Frame size, new bike fitting, questions

[Antoine]

53 for sure, 55 would be too big for you
I'm a little bit taller (177 cm / 84 inseam and long arms) and ride a Cannondale 54

[catbill]

I am 179cm with an inseam of 84cm. I ride a 54 or 55cm top tube (flat).

[drewb]

My girlfriend did not get on with the FM066 that I put together for her (too twitchy and it got the wobbles once on a fast and windy descent- putting her off for life, (not that I blame her).

So I am left with a 53cm frame - only a few months old and not really worth too much on the open market. So....I thought I would make a cheap, light, fixie out of it, for fun and to go to the shops etc.

I can work out most of the parts, their weights etc etc, but I just don't know about the fit.

I normally ride a 61cm frame, I am 6'4" (193cm). I can get the saddle height right. Setback is also OK (I am just going to the shops remember). Stack is OK with an uncut steerer tube. My question is with the reach.

Will I be able to make the frame work with Reach (and if I do, will it steer like such a pig it would not be worth it?) Centre of the seatpost to the centre of the steerer column measures 3cm shorter on the FM than it does on my bike. I ride with a 110cm stem. Simple answer would be for me to put a 140mm stem on the FM right? But this is a flat bar bike....and I have no idea how the reach on a flat bar applies practically to a flat bar bike. Will I be OK with this?

I could also put a set of Bullhorn bars on (or the base of some old aero bars I have.) this would allow me to stretch out a bit more if needed - and use brakes of the old TT bars.

I figure this bike will be silly light - partial build list below:

Using parts I mostly have lying around (mostly worn out) I could build the thing to be about 5.4kg

BUT I won't do it if I can't make it passably fit me and if it will ride poorly. I will need it to handle on my commute to the shops etc. with traffic. Any knowledge is appreciated. Thanks

[Foxtrot]

Did you find a lightweight rear wheel hub ?

[Colonia]

what is your inseam ?

Thanks,

It's 87 cm

in the old days (before retul and all that), that would have meant a saddle height of 87 * 0.885 = 77 cm

no wonder things felt better when you lowered the saddle by 3 cm from 82

In the old days his saddle height would have been about 72-74 using the CONI method (which is still valid). The Guimard formula (.885) quoted above was considered extreme and results in about 3 cm of heel rise from parallel at the bottom of the stroke. If one pedals with a flat heel, even this formula is far too high.

The quoted 82cm saddle height is laughable and shows up these modern fit systems for snake oil. I wonder how the poster even reached the pedals.

[Jaroslaw]

Hello,

That's my first post here though I have been a reader for quite a while now.
For all of my cycling "career" I have been riding MTB, but I am considering getting a road bike thus wanted to ask you for some suggestions.

First of all - I am 188cm and 67kg (long legs, short torso) and the bike would primarily be used on even asphalt roads.
I want the bike to be moderately light and even though I can't say "money is no issue here" if justified, I could stretch my budget a bit.
It would be my first road build so I was thinking some reliable parts with a touch of boutique here and there.
I reckon I would go with Dura Ace, not sure if mechanical or Di2 - the price difference isn't that big considering total bike cost.
One thing that caught my eye is the difference between brakes 9010 and 9000, the first cost more or less twice as much - is it worth going for 9010?
Also thinking about Stages power meter - I have been reading and I think it might be a good option for the first power meter owned and honestly, I don't like SRM aesthetics.

So, if you could have a look at the below table and let me know your thoughts that would be great - feel free to criticize and offer hints and suggestions how to improve the build.
As for saddle, I find this model really compatible with my rear, so I wouldn't want to change that and for pedals, I have been using Time for my MTB bikes for close to 18 years and I really like them.
I have found some weight data, I think they are generally reliable.
As for the frame I have a couple of "alternative models" on my list, namely:

Bianchi Oltre XR
BMC SLR01
Cipollini RB800
De Rosa King Action RS
Storck Fascenario 0.7

Part Weight Make Alternatives
Frame 1230 Storck Aernario frame/ fork
Wheels 960 AX Ligtness Premium Road 42 Ax Lightness Premium Road 24
Stem 118 Syntace F 109
Bar 145 Schmolke Oversize-Compact TLO Syntace RACELITE2 31.8 CARBON
Seatpost 91 Schmolke Seatpost TLO 321-450mm Syntace P6 Carbon Hiflex
Saddle 209 Fizik Arione VS Braided
Tubes 100 Race 28 (700C) Supersonic
Pedals 155 XPRESSO 12 TITAN CARBON XPRESSO 8 CARBON
Chain 240 Dura Ace
Brakes 307 Dura-Ace Br-9010 Dura-Ace BR-9000
Shifters 365 Dura-Ace ST-9001 11s
R deralieur 217 Dura-Ace Di2 Rd-9070 Dura-Ace RD-9000 11s
F deralieur 114 Dura-Ace Di2 Fd-9070 Dura-Ace FD-9000
Crank 683 Dura-Ace FC-9000 11s
BB ? Dura-Ace BB-9000
Cassette 166 Dura-Ace CS-9000 HG 11s
Bottle cages 34 Ax Lightness Nasdorowje
Stages power meter 20 Stages Shimano Dura-Ace 9000
Cables ? Nokon Shimano

Thanks a lot for your insight and suggestions.
EDIT: seems like formatting of the above table is not displaying correctly, sorry.
And total build weight of "primary parts" adds up to approx 5.5kg, with "alternatives" it's around 5.9kg but more or less 25% cheaper

Jarek

[catbill]

First, welcome to the world of road bike. There are many road experts here and I am pretty sure that wouldn't include me. But then, what the hell, I am far from busy today and you are actually doing me a favor by taking away my attention from work to leisure. Ah ah

Look to me you are on course to a very high quality road bike. Here is my input for you.
1. Pay more attention to the size and geometry rather than the weight of your bike. If you are fairly new to road, best to avoid too exotic stuff such as the Storck. Leave the best to last! Of all the brands you have mentioned, may be only selected few have the perfect fit for you. Size and ride comfort come first, right?

2. From your initial selection and body geometry, you are more of a climber, right? If bike weight is your big concern, then you may want to consider using mechanical gear and no power meter. I always think that power meter is for sprinter and cadence plus heart rate is for climber. A sprinter wouldn't have time to care if his heart rate hit the red on a sprint. By the time he does, he already would have cross the line! On a hill climb, its how steady your pedal stroke matters and the recovery time that is most essential, right?

3. Other than the Storck which is mainly targeted to lightweight. None of the others are really aim for pure climber. Sorry, the RB800 cannot be considered as light at 970grams. If I am correct, you may want to include Scott and some other light weight frames in your selection process.

[LionelB]

Fit is very critical on a road bike, before buying expensive stuff make sure your position is totally dialed in.

[Jaroslaw]

Hi,

First of all, thanks for your replies, I really appreciate that
As for the fitting I am working with local fitting studio who also fitted me on Storck Rebel Nine for MTB.
It's a sweet ride so I might be a little biased towards that brand, but I'm open for others as well.

Thanks once again,

Jarek

[ToffieBoi]

Hello everyone. I have a question

I just sold my old Tarmac frame and now will buy a FM066SL.

I am 183cm talk.

My Tarmac was 56cm, 17cm headtube. I was using it with -17 degree 120mm stem

On my new bike I have two options.
56cm frame with 15.5cm headtube.
54cm frame with 14cm headtube.

My saddle height from BB center to saddle rails is 73cm.

I am worried that on 56cm frame seat post will be too short outside and will look funny.

On 54cm frame, I will need 13cm stem and some spacer under stem. 19cm seat post will be outside. Which can look pro or, too small and look funny too

On 56cm frame I will slam the 12cm stem and seat post will be 17cm outside.
I will have more flexibility to fit the bike, but bigger frame.
It can give less rigid ride, will be heavier.

So I need opinion about frame sizing. I asked HongFu about the size and they said 60cm. No way

What you guys will tell?

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

[Colonia]

Hello everyone. I have a question

I just sold my old Tarmac frame and now will buy a FM066SL.

I am 183cm talk.

My Tarmac was 56cm, 17cm headtube. I was using it with -17 degree 120mm stem

On my new bike I have two options.
56cm frame with 15.5cm headtube.
54cm frame with 14cm headtube.

My saddle height from BB center to saddle rails is 73cm.

I am worried that on 56cm frame seat post will be too short outside and will look funny.

On 54cm frame, I will need 13cm stem and some spacer under stem. 19cm seat post will be outside. Which can look pro or, too small and look funny too

On 56cm frame I will slam the 12cm stem and seat post will be 17cm outside.
I will have more flexibility to fit the bike, but bigger frame.
It can give less rigid ride, will be heavier.

So I need opinion about frame sizing. I asked HongFu about the size and they said 60cm. No way

What you guys will tell?

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

If you are absolutely sure of your saddle height, I'd go for the 56. If you think you might lower it at some point, the 54 is a better bet.

17 cm from the top tube to the top of the saddle is normal for someone your size; 19 would be excessive.

[ToffieBoi]

Hello everyone. I have a question

I just sold my old Tarmac frame and now will buy a FM066SL.

I am 183cm talk.

My Tarmac was 56cm, 17cm headtube. I was using it with -17 degree 120mm stem

On my new bike I have two options.
56cm frame with 15.5cm headtube.
54cm frame with 14cm headtube.

My saddle height from BB center to saddle rails is 73cm.

I am worried that on 56cm frame seat post will be too short outside and will look funny.

On 54cm frame, I will need 13cm stem and some spacer under stem. 19cm seat post will be outside. Which can look pro or, too small and look funny too

On 56cm frame I will slam the 12cm stem and seat post will be 17cm outside.
I will have more flexibility to fit the bike, but bigger frame.
It can give less rigid ride, will be heavier.

So I need opinion about frame sizing. I asked HongFu about the size and they said 60cm. No way

What you guys will tell?

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

If you are absolutely sure of your saddle height, I'd go for the 56. If you think you might lower it at some point, the 54 is a better bet.

17 cm from the top tube to the top of the saddle is normal for someone your size; 19 would be excessive.

For sure I will not go lower. Can be higher a cm more but lower is not good for me.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

[mrfish]

I ride a 73cm seat height. I guess it depends if you want to look more like Jacques Anquetil (no seatpost) or SuperMario (lots).

Traditionally though, the perfect frame size put a Campagnolo fluted seatpost close to its max marker. With a 73cm saddle height that gives a 54cm frame. [Note that you need some wiggle room as changing your equipment will require some adjustment. For example, moving from Look pedals, Carnac shoes and 165mm cranks to Mavic shoes, Time pedals, Regal saddle, 180s would require something like a 3-4cm change. Also manufacturers measure their frames differently, so watch out for that. Also c-c and c-t varies depending on tube diameter, so be careful]

Some examples based on my view of what perfect looks like:
On a 55cm Colnago C40 (55 c-t / 53 c-c) the seatpost looks good, if perhaps a touch on the short side. The 54cm bike might have been better there, but then I wouldn't have been able to slam the stem.
My 54cm c-c Pinarello (has a 55cm top tube and is more like 56 c-t) looks a bit short in the seatpost. Stand-over is also on the high side and bars are slammed and could go lower. IMHO a smaller size would have been better, but at the time I rode a very stretched position and wanted the longer top tube.
My Medium Parlee Z5 looks fine, standover is fine, reach and height is fine.

Conclusion: Buy something that fits to ride and worry later about exactly what it looks like.

[Colonia]

I ride a 73cm seat height. I guess it depends if you want to look more like Jacques Anquetil (no seatpost) or SuperMario (lots).

Traditionally though, the perfect frame size put a Campagnolo fluted seatpost close to its max marker. With a 73cm saddle height that gives a 54cm frame. [Note that you need some wiggle room as changing your equipment will require some adjustment. For example, moving from Look pedals, Carnac shoes and 165mm cranks to Mavic shoes, Time pedals, Regal saddle, 180s would require something like a 3-4cm change. Also manufacturers measure their frames differently, so watch out for that. Also c-c and c-t varies depending on tube diameter, so be careful]

Some examples based on my view of what perfect looks like:
On a 55cm Colnago C40 (55 c-t / 53 c-c) the seatpost looks good, if perhaps a touch on the short side. The 54cm bike might have been better there, but then I wouldn't have been able to slam the stem.
My 54cm c-c Pinarello (has a 55cm top tube and is more like 56 c-t) looks a bit short in the seatpost. Stand-over is also on the high side and bars are slammed and could go lower. IMHO a smaller size would have been better, but at the time I rode a very stretched position and wanted the longer top tube.
My Medium Parlee Z5 looks fine, standover is fine, reach and height is fine.

Conclusion: Buy something that fits to ride and worry later about exactly what it looks like.

It's worth discussing fit schools here I think. I personally ascribe to the Italian school as outlined in CONI, with a few minor adjustments to take into account the change in hood position that has occured over time.

Using CONI, a 73cm saddle height (assuming you pedal with a flat heel, have about 3 cm of pedal/shoe stack and 170mm cranks) corresponds with an 87 cm inseam measure and a 56cm frame C-T, and that gives about 17 cm of saddle and post above a horizontal top tube.

If you use a modern bar where the hoods are nearly flat with the tops, you could size down and stretch to 18cm or maybe 19 to regain a cm or two in drop, but more starts to get silly, as no one (barring really lanky morphologies) needs more than a fist-full of drop (6-9 cm) from bar to saddle top to get aero. Smaller riders can have lower values than all of the above.

Of course, if you follow the Guimard school of thought (which is the source of most fit formulas), and ride with a high saddle and a lot of heel rise (rather than a flat heel), then you need to size your frame up a bit to compensate, or ride with massive drop. Since the Italians practically invented the stage bike, and allow for smaller frames with a more comfortable fit, I stick with CONI.

[n808]

I am having trouble finding frame alternatives to fit my long legs and short torso (inseam 93cm, height 184cm). I need a 58cm (virtual or real C-T) seat tube, to get to 82.1cm BB center to top of seat / lemond method. Also, due to my short torso, I need a shorter toptube, so I don't want to go higher than 58cm.

The problem is I then need a headtube length of 190-210mm to achieve my desired stack height, and I'd like to avoid too many spacers or steep stem angle. Most frame geometries for 58cm sized frames have 175mm or so heat tube.

My current Specialized Allez Pro fits me well, 58cm virtual, 55cm C-T seat tube, 200mm HT. I am looking for a very lightweight carbon frame to replace it. I guess I could find another Specialized carbon frame, but they are somewhat heavy, and I don't like the current curved top tubes either.

I was not planning to spend an arm-and-a-leg. The alternatives I have found are the Felt Z1, at around $2600 for a new frame, and the Cervelo R3 and R5s (used). Any other suggestions (frames, or fit wise)?