Undersizing
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Undersizing
I'm six foot but I ride a 56cm frame. Recently I've been thinking about 54cm frames.
Reason is because I feel like I have a short upper body and a long lower body, thus my torso length is more in line with a shorter person and my height is a result of my leg length. When I rode a 58cm frame I always felt like I was reaching too far to get to the handlebars. 56cm does feel a lot better.
Anyways, is it common for the recommendations to be off due to different body types?
Reason is because I feel like I have a short upper body and a long lower body, thus my torso length is more in line with a shorter person and my height is a result of my leg length. When I rode a 58cm frame I always felt like I was reaching too far to get to the handlebars. 56cm does feel a lot better.
Anyways, is it common for the recommendations to be off due to different body types?
#2
Senior Member
Ramzilla & his older brother are both 6'-1" tall. But, Ramzilla has a 30" inseam and Brother has a 34" inseam. Ramzilla likes 56cm bikes with long reach handlebars & stems. Brother goes for 60cm frames with normal reach handlebars. Brother can easily outrun Ramzilla. Ramzilla can easily crush brother. Be good. Have fun.
#3
Veteran, Pacifist
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Seattle area
Posts: 13,325
Bikes: Bikes??? Thought this was social media?!?
Mentioned: 284 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3897 Post(s)
Liked 4,823 Times
in
2,226 Posts
6'1" 58cm - 62.
58X57 is (generally) about as small as i'm comfortable - especially at speed
62cm = soooo nice in the drops
58X57 is (generally) about as small as i'm comfortable - especially at speed
62cm = soooo nice in the drops
__________________
Vintage, modern, e-road. It is a big cycling universe.
Vintage, modern, e-road. It is a big cycling universe.
Likes For Wildwood:
#4
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
5'9" + or - with 84.5 cm inseam. Frame size range = 54 - 56 although I can ride up to a 58. What is know as a "square" 55 is perfection. (FWIW age 72 in that pic)
Last edited by bruce19; 04-27-20 at 10:51 AM.
#5
Senior Member
You are looking at this the wrong way. These days, frame size numbers are meaningless. Look at stack and reach. I have long legs and a short torso and I do ride a small frame that has a stack height of 527mm, with a 15mm headset bearing top, no spacers and a -17 (horizontal) stem. I can do this because I can tolerate a large 10cm saddle to bar drop. My saddle height is 73cm. If you can't tolerate a large saddle to bar drop, a frame with a shorter stack makes no sense.
If I could only tolerate an 8cm drop, a -6 degree stem would be an easy fix. If I needed a 6cm drop, 20mm of spacer would be needed and some might say I bought a frame that was too small.
Reach can be minimized with 75-80mm reach bars or increased with bars having up to 100mm. Stem length changes can further increase reach over a large range,
If I could only tolerate an 8cm drop, a -6 degree stem would be an easy fix. If I needed a 6cm drop, 20mm of spacer would be needed and some might say I bought a frame that was too small.
Reach can be minimized with 75-80mm reach bars or increased with bars having up to 100mm. Stem length changes can further increase reach over a large range,
#7
Full Member
Join Date: Oct 2019
Location: Foothills of West Central Maine
Posts: 410
Bikes: 2007 Motobecane Fantom Cross Expert, 2020 Motobecane Omni Strada Pro Disc (700c gravel bike), 2021 Motobecane Elite Adventure with Bafang 500W rear hub drive
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 174 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 143 Times
in
94 Posts
Watch out for too much toe overlap (toe hitting front wheel when turning at low speed) on smaller frame! Especially with wide tires.
#8
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Chapel Hill NC
Posts: 1,683
Bikes: 2000 Litespeed Vortex Chorus 10, 1995 DeBernardi Cromor S/S
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 645 Post(s)
Liked 797 Times
in
446 Posts
you don’t want to mess with seat position to fix reach issues. Seat position wrt BB, crank length, cleat position are a set of parameters that are collectively governed by leg length, regardless of torso length/flexibility or arm length, which govern reach. Get the optimal seat position, then leave it alone while you use TT length, bar reach and stem length/angle to optimize reach
Likes For Litespud:
#9
Señor Member
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 5,066
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 649 Post(s)
Liked 292 Times
in
215 Posts
As mentioned above, without knowing some other details it is not possible to know what is a suitable frame size. On a traditional level top tube road bike, 54cm would be absurdly small for someone 6' tall. On a sloping top tube bike (Many modern road bikes and most gravel bikes), 54 might be a M/L size in some brands.
Without knowing what bike you are talking about, there is no way to correctly answer the question.
Without knowing what bike you are talking about, there is no way to correctly answer the question.
#10
Sophomore Member
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 2,531
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1628 Post(s)
Liked 1,057 Times
in
631 Posts
It's probably worth noting that a lot of pros ride what look like pretty small frames, with great success. World champion Peter Sagan is 6 feet tall also, and his frame can't be much bigger than 54-55 cm. You can't argue with the success he's had.
There are advantages of having a smaller frame underneath you, I think it's referred to as "flick-ability". Good for climbing and sprinting, where you are throwing the bike around a lot. Lighter too, but that's not the main reason.
There's no trick to making a too-small frame fit, just get longer stems and seat posts. I like my frames on the larger side of the range I can ride, but there are lots of advantage of going small, and no reason someone that wants to can't make it work for them.
There are advantages of having a smaller frame underneath you, I think it's referred to as "flick-ability". Good for climbing and sprinting, where you are throwing the bike around a lot. Lighter too, but that's not the main reason.
There's no trick to making a too-small frame fit, just get longer stems and seat posts. I like my frames on the larger side of the range I can ride, but there are lots of advantage of going small, and no reason someone that wants to can't make it work for them.
#11
Advanced Slacker
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 6,210
Bikes: Soma Fog Cutter, Surly Wednesday, Canfielld Tilt
Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2761 Post(s)
Liked 2,534 Times
in
1,433 Posts
I'm six foot but I ride a 56cm frame. Recently I've been thinking about 54cm frames.
Reason is because I feel like I have a short upper body and a long lower body, thus my torso length is more in line with a shorter person and my height is a result of my leg length. When I rode a 58cm frame I always felt like I was reaching too far to get to the handlebars. 56cm does feel a lot better.
Anyways, is it common for the recommendations to be off due to different body types?
Reason is because I feel like I have a short upper body and a long lower body, thus my torso length is more in line with a shorter person and my height is a result of my leg length. When I rode a 58cm frame I always felt like I was reaching too far to get to the handlebars. 56cm does feel a lot better.
Anyways, is it common for the recommendations to be off due to different body types?
If you feel too stretched out and your saddle is in the right position, first look into a shorter stem. Otherwise if you want to new bike look for one with a shorter reach.
As mentioned earlier in this thread, look at the actual frame stack and reach numbers of the bikes, not the stated frame size in cm.
Last edited by Kapusta; 04-27-20 at 12:34 PM.
#12
Newbie
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 3
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I'm 6'0" and use a 54cm frame with a normal 100mm stem. I like to sit way back on my saddle, so I like a short reach, or I feel really stretched out. I feel like superman on a 56. The ridiculous looking saddle to handle drop is offset by the shorter reach allowing the arms to be more underneath the chest, propping the body upward into a less aero race position (more comfortable). Sitting back activates the glute muscles and takes pressure off the hands.
#14
WALSTIB
You've got some sweet rides. By your bike list looks like no room for a car in a 2 car garage
#15
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 39,212
Mentioned: 211 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18397 Post(s)
Liked 15,486 Times
in
7,316 Posts
Go custom or go home.
#16
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: location location
Posts: 3,035
Bikes: MBK Super Mirage 1991, CAAD10, Yuba Mundo Lux, and a Cannondale Criterium Single Speed
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 344 Post(s)
Liked 297 Times
in
207 Posts
It's probably worth noting that a lot of pros ride what look like pretty small frames, with great success. World champion Peter Sagan is 6 feet tall also, and his frame can't be much bigger than 54-55 cm. You can't argue with the success he's had.
There are advantages of having a smaller frame underneath you, I think it's referred to as "flick-ability". Good for climbing and sprinting, where you are throwing the bike around a lot. Lighter too, but that's not the main reason.
There's no trick to making a too-small frame fit, just get longer stems and seat posts. I like my frames on the larger side of the range I can ride, but there are lots of advantage of going small, and no reason someone that wants to can't make it work for them.
There are advantages of having a smaller frame underneath you, I think it's referred to as "flick-ability". Good for climbing and sprinting, where you are throwing the bike around a lot. Lighter too, but that's not the main reason.
There's no trick to making a too-small frame fit, just get longer stems and seat posts. I like my frames on the larger side of the range I can ride, but there are lots of advantage of going small, and no reason someone that wants to can't make it work for them.
I test rode my CAAD10 in 56 and 54cm sizes. I would normally ride a 55ish. What actually sold me on the 54 was that my thighs were rubbing on the top-tube of the 56.
My steel bikes have more conventional top tube diameters, so I don't have that issue on 55cm sizes.
#17
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
It's probably worth noting that a lot of pros ride what look like pretty small frames, with great success. World champion Peter Sagan is 6 feet tall also, and his frame can't be much bigger than 54-55 cm. You can't argue with the success he's had.
There are advantages of having a smaller frame underneath you, I think it's referred to as "flick-ability". Good for climbing and sprinting, where you are throwing the bike around a lot. Lighter too, but that's not the main reason.
There's no trick to making a too-small frame fit, just get longer stems and seat posts. I like my frames on the larger side of the range I can ride, but there are lots of advantage of going small, and no reason someone that wants to can't make it work for them.
There are advantages of having a smaller frame underneath you, I think it's referred to as "flick-ability". Good for climbing and sprinting, where you are throwing the bike around a lot. Lighter too, but that's not the main reason.
There's no trick to making a too-small frame fit, just get longer stems and seat posts. I like my frames on the larger side of the range I can ride, but there are lots of advantage of going small, and no reason someone that wants to can't make it work for them.
#18
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: location location
Posts: 3,035
Bikes: MBK Super Mirage 1991, CAAD10, Yuba Mundo Lux, and a Cannondale Criterium Single Speed
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 344 Post(s)
Liked 297 Times
in
207 Posts
You can presumably get down below 6.8 kgs with any modern pro-level carbon frameset currently on the market, even in the 60cm size and up. I think it's much more likely that aerodynamics, position on the bike, and handlnig play a much bigger role in the decision.
#19
Veteran, Pacifist
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Seattle area
Posts: 13,325
Bikes: Bikes??? Thought this was social media?!?
Mentioned: 284 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3897 Post(s)
Liked 4,823 Times
in
2,226 Posts
For the riding I do this is a good group, no wallhangers. Most others would want a more diverse collection.
__________________
Vintage, modern, e-road. It is a big cycling universe.
Vintage, modern, e-road. It is a big cycling universe.
#20
Veteran, Pacifist
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Seattle area
Posts: 13,325
Bikes: Bikes??? Thought this was social media?!?
Mentioned: 284 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3897 Post(s)
Liked 4,823 Times
in
2,226 Posts
#21
Senior Member
The picture of Sagan just shows that he has legs that are average for his height. The saddle to bar drop looks normal for a pro rider. There is no large amount of post showing.
#22
On Your Left
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Long Island, New York, USA
Posts: 8,373
Bikes: Trek Emonda SLR, Sram eTap, Zipp 303
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3004 Post(s)
Liked 2,433 Times
in
1,187 Posts
Get a "fit" and pick a frame that works.
I did and the Trek Madone (2011) have the best fit compared to a Specialized or Cannondale.
I'm 5'11" and ride a 56cm.
I did and the Trek Madone (2011) have the best fit compared to a Specialized or Cannondale.
I'm 5'11" and ride a 56cm.