Frame size, new bike fitting, questions

Discuss light weight issues concerning road bikes & parts.
User avatar
silvalis
Posts: 703
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2015 1:02 am
Location: Aus

by silvalis

Not knowing how flexible you are it looks fine for reach. The bigger question is if the front is high enough for you.
Chasse patate

Pulsify
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2019 8:44 am

by Pulsify

silvalis wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 11:20 am
Not knowing how flexible you are it looks fine for reach. The bigger question is if the front is high enough for you.
The stack?

by Weenie


User avatar
silvalis
Posts: 703
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2015 1:02 am
Location: Aus

by silvalis

yes. The only reason you'd switch to the 56 is if you need a higher stack. Reach is all within ballpark and can be adjusted with stem length.
Chasse patate

Pulsify
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2019 8:44 am

by Pulsify

silvalis wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 12:03 pm
yes. The only reason you'd switch to the 56 is if you need a higher stack. Reach is all within ballpark and can be adjusted with stem length.
You make a good point, the reach between the two is only 5mm, whereas the stack has a difference of 22mm. Are there any reasons why one might prefer a shorter or higher stack? I'm relatively new to cycling, so all I can think of is that it would make for an even higher, more relaxed riding position.

User avatar
silvalis
Posts: 703
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2015 1:02 am
Location: Aus

by silvalis

Yep, with a lower front you’ll get better handling, aero, etc.
Higher front, less stress on your back, less weight on your hands (sore hands) if you are leaning on them, etc

It’s really up to your physiology - flexibility, core strength and also your cycling goals. No point slamming it if you enjoy tapping out 200km days. If you aren’t planning to lower the bars you might be better off on the 56. Less spacers looks better.

As a side note - and I realise you are leaning on the wall a bit - but your saddle is too high. Which also might dictate whether or not you can fit a 56 on bikes with a long seat tube (eg a caad)
Chasse patate

Pulsify
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2019 8:44 am

by Pulsify

silvalis wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 11:15 pm
Yep, with a lower front you’ll get better handling, aero, etc.
Higher front, less stress on your back, less weight on your hands (sore hands) if you are leaning on them, etc

It’s really up to your physiology - flexibility, core strength and also your cycling goals. No point slamming it if you enjoy tapping out 200km days. If you aren’t planning to lower the bars you might be better off on the 56. Less spacers looks better.

As a side note - and I realise you are leaning on the wall a bit - but your saddle is too high. Which also might dictate whether or not you can fit a 56 on bikes with a long seat tube (eg a caad)
Does a medium/56 size bike have less spacers? Thanks for the information this far. One concern I have is that the top tube is 10mm longer on a medium, along with the default stem being 10mm longer.

When off my bike, the saddle is very even with the handlebars. Maybe it's the lighting/all black.

User avatar
silvalis
Posts: 703
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2015 1:02 am
Location: Aus

by silvalis

Look at the stack and reach rather than the ETT.. it’s really only 4mm longer + 10mm from the stem. Ideally for a road bike position you would keep the saddle position the same and you would need to push the saddle forward on the medium.

Spacers on the medium would be more or less the same (40-50mm). Running the same stem (100mm) on the medium is dependent on if you feel too stretched out with the longer stem

You’ve probably got 40 or 50mm of spacers on right now. 25mm would look better :)

In any case. Have you gone on any long rides on it yet? If your back is fine and it feels too upright, you could try removing a spacer.
Chasse patate

Pulsify
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2019 8:44 am

by Pulsify

silvalis wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 2:57 am
Look at the stack and reach rather than the ETT.. it’s really only 4mm longer + 10mm from the stem. Ideally for a road bike position you would keep the saddle position the same and you would need to push the saddle forward on the medium.

Spacers on the medium would be more or less the same (40-50mm). Running the same stem (100mm) on the medium is dependent on if you feel too stretched out with the longer stem

You’ve probably got 40 or 50mm of spacers on right now. 25mm would look better :)

In any case. Have you gone on any long rides on it yet? If your back is fine and it feels too upright, you could try removing a spacer.
I haven't gone on any long rides yet, just a few short ones. I don't want to put on too much wear because it has to be in virtually new condition should I get it replaced.

Comfortability is my number 1 priority. A super racey position I'm not so concerned with. Talking to you and some others, I'm now 50/50 toward asking to get this exchanged for a size up. So far here are some thoughts:

Disclaimer: I haven't been on a bike for 6 months, and have only been riding for 1 year, so it's a little hard to know what to look for but I do have a general sense.

The good: I feel like the reach is perfect. I don't feel scrunched up top. The distance between the saddle and bottom bracket feel good, as well. In my pictures it looks like the seat post is long as hell, but I think that is largely due to where the top tube meets the seat tube (strongly angled downward toward seat tube) -- it looks just like the picture Canyon advertises on their website. On the seat post, i'm at the 9.5cm hashmark, whereas the recommended max is 13cm. Also, I can stand over the top tube with a 1-2 inches of space to my crotch.

The bad: I feel like my body is 'low' to the ground when riding -- it kind of feels like my whole body should be higher off the ground than it is. I also feel my torso is a little far forward, and when out of the saddle my body weight seems to be fall ahead of the bars. Lastly, when at a stop light, I can just barely reach the tips of my toes to the ground (not a big deal). Minor toe overlap, but haven't felt it yet during a ride yet.

User avatar
silvalis
Posts: 703
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2015 1:02 am
Location: Aus

by silvalis

I’d just stick with this one then. On roadies it’s easier to lengthen a bike than to shorten it.

My comment about the saddle too high is because your knee is nearly locked. If you feel it’s ok, that’s fine.

In regards to weight forward, you don’t look particularly forward on the bike. And “low to the ground”, not sure about that. What were you riding before hand?
Chasse patate

Pulsify
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2019 8:44 am

by Pulsify

silvalis wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 11:15 pm
Yep, with a lower front you’ll get better handling, aero, etc.
Higher front, less stress on your back, less weight on your hands (sore hands) if you are leaning on them, etc

It’s really up to your physiology - flexibility, core strength and also your cycling goals. No point slamming it if you enjoy tapping out 200km days. If you aren’t planning to lower the bars you might be better off on the 56. Less spacers looks better.

As a side note - and I realise you are leaning on the wall a bit - but your saddle is too high. Which also might dictate whether or not you can fit a 56 on bikes with a long seat tube (eg a caad)
I take it back to what you say here ^, and what others have told me on the bikeforum. I think I'm going to call Canyon monday to initiate a swap for one size up (to medium). My cycling goals are primary recreational, and non competitive. I want to do longer rides, and occassional centuries. My last bike was a 56cm Allez, and that fit me pretty well. Specialized and Trek would have me riding a 56cm bike with their recommendations, it's only Canyon where they put me in between their 54 and 56cm. I think in the long run I'll appreciate a taller head tube and more stack. The next size up only adds 10mm to the top tube and 3mm added reach - that's really nothing. It's the stack, as you mention, that increases the most. A $1700 bike is no drop in the bucket for me so I really want to make sure I do this right. I should be back in a week or two with a new bike fit pic - ha.

Worst case scenario, I could hypothetically make a size medium mimic a size small. The stack difference between the two is 22mm, and the size medium has 25mm of spacers that I could remove. The reach difference is only 4mm and the medium has a 10mm longer top tube, which I could make up for with a shorter stem (say a 80/90mm). Voila. I won't be getting any smaller than that anyways.

gmehje
Posts: 6
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2019 4:10 pm

by gmehje

Hi
I think I posted this in the wrong place earlier.
Now added my retul fit fit the Cube here:

https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/tr ... 269a74475d

Hi,
Would hugely appreciate some expert advice. Going crazy looking at charts:

Thinking of upgrading from a 2013 Cube Litening 53 to a 2018 De Rosa Pinifarina.
Charts here - would if fit? Looks like there is a top tube (effective) difference - 515mm Cube vs 541mm DeRosa - 26mm.

https://www.bikeshopwrexham.co.uk/...ar ... 20litening
https://www.derosa.it/...5/SK-Pininfarina.pdf

Any help greatly appreciated!

gmehje
Posts: 6
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2019 4:10 pm

by gmehje

Just found this. Anyone know if it’s accurate.? Looks like at 5ft 7 I’m a 52 De Rosa Pininfarina SK?
https://www.chainreactioncycles.com/mob ... prod171215

User avatar
silvalis
Posts: 703
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2015 1:02 am
Location: Aus

by silvalis

Pulsify wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 12:52 pm


I take it back to what you say here ^, and what others have told me on the bikeforum. I think I'm going to call Canyon monday to initiate a swap for one size up (to medium). My cycling goals are primary recreational, and non competitive. I want to do longer rides, and occassional centuries. My last bike was a 56cm Allez, and that fit me pretty well. Specialized and Trek would have me riding a 56cm bike with their recommendations, it's only Canyon where they put me in between their 54 and 56cm. I think in the long run I'll appreciate a taller head tube and more stack. The next size up only adds 10mm to the top tube and 3mm added reach - that's really nothing. It's the stack, as you mention, that increases the most. A $1700 bike is no drop in the bucket for me so I really want to make sure I do this right. I should be back in a week or two with a new bike fit pic - ha.

Worst case scenario, I could hypothetically make a size medium mimic a size small. The stack difference between the two is 22mm, and the size medium has 25mm of spacers that I could remove. The reach difference is only 4mm and the medium has a 10mm longer top tube, which I could make up for with a shorter stem (say a 80/90mm). Voila. I won't be getting any smaller than that anyways.
:thumbup:
If it feels too stretched out just go a 10mm shorter stem (100mm?). Will not really change handling and at this point you probably wouldn't notice 4mm difference in reach. There are gloves that would almost do that. . Going 20 or 30mm shorter will probably quicken it up fairly noticibly.
Chasse patate

User avatar
silvalis
Posts: 703
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2015 1:02 am
Location: Aus

by silvalis

gmehje wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 5:22 pm
Just found this. Anyone know if it’s accurate.? Looks like at 5ft 7 I’m a 52 De Rosa Pininfarina SK?
https://www.chainreactioncycles.com/mob ... prod171215
You may have issues getting your saddle far enough forward on the 52.
Chasse patate

gmehje
Posts: 6
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2019 4:10 pm

by gmehje

Thank you Silvalis - good point.

by Weenie


Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post