's Forum Archives - General

Archive Home >> General(1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 )

Calling all Litespeed compact owners....(8 posts)

Calling all Litespeed compact owners....SLR
May 8, 2003 12:11 AM
How tall are you and what size frame are you on? I just want to see what others are riding. I'm 5'9" w/32" inseam, my optimum frame size is 54cm C-T but Litespeed comes only offers 53 or 55s. I think the 55 would be too big, plus the bikes come with a set-back post. Help a brutha out!
May 8, 2003 4:44 AM
What others do is entirely irrelevant to your needs. You want a bike that fits YOU, not someone else.

Litespeed compacts are not listed as a 53 or 55. The are either an M or ML. You should match the top tube length, seat tube angle and head tube angle to best suit your needs. In all likelihood, you should select a size M in a compact or a 53cm in a conventional Litespeed. Your inseam is a bit too short for a 55cm conventional Litespeed frame.

There are two reasons that you might select the ML size. If you have short femurs and/or like to place the saddle far forward, which would reduce the effective TT length, or want a small height difference between the saddle and the bars. The ML size frame will require a 15mm shorter stem to produce the same reach to the bars.
I ride.....teoteoteo
May 8, 2003 4:52 AM
I am 5'10" and ride the 03' ML Siena. TT is 56, that was the figure that mattered most to me. I like my bikes a bit longer and have good flexibility so the ML felt like a good pic. I think my inseam is 31 or 32...
Which compact? Siena and Ghisallo have different geom nmFez
May 8, 2003 5:17 AM
Is that really your cycling inseam?jtolleson
May 8, 2003 5:35 AM
Sounds more like a pants inseam. I'm not quite 5'7" and my cycling inseam is 31.75" so your number does not sound right.

PS-- I rode (and eventually sold because I was feeling a little too stretched out) a 55 cm (C-T, with 55.5 top tube) Litespeed Catalyst. It isn't possible to fit over the 'net, but I'd be surprised if a 55 is really too big for you.
followup question for you...Fez
May 8, 2003 7:43 AM
Where exactly was the fit problem with the Litespeed 55cm? Was it too little standover? If so, did you look at the 53cm frame? Or were you too stretched as far as the reach was concerned? Were you using a short stem?

I kind of went thru the same thing as you. I have owned both 55 and 53 Litespeeds and both were great riding bikes, but neither fit was "perfect."
followup question for you...jtolleson
May 8, 2003 10:49 AM
It was the reach, not the standover. The standover wasn't roomy (about an inch) but certainly within the accepted range and not a problem. But being slightly more leg than torso, the 55.5 top tube was a little too long and I didn't want to compromise by putting a really short stem on it.

I didn't try the 53, in part because when I bought the Catalyst (in 1998) it was a closeout frame (from 1997) and, as well all tell ourselves not to do, bought it because of the price. That being said, I rode many many many happy miles on it but was happy to get a new rig shorter in the TT.
Well for comparison...noveread
May 8, 2003 8:03 AM
I ride a M Sirius. I'm 5'7" with a pants inseam of 29". Don't know what my cycling inseam is. The M fits me very well despit my short legs and long torso. I'd guess the M would be too small for you but test them for yourself, don't rely on our word.

And the M Sirius is a 53...