|Am I up sh*t's creek? bike size||Psychler|
Jul 4, 2003 3:31 PM
|I have a 56cm frame...at age 52 it was getting hard for me to stretch out on this frame...Spoke to the frame maker/ had a Serrota fit done, both said, "go with a 55, and use a taller stem...He has just cut/ welded the frame...Now the question: I have been on the 56 A LOT, and it may actually fit me. BUT, I am commited to the 55...it is already built. Can I get away with a longer stem (110 to 120) and accomplish the same "feel" as the 56. There is NO way to turn back now. I had signed authorization for the frame size to be cut and welded... SO, can a 55 fill in for a 56? ( the new frame is much lighter and has nice bits and pieces that make it "better" than the 56). I hear such horror stories about frames that are too this, or that. Does 1cm make "that much" of a diff?|
|You will be fine - shouldn't make much diff. Happy 4th! (nm)||jtferraro|
Jul 4, 2003 3:40 PM
|re: Am I up sh*t's creek? bike size||03Vortex|
Jul 4, 2003 4:16 PM
|Don't panic. I understand your concern with the frame having been cut. But, you say you had the Serotta fit done so why do you not have confidence in that? Perhaps the 56 was never right in the first place. Lets start with your inseam. What is it in cm?|
Jul 4, 2003 4:21 PM
|Merely switching from an 80 to 84 degree stem will raise the bars by almost 1cm, and a 110 or 120 stem is perfectly fine on a 55cm frame.
I can easily get the same fit on a 53, 54 or 55cm frame, merely by changing stems.
Of course, I always have an exact plan of action prepared BEFORE I commit to a new frame.
I just built a new Fondriest with a sloping TT design. The head tube is 1cm shorter and the TT is 1.6cm shorter than my 54cm Colnago. All I had to do was increase my stem length by 1cm and place a 1cm spacer under the stem (rather than none). I wanted the saddle back a bit more for climbing, so moving the saddle back about .6cm produced the same reach to the bars as my 54cm Colnago. The wheelbase and front-center are both shorter than the Colnago, but the ride and handling have been fine.
|Have a little faith||filtersweep|
Jul 4, 2003 4:23 PM
|I was in a similar situation where I always had a 58cm frame and was fixated on the issue. I had a bike built, and the shop owner suggested a 57. I was VERY nervous about this issue. When it was all said and done, the 57 had a longer TT and was simply larger than the 58 due to the difference in how they measure the frames.
At this point in the game, you should just have faith. All in all, it is just a number!
|re: Am I up sh*t's creek? bike size||russw19|
Jul 4, 2003 7:17 PM
|A whole lot of this depends specifically on how the frame is measured. When all is said and done, you may well find your two frames may be the same thing after you measure them the same way. A lot of people have trouble figuring out what size they should ride simply because nobody measures the same way. I would not be the least bit surprised if you told me the new 55 cm frame was actually bigger than your old 56 cm frame. It's all in the measurement. If everyone measured the same way, we wouldn't need Serotta Fit Cycles, but that we do says something about how bikes are measured.
Another thing to consider is that as you get older you may lose some flexibility and that may result in your getting sized on a slightly smaller frame.
Either way, good luck with your new frame. Post a pic here for us to see the builder's work when it's done.
|re: Am I up sh*t's creek? bike size||gtx|
Jul 5, 2003 10:50 AM
|the most important factor for me would be if the difference in top tube length translated to a significant difference in wheelbase (and I would consider 1cm fairly significant). I've borrowed slightly smaller friend's bikes when visiting and made them "fit" for short periods of time but often found them to be squirelly, especially at high speeds.|| |