Interestingly, I bought a ML-size (between Medium and Large) whereas all size calculators scream I should have a full Large. But we made it work with higher saddle stem and very long handle bar stem. Well the good news is that putting my bike in the small car is a breeze, but could the handling be better with a Large? I don't know, probably yes. But for now I keep as it is
Each bike manufacturer seems to have different ideas of what extra-small, small and medium is -I find I have to pick a different size based on what the manufacturer is. I find I absolutely have to try out the bike by whoever it's made by to make sure it will work for me. In the case of Orbea, I went for extra small because their small was more like a medium verging on large to me. This was bore out in test rides with the larger size and it was a little too tall where the top tube was.....uncomfortable.
I went from an XS size to an S size. Can't say I improved confidence in descent, quite the contrary actually, also the shorter seatpost means my Garmin Varia doesn't have a lot of room below my saddle bag. But I didn't want a chimney below my stem.m and I would have needed a 140mm stem on the XS size for that frame
I'm 5'9" and on a TCR Advanced ML with 165mm cranks. I could have gone for a medium but the ML with a bit more length in the top tube and a taller headtube means I can get a really nice centred (55/45 rear to front) weight distribution and a really good aero position. The bike descends brilliantly and feels really well balanced and stable. I agree with Ollie's findings, if you're between sizes it's worth looking at the larger size. As long as your balls aren't being cleaved by the top tube, you'll usually have enough adjustment by selecting the right stem length and moving the saddle on it's rails.
I'd like to encourage more riders to buy large bicycles, particularly 58 cm, so I will finally have a decent selection of used bikes to choose from. 😁 There's plenty of 56 cm and smaller used bikes, but larger bicycles are a bit more scarce on the used market.
Well, I sometimes see larger bikes (XL/XXL) that the sellers can't sell because they have no market. So they drop their prices. Makes me salivate and wish I was one size larger.
Bike shops originally put me on large sizes because of my height (181cm), but I have discovered I am way more comfortable and handle better medium sizes.
I'm 187cm and ride mediums. Headtubes on larges tend to be too tall for me. Unfortunately, nobody makes long enough stems for me on modern bikes with internal routing.
I'm the opposite here. 173cm and sizing up from a small to a medium if often better for me because of the increased reach. I have shorter legs and a longer torso, like a swimmer. So the longer reach allows me to get a better torso angle and better weight distribution.
I'm 6' 00" (182 cm) with a 34" (86 cm) inseam. I went from a 58 cm Giant hybrid to a 56 cm Trek Checkpoint and don't regret it. All the tables said 58 cm, but the bike fitter said 56 CM and I love it.
Riding the smaller size frame will not necessarily make you more aerodynamic or lower in the front, even with the shorter headtube and a slammed stem. Your own range of motion will determine the most aero position. At Body Geometry and later at Retul training, two of my instructors had been performing fits for Specialized sponsored professional riders who were at the time on world tour teams. One particular rider was quite surprised to learn that adding a couple of spacers underneath his handlebar stem gave significantly better results in the wind tunnel. This was because slamming the stem caused him to exceed his range of motion when riding hands in the drops or on the hoods with elbows bent low, and the result was a great big hunch back sticking up in the air. Adding some headsetset spacers eliminated the hunch back giving him that “classic flat back”, and actually lowered his shoulders and torso relative to the ground. I have seen this firsthand with many of my own fit clients as well. I also saw this at a weekend clinic run by Michael Sylvester from Bicycle Fitting Services of Portland. Remember how much your neck was hurting on that Longest Ride, Ollie? Might not have been so severe with your current setup.
The part about the weight distribution was particularly of interest for me. I'd like to watch a video where GCN puts two scales down and checks the weight distribution for each presenter in different positions.
I agree - it would seem like Ollie is mistaken about that larger bike making his weight distribution closer to 50/50 than 60/40. Seems like it would put even more weight over the rear with it being larger and a set-back seatpost. We may need to get Hambini in here to sort it out.
@@workingguy-OU812 the reference to cars being 50/50 i scoompteley pointless, because cars have very high power going through the wheels, cyclists don't so that is removed from the equation. A forward weight bias is desirable as this aids steering, confidence, and reduces the chance of a front tyre slip (the worst kind).
After switching from road to gravel, I went the opposite direction. I was riding a 56cm Emonda(M/L)and felt too stretched out, even after going to a shorter stem and bringing the saddle as far forward as possible while maintaining the proper height for my inseam. Now, with my Poseidon X Ambition, I’m riding a small frame(49cm, by their reckoning)and the difference is night and day. Everything just fell into place and I’m super comfortable, even more so when I find the right saddle that I can go for more than 25 miles on without feeling like I’ve been kicked in the rear.
Trigonometry is also a huge factor in determining fit. The degrees/minutes of angle for the head tube and more importantly seat tube have a big impact on fit. Sheldon Brown was so kind enough to personally share this insight with me back in the day. IYKYK.
Be extremely cautious sizing up if you are between sizes. Not so much because of the size of the frame, but because of the components that will come with the larger bike. I'm 6'1 and was told I needed a 58 not only by the size chart but also the LBS rep. The frame size was fine, and I was actually told by a fitter later that I could do a 56 or 58. The kicker though is that most 58 bikes across manufacturers come with 44cm wide bars (way too big), 110mm stem (too long for someone on the bottom end of size chart), and 175mm cranks (I much prefer shorter). Also the stack was too high so I needed to slam the stem, which on modern race bikes mean you have to cut the stem because you can't put spacers on top. So in the end I had to switch out a lot of things and spend some money to make the larger bike fit, where if I would have bought the 56, all I probably needed to do was raise the seat...
I'm 5ft 11, I ride an old school 62cm and a modern 59cm 110mm stem. I prefer bigger frames as it means I can have a more upright position and not slamming the stem either. Most riders don't need to have their noses on the top cap so having a larger frame gives a longer headtube, as we get older we're going to be less likely to be needing that really low down racing position. Rgds the 175mm crank sizing, that's not something I've found with bigger frames, but then most people might just swap bars/stem and cranks anyway.
Excellent video. Lots of people get it wrong, and manufacturers too: if between sizes, the smaller one will be less agile / less nimble, but more stable. This is because you'll need a longer stem, and also because the fork angle will likely be slacker on a smaller bike to obtain a reasonable wheelbase.
I am a bike fitters worst nightmare. My inseam is 91.4 cm. (36 inches). Due to some accidents, my torso is shortened, decreasing my reach AND I can't ride with a slammed stem. So custom it is.😂. The seat tube is crazy long, the top tube short. The head tube is long and the rake on the front fork is weird looking. It is a bike I can comfortably ride for hundreds of miles and have. Long story short. A good bike fit is worth every penny.🚴♀️
Similar situation here and I learned that through years of riding instead of investing in a bike fit. Bigger inseam to torso ratio, shorter crank length (160) which would put me higher and back, combined with short reach, I have to reduce the stem size at least by 2cm on every new bike. Every endurance and all-road bike I owned is automatically equal to an aggressive position road bike, so I feel more comfortable on short reach / upright bikes (e.g. gravel) that after modifications, they feel more like a relaxed endurance bike. But yeah, as long as it is comfortable and you want to ride it :)
besides the great input and i'm happy youre healthy and riding now, i just can't hold back on pointing out how funny "my torso shortened" sounds. like you just lost a slice or removed a vertebra like a spacer :D glad you found a good solution though!
@lovemesomedetail really bad skiing accident. Compressed close to every disc in my back. I was 6 feet tall. After the accident, I am 5 ft 91/2 inches tall. I am lucky that it wasn't worse. The recovery took the better part of a year.
I'm 170 (maybe 169, aged 56 now!) and have on 170mm cranks got axle to saddle of 870mm... I've got either long legs or a short torso but my ape index (finger to finger) is 170 so no long or short arms. I run a S/52 with ETT of 532mm and have to go with a 60mm stem, maximum spacers and stem turned up to even get comfortably in the hoods without locked out arms. Next bike will be endurance spec looking for the shortest reach and tallest stack/head tube (I figure on "normal" bikes my ideal with a normal stem length say 100mm would be an XS reach and L stack!!!) But it is incredible the difference an 80mm oem stem to 60mm makes.....makes the bike look stupid though!!
According to Trek, I'm between size 56 and 58. I opted for a 56, as my old road bike is a 58 and, while it was okay, I did feel a bit stretched out. Best decision I've made, as I'm much more comfortable now and feel like I can go further and faster than before.
Vintage road sizing I'm a 56-58 pending manufacturer. Modern road I'm 54 perfect comfort, 52-51 with longer stem for racing. Greg lemond wrote a book and stated you should always fit yourself to the smallest frame possible for stiffness.
a welcome change of thought whereas others on the internet(s) have stated to opt for the smaller size if you fit between bike sizes ... "you'll look like a pro, better aerodynamic position, looks cool with a high seat mast, you could fit a smaller size to a larger size by swapping out components, etc. " I'm 5'6" with a 30" inseam and opted for a 54 instead of a 52 cm frame - suits me fine ... who's going scrutinize less than 2 cm - just go out and ride!
I rode a Giant Defy (2013) in S and when I bought my TCR frame a few years later, I went XS. On the Defy I had very little saddle to bar drop (slammed stem). On the TCR I have a drop that works for my flexibility.
I went in the opposite direction as Ollie, from 58 to 56 cm, or L to M. Background: I've been a road racer since the late 80's, and at age 52 I'm 185 cm tall and weigh 74 kg. I rode 58 cm frames for decades, but once frames all started having sloping top tubes, and many went to "comfort" geometries, I found a 58 cm frame typically had too long of a head tube for me to get low enough in front. I had a 58 cm Specialized Venge (Gen. 1) and a 2017 Cervelo R5, and I was having to buy negative-rise stems to not feel like a parachute. I got a good deal on an ex-rental Specialized Allez Sprint frameset in a 56 cm and immediately fell in love. The conventional wisdom suggests I'm a little too tall for it, but I love the shorter wheelbase, my carbon seat post is more than long enough for me to get the requisite saddle height, and a 130 mm stem gets the job done.
I love how, if this bike had a level top tube, it would show about a handful of seat post -- the age-old way to eyeball if a bike is about the right size.
Last bike I size changed. I went down to the size always aimed at my height. Felt much worse and don't use that bike much now. toe overlap is a big issue on a road bike for me. Like to pedal around corners and on the hill I snake to get up. That confidence is key
What I miss in this entire discussion, again, is what use you give to your bike. Let's keep it to road bikes: are you using it for aggressive racing? You CAN handle a huge difference between saddle and bars? Or are you using your road bike for longer trips at a more moderate speed, or even making tours of several days or even weeks? Then you may wish to look at a more moderate difference in height. It's no use to buy a bike with, let's say 15 cm or even more of saddle/bars and then suffer because you cannot cope with your back problems. I ride different sizes, between traditional frames, 56 to 52 cm, and can handle a Medium or Small on modern frames, the rest of the fit will be taken care of with the parts that can be changed: saddle, bars, stem. But before anything else, what kind of rider are you and what do you use the bike for...?
Going back to the mid 1980s, I'd always ridden 56cm frames. The only exception was a LeMond I got in 2000 which was a 55, but the geometry of Lemonds is such that it has something like a 56 top tube for that frame size. I have relatively shorter legs and a longer upper body, so I've always used stems that were 120-130mm. But in 2008, I got a great deal on an S-Works Tarmac SL that I could not pass up, so I grabbed it, even though it was only a 54. I found that I was fine with a top tube of 54.8 or whatever it was, rather than needing a 56 top tube. I ran a 130 stem on that bike and was extremely comfortable on it. For over 10 years, it was my main road bike, although I had others that I would rotate in which were larger. Still, the Specialized remained my favorite. I liked having a fair amount of seat post showing, as it didn't make my bike look so dorky, although it caused a bit more flex in the rear that I cared for. It's always good to try something that may be a bit different that what you've traditionally thought was set in stone.
Size of my bikes varies across the fleet. I run 2 52S(56 trad, Ollie medium), 2 57 trad steel bikes, a 58 trad, and a 53cm TT bike. All can be sized to same basic measurements except the TT bike, which is a horrible torture instrument at best and largely is banished to the back of the shed while I race on the road bikes...
I'm 1,86m tall and ride a 56, when really I should have sized up. I'm glad during covid and the related bike shortage I went for the 56 anyway, because even though I have long arms, my torso is short and the 56 fits perfectly. My larger gravel bike works too, but the handling is so much more fun on the road bike!
I'm 5ft 11, I ride an old school Titanium 62cm and a modern Carbon in a 59cm/110mm stem. I've always preferred bigger frames that I've been told I should ride as it means I can have a more upright position and never interested in slamming the stem either as I don't think it looks all that. That upright position helps with old shoulder injuries from playing rugby but I've always been on a bigger frame from back in the early 1980s) Most riders don't need to have their noses on the top cap so having a larger frame gives a longer headtube, as we get older we're going to be less likely to be needing that really low down full on racing position.
I'm between a S and XS but I always size down because I have a short inseam even though I fit within their geometry charts for the larger size. I've gone with what bike companies say and it's fine sometimes but when I got fitted I was surprised that they suggested the smaller size, but it does feel better overall, especially my back.
I'm looking for a video on ways/methods to transfer my bike fit from one road bike to another. I did not see where GCN has compiled a video on this topic. As many bikes as the presenters update bikes I'm curious what GCN Tech would recommend, maybe even pose it as a presenter challenge. There may also be rules for tweaks for adapting one's fitment from road to cyclocross, to track bikes and dare I say it mountain bikes. Thanks and thank you for continuing to be GCN.
I worked at bike shops for ten years, always used to tell people, if your between sizes go with the next size down, but as I gained experience, I kinda changed my mind and believe it's best to go up a size. After riding many bikes myself that were probably too small. I'm 5'10 with a short torso and longer legs. Fit the bike to your legs, not your upper body. I usually ride more of a large now and replace the stem with a shorter version.
I'm also 5'10 and looking to get a new all round bike for commuting, short(ish) road rides & easy gravel. My old bike was a large but not sure if I should get anther large. What leg length would you suggest means a large is a better choice?
I'm the same size as you and struggling to find something that fits well. It seems that smaller frames have too much drop to the bars and larger frames are too long.
I'm tempted to say the opposite. Fit to your upper body not your legs. That's what a seat post is for, just raise it up!! It's the reach and stack that are important.
mtb rider here- I prefer sizing down to give a greater feeling of control over the bike. Feeling like I'm riding a couch is the worst. It's all subjective.
Whenever I get a new bike it is always the best bike ever - because it’s a new bike! Now, in Ollie’s case, a new top of the line Pinarello for FREE - would undoubtably be my most favorite bike of all time! My Crit bike has a vertical geometry, stiff and responsive that wouldn’t be ideal in a road race. However my Canyon Endurace has a more relaxed geometry and is like riding fast on a reclining chair!
One of the reasons I bought a Trek was because they give sizes in centimetres, which takes some of the uncertainty out of matching the size of the bike to your inseam. Only a small adjustment to the seat-post height and the bike was as comfortable as I could have wished for, bearing in mind I am not often adopting an aggressive riding position.
It would be foolhardy to advise anyone to choose the larger size when between sizes. If you opt for the larger size, chances are you'll have to spread your upper body in order to compensate for the excessive reach, with all the problems that it will imply - sore neck, shoulder pain, etc. With the smaller bike you can use a longer stem, or set the saddle up and backwards. It will make your life much easier.
I just started getting into riding and got the merida 300 endurance ( larger guy with health issues so going for more comfort ) but i got a medium and put it on the trainer and it was fine but after 2 weeks i decided to take it for a ride but the top tube was to tall and well i had to be on tippy toes to touch the ground so we have returned it and ordered a small. Tried a small in the shop and it felt a bit better but will see how it goes when it arrives in a few weeks
Go smaller if in doubt. Unless you are young and have the flexibility of a cat many bike fitters will set you up with an aggressive fit. This will lead them, like with Ollie, to suggest a larger size. There is way too much focus on speed over comfort within the bike industry. This serves a minority of cyclists well but also leads to some bad advice for many of us.
Always seem to be between sizes no matter which brand, L (57-59) or XL (60+). Ride CX and gravel so both handling and stability is key for me to give quick reaction while not losing control on rough/ loose ground conditions. Either get another extra long seatpost other stock on size down or shorter stem on size up.
Je fais 1m91,j’avais un Tarmac sl7 en 56 car il n’y avait que ça en stock et j’ai pu m’habituer.en 2023 je change pour la toute dernière version du sl7 en sworks et le 58 était disponible et là impeccable la perfection,aucune cale sous la potence je n’ai plus de douleur ce vélo est parfait,j’ai 80cm de hauteur de selle et pourtant aucune douleur Ducoup je ne veux plus jamais changer de vélo tant il est extraordinaire. J’ai eu aussi un orca 2022 en 57 qui était très agréable. La bonne taille se sent immédiatement même sur un parking vous sentirez immédiatement le naturel de la position.
If you follow manufacturers recomendations based on height, or some shops recomendations based on their 100 euro bike fits, your bike will sure be one or two sizes big. Smallest frame you can handle keeps being a good advice
I went up a size to improve handling while in a forward aero position. It really helps with that for me (long torso). I see some pros and cons. I slightly prefer the handling of the smaller size for climbing and descending.
I'm between ML and L and because of my long legs I was recommended the larger one. Compared to my older smaller bike it's a huge jump forward in terms of comfort, I couldn't be mory happy and can go for much longer rides. And I agree with Olli - going down, the longer wheelbase gives you much more confidence. The only thing i might change in future is to switch to narrower handlebars...the 44s still feel a little bit weird since my daily comuter has 42s.
I just switched from a XL to a 2XL on my secondary bike (a gravel Scott Speedster 45 bike frame with road tires and modified setup). Feels much more comfortable, more stable, and more pleasant to ride than the 2017 version of the same bike. Also this being a bit longer than my 2018 Aeroad, it feels more forgiving in regards of rider error. Probably going one size up on that one once the old one breaks (which I don’t expect to happen in the next few years - that bike seems indestructible).
If you are in your 40's and up, go smaller. There is a possibility that you will lose some flexibility, and so I would suggest going with a smaller frame. You might also add some extra weight too, and your arm reach will be reduced as well as your leg reach. Your total height normally also is reduced as you get older. Anyway just my 2 cents go smaller if in between recommended sizes.
I find this fascinating! I’ve always straddled sizes. On mtbs I’ve always been M but then switched to L. On road bikes I went from 56 to 54 (Trek fanboy) but feel my neck, wrist and shoulders give me trouble. I really should do a bike-fit, but am in terrible shape and am concerned it would be wasted on me in my current shape 😬
At 180 with a 85 cm inseam I am between sizes. A few years ago I followed suggestions and bought a M bike (nothing special, a Trek Domane). I found myself in real difficulties, it felt really unstable and just as an indication I could not ride with no hands at all, too twitchy. I ended up selling it at a loss after a few months and getting the same bike in L size. I changed the stem with a short one to get back to a comfortable reach, and I ended up with my perfect bike. Been riding since…
In my opinion experience, most errors are made in sizing up, not down. Too many shops still size by inseam, which is no longer a relevant metric with sloping top tubes. That leaves many with reach problems, shorter stems and dodgy handling. Long legs - go smaller; short legs, size up, in borderline cases.
Great video. Could you do an episode on fork tube height and spacers? I bought a Giant with hidden cables last year and it came with what looks like 30cm of spacers and I think is horrible and also quite high but also incredibly difficult to cut
bigger frames and subsequently longer wheelbases (and with less front weight bias) are more predictable, more stable and slower (less darty) ie running a 58cm with a 110stem vs a 56 with a 120/130 stem. Also the benefit reduces toe overlap with a longer front center.. Not to mention if your 6ft and stuffed on a smaller frame w a 130+stem and a huge front weight bias its very easy to accidentally lift the rear wheel when sprinting.
6'2" with a 140-150 stem on my drop bar bikes. I've never had issues with weight balance and popping my rear wheel off the ground. I'm typically on 56s and if I had to pick between a 55 and 57, I'd go 55 every time.
@@veganpotterthevegan they need to bring back the universal measurements system again, today and over the past like 7yrs a 56 in one brand is a 58 or 59 in another and vice versa. like my current 56 & 58 bikes. At least with canyon you wouldn't be able to ride a Medium at all as I cant at 6ft 1, the seat post is a full 20mm beyond the minimum depth marker....
@HeyWattsUpCycling as a fitter, and cyclist, I'd hate that. Handling characteristics can differ too much. With the right stems(that are actually available to buy), I can ride anything between a 48 and 63 depending on the bike. Of course, handling differences will be enormous. You need to know what to want out of a bike. I'm 6'2" and ride a 51cm TT bike. Not in every brand but I choose off of what bike works best and that's how it should be. Universal fitting will mean some people don't fit well on anything. Options are good.
@@veganpotterthevegan your telling me.. now call up Trek and all the other brands who are chopping sizes out of their lineup and mixing them to make everything basically a half size now.
This is the opposite of my findings. For my winter bike (Fairlight Streal) i test road a 54 but was recommended a 56. The 54 handled well but the 56 was so twitchy that I had to fit an MTB angle adjustment headset. It now handles pretty well. This year I was buying a new summer bike (Cannondale super six Evo) and made sure to test both the 54 and a 56 and the 54 was so much more stable. I ride the Strael with a 110mm stem and the Cannondale with a 120 so not a huge difference. Without the angle headset I couldn't even ride the Fairlight one handed but can comfortably take a jacket off or similar on the Cannondale. The Fairlight gets near universal praise for it's handling in reviews so I was incredibly disappointed when I received mine. Taking in to account the reach of the handlebars and the horizontal component of the stem length and spacers both bikes are within about 2mm of the cockpit position from the bottom bracket and as close as I can get the saddle too.
I'm pretty sure the pro ride smaller bike because they can get better draft with them. However most road bike are just too short wheelbase for regular riders, limiting braking performance, putting more risks of going over the bars.
Confidence-inspiring. & it'll only cost you £150 to hop on it. & its measurements and recommendations will be obsolete in 10 years, when fit theory &/or your body changes enough to make them nonsensical.
Thanks Ollie! I literally asked this exact question about a week and a half ago so thanks for doing a full episode on it! But I at least could have got a shout out for the episode idea so I could take a screen shot, frame it, and hang on the wall next to the last question/comment I made the was mentioned on GCN 🤣
I have done something similar with my last two bikes. Moved up to a 54cm frame, but as I built up the bikes I went with the same crank length of 170cm that I have been riding for over 40 years and I am 177cm and have longish femurs. Often on size 54cm built up bikes the manufactures have 172.5 or even 175cm cranks here. So Ollie you are lucky to get a custom Pinny with 170s. In New Zealand there is little choice for built up bikes and a 58cm bike would likely have 175cm cranks which would then make it too big to move up to.
It's for those same reasons why at 5'6", I always ride a small or a 51cm. I can drop my stem, and I just feel more stable than the smaller range infall into..
I mean you are coming from a bike fitting suggestion. But having sadly bought a bike that is a tat too big for me, I always can give the traditional advice.. when in doubt, buy smaller and adjust with stem and all…
Going for shorter cranks - it's good. Going for larger frame if you're between sizes - bad advice. It's easier to make the bike longer with longer stem and seatpost with a setback. But if the bike's too long your reach may become too long to be comfortable, you'll have to install shorter stem and bike may become too twitchy. A bike with a reach too long may also cause tons of problems with neck, shoulders and back.
And a small bike with an overall shorter reach (eventhough with a stem at 140 mm) can give you the sensation of a lack of control, especially going downhill, since the centre of gravity is pushed forward. I had to sell a newly purchased bike based on this. So I think the best way to go, is to visit a qualified bike fitter first.
Its taken forever for bike manufacturers to finally quote stack & reach. Now if we can also get them to quote BB drop and seattube setback/offset, we could finally get some useful data for making a purchasing decision. Maybe in 10+ years from now
I always find it a little tricky with knowing I've got the right size as have long legs and arms and a short torso. Torso says 55cm top tube. Legs say a 58cm seat tube. Theoretically I could fit a 58cm bike quite comfortably, but have always ridden a 56cm bike with a longer stem. If I ride a 110mm stem which always seems to come stock with a 56cm bike, I hit my knees on the handlebar when climbing out of the saddle. lol
Traditionally, bike shops put me on frames that were too big. Now it seems fitters are going the other direction and trying to get people on smaller frames. The main reason is that the average person needs a shorter top tube. Clearly easier to make a small bike bigger than a big bike smaller. BUT, on my most recent bike, I was deciding between a small and a medium. I went with the medium mainly for the stack hight up front. The reach is fine and I don’t feel all cramped up on the bike. And I don’t have to run a tower of spacers. I am experimenting with a straight post and weirdly I don’t feel right with the weight balance.
I'm 185.I'm currently riding a canyon ultimate size M. I'm looking to buy an Aeroad. I have noticed that MVDP and I are about the same height riding size L on the Aeroad. I'm very torn between the two sizes right now.Not sure I should go with the larger size or not
This is all fair and sound as long as you are of average height and build - I mean, remaining in the ballpark. Choosing a frame's size when you are very short (and from what I've heard, also when you are very tall) becomes way more complicated - mostly because bike developers don't really make bikes in small (and large) enough sizes, or even if they do, there is only a handful of them released on the market.
The agile, nippy and responsive bike will only be so in lower speeds ime. After a certain point they become like an arrow, and any attempt to steer very aggressively can be dangerous. Either the whole bike will loose track or the front wheel alone and very suddenly resulting in a crash, which i had with a smaller size bike, very unexpectedly then for the newbie me. The next size has a more predictable handling curve.
Great video but you did not mention your stem length you must of had to go shorter due to longer top tube which is my issue 181.5 but very long legs saddle height 807 on retail bike fit but short torso so ride a 56 with a 100mm stem 58 would mean a 90mm which is too short did you have to shorten your stem length for the larger frame ? 10:50
If you would be so kind as to transpose 'confidence and performance' to 'comfort and enjoyment' then I'm totally on-board... that being said, I've always chosen a frame size by the seat tube length and stack:reach ratio - 1.5 for me please. It seems recently that the bike industry's design focus is more towards style than ergonomic function... I completely understand their goal to present their latest bikes as fresh and new by making previous models look old and dated. What I believe should be their goal is seeing to the transformation of car-centric societies to bicycle-centric societies.
I went thru the exact same process with my argon 18 road bike. went with a large but ended up narrowing the bars, shortened stem to 100mm and going with a zero offset post. but it took awhile to get to this fit and I changed things incrementally. also on the track don't most sprinters size up? seems to contradict the road sprinter mentality of small bike large stem. oh one final thought check out Mads Pedersons fit- he rides a large.
I'm 182 riding a 51. Used to be a swimmer & have the short legs/long torso to go with it which means the bike shop's recommendation of a 56 feels absolutely preposterous. Most people would benefit from sizing down
Am 182 as well and the opposite of you: longlegs/short torso. I went up a size and first time of my life I feel absolutely comfortable for hours on my bike. Any smaller bike feels a little to aggressiv for me (my gravel is pretty small and it's ok for short after-work rides, but I don't want to ride it any longer since I have my endurance bike) So I'd say most people would benefit from getting the right bike size for their individual build and not listening to average-orientated bike-shop recommendations.
@@rothotborski Thats interesting. Slightly smaller frames tend to be easier to size - slam stem, increase length & youre golden. Howd you make the longer top tube of a bigger frame work with a short torso? You can reduce stem length but shorter than 90mm & steering gets twitchy real fast
@@axelmogr Stack-to reach ratio of my frame is 1,5:1 so the stem length is not that problem. Though not as long as my legs, my arms are long as well and some spacers at the front do the rest. (But I do have plans to reduce the spacers on the front step-by-step as soon as I have adjusted to the longer rides to get a little bit "more aero" 😉.) Anyhow, since I'm not racing, the main target is still to feel comfortable and to ride as long as I like to without any issues.
Tell you what, if you don't know what you want, it is typically easier to fit a bike that is slightly too small than it is to fit one slightly too large. my first road bike i picked up second hand and found i needed to fit a 60mm stem and short reach bars to fit it! (daddy longlegs mcshortbod here) I think through that experience though, i've grown to prefer shorter stems as a 100 on a smaller frame i'd gotten later feels really flipping weird (prefer 80-90 on that thing). Also i really wonder if the stiffness from a smaller frame isn't somewhat offset by the extra length in the stem, especially as it's a lever on a hinge rather than a rigid frame, and not to mention the extra risk from having your weight more over the front wheel making it more likely that you're sent over the bars instead of riding over stuff. this post has been approved by the short(stem)king nation. But yeah, things like toe overlap and the effects of contact point adjustments are definitely important and easily overlooked too! oh alsoalsoalso, i find that pretty much all brands' geo charts fit my height to a frame i'd definitely consider much too big for me, so buyer beware :P
Because of my height (180cm) I often must chose between sizes and I prefer smaller bikes - I found them more 'nimble' - probably because my roots are in MTB and I still like dynamic urban rides.
I went up when I bought my Specialized Diverge, figuring that it would feel better on sketchy surfaces. I'm an orangutan and when I went to replace my road bike with a new Focus Paralane I also went up to the next size. My times show that something has improved.
Back in he 70s or so, bike makers would talk about how Europeans had longer legs, shorter torsos while in the US, riders were more frequently longer torsos/shorter legs. So Lemond, for example, had a longer top tube on his bikes. One was supposed to size a frame, fork, stem, etc. so that when in the drops, you should be looking through the handlebar in direct line with the front axle. A little more complicated today. Wish fitting could be much easier and more focused on comfort for different body styles rather than optimizing for power. After all, most of us do not race.
I have always rode on a large size frame hybrid/mountain bike. One day, I listened to "knowledgeable" bike person told me that I should be a medium frame size. I got one and a rode of few times and I realized, it was quite problematic. Seat to pedal was way too short and my feet were slipping off. I should note that I'm 5.10 or 177cm height.
I got my current Touring bike (back then sold as MB) when I was ~14. But today it feels weirdly large. I wonder if I stopped growing too early or if it would have been always too small.
Actually, you're preferred case, than to be the other way around (long legs, short torso/arms). Given that seat post has wide range of adjustment, you can easily go for preferred size and swapping the stem if it's too short, or just size up.
Some of us would rather have larger bike and compensate with crank length, stem length and seat post setback, rather than deal with an undersized bike and the more aggressive position that is necessary for a proper fit. Those of us with a shorter inseam know this struggle.
