Bike fitting - riding a 52cm frame

A light bike doesn't replace good fitness.

Moderator: Moderator Team

Posts: 143
Joined: Thu Aug 27, 2009 12:40 pm
Location: Bucharest/Romania

by octav

I put a 14 cm stem on the bike(FSA OS115) and I raised by 1 cm the bars and by 1 cm the saddle height.

So Tip of saddle to stem - 56.3 cm
C of front hub to top of bars - 58 cm


Uploaded with

What do you think? I feel much better

by Weenie

Posts: 1105
Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 4:33 am

by 11.4

A few suggestions:

1. Saddle was too low. You've addressed that.
2. Your pedaling action is a bit odd. In Photo 1 you are toe down at about 2 pm. That's usually caused by not engaging your glutes and relying on your soleus muscle to get the pedal stroke going. It's not efficient, not powerful, and ultimately gives you tendon problems. This isn't necessarily a fit problem, but it affects your fit. Do some one-legged squats (no weights, with the other leg completely off the ground and unsupported; no support with your hands either) and you'll probably feel very unstable because your hips aren't engaged. And when you're in this situation, you tend to ride farther back because you want to use your quads for all your leg power, which in turn causes you to lose flexibility in your legs and alter the quality of your fit.
3. You're riding typically with almost locked elbows. I actually think you're a little too stretched out, mostly because your hips are pretty far back. But riding with your elbows locked guarantees that the rest of your fit will be uncomfortable.
4. I notice that you're riding not so much on the shifters and more on the bars right behind them. That's partly because you're shifted far back in the saddle and partly because you're riding so stiff-armed.
5. Your lower back has a lot of curvature. This is a flexibility issue. You need to get more glute and hamstring flexibility since otherwise you have to make it up in your upper torso. That simply compromises your rib cage and limits the volume you have to expand your lungs. You don't have the aerobic capacity you could otherwise have. This isn't strictly a fit issue, but does affect your fit.
6. Somewhat in the same vein about aerobic capacity, you have a little bit of a stomach. The photos aren't clear, but it looks like you can't get much lower on the bike without it compressing your diaphragm against your thighs. Not strictly a fit issue, but again it affects how you fit.

Overall you look like a fit rider and your revised position is pretty good. These are all nits, mostly about your body and not about the bike itself.

Posts: 143
Joined: Thu Aug 27, 2009 12:40 pm
Location: Bucharest/Romania

by octav

Thanks 11.4

I don't really understand what do you mean by locked elbows. I know what you're saying about the shifters but I don't know what to do to stay more on them? Should I get a handlebar with a shorter reach? Something like FSA Compact?
About the back flexibility. I feel pretty flexible. I saw Lance Armstrong had a a curve back and he was riding pretty well :D I should do some back extensions?

Posts: 333
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2008 11:42 pm

by dee

Really? Saddle looks to high to me.

Posts: 313
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Jakarta, Indonesia / The Hague, Holland

by lcoolb

Basically, i guess you could say a size 52 is too small for a guy of 1.76m. Though overall you've done a good job of making it fit, i think.
I fail to see how one can make such detailed assesments as 11.4 from only a handful of photos. Apart from point 2, i think his observations are beside the mark, frankly.
OP, i'd advice you to get a professional bike fitting and then reproduce the measurements as closely as possible on your frame.


User avatar
Posts: 5072
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2006 6:35 am
Location: New York

by stella-azzurra

I believe your seat is too high now after you have adjusted it a second time. Anyone that tells you the leg should be fully extended in the six oclock position (the bottom of the pedal stroke) is plain wrong. There should be an angle formed in that position and that depends on flexibility and making sure your hips do not rock back and forth after every pedal stroke.

Your elbows are not locked meaning not fully extended in the previous picture.

For your height the best size frames for you would be: 51-54cm

A size 53 cm would be your best bet.
I never took drugs to improve my performance at any time. I will be willing to stick my finger into a polygraph test if anyone with big media pull wants to take issue. If you buy a signed poster now it will not be tarnished later. --Graeme Obree

Posts: 1618
Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2007 12:49 pm
Location: Near Horgen, Switzerland

by mrfish

Not sure I could opine on your position from a couple of photos! But on the bike you look OK. In my humble opinion it's more about whether your position is stable (no wobbling or excessive rocking) with a comfortable amount of weight on your hands. So if you can ride comfortably for 5 or 6 hours without specific pain then that's what's needed.

I'm 1.75 and ride a 72.5-8 cm saddle height with time pedals and Shimano shoes. Then 55.5cm saddle tip to bars, which means an 11 or 12cm stem depending on the bars on a Medium Parlee [nice], with 54.5cm top tube and a couple of spacers. I also have a 54 cm Eddy Merckx [smallish] 55cm Colnago [nice] and a 55cm Pinarello [a bit too big but nice to ride].

I don't think your frame size matters all that much as long as the contact points fall in the right place the rest is just about fine tuning the handling and choosing how much toe clip overlap you want.

Posts: 774
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 10:36 pm

by fogman

Bike size looks slightly small to me. I am 174 cm tall with an 81.3 cm inseam. I ride a 53.5 cm top tube with a 13.0 head tube and a 110 mm stem. I have a saddle height of 73.7 cm and 20 mm of spacers under my stem.
It's all downhill from here, except for the uphills.

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Last post