6' - 56cm; anybody else?
07-16-15, 10:20 PM
#1
Virgo
Thread Starter
6' - 56cm; anybody else?
Long story as short as I can make it - my progression of bikes and fit experiences since I started riding again approx 3 years ago, and then a few questions.
(1) Huffy Stalker 10 spd mtb - medium size, I guess (ignorant of sizes/dimensions at the time, but probably like an 18-20" based on my recollection of how it looked) - felt a little small but quite comfortable, got some hand/wrist pain after being on the bike after about 2 hrs. Best $40 ever spent. Stolen.
(2) NEXT Avalon comfort bike - size L frame, still ignorant of sizing/dimensions. Not sure what was supposed to be comfortable about it. Hated it, gave it away.
(3) Schwinn Continental - 20" frame. Too cramped and everything hurt. Traded my dad for #4 (he's 5'6" - I'm 6' even).
(4) Raleigh Marathon 58cm or 23" - too stretched out and everything hurt - hands, back, neck, and "undercarriage"
(5) Schwinn Collegiate 3 22" - golly, fits joyously. No joke, no exaggeration.
(6) Schwinn Clear Creek rigid MTB - 22" (xl I guess) - too stretched out, hands hurt and a little back pain
I would just ride the Collegiate except riding bolt upright gets uncomfortable after about 10 miles. My work commute is 14 miles each way and riding that bike both ways is murder. I should clarify, the discomfort is in I think the inefficient riding position and weight and gearing of the bike, not conducive to hills or headwinds except over shorter distances. No hand or back or neck or seat pain, just sore muscles. I also would really like to get into doing some longer recreational and group rides but no way am I taking that 3 speed out on a century ride. I love it for around town and sitting upright is great in traffic or with my kids to look out for.
By standover, or inseam, or PBH - these methods usually indicate a 56 cm frame for me, in contrast to height-only based formulae which generally indicate a 58. I have a relatively short inseam for my height.
I went to the local big commercial bike store, due to their very large selection, and asked to try a 56 on a road bike since I had never tried one. The salesperson was very insistent that I should be on a 58 for my height and seemed offended and became condescending when I still wanted to try a 56. Crappy customer service is not the point of my post, though. The 56 was far more comfortable than I expected. I felt like I could ride for days. Maybe the fit wasn't perfect, but some small tweaks would have gotten it in the vicinity very nicely. It was a more natural feeling fit than all but the Huffy and the Collegiate, which felt pretty well spot on. To allow the salesperson the benefit of a doubt (since after seeing me ride it she commented that it looked like it was too small - sheesh), I agreed to try a similar bike in a 58. It felt just like the Raleigh - too stretched out, pain in hands, back, neck, and undercarriage. Granted, not really pain yet in the 5 minutes I was on the bike, but after having spent 100's of miles on the Raleigh it was a very familiar discomfort that I felt would with reasonable certainty develop into pain. Of course, the salesperson was still insistent that it was the "right" size for me and any slight discomfort would be addressed by the 3 hour, $240 fitting session they recommend for all bike purchases. Of course.
Question is - are there any other 6 footers out there who ride a 56? Why do you think that might be so comfortable for me? Do you think this immediate comfort may result in long-term damage, i.e. is my body trying to destroy itself or should I listen to it?
(1) Huffy Stalker 10 spd mtb - medium size, I guess (ignorant of sizes/dimensions at the time, but probably like an 18-20" based on my recollection of how it looked) - felt a little small but quite comfortable, got some hand/wrist pain after being on the bike after about 2 hrs. Best $40 ever spent. Stolen.
(2) NEXT Avalon comfort bike - size L frame, still ignorant of sizing/dimensions. Not sure what was supposed to be comfortable about it. Hated it, gave it away.
(3) Schwinn Continental - 20" frame. Too cramped and everything hurt. Traded my dad for #4 (he's 5'6" - I'm 6' even).
(4) Raleigh Marathon 58cm or 23" - too stretched out and everything hurt - hands, back, neck, and "undercarriage"
(5) Schwinn Collegiate 3 22" - golly, fits joyously. No joke, no exaggeration.
(6) Schwinn Clear Creek rigid MTB - 22" (xl I guess) - too stretched out, hands hurt and a little back pain
I would just ride the Collegiate except riding bolt upright gets uncomfortable after about 10 miles. My work commute is 14 miles each way and riding that bike both ways is murder. I should clarify, the discomfort is in I think the inefficient riding position and weight and gearing of the bike, not conducive to hills or headwinds except over shorter distances. No hand or back or neck or seat pain, just sore muscles. I also would really like to get into doing some longer recreational and group rides but no way am I taking that 3 speed out on a century ride. I love it for around town and sitting upright is great in traffic or with my kids to look out for.
By standover, or inseam, or PBH - these methods usually indicate a 56 cm frame for me, in contrast to height-only based formulae which generally indicate a 58. I have a relatively short inseam for my height.
I went to the local big commercial bike store, due to their very large selection, and asked to try a 56 on a road bike since I had never tried one. The salesperson was very insistent that I should be on a 58 for my height and seemed offended and became condescending when I still wanted to try a 56. Crappy customer service is not the point of my post, though. The 56 was far more comfortable than I expected. I felt like I could ride for days. Maybe the fit wasn't perfect, but some small tweaks would have gotten it in the vicinity very nicely. It was a more natural feeling fit than all but the Huffy and the Collegiate, which felt pretty well spot on. To allow the salesperson the benefit of a doubt (since after seeing me ride it she commented that it looked like it was too small - sheesh), I agreed to try a similar bike in a 58. It felt just like the Raleigh - too stretched out, pain in hands, back, neck, and undercarriage. Granted, not really pain yet in the 5 minutes I was on the bike, but after having spent 100's of miles on the Raleigh it was a very familiar discomfort that I felt would with reasonable certainty develop into pain. Of course, the salesperson was still insistent that it was the "right" size for me and any slight discomfort would be addressed by the 3 hour, $240 fitting session they recommend for all bike purchases. Of course.
Question is - are there any other 6 footers out there who ride a 56? Why do you think that might be so comfortable for me? Do you think this immediate comfort may result in long-term damage, i.e. is my body trying to destroy itself or should I listen to it?
07-16-15, 10:35 PM
#2
Vain, But Lacking Talent
Bikes are going to fit different between both manufacturer and model.
I'm 6'2" with a decently long inseam (saddle height of 80 cm) and almost always end up on a 56. But then again, that's on CX and endurance frames. If I bought an aggressive race geometry frame, I'd probably size up to a 58.
Find a bike you like, look up the geometry and pay attention to stack and reach. Now compare those numbers with the stack and reach from various other manufacturers and frames, and you'll see it might float between 56 and 58 for you. This is a simplification, of course, but as long as those two numbers are close, it's a matter of saddle height and position, stem length and amount of spacers on the stem.
I'm 6'2" with a decently long inseam (saddle height of 80 cm) and almost always end up on a 56. But then again, that's on CX and endurance frames. If I bought an aggressive race geometry frame, I'd probably size up to a 58.
Find a bike you like, look up the geometry and pay attention to stack and reach. Now compare those numbers with the stack and reach from various other manufacturers and frames, and you'll see it might float between 56 and 58 for you. This is a simplification, of course, but as long as those two numbers are close, it's a matter of saddle height and position, stem length and amount of spacers on the stem.
07-17-15, 12:23 AM
#3
Surf Bum
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Pacifica, CA
Posts: 2,184
Bikes: Lapierre Pulsium 500 FdJ, Ritchey breakaway cyclocross, vintage trek mtb.
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 5 Times
in
3 Posts
I'm 6'0", mostly legs, and ride a 56 Ritchey cyclocross bike. 120mm stem. Works for me!
__________________
Thirst is stronger than the rules. - Stars and Watercarriers, 1974
Thirst is stronger than the rules. - Stars and Watercarriers, 1974
07-17-15, 05:41 PM
#4
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,719
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 258 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
6'2"...normal/average/not short inseam...I've always ridden a 58cm road bike frame but could easily sit a 56 with a bit longer reach than my usual shorter stem.
Last edited by ltxi; 07-17-15 at 05:47 PM.
07-17-15, 06:18 PM
#5
Family, Health, Cycling
I am 6' exactly, I ride a Specialized Roubaix road bike, 56 CM with a 125 mm stem.
Wade Hall, one of the best fitters in in Northern California, maybe the world, set me up.
He said I could ride a 58 or a 56, if the 56 had some tweaks.
I love the fit of the 56. It was my call, I wanted a lighter bike and 56 is a bit lighter.
Wade Hall, one of the best fitters in in Northern California, maybe the world, set me up.
He said I could ride a 58 or a 56, if the 56 had some tweaks.
I love the fit of the 56. It was my call, I wanted a lighter bike and 56 is a bit lighter.
07-17-15, 07:11 PM
#6
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 1,052
Bikes: Gunnar, Shogun, Concorde, F Moser, Pete Tansley, Rocky Mtn, Diamant, Krapf, Marin, Avanti, Winora, Emmelle, Ken Evans
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 273 Post(s)
Liked 416 Times
in
217 Posts
I'm 6'2 and i've been riding 3 56 square road bikes for 5 years.
It's purely for sentimental reasons. I can get very comfortable on the bike for under 100km rides and I'm totally used to it. I daresay a large frame would feel odd for a while. They are however, far too small for me. I make it work, but 58, 60 or 62 would be ideal.
Toe overlap doesn't bother me (although I wear a hole in all my shoes), I don't mind 170mm cranks, the saddle position is fine with a tall post, added flex isn't so bad, but there are 2 serious disadvantages.
Saddle to bar drop is extreme without a garish tall stem, so you better be flexible.
You can run a long stem & bars to get the reach right, but the top of the stem will be closer to you (especially with a tall stem which brings it closer still). This is a nasty accident if you drop the chain, or it skips while you're leaning forward. I completely wrecked one of my knees on the top of my stem the other day, when I dropped the chain standing to shift on a hill. 3 days off the bike and a lot of pain. I run grippy 4 season or Open pave rears so I can stand and put my weight forward on climbs, and the position of the top of the stem is a huge liability.
Jobst Brandt sold me on the idea of large frames.
Everyone fits differently, and you can definitely make a 56 work, but I think the aversion towards larger frames is generally due to a high top tube and desire for a good stand-over clearance between bicycle and testicles. This is a non issue, which should not motivate fit choices.
It's purely for sentimental reasons. I can get very comfortable on the bike for under 100km rides and I'm totally used to it. I daresay a large frame would feel odd for a while. They are however, far too small for me. I make it work, but 58, 60 or 62 would be ideal.
Toe overlap doesn't bother me (although I wear a hole in all my shoes), I don't mind 170mm cranks, the saddle position is fine with a tall post, added flex isn't so bad, but there are 2 serious disadvantages.
Saddle to bar drop is extreme without a garish tall stem, so you better be flexible.
You can run a long stem & bars to get the reach right, but the top of the stem will be closer to you (especially with a tall stem which brings it closer still). This is a nasty accident if you drop the chain, or it skips while you're leaning forward. I completely wrecked one of my knees on the top of my stem the other day, when I dropped the chain standing to shift on a hill. 3 days off the bike and a lot of pain. I run grippy 4 season or Open pave rears so I can stand and put my weight forward on climbs, and the position of the top of the stem is a huge liability.
Jobst Brandt sold me on the idea of large frames.
Everyone fits differently, and you can definitely make a 56 work, but I think the aversion towards larger frames is generally due to a high top tube and desire for a good stand-over clearance between bicycle and testicles. This is a non issue, which should not motivate fit choices.
07-18-15, 09:26 AM
#7
Catching Smallmouth
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: In a boat
Posts: 590
Bikes: 1990 Specialized Sirrus Triple, 1985 Trek 460, 2005 Lemond Tourmalet, 1984 Schwinn LeTour 'Luxe, 1988 Trek 400T, 1985 Trek 450, 1997 Lemond Zurich, 1993 Diamond Back Apex, 1988 Schwinn Circuit, 1988 Schwinn Prologue, 1978 Trek TX700, Sannino
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 88 Post(s)
Liked 134 Times
in
79 Posts
I am 71.5" and I am most comfortable on frames with a 56cm effective top tube. I have found this to be a more meaningful measurement than the typical seat post sizing method. My 55cm Lemond Zurich has the same ETT as my 58cm Schwinn Circuit.
07-18-15, 11:38 AM
#8
Virgo
Thread Starter
Thank you for all these good replies and real world feedback. I am feeling validated. I know I should not put more stock in what one know it all salesperson has to say than what I have been reading and studying on for quite a while and more importantly what my body is telling me. I think the ETT does seem to be the key. Stand over is a non-issue for me so long as I can swing my leg over the top tube. I guess I must be flexible. I put the shortest stem I could find on the Raleigh but it still feels too stretched. I will be spending some time measuring and recording dimensions of my current bikes and comparing to what I've tried and liked. Thanks again, you guys rock.
07-18-15, 12:58 PM
#9
Banned
I own a 56 ... and a 54 and a 57 & a 58. none are sloping top tubes ..
A 56 , with an up sloping top tube would be different . bars would be Higher for One..
A 56 , with an up sloping top tube would be different . bars would be Higher for One..
Last edited by fietsbob; 07-18-15 at 01:03 PM.
07-23-15, 11:50 AM
#10
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Greater Tampa
Posts: 254
Bikes: Lynskey R230
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
I'm 6'2" with short legs(30 inseam) and a long torso. In a perfect world, according to bike fit computers I'm in between a size 55/56 with major adjustments needed on 'off the rack bikes' to the crank arms, bar width/reach... Over the years I've ridden on many more 56s then 55 sized frames.
08-03-18, 06:38 PM
#11
Virgo
Thread Starter
Weird.
I couldn’t fit the 58cm Raleigh because of flexibility issues and poor fit.
Once I started addressing those and spending more time on the bike, it became apparent that I needed to go larger, not smaller.
Combination of things including having a badly sprained back at 11 years old while I was growth spurting had/has my pelvis at a funny tilt and tight hamstrings and weak core from desk job and general poor overall fitness - I was riding too much all at once with physical limitations, lack of experience, poor fit, etc. and a major surgery to my left leg 2 years prior.
I’m currently riding a pair of 25” Fuji road frames. 24” would be ideal I think but the 25s were what was available used locally. Both frames have relatively short top tubes for the height, which evidently was common on older steel framed bikes. One has 73° seat and head tube angles and a 58cm top tube, the other has a 60cm top tube and 74°/73° seat/head angles. I swapped the 90mm stem with a 100 on the frame with shorter top tube and had to move the saddle forward about 2cm to duplicate position on the other, longer frame. I’ll also eventually probably swap the 100mm stem on the longer bike to a 90 or 80 because I think 60cm is a little long. That Raleigh, for the record, had a top tube of 57cm. I never measured the angles, maybe I will.
I set my bars at about 1” - 1 1\2” below saddle height and this is great for me, gives me good forward and peripheral viz on the hoods and bar tops and still saves me a little effort getting down into the drops when it’s windy. On the Raleigh frame, my bars were 4” below saddle. Too deep a drop for my limited flexibility at the time, and probably still too deep even though it’s improved a ton.
I don’t live or work in the same place as back then but same zip codes for both so my commute is essentially the same, just a mile or so less, and most of it is on the same roads.
Fit is weird and harder to address on these old level top tube road bikes, in my opinion. They make excellent commuters though if one can sort out any fit issues.
If I were ever flexible enough to ride a 56 cm frame, I’d have to put a pretty long stem on it to approach the reach that has come to work really well for me on these bigger frames. If I worked closer to home, I wouldn’t care as much. For me, on rides of about 20 minutes or less, the fit makes very little difference. But with two 45-75 minute sessions a day depending on wind, 5 days a week, fit became top priority.
So at 6’ tall a 25” road frame doesn’t provide me with a very aggressive position, but for my purpose it’s quite suitable, and way better than slogging away on hills and headwinds after work than a 3 speed or mountain bike or hybrid, especially one that’s too small.
I have just over 800 miles now on the two of them. The bike with the slacker seat tube angle has longer chainstays and fenders and room for wide tires (28s on it now, room for 35s under the fenders) and is more comfortable so it’s become the one I use the most.
Rambling, but thought it might be fun to update.
I couldn’t fit the 58cm Raleigh because of flexibility issues and poor fit.
Once I started addressing those and spending more time on the bike, it became apparent that I needed to go larger, not smaller.
Combination of things including having a badly sprained back at 11 years old while I was growth spurting had/has my pelvis at a funny tilt and tight hamstrings and weak core from desk job and general poor overall fitness - I was riding too much all at once with physical limitations, lack of experience, poor fit, etc. and a major surgery to my left leg 2 years prior.
I’m currently riding a pair of 25” Fuji road frames. 24” would be ideal I think but the 25s were what was available used locally. Both frames have relatively short top tubes for the height, which evidently was common on older steel framed bikes. One has 73° seat and head tube angles and a 58cm top tube, the other has a 60cm top tube and 74°/73° seat/head angles. I swapped the 90mm stem with a 100 on the frame with shorter top tube and had to move the saddle forward about 2cm to duplicate position on the other, longer frame. I’ll also eventually probably swap the 100mm stem on the longer bike to a 90 or 80 because I think 60cm is a little long. That Raleigh, for the record, had a top tube of 57cm. I never measured the angles, maybe I will.
I set my bars at about 1” - 1 1\2” below saddle height and this is great for me, gives me good forward and peripheral viz on the hoods and bar tops and still saves me a little effort getting down into the drops when it’s windy. On the Raleigh frame, my bars were 4” below saddle. Too deep a drop for my limited flexibility at the time, and probably still too deep even though it’s improved a ton.
I don’t live or work in the same place as back then but same zip codes for both so my commute is essentially the same, just a mile or so less, and most of it is on the same roads.
Fit is weird and harder to address on these old level top tube road bikes, in my opinion. They make excellent commuters though if one can sort out any fit issues.
If I were ever flexible enough to ride a 56 cm frame, I’d have to put a pretty long stem on it to approach the reach that has come to work really well for me on these bigger frames. If I worked closer to home, I wouldn’t care as much. For me, on rides of about 20 minutes or less, the fit makes very little difference. But with two 45-75 minute sessions a day depending on wind, 5 days a week, fit became top priority.
So at 6’ tall a 25” road frame doesn’t provide me with a very aggressive position, but for my purpose it’s quite suitable, and way better than slogging away on hills and headwinds after work than a 3 speed or mountain bike or hybrid, especially one that’s too small.
I have just over 800 miles now on the two of them. The bike with the slacker seat tube angle has longer chainstays and fenders and room for wide tires (28s on it now, room for 35s under the fenders) and is more comfortable so it’s become the one I use the most.
Rambling, but thought it might be fun to update.
08-03-18, 06:57 PM
#12
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Center of Central CA
Posts: 1,582
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 897 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 9 Times
in
8 Posts
Thanks, great read. I'm a recent convert to bigger frames as well. Or actually a re-convert. I'm 5-10 and rode 25" frames for many years during the 70's and early 80's. For me, that was just a normal-sized bike frame.
Then in the mid-80's, I started riding a lot more, and various formulas put me on frames as small as 53 cm. So I rode 54's and 55, but was never 100% comfortable on smaller frames, and had tons of back problems. Some of it was probably from trying to use too much handlebar-to-seat drop.
These days I'm riding nothing smaller than a 56, and spend a lot more time in the drops, and way fewer back problems. And since I buy lots of used bikes, I just use the stock stem on a larger frame (57, or 58 cm) and the reach is perfect, so I don't have to waste money buying a longer stem, as I ALWAYS ended up having to do on smaller frames.
Then in the mid-80's, I started riding a lot more, and various formulas put me on frames as small as 53 cm. So I rode 54's and 55, but was never 100% comfortable on smaller frames, and had tons of back problems. Some of it was probably from trying to use too much handlebar-to-seat drop.
These days I'm riding nothing smaller than a 56, and spend a lot more time in the drops, and way fewer back problems. And since I buy lots of used bikes, I just use the stock stem on a larger frame (57, or 58 cm) and the reach is perfect, so I don't have to waste money buying a longer stem, as I ALWAYS ended up having to do on smaller frames.
08-03-18, 07:03 PM
#13
Junior Member
I am also 6' tall, and ride a 58 CM ROAD bike with race geometry, and could easily go to a 60 CM. I've test road a few 56 CM bikes and they all felt too small for me. The top tube, and handlebar reach felt especially short, on the 56 CM bikes.
08-03-18, 07:27 PM
#14
Virgo
Thread Starter
One additional thing, I don’t have much understanding of handling with regard to geometry, but I will say that I prefer the way these bigger bikes feel and handle with more of my upper body weight further forward. Cornering on a smaller frame with more weight over the rear wheel was pretty unpredictable. These bigger bikes tend to go where pointed, and the pointing is done more from the hips, less from the arms. Just my own experience.
Oh, and while the fit has been addressed to a point, it was all my own trial and error and research. I’m sure a pro fit might fine tune some parameters, but most of the methods and calculators out there are close enough for a ballpark figure. I still have some pain and discomfort, but I think spending 2-3 hours on a bike everyday is just a lot for all but the fittest of riders. What I don’t have is any back pain, neck pain, arm pain, hand pain, really just sore butt and tired legs, and I usually feel fine the next morning. In other words, nothing persistent or weird, just discomfort from heavy usage. I might start looking at different saddles soon but I’m not doing any rides longer than an hour at a time really.
There is also less weight on my hands now on current setup than any previous bike/bar/stem combo. They’re not even good bars, just the stock 38cm drops from 1973 complete with turkey levers (which I’ve come to appreciate for commuting) with cork tape. I wear gloves for practical reasons but dont need them for comfort. I was gonna do cloth tape but got lazy.
This is current bike, not yet finished but I bought it a month ago.
Oh, and while the fit has been addressed to a point, it was all my own trial and error and research. I’m sure a pro fit might fine tune some parameters, but most of the methods and calculators out there are close enough for a ballpark figure. I still have some pain and discomfort, but I think spending 2-3 hours on a bike everyday is just a lot for all but the fittest of riders. What I don’t have is any back pain, neck pain, arm pain, hand pain, really just sore butt and tired legs, and I usually feel fine the next morning. In other words, nothing persistent or weird, just discomfort from heavy usage. I might start looking at different saddles soon but I’m not doing any rides longer than an hour at a time really.
There is also less weight on my hands now on current setup than any previous bike/bar/stem combo. They’re not even good bars, just the stock 38cm drops from 1973 complete with turkey levers (which I’ve come to appreciate for commuting) with cork tape. I wear gloves for practical reasons but dont need them for comfort. I was gonna do cloth tape but got lazy.
This is current bike, not yet finished but I bought it a month ago.
Last edited by Phamilton; 08-03-18 at 07:45 PM.
08-03-18, 07:33 PM
#15
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Center of Central CA
Posts: 1,582
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 897 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 9 Times
in
8 Posts
Something that makes a big difference to me, if I'm allowed to post in this thread as as 5-10" person, is that when I begin my pedal stroke, I like having the top tube right alongside my knee. Bigger frames make this a reality.
Seems like I can apply more power that way, as opposed to having a top tube that's halfway down my shin, at that same part of the pedal stroke, as with using a smaller frame. Little frames can feel so cramped, even after you compensate with a longer stem and higher seat.
Seems like I can apply more power that way, as opposed to having a top tube that's halfway down my shin, at that same part of the pedal stroke, as with using a smaller frame. Little frames can feel so cramped, even after you compensate with a longer stem and higher seat.
08-03-18, 09:42 PM
#16
Virgo
Thread Starter
If anybody is interested, the fit approach was as follows:
PBH or cycling inseam * .883 = saddle height, 30.25” for me (which, on the 23” frame and stock seatpost required extension about 1/2” beyond min insertion mark). I rode it 1/4” higher for a while (on the larger frames) as it felt like I could put more power to the pedals but was getting some soreness in saddle when riding extended periods in the drops and lowering it 1/4” alleviated that and helped smooth my pedal stroke a little and kick up my cadence a bit.
Moved saddle back until I could ride with hands off the bars just a couple inches for just a few moments (it’s crept forward another 2-3mm as my core and leg strength have improved somewhat). I made no reference to or attempt to incorporate KOPS. When transferring frames, I used a plumb line to help get nose of saddle in same position relative to crank since the longer frame also had a steeper seat tube angle. Afterward I checked KOPS and my knee (not the front of kneecap, the pivot point, on the outside) ends up about 1-2cm behind for whatever that’s worth. I don’t get knee or foot pain and I ride flat pedals in sneakers, so I don’t mess with it.
No real formula or method for stem, but somehow this ended up being counterintuitive for me. Moving to a longer stem alleviated the symptoms I was experiencing with a shorter stem when I thought I needed to go shorter yet. More accurately, it was the total reach, combination of top tube and stem. The fit calculators I used usually gave me different dimensions but I just sort of figured the average was good enough since they were most often within just a cm or 2. I don’t have the exact numbers anymore but the reach for me came out something like a 125mm stem on a 56cm top tube, which is just 5mm off from a 58cm top tube and 100mm stem, my current setup.
When making adjustments, I try to go small and gradual, around 1/8” or 3mm or so and wait for a few days before I make any further adjustment, which for me is another 5-6 hours on the bike, or 75-100 miles, or a few fresh starts and different types of riding conditions, and time to really think about how the changes affect things.
If I wanted to ride faster, I’d most likely move to a 24” frame to get the bars lower and maybe get something with steeper geometry.
I’m faster now too, although that’s really hard to quantify and I don’t know how much is related to fit and how much is related to strength, etc etc etc. I struggled to maintain 14mph on the Raleigh setup and would arrive at work sweaty and sore. I can maintain 16mph just about indefinitely on current bike, although it’s much more satisfying to ride at 19-20 and get sweaty since I change at work anyway. Had a crappy day last week and fought 15mph headwind all the way home, didn’t feel like being at home so unloaded my backpack and went for another ride, put in 65 miles that day. My numbers are’t impressive by many standards but I’m satisfied that I did it without pain, and knowing I have the freedom to take off on a long ride without having to worry about hurting myself is pretty great.
PBH or cycling inseam * .883 = saddle height, 30.25” for me (which, on the 23” frame and stock seatpost required extension about 1/2” beyond min insertion mark). I rode it 1/4” higher for a while (on the larger frames) as it felt like I could put more power to the pedals but was getting some soreness in saddle when riding extended periods in the drops and lowering it 1/4” alleviated that and helped smooth my pedal stroke a little and kick up my cadence a bit.
Moved saddle back until I could ride with hands off the bars just a couple inches for just a few moments (it’s crept forward another 2-3mm as my core and leg strength have improved somewhat). I made no reference to or attempt to incorporate KOPS. When transferring frames, I used a plumb line to help get nose of saddle in same position relative to crank since the longer frame also had a steeper seat tube angle. Afterward I checked KOPS and my knee (not the front of kneecap, the pivot point, on the outside) ends up about 1-2cm behind for whatever that’s worth. I don’t get knee or foot pain and I ride flat pedals in sneakers, so I don’t mess with it.
No real formula or method for stem, but somehow this ended up being counterintuitive for me. Moving to a longer stem alleviated the symptoms I was experiencing with a shorter stem when I thought I needed to go shorter yet. More accurately, it was the total reach, combination of top tube and stem. The fit calculators I used usually gave me different dimensions but I just sort of figured the average was good enough since they were most often within just a cm or 2. I don’t have the exact numbers anymore but the reach for me came out something like a 125mm stem on a 56cm top tube, which is just 5mm off from a 58cm top tube and 100mm stem, my current setup.
When making adjustments, I try to go small and gradual, around 1/8” or 3mm or so and wait for a few days before I make any further adjustment, which for me is another 5-6 hours on the bike, or 75-100 miles, or a few fresh starts and different types of riding conditions, and time to really think about how the changes affect things.
If I wanted to ride faster, I’d most likely move to a 24” frame to get the bars lower and maybe get something with steeper geometry.
I’m faster now too, although that’s really hard to quantify and I don’t know how much is related to fit and how much is related to strength, etc etc etc. I struggled to maintain 14mph on the Raleigh setup and would arrive at work sweaty and sore. I can maintain 16mph just about indefinitely on current bike, although it’s much more satisfying to ride at 19-20 and get sweaty since I change at work anyway. Had a crappy day last week and fought 15mph headwind all the way home, didn’t feel like being at home so unloaded my backpack and went for another ride, put in 65 miles that day. My numbers are’t impressive by many standards but I’m satisfied that I did it without pain, and knowing I have the freedom to take off on a long ride without having to worry about hurting myself is pretty great.
08-08-18, 10:50 AM
#18
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Center of Central CA
Posts: 1,582
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 897 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 9 Times
in
8 Posts
I'm skeptical of pretty much the so-called "formulas" (formulae?) for bike fitting, other than the one where you get a bike, adjust the seat height and bars the way you like them. Get a longer or shorter stem so that reach feels "in the ballpark". Check to see if the bars are blocking out the front axle when I look down in the drops.
Then ride it for a few hours and see how you body reacts. Muscle pain = Good. Joints or Tendons Complaining = Not Good, Stop Bike and Make More Adjustments.
I guess you could say I'm just to lazy to learn about stack, setback, reach, trail, and all that stuff. But my view is that the whole purpose of all of these measurements is to ensure the rider can ride long distances comfortably and without any undue strain to the joints or tendons. And that's the true test of fit I trust, over and above the results of a bunch of math calculations which are in turn based upon "who-knows-what" possibly faulty assumptions about the rider and what he or she will probably find comfortable.
Then ride it for a few hours and see how you body reacts. Muscle pain = Good. Joints or Tendons Complaining = Not Good, Stop Bike and Make More Adjustments.
I guess you could say I'm just to lazy to learn about stack, setback, reach, trail, and all that stuff. But my view is that the whole purpose of all of these measurements is to ensure the rider can ride long distances comfortably and without any undue strain to the joints or tendons. And that's the true test of fit I trust, over and above the results of a bunch of math calculations which are in turn based upon "who-knows-what" possibly faulty assumptions about the rider and what he or she will probably find comfortable.
08-08-18, 01:39 PM
#19
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Center of Central CA
Posts: 1,582
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 897 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 9 Times
in
8 Posts
I also wanted to emphasize that fit is a constantly changing thing. People lose weight, they gain weight, lose flexibility or gain flexibility, get minor injuries, age, increase or decrease their mileage, switch to a different style of riding, any number of things.
The mistake I believe a lot of people make is thinking that there is one perfect "fit", determined by experts and complicated mathematical formulas regular people can't understand. And once this "perfect fit" has been acheived, it's written in stone and will follow around for all the rest of your days.
Not true, you gotta be able to determine your own fit, and make changes in it as needed. Much of it really depends on what the rider thinks they want, and that can easily change too. If people need a sales job to convince them their bikes fit them perfectly, maybe they should not be so reliant on other people's often-flawed opinion on proper fit and experiment on a little bit their own.
It's not robot science, and you don't need to be Alfred Einstein to figure out what suits you.
The mistake I believe a lot of people make is thinking that there is one perfect "fit", determined by experts and complicated mathematical formulas regular people can't understand. And once this "perfect fit" has been acheived, it's written in stone and will follow around for all the rest of your days.
Not true, you gotta be able to determine your own fit, and make changes in it as needed. Much of it really depends on what the rider thinks they want, and that can easily change too. If people need a sales job to convince them their bikes fit them perfectly, maybe they should not be so reliant on other people's often-flawed opinion on proper fit and experiment on a little bit their own.
It's not robot science, and you don't need to be Alfred Einstein to figure out what suits you.
08-15-18, 02:14 PM
#20
Virgo
Thread Starter
FWIW - all the stuff above about how my frames fit me can pretty much go out the window.
After my last post on this thread, I saw down with a level and plumb line and tape measure and level from my iPhone and recorded all the dimensions of all three bikes and got some stack and reach numbers that gave a much better insight into how these bikes fit me. I also recorded the saddle height and setback relative to bottom bracket (which I had never done before) from the bike that gave me the most comfortable saddle position and transferred (or tried to*) this to the other frames. (*- one frame has a 74deg seat tube angle and I was not able to reproduce setback, other frames have 72 and 73deg angles.)
I can't speak to anybody else's experience, but letting my body do the talking about fit was not a great idea and I ended up with some pretty goofy setups that yielded quite a bit of frustration and discomfort, sometimes pain.
While it remains true that the reasons for the Raleigh not fitting me were poor fit and flexibility, I don't think the poor fit was in the frame size. I mentioned in some post above that most online fit calculators have me on a 56cm top tube with 125mm stem. That's OK, but this is where the stack and reach enter the equation and screw everything up. One 56cm frame can be pretty wildly different in stack and reach from another, stack and reach just being simple representations of the vertical and horizontal distances of the bars from the bottom bracket. My Raleigh frame is a great example of this, even though the top tube is 57cm actual (yes, I misquoted this dimension above), the stack and reach are 569mm and 387mm, respectively. Looking at other road bikes for which stack and reach data are available today, the closest match to these stack and reach numbers is generally a 56cm cyclocross frame. "Endurance" frames in a similar size designation have a higher stack, typically around 25-30mm more, and entry level road bikes will have the higher stack (maybe higher yet) in addition to a shorter reach (usually by about 15-20mm). Racing frames in a 56 will have a little lower stack and little longer reach. So the net result of the stack and reach of the Raleigh is a quite "aggressive" position with a saddle to bar drop of about 9cm, one that my flexibility and core strength weren't up to the task to ride daily, and sometimes it's still tough, but I like the dividends paid out in greater speed, strength, and flexibility, things I'd not have gained had I continued to search for a fit that catered to my lack of strength and flexibility.
After setting saddle height and setback on the Raleigh identical to the most comfortable setup (yellow Fuji), it made a huge difference in comfort level and overall power I could apply to the pedals. The Raleigh has a slack-ish 72deg seat tube, the yellow 25" Fuji 73deg, and the blue 25" Fuji (not pictured here) 74deg. I had to slide the saddle almost all the way forward on the rails of the Raleigh seatpost to duplicate position from the yellow bike, and I had never ridden it more than halfway before. I thought it looked goofy and surely couldn't be correct. But I've been on it for two weeks now and around 400 miles overall and it's pretty great. I had one day last week where I was feeling tired and set it back another 1/8" or so but every day I felt a little slower and weaker, would wear out sooner, and started to get some pain in my hands until I moved it back forward.
For me, the two big problems with tweak it till it feels right were (1) either I misread what my body was saying or it was giving me unreliable feedback and (2) that it was just never going to feel right until I got into a little better shape. A year ago I couldn't sit in a chair with my knees together and bend at the waist more than an inch or two, it sent searing pain through my hips and legs to stretch the muscles and tendons and on top of that I couldn't breathe. Today I can sit in a chair with my knees together and hug my knees with my arms, nose in between my kneecaps. I have fallen asleep like this. I can do squats, I can touch my toes, etc. NOW I can fit on that bike (but when I'm tired, I don't want to).
I'm not so bold as to say "problem solved". At any rate I have a setup that doesn't cause pain, inspires an intensity of effort that gets me a good workout and gets me to work and home quicker, and requires me to take better care of myself. When I consider my age and overall condition, it's difficult to not be satisfied with that.
I wish I had something to offer that made any sense. So many people seem to struggle with fit and pain and discomfort and since it seems I'm figuring out what works for me I want to translate that into usable info for others, but I mean look at the dates of the first posts - it's taken me 3 years to get from there to now. On the same bike. I wasn't prepared to wait 3 years, not 6 months, not 3 weeks. I doubt most people are willing to wait a long time for results. But fitness and flexibility (at least for me) played a massive role in bike fit, and how do you evaluate one person's fitness/flexibility through discussion forum?
I'd have never thought that an "aggressive" position was something I could have been satisfied with, or something that could be rewarding in any way.
I'd have never thought that moving my saddle back 1/8" would make my hands hurt.
I'm happy to let this thread and any others I've posted about fit fade into obscurity. Like many things in life, thinking I know very much always seems to prove how much I don't know.
The only thing I know for sure about bike fit for me is where to set my saddle. I guess that's a good enough start. Hopefully I don't come across compelling evidence that even my saddle height is wrong. But at the very least, Greg LeMond will agree with my saddle height as I used his formula.
All things considered, a 6 footer can certainly ride a 58 or a 56 or a 54 or a 63. It just depends on the stack and reach of the frame in question and where they want the bars and what they're willing to do to get them there.
I don't think stack and reach need to be complicated calculations involving angles and stuff. I got numbers within 4-5mm of the calculated numbers by looking down over the top tube and eyeballing where a straight line from center of BB would intersect top tube and measuring from that point. 4-5mm is good enough for any frame or stem purchase, at least for me.
After my last post on this thread, I saw down with a level and plumb line and tape measure and level from my iPhone and recorded all the dimensions of all three bikes and got some stack and reach numbers that gave a much better insight into how these bikes fit me. I also recorded the saddle height and setback relative to bottom bracket (which I had never done before) from the bike that gave me the most comfortable saddle position and transferred (or tried to*) this to the other frames. (*- one frame has a 74deg seat tube angle and I was not able to reproduce setback, other frames have 72 and 73deg angles.)
I can't speak to anybody else's experience, but letting my body do the talking about fit was not a great idea and I ended up with some pretty goofy setups that yielded quite a bit of frustration and discomfort, sometimes pain.
While it remains true that the reasons for the Raleigh not fitting me were poor fit and flexibility, I don't think the poor fit was in the frame size. I mentioned in some post above that most online fit calculators have me on a 56cm top tube with 125mm stem. That's OK, but this is where the stack and reach enter the equation and screw everything up. One 56cm frame can be pretty wildly different in stack and reach from another, stack and reach just being simple representations of the vertical and horizontal distances of the bars from the bottom bracket. My Raleigh frame is a great example of this, even though the top tube is 57cm actual (yes, I misquoted this dimension above), the stack and reach are 569mm and 387mm, respectively. Looking at other road bikes for which stack and reach data are available today, the closest match to these stack and reach numbers is generally a 56cm cyclocross frame. "Endurance" frames in a similar size designation have a higher stack, typically around 25-30mm more, and entry level road bikes will have the higher stack (maybe higher yet) in addition to a shorter reach (usually by about 15-20mm). Racing frames in a 56 will have a little lower stack and little longer reach. So the net result of the stack and reach of the Raleigh is a quite "aggressive" position with a saddle to bar drop of about 9cm, one that my flexibility and core strength weren't up to the task to ride daily, and sometimes it's still tough, but I like the dividends paid out in greater speed, strength, and flexibility, things I'd not have gained had I continued to search for a fit that catered to my lack of strength and flexibility.
After setting saddle height and setback on the Raleigh identical to the most comfortable setup (yellow Fuji), it made a huge difference in comfort level and overall power I could apply to the pedals. The Raleigh has a slack-ish 72deg seat tube, the yellow 25" Fuji 73deg, and the blue 25" Fuji (not pictured here) 74deg. I had to slide the saddle almost all the way forward on the rails of the Raleigh seatpost to duplicate position from the yellow bike, and I had never ridden it more than halfway before. I thought it looked goofy and surely couldn't be correct. But I've been on it for two weeks now and around 400 miles overall and it's pretty great. I had one day last week where I was feeling tired and set it back another 1/8" or so but every day I felt a little slower and weaker, would wear out sooner, and started to get some pain in my hands until I moved it back forward.
For me, the two big problems with tweak it till it feels right were (1) either I misread what my body was saying or it was giving me unreliable feedback and (2) that it was just never going to feel right until I got into a little better shape. A year ago I couldn't sit in a chair with my knees together and bend at the waist more than an inch or two, it sent searing pain through my hips and legs to stretch the muscles and tendons and on top of that I couldn't breathe. Today I can sit in a chair with my knees together and hug my knees with my arms, nose in between my kneecaps. I have fallen asleep like this. I can do squats, I can touch my toes, etc. NOW I can fit on that bike (but when I'm tired, I don't want to).
I'm not so bold as to say "problem solved". At any rate I have a setup that doesn't cause pain, inspires an intensity of effort that gets me a good workout and gets me to work and home quicker, and requires me to take better care of myself. When I consider my age and overall condition, it's difficult to not be satisfied with that.
I wish I had something to offer that made any sense. So many people seem to struggle with fit and pain and discomfort and since it seems I'm figuring out what works for me I want to translate that into usable info for others, but I mean look at the dates of the first posts - it's taken me 3 years to get from there to now. On the same bike. I wasn't prepared to wait 3 years, not 6 months, not 3 weeks. I doubt most people are willing to wait a long time for results. But fitness and flexibility (at least for me) played a massive role in bike fit, and how do you evaluate one person's fitness/flexibility through discussion forum?
I'd have never thought that an "aggressive" position was something I could have been satisfied with, or something that could be rewarding in any way.
I'd have never thought that moving my saddle back 1/8" would make my hands hurt.
I'm happy to let this thread and any others I've posted about fit fade into obscurity. Like many things in life, thinking I know very much always seems to prove how much I don't know.
The only thing I know for sure about bike fit for me is where to set my saddle. I guess that's a good enough start. Hopefully I don't come across compelling evidence that even my saddle height is wrong. But at the very least, Greg LeMond will agree with my saddle height as I used his formula.
All things considered, a 6 footer can certainly ride a 58 or a 56 or a 54 or a 63. It just depends on the stack and reach of the frame in question and where they want the bars and what they're willing to do to get them there.
I don't think stack and reach need to be complicated calculations involving angles and stuff. I got numbers within 4-5mm of the calculated numbers by looking down over the top tube and eyeballing where a straight line from center of BB would intersect top tube and measuring from that point. 4-5mm is good enough for any frame or stem purchase, at least for me.
08-16-18, 02:38 PM
#21
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Lebanon (Liberty Hill), CT
Posts: 8,473
Bikes: CAAD 12, MASI Gran Criterium S, Colnago World Cup CX & Guru steel
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1743 Post(s)
Liked 1,279 Times
in
739 Posts
There is a range of sizes based upon different theories of fit. (Google....French, Race and Eddie fit). All of these start with inseam not height. I think if you start with .665 of inseam in centimeters you will be in the ballpark.
08-17-18, 09:13 PM
#23
Virgo
Thread Starter
That solves it then.
Race fit:
French fit:
I just don’t have an Eddy.
08-17-18, 09:23 PM
#24
Virgo
Thread Starter
Race fit: 23” frame
French: 25”
Eddy: call it a 24
Just about any 6 footer should fit any one of these frame sizes with stem change if needed.
French: 25”
Eddy: call it a 24
Just about any 6 footer should fit any one of these frame sizes with stem change if needed.
08-18-18, 12:36 AM
#25
Senior Member
I'll go in the opposite direction here.
I'm 5'8", I have two bikes. A 54cm road bike and a 56cm tour bike. I'm 100% more comfortable on the larger bike which is supposed to be too big for me. I have saddles on both setup the same, but the handlebars on the tour is 42 vs the 40 on the road. I can ride the tour bike for hours in comfort, but I've struggled with the road for years. I'm gonna go get a pro fit at some point, but my guess is that my upper body is larger than my lower.
I'm 5'8", I have two bikes. A 54cm road bike and a 56cm tour bike. I'm 100% more comfortable on the larger bike which is supposed to be too big for me. I have saddles on both setup the same, but the handlebars on the tour is 42 vs the 40 on the road. I can ride the tour bike for hours in comfort, but I've struggled with the road for years. I'm gonna go get a pro fit at some point, but my guess is that my upper body is larger than my lower.
