buzzie13

Hi there,

First some background info, I'm 173cm and I have been riding an old second hand Trek 1.2 (frame size 56cm) which felt way too large for me, in the sense that I had to stretch out to reach the handlebars. I changed the stem to a tiny 60mm one and that made the ride a bit more comfortable, but the steering a bit too twitchy. Now I have been looking into finally getting a new bike - the Sora drivetrain on the old one is at the end of its lifespan - and my eyes landed on a Canyon Endurace AL.

Now, I used their fitting tool, with the following data:
Gender: M
Body Height: 173
Inseam Length: 81
Body Weight: 61
Torso Length: 63
Shoulder Width: 39
Arm Length: 60

Here they recommended my an S, which at first seemed fine to me but then I checked out the Canyon geometry I had the feeling the effective top tube length of 53.7 is quite large. Especially given that the frame only has one size smaller, the XS, coming in at a top tube (52.6). Given that my Trek 'feels' large with a top tube + stem = 56 + 6 = 62, I'm worried that i'll be more stretched out on the Canyon with top tube + stem = 53.7+9 = 62.7.

So a couple of questions: am I missing something, or is this frame somehow smaller than it is on paper? I had a look at the Rose Xeon Team GF-2000's geometry (https://www.rosebikes.nl/bike/rose-x...962/aid:818966) and top tube wise the Canyon S seems like a Rose 55cm frame. How do the likes of Nairo Quintana ride these bikes?

Kind regards,
Buzz

tangerineowl

Not sure what Nairo rides, but there's a good chance the frame is custom geo for his body.

If I were you, I'd look up the geometry numbers for that Trek you currently have.
Take note of the seat tube angle.
Does the seatpost sit more-or-less near the centre of your seat position? If it does, then I'd start with a frame within half a degree at most, of what is on your bike.

You've shortened the stem to 60mm? I'd start looking for 'reach' numbers (geo should list this) around 30mm shorter than your Trek.

If you're pretty happy with the drop distance from your seat to the top of your bars, then again, I'd take note of what the 'stack' number is on your Trek, and look for a similar number (within a few mm) on other bikes.

That Rose model, in my eyes, has a crazy steep seat angle (75+ degrees). This is why the reach is so long.
I would dismiss those frames off-the-bat, due to your height/inseam proportion.

Just my opinion, but I'd put my money on the 'xs' size Canyon (look at the stack and reach numbers; and the seat tube angle is pretty normal) fitting you best.

Why Canyon or Rose? They're both mail-order right?
I have read there are a handful of locations where you can go in and ride their bikes, though.

Surely tracking down a brand locally -where you can ride different sizes- would be a sound start?

buzzie13

Thanks for your reply!

I figured out the measurement tool on the Canyon site is mostly based on your inseam and hence does not take the imo most important measurement, namely your torso length into much consideration. So I messed about with my measurements on
Competitive Cyclist - Road & Mountain Bikes, Apparel, & Accessories | Competitive Cyclist

And there they recommend me, based on the more comfort-driven "Eddy fit", a top tube range of 52.4-52.8 which would exactly match the XS frame. Now the reasons I have been looking at these online companies is quite honestly the price. I know a bike is 99% about the fit, but since Canyon offers this 30-day return policy I'm willing to take the risk. I guess I would need to increase the stem size on the XS frame from an 8 to a 9, but that won't be much of a problem.

In any case, I'll order the bike and I'll make a post about the fit. Could help out future 173cm tall Canyon buyers.

oldbobcat

Most racers ride with more reach and drop than most of us wouldn't touch in our wildest dreams, so any speculation here is a dead end.

Traditionally, bikes are "square" around medium, whatever size that is. These days it's around 54-55 cm. Square means the top tube equals the seat tube. Whether that's center or center or center to top is up for debate, but that's the custom. As bikes get larger than medium, the top tube grows at a shorter rate than the seat tube. As bikes get smaller, the top tube shrinks at a slower rate than the seat tube. That's partly based on the assumption that more tall people tend to carry more of their height in their legs. It might have to do that, traditionally, long tubes meant more frame flex, and short top tubes made it harder for the builder to fit 700c wheels without desperrate changes to head angle and bottom bracket height.

My suggestion is, before you order, test ride a bike that fits you and use those dimensions as a basis for choosing your Canyon. Or choosing not to buy a Canyon.

NormanF

I'm 5'7" and I typically ride a medium around 54-55 cm. I own two bikes that fall in that range and they fit me like a glove.

The way bikes are sized these days, you can generally trust the manufacturer fit recommendation even if you've never test ridden a bike.

And since I bought both of my bikes on the Internet, the bike size I received was spot-on.