Velool0710

Hi there, first time posting. I wanted to see if there are any people who are or know someone 6’2” or over that has experience riding anything smaller than a 58cm frame?
I’ve only ever ridden a 58, and have tried a 61 which had me stretching far too much to reach the crucial contact points and to transfer power. I recently tried a 56cm frame and was surprised to find that I felt more comfortable overall, despite the majority of forums & shops saying that a 56 would be far too small. I’m now considering purchasing a smaller frame and 130mm stem for my next bike, designed for shorter and harder efforts, whilst reserving my larger frame for the longer rides and training.
I just wondered if anyone had a similar experience and what people’s thoughts are on going down a size when falling between categories?
for reference, I’m 6’3” with a short torso, long legs (33” inseam), 29” waist and a relatively long neck (which I’ve been told is longer than average and feel is worth mentioning.) Also fortunate in the fact that being in a lower/aggressive position doesn’t affect me too much and have plenty of flexibility.
Any observations/advice would be really appreciated.
thanks in advance

aniki

It's likely not optimal but it's certainly not impossible for a 56 to fit you; but it will depend on several factors. One manufacturers 56 can be vastly different to another manufacturers 56. One of my track bikes (a 56) was previously owned by someone of similar height to you and it worked fine but track and road geometry are usually very different.
If you have the flexibility you say, I will assume you have no problem with the shorter head tube of a 56.
In which case, two of the the main considerations will be effective top tube length and seat tube angle.
Assuming we're talking road geometry and assuming that the STA may be a half or one degree steeper than would be optimal for someone of your height and if (like me) most of your height is in your legs, you may need slightly more saddle setback. That said, your overall position will dictate how 'rotated' you are around the BB and your extended saddle height will by it's nature position it further back.
I personally wouldn't offer anything as 'firm' advice without seeing you and the bike and you on the bike but suffice to say it's not an impossibility; especially as you want it for shorter rides. You know, technically most people can ride almost any bike for 30 minutes regardless of fit....
If the frame geometry is too compact bear in mind that it could 'look' a bit goofy.

mack_turtle

I am 99% certain that a 56cm will not fit you. you can probably set it up with a cramped, upright position what will feel good at first if you're not used to riding a road bike, but you'll have a ton of exposed seatpost and it will be hard to get the handlebar high enough without a mutant stem. on longer rides, it is quickly going to feel cramped and awkward. every designer follows a slightly different philosophy to fitting bikes and geometry, but if a 56cm fits someone of your height, that's a poorly designed bike. they should have stuck to conventional sizing norms to avoid confusion.

it's all very subjective, but if a 56 really fits you, your either have proportions that are several standard deviations outside the average, it's a weirdly designed bike, or you have in your head some very unusual ideas for how a bike should fit and handle. IMO, if you need a 130mm stem for the bike to fit and you're not going for an extremely aggressive aero fit for competitive racing, the frame is too small.

Iride01 

Don't dwell too much on the size of a previous bike you rode. Especially if it is the vintage frames with horizontal top tube. Sizing today is not just seat tube length. And any two manufacturers might be different and even different models of the same brand might show a different size for your body.

When I put my 1991 Paramount that is a 60 cm frame size next to my 2020 Specialized Tarmac, visually the contact points with my body are pretty much in the same position. I ride both very comfortably even on long 4 hour rides.

If you are in the overlap of two sizes for a model, then just think of it as the smaller being a little more sporty handling. I like the sportier handling. It allows me great maneuverability in groups where others in front do stupid things. Or in instances when I'm the person in a group doing stupid. But the ever so slightly more stability that larger frames give, might be more desirable. Particularly on long solo rides.

Regardless, try to ride each for as long as you can before purchasing. I'm 5' 11" with 34.5" legs. I much preferred the 56 cm Tarmac over the 58 cm Tarmac. But other things like crank length and bar width might have played some part in that.

Will a 56 cm be too small for you? I can't begin to guess without knowing exactly what year and model bike you are looking at so I can look at the geometry and tube lengths.

Velool0710

Both frames are from the same brand Condor. my frame being a 2008 58cm and the new frame a 2013 56cm. I realise it’s an impossible question to answer accurately, and the only viable way of knowing is by riding it as you say. The previous owner is of a similar height and build to me, shorter by about an 1” however we’re more or less level with each other at shoulder height with the same inseam length. I wouldn’t be expecting to ride it as any sort of tourer or long distance bike, and would be using it with racing & speed in mind. I’m taking it for a spin this week and will hopefully have a firmer idea of what the potential is!
thank you!

mack_turtle

if you have the geometry specifics of the two bikes in question, plug those number in here and compare what it would take to make each fit the same way: Stack and reach calculator.

Velool0710

Judging from the specifications sheet for both sizes, the reach is identical on both bikes at 38.7, and a 2cm difference in the stack from 57.6 for the 56cm and 59.7 for the 58cm.

SJX426 

@Velool0710 - I think you should look into what the right fit is for you. We all can get use to what ever but there is an opportunity to improve. The seat location, stem length and b length to hoods may stack up differently for you.
Couldn't get to the Stack and Reach calculator.

Start with the saddle location first. Isa it the right height then is it in the right fore/aft position? Then look at reach.

I am only 5'11" and find the 58 to be at the very bottom of my size with 59 to 60 optimum and the max at 61.

Are you measuring from BB axle center to top of tube or intersection of TT and ST? My measurements are always CTC for consistency because the variation of what projects above the junction is too great.

tomato coupe

I don't think a 33" inseam would qualify as long-legged for someone 6'3" tall. In fact, it's a bit on the short side. So, if you're short-legged with a short torso, and a really long neck, maybe you're effectively only 6' (?) tall in terms of bike fitting, in which case you could probably get by on a 56 cm frame.

mack_turtle

Is this your pants size or your pubic bone height aka "cycling inseam? I'm 5'9" with average proportions and my PBH is about 33". Cotton Hill, is this you?