A11097

All very relevant feedback. I will be sure to report how it rides. Looking to try out crit racing on it btw. I'll probably look like less of a circus bear amongst the racing community!

ptempel

Yeah but I think you are unique in that you like the bigger frame. I ride a 56cm (56.5cm virtual top tube with 140mm stem) and I'm 6'1" with ~33.5" inseam. Personally, I wouldn't want a frame that I can't step over and put both feet on the ground when not in the saddle. But to each their own...

jefnvk

Oh certainly. I fall into the category of not caring that I can't straddle a top tube with both feet down when stopped, and it doesn't bother me, but I know many have an aversion to choosing that. I'm comfy when stretched out over the top of the bike, that is what is more important to me.

Maelochs

That was pretty much waht I was talking about.

Each of us is unique---even if we have the sasme builds, we have different desires, different comfort ranges.

You ride a 58 and you are 5'10' ... another guy rides a 56 and is 6'1". Some people feel right laid out and stretched out, and some people prefer to sit up.

Any of us can tell this guy what works for us ... but none of that has anything to do with what works for him.

My Dawes is 50 (Not a typo,) my Workswell is a 56, my Raleigh a 58, my Cannondale a 60 ... and I ride them all comfortably. How can I tell this guy what bike might fit him? ANY bike might fit him, depending on how he sets it up and how he is comfortable riding.

I wasn't Just being a Little Richard there ... I am serious that none of our personal preferences are in any way relevant to whether this guy will be or could be comfortable on this frame.

groth

From the title, thought it would be a post about cycling to lose weight!

02Giant 

It is probably the angle the picture was taken, the non-drive side dropout looks odd.

My Orbea is supposed to be a 55 cm but there is a 53 stamped in the inside of one of the rear drop outs. Not sure what it means since I haven't measured any tube lengths...but that 53.5 looks a lot smaller than my 53/55.

MikeOK

5' 8" 30" inseam and I ride a 54. Could probably do a 52 but I like bigger, and I hate riding a bike that lets my knees hit the bars when I stand to climb.

caloso

It's too small. But stick a 140mm stem on it and see if you can make it work.

TenSpeedV2

6'0" and I have a 30" inseam. For me, and this is only me, a 52 would be ridiculous even with that stem. My body size allows me to comfortably ride anywhere from a 56 to a 58. At 5'10" with the measurements that you have posted, I would think that you would be far better suited on a 56, maybe a big 54. Might work for you, might not. Would be curious to see a side picture of you on the bike in your riding position. Lean it up against a wall or in a stand or whatever. I think that most of us would like to see this honestly.

PepeM

I think the whole 'pros ride smaller bikes' thing is complete bollocks. Sure, you might find a picture or two of what looks like smaller bikes, but then those are the exceptions not the rule. I'll gladly look at any evidence that suggests otherwise.

curttard

I'm 5'9" with a 33" inseam and I also bought a 52 because it was a good deal and it was kind of a stopgap bike until I get a new Diverge. The stem is one of those adjustable ones, 120mm.

bikecrate

It's always interesting to ask sizing questions here. You get a full range of answers. I'm the same size as the OP and I would say a 52 was too small. I ride a 56 road bike, a 58 adventure road bike and a M/L hybrid. When I have tested frames smaller than 56 I feel scrunched up. Plus I have a frog body (long legs, arms and a short torso) and on the 56 I have to jack up the seat post to the minimum insertion line.

exmechanic89

52cm for your height is too small by quite a bit imo, OP. I'm 5'10'' and ride a 54cm, which is on the small side of what I can ride. The 140mmm stem tells you a lot, and what it tells you is that you're on a bike that's way too small for you. No bike is a deal if it's a terrible fit. Fit is everything, imho.

Maelochs

To repeat": I am voer six feet tall. I ride a number of bikes in a number of sizes.

One of my most comfortable rides is a Dawes Sheila .... a Fifty-Centimeter Frame. 400 mm seatpost, 120-mm stem. OI love the bike and often ride it instead of my amazing and wonderful (to me) CF superbike. It Should be too small for someone 5'-8" ... but it fits Me.

Rather than trying to convince people ... I urge peple to ride the hings and see. Something about reality trumping imagination.

Granted ... Most people would find a 50 or a 52 too small if they were 5'8" or over. Most people.

https://www.competitivecyclist.com/S...ulatorBike.jsp



I have since updated it to a 52-39 Tiagra double and taken 5mm of spacers out ... to most people it looks identical I am sure. Oh, and now it has an alloy Ritchey seat post.

bruce19

FWIW, when I was younger and 5'10" with a 32 1/2" inseam I fit a traditional frame 54 perfectly. These days I'm down to 5'9" with a 32" inseam and can ride up to 58 with adjustments. But my sloping TT 55 fits me quite nicely. In both cases the stem is shorter than I used to use. But, part of that is due to breaking my neck in a crash and having C1 & C2 fused.

bruce19

I think back in the day (late 80's?) pros did look for the smallest bike for the weight savings. At least that's what I recall from a Greg LeMond book I had.

exmechanic89

That's fine if that works out for you, but I still think OP is riding something way too small for him from his description. The 140mm stem tells you how cramped he has to be, and I doubt that stem length is doing anything good for the bike's handling. At 5'10" I wouldnt even consider riding a 52cm unless it was some type of unique fitting frame. And I'm a pretty flexible rider with lot's of seat to stem drop.

On a side note, I've noticed in my years being involved with cycling that sizing seems to be the most misunderstood aspect of it. From people riding bikes that are way too small for them, to way too large. It's just one of those things I guess.

Maelochs

The OP has not yet ridden the bike to my understanding. Someone recommended a 140-mm stem, it was not what was on the bike as I understand it.

I understand fully that Most people fit the basic sizing charts .... basically a couple cm for every couple inches with 54 for 5'8", 56 for 5'10", and 58 for 6'0".

For me sizing is all about the contact points. Most of my bikes are reasonably close in those measurements ... a little variance depending on what I use the bike for.

All the numbers aside ... the ultimate test for me is a couple hours in the saddle. Where do I hurt or feel stiff, if anywhere? is my speed commensurate with similar rides on other bikes?

Plus that, I regularly make little adjustments as I get more or less fit ... adding or taking out spacers, tilting a saddle a bit, whatever. People who actually ride their bikes ought to pay a little attention to how they feel. All the theory has to be tested by actual experiment.

That's why I share the Comp Cycling fit page .... let people have the basic dimensions and they can estimate what might fit, and when they hit a bike that fits can establish some data.

But every body is different, and every frame (are you in the market for a Breezer? ) So I suggest people prepare as best as possible and then go and try it.

I'd say that people who are smart enough to use their smart phones can learn a lot ... but not everyone wants to do the small amount of work to figure out what might fit.

Their business.

jefnvk

For the most part, that is all anyone can do on a site like this. Most questions that have a right and wrong answer can easily be googled and solved (can I use a Deore 7 speed RD setup with a SRAM Red Etap 11spd shifter? No), the rest is people offering their personal suggestions. The OP can then take those personal suggestions and figure what works for him.

And yeah, one can force different bikes to work. I did it with a 16" MTB, where I probably should be on an 18"ish, by using a longer crank, and longer seat and handlebar stems, but I fully admit the frame is not optimal and would hope if asked about it, others would tell me exactly that.

A11097

Ok I know its been awhile, but by now Ive had plenty opportunity to comment on how it rides, both long amd short distance and in races. In short- amazing! It fits more comfortably then my old 54, but the handling is a little different- as in you feel more "on" the bike than piloting it and it takes some getting used to. Handling is a little numb, but not too bad as the somewhat shorter wheelbase makes up for the increased trail and stem length. Ride is a bit harsh, but on the other hand, the bike is stiff and very responsive. I'm happy with it!

gsa103

Wrong bike. Short legs means a long torso and you should be on a 56/58.

You need a bike with a sloping top tube, anything with a horizontal top tube is going to fit badly.

A11097

darn idk how to post pics wont let me use url

Wheever

Exactly. Sizing is often really all about torso length.

I'm 5'9" with a 34" inseam. I ride a 52 with a 100mm stem. (Might go to a 110 just to see if I like it.) Bike fits me great, and my bike fitter was flummoxed that it did "at my height". I have a really short torso, so a 54 felt too big without a shorter stem. 52 was *perfect* and I knew it the moment I got on. Proved to be right.

OP: yeah, your bike is too small for your long torso, but so what? Get a long stem and you can make it work no problem and get a great fit! It's easier to make a bike fit bigger than smaller.

A11097

heres a pic

jade408

I'm 5'4" and my mixte is 54. On road bikes 51 is perfect for me. I have a short torso and long legs. That seems ridiculously small!