficient result (Areo may be better but power is down by more and you can't maintain it)
However, if you are comfortable isn't that more important?

I am 195 (just over 6'4") and ride a 59 x 59 with a 13cm stem and 12.5cm set back, but that is because I have long arms and legs (94 inseam, 197 span) and it works for me. Probably not quite enough weight on the front wheel, but I am happy.

I guess what I am saying that (within reason) frame size isn't that important, you contact points and your balance are.
As long as the height of the steerer above the top bearing is not too much there aren't many concerns
 
Aug 4, 2009
1,056
1
0
Visit site
I am 6"2" and I ride a 58CM frame currently I ride a Bianchi Matta S9 it is listed as a 59 but sloping top tube is 57.5 .
It all depends on body composition but also how fat your bumm is as to where how far back you ride I ride at 75mm set behind the BB with norman seat I use a 120 stem and 175 cranks .
My inseam is 33inches
these fit was done for me 20 years ago and still works great and now I have a power meter I find it is still best position to produce power.

Another point is how you pull up after a 4 hour ride a small frame will be stiff but also less comfort where needed.
 
les95035 said:
I just ran through the competitive cyclist fit calculator, and the sizes it produced are smaller than what I ride now. Currently I ride a 59.5x59.5 (c-c)
11 cm stem and 11 cm setback,(for KOPS) and I'm 6' 2", 36" inseam, 67cm trunk.
the calculator offers 3 fit styles, and the TT ranges from 56cm to 58cm with about the same stem sz as I use now, and a seat tube range 57cm to 60cm,

Is anyone my size riding these smaller sizes? does it work well?

If I could get away with a 58 cm (57.5 tt) that would be great,

Inseam(standover) means little. Femur length determines seat tube ANGLE, torso/arm length/flexibility determines top tube LENGTH. Online calculators can't determine femur length, why they mean little. If your knee is over the pedal spindle on the bike you have, THAT seat tube angle is correct. If, with a 11cm stem, you feel comfy, that top tube length and stem length is proper. Seems like if you got a smaller frame with a similar seat tube angle, got KOPS, then you would need a longer stem. PLUS you must remember the headtube is shorter on a smaller frame, which means either more spacers under the stem or lower handlebars, assuming you want to keep the same top of saddle to top of bars distance. Why would a shorter TT 'be great'? What problem are you having with the present frame?
 

TRENDING THREADS