Sep 2, 2002 9:41 AM
I´m currently riding a 58 cm Scott road bike (center-center). It´s kinda no good (cheap frame, rsx gears...), so I´m shopping around for something new. I´ve been looking at Battaglin, Trek, Cannondale among others. All these brands seem to measure their frames from center to top. Would a 58 cm Cannondale feel too small for me since I´ve been riding that Scott...? I´m 186 cm tall.
What sizes do pro´s of my length use?
|re: Frame Size||castrello|
Sep 2, 2002 9:43 AM
|A friend of mine (183 cm, by the way) bought a Trek 5200 (58 cm) and it felt ok, although it felt shorter and "smaller" than my old bike. But it wasn´t necessarily too small. With a slightly longer stem it would have been great. I think.
What sizes do you use?
|You need a real fitting...||Spunout|
Sep 2, 2002 9:52 AM
Try out the above link, it will give you an idea of the core measurements that you will need to look for in selecting a frame. You will also notice, that there will be a 6cm variance with the sticker 'size' of frames from various manufacturere that are all quite the same.
With your new investment, you will enjoy it most if properly fit.
|You need a real fitting...||filtersweep|
Sep 2, 2002 10:19 AM
|Yes, there is a big variance. I was hung up on the idea that I needed a 58, since that is what I had been riding. I was shopping for a new bike and the largest frame they had in stock of the other brand was a 57. I was very worried that it was a case of trying to just sell the frame with a "its close enough" attitude. When it was built, it was actually larger than the old 58 (and a much better fit).|
|re: Frame Size||thdrk1|
Sep 2, 2002 10:11 AM
I am also 186cm tall with a 88cm inseam. Like many others I am in search of the best fitting frame, but have been given wrong information about particular frames.
I have a 60cm Trek 5200 which is measured center to top and fits more like a 56.5 ctc. The top tube is long enough, but to go to a 62cm Trek the top tube would be too long. My 60cm Cannondale Caad5 has a 58cm ctc seat tube and a long 59cm tt, I wish the top tube was a bit shorter. I also had a Caad3 which felt too small and the seat post was jacked way up. My 60cm Colnago C-40 is really 57.5cm ctc seat tube. The Colnago rides great, but it also has a lower bottom bracket than the Caad5.
Frankie Andreau who use to ride for USPS rode a 60cm Trek and is 6"2". If you ever so pictures of his bike you would see how high he had to ride with his seat post.
My ultimate bike would have a seat tube of 59cm ctc and a top tube of 57.5cm.
Good luck in your search, but be careful. A bike too small can be uncomfortable and may give you neck, back and knee problems. Too big and it could handle poorly and be dangerous.
|re: Frame Size||thdrk1|
Sep 2, 2002 11:18 AM
|Sorry, forgot to mention the Caad3 was a 58cm, which feels a whole lot different than the 60cm.
There are other things to keep mind like crank and stem length or even the type of pedal and shoe combo. I use 175mm cranks, 130mm stem and Look pedals with Shimano shoes.
|58cm C'Dale would prob be ok...||briko51|
Sep 2, 2002 12:21 PM
|i'm about 184 cm tall with 34in inseam...and have test ridden a new CAAD7 R3000 58cm with 115mm stem. felt great although a 120mm stem might be perfect. i've also ridden a CAAD5 C-Dale 58cm with 130mm stem and i was pretty stretched out...maybe further than i wanted to be...
only way to know for sure is to take a test ride.
|58cm C'Dale would prob be ok...||nazgul|
Sep 2, 2002 2:59 PM
I am 184, 87cm inseam and ride a 58cm caad5 with a 110mm stem. Bike fits fine, even though if I were doing centuries, I would look for something that gives me less drop from saddle to bars.