Rose Bikes reach too big? Size advice
#1
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Rose Bikes reach too big? Size advice
Hi guys, I'm a lady looking to buy the Rose X-lite Six. However, the reach is huge (380 mm) compared to my Bianchi of 366 mm. Bianchi is a hair big for me (though super comfy on long rides). I'm hoping to get into crits next season, would sizing up with the Rose be a problem? Is there a way to reduce reach by 15 mm? The size smaller Rose is simply too small.
I'm 5'6" (168 cm), 32" (81 cm) inseam, and equal wing span as height.
Bianchi 51: Reach 366 mm, stack 548 mm, ETT 535 mm
Rose 53: Reach 380 mm, stack 538 mm, ETT 535 mm
Thank you so much!
I'm 5'6" (168 cm), 32" (81 cm) inseam, and equal wing span as height.
Bianchi 51: Reach 366 mm, stack 548 mm, ETT 535 mm
Rose 53: Reach 380 mm, stack 538 mm, ETT 535 mm
Thank you so much!
#2
Senior Member
Yes...going with the Rose in a 53 would be a huge problem. The 50 would be much better suited for you, and I don't think it's too small for you.
The problem is you are comparing an endurance bike (your Bianchi) to a race bike (Rose), so you'll be unable to get similar geometry...you match the reach, and the stack will be too low. Match the stack, and the reach will be too long.
So, if you feel that the Rose in a 50 is too small, then you need to look into other brands that have slightly less aggressive geometry (Cervelo R3 is a good example), or stick to endurance bikes.
The problem is you are comparing an endurance bike (your Bianchi) to a race bike (Rose), so you'll be unable to get similar geometry...you match the reach, and the stack will be too low. Match the stack, and the reach will be too long.
So, if you feel that the Rose in a 50 is too small, then you need to look into other brands that have slightly less aggressive geometry (Cervelo R3 is a good example), or stick to endurance bikes.
Likes For melikebikey35:
#3
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Yes...going with the Rose in a 53 would be a huge problem. The 50 would be much better suited for you, and I don't think it's too small for you.
The problem is you are comparing an endurance bike (your Bianchi) to a race bike (Rose), so you'll be unable to get similar geometry...you match the reach, and the stack will be too low. Match the stack, and the reach will be too long.
So, if you feel that the Rose in a 50 is too small, then you need to look into other brands that have slightly less aggressive geometry (Cervelo R3 is a good example), or stick to endurance bikes.
The problem is you are comparing an endurance bike (your Bianchi) to a race bike (Rose), so you'll be unable to get similar geometry...you match the reach, and the stack will be too low. Match the stack, and the reach will be too long.
So, if you feel that the Rose in a 50 is too small, then you need to look into other brands that have slightly less aggressive geometry (Cervelo R3 is a good example), or stick to endurance bikes.
So no way to make it fit for me?
#4
Senior Member
Thank you so much for giving your time on this and even checking sizing! The 50 cm I ruled out as Marta Swiatlon races on it at 158 cm height.... I think you are right, I should look at other brands, but I fell in love with the Aurora finish. Plus can’t beat the price for di2 :-)
So no way to make it fit for me?
So no way to make it fit for me?
Ultimately, it comes down to your flexibility/strength and desired position. If you are looking at closely replicated your current position, then you'll struggle with the 53 (and possibly on the 50, even). If you feel like you need to go longer/lower, then maybe the 53 could work. I will say, I am 175cm, prefer a very aggressive position, and a 380mm reach with a 100mm stem is all that I can handle. So, I do think that a 380 reach would be pushing it for you.
What is your current saddle height, stem length, reach of the handlebars, and amount of spacers under your stem?
Then, when you say that your current bike is slightly too big, what are you referring to...reach, stack, or both?
#5
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Thank you again for such valuable information! I definitely don't like to feel crammed in on the bike. I prefer a relaxed geometry and as a first seasoner, my core is pretty weak. (On the contrary, I had my Bianchi with no spacers before and felt great, but the bike fitter told me to raise it). It's pretty late in Denmark to measure the bike, but perhaps for now my Strava photos will suffice. The Strava link is listed on my profile with riding pictures :-) I would be happy to get back to you tomorrow if you still have some time on this.
Edit: I have a 100 mm stem and 80 mm reach handlebars.
Edit: I have a 100 mm stem and 80 mm reach handlebars.
Last edited by rekagy; 09-12-19 at 04:24 PM.
Likes For Chi_Z:
#7
Senior Member
Thank you again for such valuable information! I definitely don't like to feel crammed in on the bike. I prefer a relaxed geometry and as a first seasoner, my core is pretty weak. (On the contrary, I had my Bianchi with no spacers before and felt great, but the bike fitter told me to raise it). It's pretty late in Denmark to measure the bike, but perhaps for now my Strava photos will suffice. The Strava link is listed on my profile with riding pictures :-) I would be happy to get back to you tomorrow if you still have some time on this.
Edit: I have a 100 mm stem and 80 mm reach handlebars.
Edit: I have a 100 mm stem and 80 mm reach handlebars.
With that said, I do believe that there is a "breaking-point" where once you go low enough, it allows your upper body to "fall" into place, and become more relaxed than a setup with a higher stack...if that makes any sense? Me for example, am much more relaxed/comfortable on a slammed race bike than I am on an endurance bike.
If you are seriously considering going with a race bike, I suggest removing all the spacers from your current bike, and put on a 110mm stem (try to find a cheap used one), then ride it for a week.
If you like it, then you know you can handle race geometry. If not, then you just saved yourself A LOT of money lol.
Likes For melikebikey35:
#8
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Fantastic idea thank you! Otherwise I will patiently wait till the 2020 Canyon Endurace, which should fit me much better. Also nice bike! I felt right at home on a Cervelo R5 51cm, but the di2 disc is a bit too expensive for me at the moment. Thank you again for all the information, it really cleared my head. :-)
#9
Senior Member
Fantastic idea thank you! Otherwise I will patiently wait till the 2020 Canyon Endurace, which should fit me much better. Also nice bike! I felt right at home on a Cervelo R5 51cm, but the di2 disc is a bit too expensive for me at the moment. Thank you again for all the information, it really cleared my head. :-)
The R5 was the bike I was hoping for, but yah, the di2 disc is just way too expensive. So I went with the R3 (in a 54). I'm really happy with it, and I don't think you'd be disappointed with it either, if you decide to go the Cervelo route. Canyon's are another great bike (and a great value), so it just comes down to which style of bike you prefer!
#10
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Update for anybody looking for ROSE:
I got a Canyon Ultimate WMN XS, and completely in love with it. Perfect with for me and way more comfortable than my endurance Bianchi.
:-)
The Rose 53 would have been way to big for me.
I got a Canyon Ultimate WMN XS, and completely in love with it. Perfect with for me and way more comfortable than my endurance Bianchi.
:-)
The Rose 53 would have been way to big for me.
Likes For rekagy:
#11
Newbie
Join Date: Jan 2020
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
The 50 is the smallest size that Rose offers, so I suspect that is the reason that she rides it, as opposed to it being her choice...I did a quick google search, and based on the photos (very little seatpost exposed, and a short, -17 stem) , she could definitely go with a smaller frame. Rose does offer fantastic bikes at a great price, so I so understand why you are eyeing one!
Ultimately, it comes down to your flexibility/strength and desired position. If you are looking at closely replicated your current position, then you'll struggle with the 53 (and possibly on the 50, even). If you feel like you need to go longer/lower, then maybe the 53 could work. I will say, I am 175cm, prefer a very aggressive position, and a 380mm reach with a 100mm stem is all that I can handle. So, I do think that a 380 reach would be pushing it for you.
What is your current saddle height, stem length, reach of the handlebars, and amount of spacers under your stem?
Then, when you say that your current bike is slightly too big, what are you referring to...reach, stack, or both?
Ultimately, it comes down to your flexibility/strength and desired position. If you are looking at closely replicated your current position, then you'll struggle with the 53 (and possibly on the 50, even). If you feel like you need to go longer/lower, then maybe the 53 could work. I will say, I am 175cm, prefer a very aggressive position, and a 380mm reach with a 100mm stem is all that I can handle. So, I do think that a 380 reach would be pushing it for you.
What is your current saddle height, stem length, reach of the handlebars, and amount of spacers under your stem?
Then, when you say that your current bike is slightly too big, what are you referring to...reach, stack, or both?
hi,
Thank you so much for your valuable input.
I'm the same height/inseam as the op, female as well, also lurking at the rose x-lite and struggling with the size.
After reading your posts, I did my research and found out that as far as my lower back is concerned, I'm much better on a smaller frame.
I rode a bike with a geometry similar to the rose size 53 for two years and it lead to debilitating lower back pain. Actually, you're spot on when you say that at some point we "fall into place".
The problem in my/our (op) case, is that the x-lite in size 53 has a stack too high. It means, that even with the stem slammed, it is not possible to achieve enough saddle to bar drop. Which means not enough pelvis tilt, a more backward position and more weight on the lower back. That is probably not an issue for younger people and/or recreational riders, but when we push hard, that leads to too much strain on the back. I believe men are less subjective to this problem, as they naturally have less lumbar curve and probably can handle an upright pelvis more easily. But for women, that could lead to problems.
To get more drop, we would need to use a stem with negative angle, exactly as the athlete mentioned earlier did. But the stem would need to be shorten as well, meaning in our case a 80mm stem maybe. Overall, with the relatively long reach, the position would be too stretch and I think you are right that trying to make the size 53 fit is almost impossible in our case.
The size 50, on the other side, fits perfectly for my case. But I shall put a foreword here, in case anyone find herself/himself in the same situation. With our respective height of 168 (5'6''), the rose xlite size 50 falls into the sporty/aggressive position category. And just like you with the size 53, it is all I can handle on size 50.
My conclusion, in case of the rose xlite, for female struggling in between sizes as we do, the geometry just doesn't fit. Either we go for a endurance position on the larger frame, or a very aggressive one on the smaller one. I think the op choice (canyon wmn ultimate) is the way to go.
Thanks for reading and your contribution!
Last edited by nidrig; 01-12-20 at 10:42 AM.
#12
Hi guys, I'm a lady looking to buy the Rose X-lite Six. However, the reach is huge (380 mm) compared to my Bianchi of 366 mm. Bianchi is a hair big for me (though super comfy on long rides). I'm hoping to get into crits next season, would sizing up with the Rose be a problem? Is there a way to reduce reach by 15 mm? The size smaller Rose is simply too small.
I'm 5'6" (168 cm), 32" (81 cm) inseam, and equal wing span as height.
Bianchi 51: Reach 366 mm, stack 548 mm, ETT 535 mm
Rose 53: Reach 380 mm, stack 538 mm, ETT 535 mm
Thank you so much!
I'm 5'6" (168 cm), 32" (81 cm) inseam, and equal wing span as height.
Bianchi 51: Reach 366 mm, stack 548 mm, ETT 535 mm
Rose 53: Reach 380 mm, stack 538 mm, ETT 535 mm
Thank you so much!
Flame away if you must :-)
#14
Senior Member
To properly compare these frames, the reach should be compared at the SAME stack height on both frames. The Rose has a shorter stack, so at the minimum the reach should be reduced by 3mm to account for adding an additional 10mm in spacer to match the stack of the other bike. That would make the reach 377, compared to 366, so it would require one size shorter stem, to fit the same.
The seat tube angle does come into play, but only to identify what change might be required to place the saddle in the same position, relative to the BB. The rose must have little more slack STA, so the saddle would be pushed forward by a small amount to get the same saddle nose to center of bars length. That might require a seat post with a different setback.
My other observation is the frame size selection has been made, mostly based on stack height and not reach. I'm the same height with slightly more inseam and a 73cm saddle height. I'd pick the smaller 50cm size. The issue is probably saddle to bar drop. If the saddle is placed too far forward, there will be too much weight on the hands and the wrong solution is usually raising the bars up higher to fix the problem.
The OP may want to consider an endurance frame to get more stack height.
Likes For DaveSSS:
#15
Senior Member
The Rose Team GF six has the taller stack height that might be more appropriate. They call these marathon frames, rather than endurance.
https://www.rosebikes.ie/rose-team-g...icle_size=50cm
https://www.rosebikes.ie/rose-team-g...icle_size=50cm
#16
No flames, but you are incorrect. Reach and stack make it much easier to compare two frames, but there are a few tricks to making a proper comparison. With reach, there is no need for a TT length to be considered.
To properly compare these frames, the reach should be compared at the SAME stack height on both frames. The Rose has a shorter stack, so at the minimum the reach should be reduced by 3mm to account for adding an additional 10mm in spacer to match the stack of the other bike. That would make the reach 377, compared to 366, so it would require one size shorter stem, to fit the same.
The seat tube angle does come into play, but only to identify what change might be required to place the saddle in the same position, relative to the BB. The rose must have little more slack STA, so the saddle would be pushed forward by a small amount to get the same saddle nose to center of bars length. That might require a seat post with a different setback.
My other observation is the frame size selection has been made, mostly based on stack height and not reach. I'm the same height with slightly more inseam and a 73cm saddle height. I'd pick the smaller 50cm size. The issue is probably saddle to bar drop. If the saddle is placed too far forward, there will be too much weight on the hands and the wrong solution is usually raising the bars up higher to fix the problem.
The OP may want to consider an endurance frame to get more stack height.
To properly compare these frames, the reach should be compared at the SAME stack height on both frames. The Rose has a shorter stack, so at the minimum the reach should be reduced by 3mm to account for adding an additional 10mm in spacer to match the stack of the other bike. That would make the reach 377, compared to 366, so it would require one size shorter stem, to fit the same.
The seat tube angle does come into play, but only to identify what change might be required to place the saddle in the same position, relative to the BB. The rose must have little more slack STA, so the saddle would be pushed forward by a small amount to get the same saddle nose to center of bars length. That might require a seat post with a different setback.
My other observation is the frame size selection has been made, mostly based on stack height and not reach. I'm the same height with slightly more inseam and a 73cm saddle height. I'd pick the smaller 50cm size. The issue is probably saddle to bar drop. If the saddle is placed too far forward, there will be too much weight on the hands and the wrong solution is usually raising the bars up higher to fix the problem.
The OP may want to consider an endurance frame to get more stack height.
Good luck forever chasing your tail :-)
#17
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 6,502
Bikes: Colnago, Van Dessel, Factor, Cervelo, Ritchey
Liked 8,313 Times
in
3,301 Posts
Why do you insist on injecting reality into the discussion?
#18
Im wasnt insisting :-) From experience i know this is highly controversial and ppl will argue til the cows come home that all you need is reach and stack, completely ignoring R and S does not predict actual distance between the contact points.
#19
Senior Member
The reality is that reach and stack do predict bike fit, but the values are often misused. The reach of two frames can only be compared at the same stack height. You can't just compare the reach, without the proper correction for stack height difference.
That STA is certainly relevant. If there's a lot of difference, use 1 or 1.2cm per degree to figure out how much more or less that the saddle must be moved.
I have two frames - one with a 74 STA and one with a 74.5 STA. I have the same seatpost on both bikes, but the saddle is moved further back with the steeper STA, to place the saddle in the same position relative to the BB. Sometimes you can't get a perfect match with reach, since stems only come in 10mm increments. I opted for a 10mm shorter stem on one bike, with saddle a bit further back, to get the same reach.
That STA is certainly relevant. If there's a lot of difference, use 1 or 1.2cm per degree to figure out how much more or less that the saddle must be moved.
I have two frames - one with a 74 STA and one with a 74.5 STA. I have the same seatpost on both bikes, but the saddle is moved further back with the steeper STA, to place the saddle in the same position relative to the BB. Sometimes you can't get a perfect match with reach, since stems only come in 10mm increments. I opted for a 10mm shorter stem on one bike, with saddle a bit further back, to get the same reach.
Last edited by DaveSSS; 01-13-20 at 09:35 AM.
#20
serious cyclist
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Austin
Posts: 21,147
Bikes: S1, R2, P2
Liked 3,685 Times
in
2,028 Posts
https://www.slowtwitch.com/Bike_Fit/...er_One_95.html
https://www.slowtwitch.com/Bike_Fit/...er_Two_96.html
https://www.slowtwitch.com/Bike_Fit/..._Three_97.html
Yes, of course, that's Slowtwitch and thus focused on triathlon bikes. Those articles are the genesis of stack and reach frame measurements, and they explain the reasoning behind it. Specifically, they are strictly for comparing bare frame to bare frame; your concerns about "stem length, seat post set back and bar reach" are valid for fitting and comparing full bikes, buy have zero effect on the frames' stack and reach measurements. Top tube length is important, but is one of a few factors that contribute to reach. Once you take the (effective) top tube length and account for seat tube angle, you get the frame's reach. Of course, you can slide the seat forward or back, or use an offset or straight seatpost, but that's true on all frames, and stack and reach compare how the frames fit before you install the seatpost, saddle, spacers, stem, bars, and hoods.
Stack and reach are the distillation of the frame's (and only the frame's) geometry that contribute to fit, including top tube. seat tube angle, bottom bracket drop, head tube angle, head tube length, and so on. They don't tell you how the final build will fit; that depends on a number of other factors, including those you pointed out. They don't tell you how the bike will handle, either. They do give you the easiest and clearest system for determining whether a 56 in one brand fits more like the 55 or 57 in another brand, which is what they were intended for. You don't have to use them, you don't have to like them, but pretending they don't work is like pretending trigonometry doesn't work.
Likes For Bah Humbug:
#21
Senior Member
I have two frames - one with a 74 STA and one with a 74.5 STA. I have the same seatpost on both bikes, but the saddle is moved further back with the steeper STA, to place the saddle in the same position relative to the BB. Sometimes you can't get a perfect match with reach, since stems only come in 10mm increments. I opted for a 10mm shorter stem on one bike, with saddle a bit further back, to get the same reach.
#22
Senior Member
105 is not that common, at least in high end, but not carbon stems. I use a -17.
https://www.zipp.com/stems/service-course-sl-stem/
https://www.zipp.com/stems/service-course-sl-stem/
#23
Senior Member
105 is not that common, at least in high end, but not carbon stems. I use a -17.
https://www.zipp.com/stems/service-course-sl-stem/
https://www.zipp.com/stems/service-course-sl-stem/
#24
No flame, but someone clearly misled you about stack and reach and your reaction is understandable given that misinformation. Let's start here:
https://www.slowtwitch.com/Bike_Fit/...er_One_95.html
https://www.slowtwitch.com/Bike_Fit/...er_Two_96.html
https://www.slowtwitch.com/Bike_Fit/..._Three_97.html
Yes, of course, that's Slowtwitch and thus focused on triathlon bikes. Those articles are the genesis of stack and reach frame measurements, and they explain the reasoning behind it. Specifically, they are strictly for comparing bare frame to bare frame; your concerns about "stem length, seat post set back and bar reach" are valid for fitting and comparing full bikes, buy have zero effect on the frames' stack and reach measurements. Top tube length is important, but is one of a few factors that contribute to reach. Once you take the (effective) top tube length and account for seat tube angle, you get the frame's reach. Of course, you can slide the seat forward or back, or use an offset or straight seatpost, but that's true on all frames, and stack and reach compare how the frames fit before you install the seatpost, saddle, spacers, stem, bars, and hoods.
Stack and reach are the distillation of the frame's (and only the frame's) geometry that contribute to fit, including top tube. seat tube angle, bottom bracket drop, head tube angle, head tube length, and so on. They don't tell you how the final build will fit; that depends on a number of other factors, including those you pointed out. They don't tell you how the bike will handle, either. They do give you the easiest and clearest system for determining whether a 56 in one brand fits more like the 55 or 57 in another brand, which is what they were intended for. You don't have to use them, you don't have to like them, but pretending they don't work is like pretending trigonometry doesn't work.
https://www.slowtwitch.com/Bike_Fit/...er_One_95.html
https://www.slowtwitch.com/Bike_Fit/...er_Two_96.html
https://www.slowtwitch.com/Bike_Fit/..._Three_97.html
Yes, of course, that's Slowtwitch and thus focused on triathlon bikes. Those articles are the genesis of stack and reach frame measurements, and they explain the reasoning behind it. Specifically, they are strictly for comparing bare frame to bare frame; your concerns about "stem length, seat post set back and bar reach" are valid for fitting and comparing full bikes, buy have zero effect on the frames' stack and reach measurements. Top tube length is important, but is one of a few factors that contribute to reach. Once you take the (effective) top tube length and account for seat tube angle, you get the frame's reach. Of course, you can slide the seat forward or back, or use an offset or straight seatpost, but that's true on all frames, and stack and reach compare how the frames fit before you install the seatpost, saddle, spacers, stem, bars, and hoods.
Stack and reach are the distillation of the frame's (and only the frame's) geometry that contribute to fit, including top tube. seat tube angle, bottom bracket drop, head tube angle, head tube length, and so on. They don't tell you how the final build will fit; that depends on a number of other factors, including those you pointed out. They don't tell you how the bike will handle, either. They do give you the easiest and clearest system for determining whether a 56 in one brand fits more like the 55 or 57 in another brand, which is what they were intended for. You don't have to use them, you don't have to like them, but pretending they don't work is like pretending trigonometry doesn't work.
Arguing otherwise is nonsense AND misleading, imo.