Should I go one size smaller? (Advise Needed)

[bryrene]

Hi!
I'm planning to get a new bike (Bowman Palace R) however, the bike size recommended is in between Size 52 and 54. Understand that getting one size smaller will be good as more adjustment to be made. I'm noob in reading bike geometry, Do you think I can fit into size 52? (Better looks with higher seat post)

My height 173cm, inseam 78cm. According to the Bowman website my size is between 52 and 54.

My current bike Storck Fascenario 7 (Size S) http://www.storckworld.com/en/bike-find ... atinum-g1/
Stack: 541
Reach: 388

Bowman Palace R (Size 52) https://bowman-cycles.com/product/palace-r/#geometry
Stack: 530
Reach: 368

Bowman Palace R (Size 54)
Stack: 542
Reach: 375

My bike fit report: https://drive.google.com/file/d/17yT0vV ... sp=sharing

Thank you very much for the advise.
Really do appreciated!

Bryan

[AJS914]

How does the Stork fit? The reach on the smaller Bowman is 20mm less. Can you deal with that? I guess you could if you have a short stem on your Stork.

[TobinHatesYou]

1) You have 5cm in spacers on the rough equivalent of a 54cm Storck.
2) The 52cm Bowman Palace R is significantly shorter and lower.

5cm in spacers is above the recommended limit for a lot of manufacturers.

Go with the 54cm...better yet go with something with an endurance geometry.

[hannawald]

According to Bowman you are 54. This bigger size is also similar to what you currently ride. Easy choice:) You can adjust reach with longer stem on 52, but it will probably be too low, you will have chimney of spacer, it will not look good. go 54..

[rexyi1990]

Size 54 is more suitable for you. If you feel the curreny frame is good fit.

[TobinHatesYou]

I did some shitmath. With the 52cm Bowman, he would need 56mm in spacers and a 120mm -6deg stem. Or he could flip the stem +6deg and use 31mm in spacers.

Even on the 54cm he would need a 110mm -6deg stem and 45mm in spacers.

Get a less aggressive bike.

[DJT21]

Get another bike fit or do some stretching. 38mm of saddle to bar drop means you'll struggle to get a good fit on any road racing bike.

[shimmeD]

Because I have the same inseam of 78cm (different height I'm 164cm) I was curious to have a look at the fit data. My seat height is only 663mm (vs 699mm a whopping 36mm difference) and I'm going 'how do you pedal at that seat height?' And isn't 7deg saddle slope pretty aggro?

[TobinHatesYou]

Because I have the same inseam of 78cm (different height I'm 164cm) I was curious to have a look at the fit data. My seat height is only 663mm (vs 699mm a whopping 36mm difference) and I'm going 'how do you pedal at that seat height?' And isn't 7deg saddle slope pretty aggro?

The Zin wand can report weird saddle angles when the saddle has a curved profile. I don’t think 699mm is too out of the ordinary depending on shoe stack height, pedal stack height, saddle cushioning, setback, etc. I’m like you though, 178cm (5’10”) with deep setback. My saddle height is just 717mm. It’s more aero anyway.

[acroft95]

I'm 173cm and have a 54cm on the way to me right now. I'd also need a lot more spacers on the 52cm and the reach isn't much less. Go for the 54.

[silvalis]

The Zin wand can report weird saddle angles when the saddle has a curved profile. I don’t think 699mm is too out of the ordinary depending on shoe stack height, pedal stack height, saddle cushioning, setback, etc. I’m like you though, 178cm (5’10”) with deep setback. My saddle height is just 717mm. It’s more aero anyway.

Says it's a spesh power though, which isn't very curved at all. OP might really just have it tipped down that far (or at least not as far as suggested). Also making the setback seem a lot further back than what it actually is - see effective seat tube angle which would suggest a more modest setback maybe 20mm less with a 'normal' saddle - so possibly further forward and hence higher than what ShimmD runs?

[dukisha]

I am not pro, ride only for pleasure and recreation.
I would go with 52, as you said because bikes with higher seat post and longer stems look better, and will fit you better for sure!

I am 170cm, 79 inseam, driving 51cm size. I can ride 53cm with shorter stem, no problem, but prefer smaller, better feeling and loooks better.
My friend 173cm isneam 79cm riding older Giant aero model in size M (cc:52, and length:55), I can ride it smooth but it is slightly longer (would need 90mm stem).

And don't use geometry calculators. Just sit on the bike and see how it feels, or go to the professional bike fit to measure you.

And as I can see this bike that you want is race, suppose "R" stands for race, so it should be lower and more aggresive fit. It is not comfort in the beggining if you go with size down, but you will get used to it after couple rides.

[none]

I always feel that bike fitting has to do with how you position yourself in reaction to the ride that you are doing.
Bike fit on a stationary bike can give you a good ballpark, but it will not be similar how you react to road terrain and conditions.
How you react and position your body on the bike when you are climbing, sprinting, out of saddle, tired, recovering, it is likely not going to be the same as anyone else.
That's why I always go on a ride with the person that I'm trying to fit, observe their reaction to the changing conditions of the ride.
Perhaps it's more coaching than fitting; but ultimatly, you want to have clear goals what you are trying to accomplish with the bike fitting.
What are your cycling goals to be completed on the specific bike?