Did I get the right size frame, or do I need to size up? (PICS) (yon Endurace AL 7.0)
 

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...9f07b6fc2b.jpg
https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...8a0cf1cc27.jpghttps://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...6192ec9319.jpg
https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...4615c30f37.jpg
This is the Canyon Endurace AL 7.0, (endurance geometry), that just arrived a few days ago. It still has spacers for now. I'm interested to know whether the frame size looks right, or if I need to size up. I have 30 days if I decide I want to upgrade from a small town a medium.

I'm 5' 10", and exactly 178cm, which is right in between small and medium. (Of course, that's not the only measurement that matters). Thanks in advance. Here are the specs:

Small Bike:
Height - 172-178
Seat Tube Length - 502
Top Tube Length - 546
Head Tube Length - 148
Stack - 565
Reach - 379

Medium Size:
Height - 178-184
Seat Tube Length - 532
Top Tube Length - 556
Head Tube Length - 167
Stack - 587
Reach - 383

I can't answer you directly from the picture.

However, the advice I've gotten from professional fitters is that if you're right between two sizes, it's best to go with the smaller one and think about using a longer stem.

Very true 4 mm reach, and 10mm added stem with size up. Do you have any advice, I've asked around and it's 50/50 too short/just right

My questions would be more about how it feels. If the relationship between the seat and bottom bracket feels right, does your upper body feel cramped? overstretched? relaxed?

Everyone has different proportions, and trying to fit a bike based just on height is simplistic---a place to start but really of limited value.

As @OrenNoah notes, better to be a little small than too big. You can add spacers, a longer seat post, a set-back seat post, a longer stem ... but you cannot shrink a frame which is even just a little too big.

Another thing---a lot of people look at stack and reach, but also look at seat post angel and setback. Pushing everything forward might relieve a cramped feeling but might not be comfortable over time. The relationship between where you sit on the saddle (where you actually sit, not the nose, as some people suggest) to the BB is really important. Everyone has a compromise between maximum comfort and power and efficiency---some angle to bend forward, some hip angle, and some relationship between center of gravity and pedals, where they feel the best--stable and able to rid as long as they want. Adding a little seat-post setback might be better than just adding a honking huge long stem.

Only you can tell if you are comfortable on a bike.

i will say this---I have several bikes and while a few are nominally '56" as in 56 cm virtual top tube---none of them actually are the same size. I also ride a couple much bigger frames, and a tiny frame, and they are all comfortable because I have adjusted all the contact and control surfaces to suit me.

The only issue I can see with a too-small frame might be toe-overlap. And that I don't find to be much of a problem, as it only happens at extreme steering angles which only happen at extremely low speeds.

However ... and this is based on purely nothing, just pulled out of thin air ... it looks to me that you could fit well on a medium. Fewer spacers, same stem, shorter reach bars, less exposed seat post, and the same control and contact points.

The extra few cm reach would make a difference. The much taller head tube would make a difference--and might lessen actual reach because the bars could be higher if you added spacers (with the spacer stack you have now--could be 20 cm? that's about where the M-frame head tube would end.)

Are you uncomfortable on the bike now? besides what people are telling you, and ignoring the numbers, do you feel okay on the bike?

In-between frame sizes... go to the larger size.
You like a lot of seatpost showing?

The fact that you're asking the question would indicate you know the answer... it's too small for you.

Is that fit in the pic how you have your bikes set up (saddle set back, bar reach, drop etc) or are you unsure about that too?

Hey, thank you for the detailed reply.

The comments are swaying me toward sizing up

I'll tell you how the bike feelsfrom the (short) experience I've had riding it -- I don't want to put in too much wear in case I need to exchange it. Disclaimer: I haven't been on a bike for 6 months, and have only been riding for 1 year, so it's a little hard to know what to look for but I do have a general sense.

The good: I feel like the reach is perfect. I don't feel scrunched up top. The distance between the saddle and bottom bracket feel good, as well. In my pictures it looks like the seat post is long as hell, but I think that is largely due to where the top tube meets the seat tube (strongly angled downward toward seat tube) -- it looks just like the picture Canyon advertises on their website. On the seat post, i'm at the 9.5cm hashmark, whereas the recommended max is 13cm. Also, I can stand over the top tube with a 1-2 inches of space to my crotch.

The bad: I feel like my body is 'low' to the ground when riding -- it kind of feels like my whole body should be higher off the ground than it is. I also feel my torso is a little far forward, and when out of the saddle my body weight seems to be fall ahead of the bars. Lastly, when at a stop light, I can just barely reach the tips of my toes to the ground (not a big deal). Minor toe overlap, but haven't felt it yet during a ride yet.

I'm going to test ride a 56cm Allez at my LBS tomorrow to see how it compares. The specs are similar to that of a size up (medium) to the Canyon Endurace. Which is interesting, because recommendations for Specialized and Trek at my height are both for 56cm, whereas for this model Canyon in between a 54cm and 56cm.

Here are a couple more pics, not in all black.

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...548ccaa2ab.jpg
https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...d7ce80354d.jpg
https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...200438067a.jpg

Could be. I'm in between sizes though, and I don't have much knowledge on what to look for considering I'm new to cycling so I'm gathering advice.

I know you're being facetious, but I think it's more important I make sure the frame size is right before micro adjusting the last 10% of a fit.

This is a generic reference but you being between frame sizes could be hotly debated. Being 'between frame sizes' is largely a myth or paradigm of a given rider. Frame size is mostly born out of preference with an eye toward body size. Philosophy that escapes many. Btw, you look very fit and my sense is you will be a good rider once you get dialed...

Thing about frame size is...it is 'many times' based upon the fitness and riding objective of the rider. I am presuming you are on a small.
There are racers out there that would choose that frame size. Your identical size, they would on a 130-140mm stem slammed to the top of the head tube.
For a good rider you are cramped and too upright on that small frame. But you could make it work for 'appropriate reach' by more drop + longer stem.

But, your objective may not be to be a real fast guy but instead more of an intermediate cyclist...do centuries, perhaps not race and closer to a French fit maybe what you prefer. I believe maybe now you understand that preference for fit may indeed actually trump your body size although reach must generally be conserved...simply the elements of reach change...if you raise the handlebar it needs to be farther way from your body because raising the handlebar moves it closer to your body.

In summary, for the average rider, frame size pretty much corresponds to body size. What are you? A precisely average body size. A medium. What likely would be your best frame size? At 5'10", a Medium not a small.

Hope above makes sense. With a medium size, you can go short or long stem and either slam the stem or run spacers. Most average riders do best with a French fit with saddle height closer to handlebar height but still with ample reach. Being cramped on a road bike is a big power drain. You need to stretch out to get your power down and be aero.

Good luck
PS, I have a new Allez Elite (Allez Sprint is a crit bike)...but in my case pretty much just the frameset...custom build...I customize all my bikes...Campy group and wheelset, carbon handlebar and seat post etc. Outstanding Al bike. Size 58 with 130 mm stem I am 6'1". I would put you on a 56 on the Allez Elite which btw comes stock with 105. For my $, I prefer the Allez to the Canyon. Mine is rim brake. The Allez frameset is a masterpiece...endurance fit, with Tarmac design cues with lowered seat stays. Great ride quality and handling and stiff enough for power transfer out of the saddle. Big factor is...Threaded BB and full carbon steeer.

If you can trade your bike, consider the Allez if you like the 56. Btw, if you don't live in hilly country, I suggest rim brakes. If you live in the hills, then you may appreciate the extra stopping power of discs.

Lastly, as it turns out, you are exactly the same size as perhaps the most famous contemporary rider Lance Armstrong. Lance rode a full frame size up from the competition for his body size his whole racing career. A Trek Madone in size 58cm. Of all the top riders, his fit preference was closest to French fit, which is a higher handlebar but a bit farther way from the rider for same net reach as compared to more contemporary race fit which is more drop but handlebar closer to the saddle horizontally.

Between "The Bad" above and some of what what @Campag4life says it seems a Medium would be better for you.

You could dial in the same reach, you could run fewer spacers, and you could sit in a more comfortable position. Withe the Small, you are maxed out ---you cannot really get more upright. With the medium, you could sit a bit higher and otherwise have the same contact points, and still have the option of going longer and lower just by flipping the stem.

When a bike is set up properly for riding, you shouldn't be able to touch more than toe-tip to the ground---otherwise your toes would hit the ground when pedaling. But I doubt if seat height would change with the larger frame---the info doesn't list bottom-bracket height but I doubt it would change much, it at all. So long as your leg is the same length, proper seat height will be the same. That seems about right.

I tend to ride more upright than the pictures you posted---with my level of fitness, my flexibility, and my proportions I can ride better in a less "racy" position. Many of the images used to promote cycling lean towards imitating racing postures---and even I have to admit that a rider laid out long with a flat back looks good---but that only really works for racers, or people with that level of fitness and flexibility. Most riders can ride more efficiently with a more upright posture.

Personally, when i am riding more, I lower my bars, and raise them back up when I am not riding so much, to accommodate changing fitness and comfort levels. Getting low is aero-efficient, but is not necessarily more physically efficient.

Sorry for the digression. Based on the photos and your description, I'd say consider the Medium. It should provide a wider range of adjustment/fitment options, whereas the Small is already built up to be about as large as it can be and still feels a little too low.

Oh, and if I am wrong and you get the Medium and hate it and my bad advice ruined you r joy of cycling ... sorry. ;) Caveat Emptor. :)

As for your toes just barely touching terra-firma when you're stopped--being motionless on a velo is not a part of the fit equation. The fit is for riding, not standing still.
Jon

I am being serious.
If you know what your "fit" is, then it is simple to translate that on to a frame and know if it will suit.
Then you do not have to guess if a frame will work for you.
Aside from that though I would go up to the Medium.

I'm by no means a pro fitter so take my advice with a grain of salt, but I think a lot of people realistically can fit two sizes of bike - one "too small" with a longer stem and one "too large" with a shorter stem. Personally, and probably against the grain, I kind of like a slightly stretched out feeling on my bike. Drops are more comfortable and knees aren't in my chest. I've ridden both, and the smaller bikes, even with a longer stem and saddle height set right, still felt a bit cramped to me, probably because I was further out over the front wheel than on the larger frame.

I'm 5'5" and ride a 52.7 cm bike (Colnago 48s in their weird sizing nomenclature) with an 80mm stem if that gives you any idea (bike came stock with a 90mm stem, and that was ok but an 80 seems just perfect for me - I'll keep the 90 for when I'm more flexible and want to stretch out just a tad more). To most people, this is probably too big for me given just the numbers I've given, but I'm supremely comfortable on it for long rides. If the bike was a normal 52 and not a 52.7, then the 90mm stock stem would be on point. Note I also moved the brifters down a few mm, which increased the reach just a tad with the 80mm stem.

Looks pretty good. I'd try a longer stem, maybe +20mm, -17° and change the bars out to "regular" drop bars with longer ramps and the brifters a bit lower. Larger bike often has longer HT so less drop. Your hands just need to move a bit forward, assuming your saddle balance is optimal. When you get comfortable there, try taking the spacers out.

OTOH, do the test-for-balance before messing with the stem: pedaling normally on the flat with hands on hoods, can you briefly lift both hands of the bars without sliding forward on the saddle? If you can't, try moving the saddle back until you can (and down a hair to maintain the same distance to the pedals or BB.) That might fix your feeling of being to far forward and also fix your reach, which is a little short. Reach is about right when, pedaling with forearms horizontal, your elbows are just ahead of your knees, or when seen as in your photos, your upper arms make a 90° angle with your torso.

Also, straighten your mid-back by rolling your hips forward. That will move your shoulders forward a bit, decreasing reach, and taking some of the back-bend out of your neck.

I suggest that ultimately you should end up with a considerably lower saddle height,

as your leg is practically locked with no force on the pedals so likely rocking hips & other compensation.

Try 3 or 4 cm down( it will make Cfb's suggestions above work better too) for a bit & then see how the size feels.

Your brifters after higher on the bar than mine, which is throwing me a little looking at the pictures. Arm angle looks good.

What's the longest time you've done so far and how did it feel?

He said he already felt he was too low.

Everybody rides differently, and everybody has a different body. Trying to force everybody to ride long and low probably turns off some people form riding, because one has to be pretty fit and flexible to make it work---and has to want to ride in that position. Not every body does.

This guy has already said he felt too low--so a longer head tube would be a Good thing. He can still add or subtract spacers, he can still use a whole variety of stem angles, and lengths, ... but if we are going to give him advice we should at least listen to what he wants first, I think.

@Campag4life @Maelochs

I'm blown away by the support in this thread. Thanks to everyone for their input, on both sides, I read everything. I think the overall advice from those of you who are much more experienced than me, is that I need to go a size up. I'm confident this is the right choice so I'm going to call Canyon on Monday to initiate an exchange. For me $1,700 is not a drop in the bucket so it's important I do this right.


For a few reasons: 1) my gut instinct tells me it's probably too small and that means something; 2) there's a heck of a lot of seat post exposed as others have pointed out; 3) the reach is probably too short; 4) my torso is too far over the handlebars; 5) I'm not a competitive cyclist, so cramming myself into a smaller than necessary frame won't do me any good on those century long rides; 6) I can still get a relatively competitive or relaxed fit with a size up depending on how I utilize the spacers and stem; 7) a taller head-tube would be a nice addition. 8) a size up only adds 10mm of top tube, and 3mm of reach. I'll be back in a week or two when the new bike arrives with a fresh picture - HA!

Worst case scenario, I could hypothetically make a size medium mimic a size small. The stack difference between the two is 22mm, and the size medium has 25mm of spacers that I could remove. The reach difference is only 4mm with the medium having a 10mm longer top tube, which I could make up for with a shorter stem (say a 80/90mm). Voila. I won't be getting any smaller than that anyways.

I test rode an Allez in size 56cm today. Here's how the specs compared:
Reach 385 (Allez 56) 383 (Canyon Medium)
Stack 596 (Allez 56) 587 (Canyon Medium)
Top Tube 564 (Allez 56) 556 (Canyon Medium)
Seat Tube 530 (Allez 56) 532 (Canyon Medium)

All in all, a pretty close match, and I felt great riding it. My first bike was an Allez (2017), with a more aggressive stack/reach. The reason I'm going Canyon is because of the added disc brakes (I live in the PNW with lots of hills and rain) and the style. I love their bikes. I'm glad I took a test ride to compare (don't worry I'll end up getting a fit from that bike shop).

To me what you wrote makes perfect sense. Sensible people make good decisions. :) You are on your way and enjoy the new ride!
PS: a few of my club riding buddies ride Canyons and love 'em. Gotta love their exchange policy. Their business model seems to be quite progressive and no doubt this will manifest a foothold in the industry. Their products are reported to be equally as good and lots of competition in the road bike arena.

Good move sizing up to the medium.