RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - General
More confused than before....Lemond geometry, etc....(6 posts)
|More confused than before....Lemond geometry, etc....||cyclejim|
Jun 1, 2002 11:40 AM
|I've used both the Colorado Cyclist fit guide and the one on the Wrench Science web site to find out my ballpark sizing and they both point me to a frame size of 62 or 63. My inseam is 36.5 inches, Im 6' 3", arms are around 26.5.
I just went to one LBS and was looking for a Lemond Buenos Aires to test ride. First shop had one in a 57cm, I was reluctant to even ride it as I thought it would be WAY too small, but I did anyway. Surprise...it felt really good. Seemed very responsive and I felt comfortable on the frame, and it didnt really seem way small to me. I did "look" a bit big on it but thats not the important thing.
They didnt have a 59 or a 61 in stock so I went to another LBS and they had a 59 which I test rode.
Now, this bike felt noticably more sluggish but as far as size it felt pretty good as well. Maybe it wasnt set up as good as the first one I rode? Anyhow... All in all, I felt faster on the 57 and not cramped or anything. I thought this was kinda wierd, and I only rode each bike for 15 minutes or so. I guess I am wondering if the 57 felt better because it was lighter, and if later on I would regret going with such a small frame considering my size and inseam.
thoughts and advice are appreciated!
|re: More confused than before....Lemond geometry, etc....||big guy|
Jun 1, 2002 11:46 AM
|You have a really short torso in relation to your legs. So, you will take a frame that is on the small end of the spectrum so that you will have a short top-tube. You'll have a lot of seat post showing. Or, you can look for a frame maker that uses a short top-tube in their geometry (Colnago is one). I am in the same boat as you Bro.|
|re: More confused than before....Lemond geometry, etc....||McAndrus|
Jun 1, 2002 2:46 PM
|I don't remember the specifics but LeMond's use longer top tubes than most of the Euro bikes. Treks do as well. I'm 5'11" with a 35" inseam (I'm all legs) and I ride a 61cm Bianchi and a 61cm Giant - both of which are Euro proportioned with 58.5cm top tubes.
I've never ridden a LeMond but I have ridden Treks and I can ride 58 or 60cm Treks comfortably as their top tubes are longer.
I suspect on the 57cm LeMond you were showing an awful lot of seat tube.
|Go on many long test rides. 30min+||spyderman|
Jun 1, 2002 10:18 PM
|If it feels good buy it!
Nothing feels better than a piece of dialed-in aluminum between your legs!
|57cm too small...||C-40|
Jun 2, 2002 5:26 AM
|The 57cm would be way too small for someone with an inseam of almost 93cm. I'm surprised that there was enough seatpost length to get the saddle up to height on this frame.
Standard formulas would have you on a 62cm (c-c) frame, or a 63-64cm (c-t). Lemond frames are measured c-c. Add 1.5cm to the the Lemond size, if you compare to another brand measured c-t.
Next time you try a bike, check the saddle height above the top tube (measured vertically). My saddle is 18cm above the top tube. Someone your size might have the saddle as much as 20cm (8") above the top tube. More than that would indicate a very small frame, which would cause problems getting the hnadlebars high enough to be comfortable.
When taking these test rides, have you adjusted the saddle fore-aft position to place the knee in the proper relation to the pedal spindle (0-2cm behind)? Lemonds have slack seat tube angles, which may require you to push the saddle all the way forward to obtain the desired position. Although Lemond TT lengths may be up to 1cm longer than other brands, the slack seat tube angle effectively cancels out most or all of this additional length, once the saddle is positioned in the same relation to the bottom bracket. If you haven't adjusted the saddle (fore-aft), you really haven't tested the fit at all.
A small frames may have felt comfortable because you desire a shorter reach than the stock setup on a 59 or 61 Lemond. You may need to try a 10-20mm shorter stem to get a comfortable fit. Stem length can't be selected until the saddle is set to the correct fore-aft position.
|re: More confused than before....Lemond geometry, etc....||skousch|
Jun 5, 2002 5:41 PM
|I'm 6'2 with a 35.5" inseam & just went thru this with a Zurich. I originally bought a 57cm after a couple of short rides that felt really good. After riding it around home for about 40 miles it started to feel too cramped. My LBS was great & offered to exchange it even for a new (larger) one. Their fitter put me between the 59 & 61 frame sizes. He didn't have a 59 but I did get to test a 61. That frame is really huge looking & felt a little too streached out.
You'r correct, the 57 was noticably lighter. I ended up going for the 59. All aspects seem to fit me well except for a little 2much drop to the handlebars. That was fixed by flipping the stem (positive rise). Doesn't look as nice but it is comfortable.
The thing that bothered me about the 61 is its seat tube angle is even more laid back than the 57/59's. when I tried the 61 the seat was pushed all the way forward & my knee was still a little 2 far back. Despite the LBS telling me that wasn't a problem I didn't like the idea of the seat at the far end of its range for a proper fit. The 59's seat is smack in the middle of the rails with my knee above the pedal spindle.
My guess is with your 36.5" inseam the 61 might be the best fit. The 57 really is too small (with my smaller dimensions I was too far over the top, had some stability problems on faster (35 mph) downhills), you would probably see similar things. You should go with whatever feels best, ride the 59 for an hour or so if your LBS will let you. If it feels good then its probably O.K. Just be aware that you may have to play with the stem to minimize the drop from the seat to handlebars unless you are very flexible (I'm in my 40's and am not as flexible as I was 10 years ago). Good luck. Lemond's are great bikes if you can get a good fit.