I bought my first road bike last year. It's a Giant TCR carbon medium frame. I'm 5'7 with long legs and a short torso. My inseam (measured with in socks with a book against the wall) is 33.25 inches. My lower leg from the floor to the top of my knee is 21.25". My thigh (from the front of my knee to the wall when sitting with my back against the wall) is 23.75 inches.

Here is the link for my frames geometry (It's a medium)
http://archive.giant-bicycles.com/us/catalogue_popup.asp?sPageID=popup&popuptype=geometry-image&modelid=11444

The frame is generally a good fit except that to get my knee over the pedal I've had to go to a non-setback seatpost and have my seat absolutely as far forward as it can go. Even then I find my self always sliding a bit forward on the seat.

Initially I thought I had gone with a frame that was a bit too big for me. I went to a local coach for a fitting. He said when he saw my bike he initially thought that my seat was WAY too far forward. But after he got me on the bike, he said everything was set up perfect and there was no way to could go down to a small frame.

So my question is would going to a non-compact geometry help, or will I have the same problem regardless of the frame due to my body shape?

Your coach isn't very smart about geometry. Frame size has NOTHING to do with your situation. This is strictly a seat tube angle problem. The 73.5 degree STA is a bit slack, but the steepest you'll find in your size, is only 74.5, which moves the post forward about 1.2cm. I've got similar proportions, but my lower leg is about 2cm shorter. Still, it does not add up that you should need a nonsetback post and the saddle all the way forward. I use a 25mm setback post and with the saddle fairly centered on the rails, with a 74.5 degree STA.

When you put that no-offset post on the bike, it had the same effect as increasing the seat tube angle from 73.5 to 75 degrees. It also reduce the reach to the handle bars by 2cm or more, for a given saddle position on the seatpost.

The idea that the knee must be over the pedal spindle is a good starting point, but it is NOT something that must be adhered to and does not guarantee optimum pedaling efficiency. I've experimented with positions that put my knee up to 3cm behind the pedal spindle. There are also several reference points for KOP and they don't all produce the same fore/aft position.

I would be curious to know what stem length you're using with the saddle that far forward and the distance from the sddle tip to the center of the bars (measured diagonally). If I had my saddle that far forward, even a 130mm stem would not be long enough.

The problem of scooting forward has nothing to do with your KOP position. If you moved the saddle back 2cm and the stem to match it, you would improve weight balance and it would most likely not affect your pedaling efficiency.

I'm surprised you don't have a problem with too much weight on your hands with the saddle that far forward.

Post your actual saddle height from the center of the crank to the top of the saddle, along the centerline of the seat tube. That's a better reference than your inseam. The other dimension that affects your choice of frame size is the drop from the saddle to the handlebars. A measurement from the floor to the top of your bars is also useful sizing info.

Hey C-40, the TT on this bike is 55.6 cm. Could that be a little long for a 5'7" person with that long of legs = short upper torso? Further DOC seems to be inclined to slide forward on the seat.
Granted the inseam isn't the end all be all of frame fitting - but DOC has some legs there.

There are all kinds of factors involved in a proper fit including flexibility, arm length - reach, personal comfort - both leg and upper torso and more. DOC are you experiencing any physical discomfort? How much time do you spend riding?

What all did your coach look at to determine that "everything was setup perfectly"? Did he do a full fit or just look at your saddle position?

Have you confirmed that your saddle is level?

I agree with C-40 that wanting to slide forward is probably not related to your KOP position, but would have more to do with where your handlebars end up--you probably need a different stem. Whether you need something longer/shorter with more/less rise is hard to say on a message board as the way your body adjusts to bad fit is sometimes counter-intuitive.

I kind of disagree with C-40 on adjusting bike fit to improve weight balance, however. I do double centuries on a bike with a 75 degree STA with a non-setback post (apparently I have some odd body dimensions somewhere!) and have zero hand discomfort. I have another bike that is setup with the seat and bars further back and my legs/knees etc. find that to be less comfortable. But, everyone's body is different, so some trial and error is involved.

Generally, the most comfortable position is the most efficient one, so it's worth it to invest the time and maybe even some money to get your bike comfortable. You might want to consider getting a fit done at a bike shop with a Serotta-certified fitter (i.e. someone who does this sort of thing all day as opposed to once every few weeks). This nice thing about doing a fit in at a shop is that you can try different things out until you arrive at something comfortable.

Sure the TT is too long, but the 73.5cm STA reduces 1cm of that extra length (compared to a 74.5 degree STA). Using the nonsetback post moves the nominal saddle position forward by 2-2.5cm, so the TT length shouldn't be a big issue.

A steeper STA and shorter TT would be better. Perhaps one of the new "upright" geometries like the LOOK optimum would do the trick.

Thanks for all the great input everyone!

I have to appologize as I haven't been road riding that long, so please excuse my ignorance. Someone asked if I was uncomfortable on the bike. I guess that's hard for me to say. I did a century last summer and at the end I was pretty uncomfortable. But I guess that's kind of what I expected after being on the bike for almost 6 hours. Someone else asked if my seat was level. Yes, I check it with a level. The local coach also owns the local bike store. He's a serotta dealer as well. I paid for a full fitting. He supposedly looked at everything, but did not take a single measurement and did not change a single thing on the bike.

I've had a couple of fittings at a couple of bike shops. I've been really unimpressed with them. Not one of these so called experts ever pulled out any type of measuring tape or anything. They just had me climb on the bike and said, "yup, that looks about right".

I originally though that I was always sliding forward because of the reach to the bars. I did change out the stem to a 90 mm stem at the very end of the season and I think that helped although I didn't get to ride much with it. Actually I hopped on the trainer last night and dropped a plumb line. It does look like maybe I could move my seat back a couple centimeters and still be close to having my knee over the pedal.

My girlfriend and I went through the fitting on competitve cyclist's web site last night. My measurements and results are listed below. Because my frame is a "compact geometry" I'm not sure how to compare it's measurements to those recommended below.

My question is, is my medium frame a decent fit, or should I look to pick up a small TCR frame during the winter, or should I move to a different frame (non-compact) all together?



Inseam 33.25 in
Trunk 23.25 in
Forearm 13.5 in
Arm 26.5 in
Thigh 23.5 in
Lower Leg 21.125 in
Sternal Notch 55.625 in
Total Body Height 67.375 in

The Competitive Fit The Eddy Fit The French Fit
Seat tube range c-c 54.7 - 55.2 55.9 - 56.4 57.6 - 58.1
Seat tube range c-t 56.4 - 56.9 57.6 - 58.1 59.3 - 59.8
Top tube length 52.9 - 53.3 52.9 - 53.3 54.1 - 54.5
Stem Length 11.2 - 11.8 10.1 - 10.7 10.3 - 10.9
BB-Saddle Position 72.3 - 74.3 71.5 - 73.5 69.8 - 71.8
Saddle-Handlebar 52.1 - 52.7 52.9 - 53.5 54.6 - 55.2
Saddle Setback 5.7 - 6.1 6.9 - 7.3 6.4 - 6.8
Seatpost Type NON-SETBACK SETBACK SETBACK

I don't think much of the CC fitting calculator myself. FWIW, I measured my lower leg as they show and came up with the same 21.25 or 54cm measurement that you did. If your inseam is 84.5cm, that's 1.5cm longer than mine, so you've got to have longer fermurs than I do. If that's the case, you should have no need for a nonsetback post with the saddle shoved all the way forward.

You still need to post some details about your setup, like an actual saddle height and the height of your bars from the floor to the top of the bars. Saddle height is measured from the center of the crank to the top of the saddle, along the centerline of the seat tube. I also asked for a measurement from the tip of your saddle to the center of the bars.

If a plumb line is used in an effort to determine the knee to pedal relationship, then the bike must be sitting absolutely level, or the reading will be meaningless. This can be tough to determine with the bike on a trainer. I usually place mine on a level floor near a wall, where I can lean for stability. With that setup, drop the plumb bob from the front of the knee to the front of the crankarm, or from the lower "boney protuberance" to the pedal spindle (much harder to eyeball without a helper).

The saddle setback is also measured with a plumb line, dropped from the tip of the saddle. The problem with this measurement is the bike needs to be leaned toward you, or the plumb line not be rub on the frame or crankarm and not be free to swing. It's kind of a crude measurement, but it gives you an idea of where you're at. A 6cm setback is quite common and also should not require the odd setup that you have.

The term "compact" merely means that the frame has a sloping TT and has nothing to do with the fit of the bike. All frames have a TT length measurement that is horizontal, or listed as "effective" (a silly misnomer). If the sloping TT length is listed, pay no attention to it. There is no need to measure anything on your current frame, as long as it is what's listed on the Giant website link you posted.

From your posting, it appears that you have never really been fitted and have no idea that you saddle needs to be that far forward. The plumb bob test with a level bike is a must as a starting point.

The fact that you're using a 90mm stem isn't good either. The distance from the tip of your saddle to the center of the bars must be very small, perhaps around 50cm.

I'm going through this dilema right now. I'm trying to find the right size frame for me, and I've done a bit of reading and searches on the topic, but the references are a bit confusing. In some materials it is suggested that the top tube length is the most cricital measurement, whereas others seem to suggest the inseam measurement is the most important.

I used the CC fit calculator with the following measurements;

Gender M
Inseam 80 cm
Trunk 68.5 cm
Forearm 36 cm
Arm 68.5 cm
Thigh 59 cm
Lower Leg 54 cm
Sternal Notch 141 cm
Total Body Height 173.5 cm

This gave me the following results.

The Competitive Fit (cm)
-------------------------------------------
Seat tube range c-c: 51.8 - 52.3
Seat tube range c-t: 53.4 - 53.9
Top tube length: 56.9 - 57.3
Stem Length: 11.7 - 12.3
BB-Saddle Position: 71.5 - 73.5
Saddle-Handlebar: 55.5 - 56.1
Saddle Setback: 3.9 - 4.3
Seatpost Type: NON-SETBACK


The Eddy Fit (cm)
-------------------------------------------
Seat tube range c-c: 53.0 - 53.5
Seat tube range c-t: 54.6 - 55.1
Top tube length: 56.9 - 57.3
Stem Length: 10.6 - 11.2
BB-Saddle Position: 70.7 - 72.7
Saddle-Handlebar: 56.3 - 56.9
Saddle Setback: 5.1 - 5.5
Seatpost Type: NON-SETBACK


The French Fit (cm)
-------------------------------------------
Seat tube range c-c: 54.7 - 55.2
Seat tube range c-t: 56.3 - 56.8
Top tube length: 58.1 - 58.5
Stem Length: 10.8 - 11.4
BB-Saddle Position: 69.0 - 71.0
Saddle-Handlebar: 58.0 - 58.6
Saddle Setback: 4.6 - 5.0
Seatpost Type: SETBACK

The result recommend a 53-54cm (c-t) seat tube, but it says I should find a bike with a top tube of about 57cm. The trouble is most prefab bike frames I have looked at don't come anywhere close to this. In most cases the 53-54cm seat tube frames come with a top tube of around 55cm, while frames with 57cm top tubes come with 58cm seat tubes.

Since you have to make a choice, which measurement is more important for comfort and balance on the bike?

Yours is a classic example of the broad and poor suggestions from this calculator. While it's easy to predict a frame size, based on your inseam, the calculator has no idea if you have the fitness or desire for a racing fit with 8-10cm of drop from the saddle to bars or a 4-5cm drop. To add to the confusion, fewer and fewer frames have either of the traditional c-c or c-t sizes listed. Brands like Trek have never used either one.

TT length by itself, does not determine the frame reach. That requires a seat tube angle to go with it.

In a nutshell, you've got 3cm less inseam and 5-6cm more height than I do. A typical c-c frame size (like LOOK) would be either a 51cm or a 53cm. Either frame could be setup to fit the same, but the larger frame would require a shorter stem and 2cm fewer steering tube spacers or less stem angle. FWIW, even with 3cm more inseam I ride the smaller 51cm, since I can tolerate a 9-10cm drop to the handlebars. I'm shorter so I may want less reach and I like my saddle back a bit, further reducing the stem length I can tolerate. I still use a midsized 110mm stem.

If that's the case, you should have no need for a nonsetback post with the saddle shoved all the way forward.



C40, thanks so much for the help. I really do appreciate it!

I always end up on the nose of the seat and am constantly pushing my self back. So could it be the top tube length that was causing me always to end up so forward on the seat. Like I said when I went to the 90mm stem it felt much better, but unfortunately I think I only got one ride in with the shorty stem.


You still need to post some details about your setup, like an actual saddle height and the height of your bars from the floor to the top of the bars. Saddle height is measured from the center of the crank to the top of the saddle, along the centerline of the seat tube. I also asked for a measurement from the tip of your saddle to the center of the bars.


My saddle height is currently 30 inches. This was set at one of the "professional fittings" I got. It seems too high to me. I'm thinking about dropping it about 1/2 inch.

Measuring from the floor to the top of my bars is 35 5/8 inches.

The measurement from the tip of the saddle (Selle Italia SLR) to the center of the bars at the stem is 20 3/8 inches. I don't know if it matters but from the center of the seatpost to the bars is 26 3/16 inches.


If a plumb line is used in an effort to determine the knee to pedal relationship, then the bike must be sitting absolutely level, or the reading will be meaningless. This can be tough to determine with the bike on a trainer. I usually place mine on a level floor near a wall, where I can lean for stability. With that setup, drop the plumb bob from the front of the knee to the front of the crankarm, or from the lower "boney protuberance" to the pedal spindle (much harder to eyeball without a helper).


You are right. The reason it looked like I was ahead of the pedal was because the bike wasnt' level on the trainerl. I pulled the bike off the trainer and ran a plumb line from the furthest point forward on my knee and it crosses the pedal spindle exactly.


The saddle setback is also measured with a plumb line, dropped from the tip of the saddle. The problem with this measurement is the bike needs to be leaned toward you, or the plumb line not be rub on the frame or crankarm and not be free to swing. It's kind of a crude measurement, but it gives you an idea of where you're at. A 6cm setback is quite common and also should not require the odd setup that you have.


Dropping a plubmline off the nose, the plumbline falls 4 cm (1 9/16") behind the center of the bottom bracket.


There is no need to measure anything on your current frame, as long as it is what's listed on the Giant website link you posted.

The measurements from Giant are for my model and should be correct.


From your posting, it appears that you have never really been fitted and have no idea that you saddle needs to be that far forward. The plumb bob test with a level bike is a must as a starting point.


I've paid for a fitting. I also got a "fitting" when I bought the bike. But considering no one ever measured anything and I just got a couple of "eye ball it" adjustments and "that looks about right" I'm not really confident I received a proper fitting.

Do I measure the distance from the plumbline to the center of the crankset?




Yes. I always put masking tape on the crankarm, turn it horizontal and place marks at 5,6,7cm for reference. It's easier than measuring a moving plumb line.

If your inseam is accurate, then a 76 cm saddle height would be plenty high, but some people naturally pedal toes down/heels up and want a higher saddle. A good starting point is to position the foot horizontal, with the leg locked out at the bottom of the stroke.

If you're sure your knee is over the pedal, I believe you. With the saddle 3cm higher than mine, that moves it back about 1cm and the STA moves it back 1cm more, but the nonsetback post moves it forward 2cm, so the full forward saddle still doesn't add up. I'd only have about 4cm setback with a setup like that.

The saddle tip to center of the bars is on the short side, but not not extremely so. Handlebars reach makes a difference and I assume you have Shimano STI levers. Shimano levers can add 1cm to the reach, compared to Campy.

Your handlebar height is 3cm more than mine, just like your saddle height, so you've got plenty of drop to the bars.

Moving forward on the saddle could just be a saddle angle problem. If you don't have a 2-bolt seatpost clamp that allows fine angle adjustment, a small downward angle can make you slide forward. A lot of single bolt post just can't produce the right angle.

If you get a new frame you need to look for a 74.5 STA, maybe a little more head tube length ( unless the saddle is lowered) and less head tube length. The LOOK optimum geometry in a size S might do the trick.

Unless you are dealing with serious knee pain issues, you should not be making 1/2 inch saddle adjustments at one time. If you would like to try something different saddle-wise, you should only make adjustments of 2-3 mm at a time. (BTW, if the fitter had actually measured something, they would have used a protractor thingee and looked for an angle of 28-30 degrees at the bottom of the pedal stoke).

Additionally, you really should only make one change at a time, then try it for a while, then make other changes. Since you've only done one ride with the 90mm stem, I'd try getting some miles in on that before making further adjustments.

Setting up saddle position is really the only part of bike fit that can be done well by measurement. How long of a top tube and stem you have and how much drop you have from the saddle to handlebars depends not only on your body measurements, but also on things like core strength and flexibility. Goals also come into play here as well (e.g. a racer may be willing to sacrifice a little comfort to get more aero) as well as the type of terrain you generally ride.

I'm about an inch taller than you, with an inseam about 1.25 inches less. On my bikes, the saddle to handebar measurement ranges from 47-49 cm. Anything longer than that is uncomfortable to me (showing my lack of core strength and flexibility!). C-40 seems to be about our size as well, yet he would find my setup to be waaaay to short!

I would ride with your new stem some, and take note of things like where on the handlebars it's comfortable to ride. Can you pedal while in the drops for 10 minutes comfortably? Do you have knee discomfort? Does your back hurt? Those are the sorts of questions that your fitter should have been asking.

As you do more miles, you'll also start to get a better feel for what might be a fit issue and what is conditioning-related. If you've just done your first century, your body is going to hurt, regardless of how well the bike fits. If your body still hurts after your fifth century, then you probably have a fit issue. The number of miles you want to to also factors in. If you mostly want to do 30 mile rides, your range of acceptable fits is a lot wider than if you start doing many thousands of miles per year.

With a 90mm stem and a non-setback post with the seat way forward, my interpretation of the "yup, looks about right" fit guys is that they thought you looked acceptable and knew that doing anything further probably involves a different frame along the lines of what C-40 was suggesting. Not very thorough, but I think you can ride your current bike knowing that something is not horribly wrong at least!

With the saddle 3cm higher than mine, that moves it back about 1cm and the STA moves it back 1cm more, but the nonsetback post moves it forward 2cm, so the full forward saddle still doesn't add up. I'd only have about 4cm setback with a setup like that.


You must have been responding while I was editting my post. I measured the setback and it's 4 cm.

The reason I brought all this up is because someone I know has a TCR advanced carbon frame in small that he wants to sell. The small has a 53.6mm top tube and according to Giant the seat tube equivilent is 51 - 54 cm in a tradition geometetry bike. The seat tube angle is 74 degrees on the small. Retail on the frame when he bought it a year ago was $2600 (although I'm sure he didn't pay that). He's willing to give it to me for $725.

But if the small giant frame isn't going to solve my problem, it really doesn't matter how good of a deal it is.

In terms of saddle adjustment, the small will help a bit--give you an additional 1/2 cm or so to play around with. The shorter top tube will be the biggest advantage--it will give you the option of moving the bars closer to the saddle if you like, or to leave them where they are (with a longer stem, of course).

How flexible are you? Can you easily touch the floor with your knees locked? The reason i ask is that the small has a 2.5 cm shorter head tube, so you will be dropping your stem lower than what you have now. Depending upon how the fork is cut on the new frame, whether you are using spacers currently, and whether you currently have a stem with a lot of rise, you might be able to make some of that up.

You'll also have 6cm more of your seatpost showing. I'm not sure if that is a problem, but somebody else might be able to confirm that.

If you have the flexibility to comfortably drop your handlebars lower, I might go for it. If you're stiff like me, I think you'd be happier with your current frameset.

The CC calculator just give out numbers. in order to get frame dimensions suggested a custom design would have to be created with a slack seat tube angle which isn't listed for the frame dimnsions spitted out by the calculator.

I'm 5'7 with long legs and a short torso. My inseam (measured with in socks with a book against the wall) is 33.25 inches. My lower leg from the floor to the top of my knee is 21.25". My thigh (from the front of my knee to the wall when sitting with my back against the wall) is 23.75 inches.

< snipped >

So my question is would going to a non-compact geometry help, or will I have the same problem regardless of the frame due to my body shape?

Here's a traditional 56-cm frame with a 260-mm long head-tube on eBay:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=140194049038

DOC you are getting good advice from the posters here. Evidently you are not getting much help from your LBS.

Correct me if I am wrong but you want to simplify the procedure a bit to give you a starting point of reference to work with.

With the help of your friend you should be able to get a reasonable set of data in a short time. Another person is key as you will see.

BTW the protractor thingy mentioned above is called a guanometer (spelling?). Also used extensively by physical therapists - you may have access to one depending on what kind of doc you are. Also you will need your plumb line.

For your basic fit a trainer is nice to use if you can get it level - this will mean if you have a level surface you will need to elevate the front tire to the same height as the rear.

Above you mentioned that when you plumbed from the farthest point forward of your knee, the plumb was at the pedal spindle - it should be at the crank arm tip - this is called the new neutral. If true this would indicate that your seat may be still a bit far back - approx. 2cm.

However- I digress. After you have set up your trainer - properly leveled. You can start the basic fit.

First you want to properly line up your cleats to the pedal. For simplicity's sake you want to take it to neutral - meaning your foot should be pointing straight when clipped in. Then you want to adjust your cleats so that the ball of your foot is about 4 - 5 mm in front of the pedal spindle.

Pedal for a few minutes on your trainer to let your body settle in to the bike - this is a more natural position for your physical adaptation to the bike. Maintain your position and slow to a stop your pedaling, so that your front crank arm stops at three o'clock (horizontal to the ground)- your friend can see this accurately - you cannot. Put on your brake on and have your friend put the plumb line on the farthest point forward of your kneecap - you want to have the plumb point line up with the end of the crank arm as mentioned above. Adjust seat accordingly forward or back as needed
Also mentioned above by another poster is the front indent in your knee just below the kneecap to plumb line up with the pedal spindle - we do not employ this method at our bike shop because of the variance in the sizes of indents from person to person - however, the front of the kneecap to the crank arm tip is a constant.

Second - pedal again for a few minutes and come to a stop with your crank arm parallel to the seat tube at aprroximately 4:20 in the down position - again your friend should do this so you can maintain form on the bike. Have your friend use the guanometer at your knee joint to determine your angle of bend - as mentioned above the ideal angle is close to 30 degrees. Your friend should try to aim the guanometer so that it would bisect your ankle bone (the knob) at the bottom and aim to bisect your hip bone going up to get this measurement. Now you may have to adjust the seat again - either up or down. Realize when you do this you will change the adjustment of your first measurement. If you move the seat up your kneecap will now be positioned behind the crank arm tip - if you move the seat down your kneecap will be in front. Again adjust the seat accordingly until these you achieve the two desired target measurements.

Third we can now move to the upper torso. When you reach for your bars on the hoods (always on the hoods) your arms should be close to 45 degrees from your upper torso (guanometer). My guess is your arms are going to be at a higher degree due to the longer reach issue you may have even with the 90mm stem.

If you can reasonably attain these measurements - than chances are the frame fits you. If one or more of these measurements is significantly off you may need a different frame.
If the measurements are good you want to write a few numbers down. 1) Crank center to seat top measured along the seat tube. 2) Seat tip (front) to bar center. 3) Drop from seat top to bar top as measured from the ground - also mentioned above by another poster.

Keep in mind these are the basics - there is much more to a complete fit but this is the best / simplest way for you to determine if you have the right frame.

BTW Giant uses different frame measurements from almost every other manufacturer. By the measurements you posted for the frame the one you purchased would be a 55cm (road bike dimensions and your dimensions for fit purposes are measured metrically). There are plenty of good manufacturers other than Giant making bikes in these sizes. For comparison I am 5'11.5" with a 32.5 leg length and ride a 55cm Look with a 56" TT - fits me better than any other raod bike I have owned (many) and currently own (two others).

If you were to come in at your height and dimensions etc.. I would start you on a 53 or 54. If leg length were an issue we could move up in size. As mentioned above - what generally happens in order to accomodate long legs and short torso is the seat is raised higher above the bars which is OK. Especially for C-40 and racers to get more aero - just not everyone.

If you want to pursue this further please advise - good luck.

You must have been responding while I was editting my post. I measured the setback and it's 4 cm.

The reason I brought all this up is because someone I know has a TCR advanced carbon frame in small that he wants to sell. The small has a 53.6mm top tube and according to Giant the seat tube equivilent is 51 - 54 cm in a tradition geometetry bike. The seat tube angle is 74 degrees on the small. Retail on the frame when he bought it a year ago was $2600 (although I'm sure he didn't pay that). He's willing to give it to me for $725.

But if the small giant frame isn't going to solve my problem, it really doesn't matter how good of a deal it is.

The head tube length on the size S is on the short side for your saddle height. The steering tube has probably been cut too short for your use. If we assume that you may lower the saddle by 1cm and the bars by 1cm, to 89cm, then you'd need about a 165mm total length of the head tube, headset and spacers with a common 84 degree stem, or 145-150mm with a flipped 96 degree stem. Some people object to the look of a 96 degree stem, but if you've got odd proportions, it can be necessary.

The STA on the size S would be an improvement, but not a lot. The top of the seatpost would only be about 6mm futher forward. The shorter TT would be an improvment.

Your 4cm saddle setback isn't surprising. It's about what I would have expected. As I noted, your knee position just doesn't add up with the dimensions you've posted. One possiblity is that you sit further back on the saddle than I do, so your knee is further back than the saddle tip would suggest. Pdh777 correctly noted, that if plumb bob was dropped from the front of your knee, it's common to have the plumb line fall at the end of the crankarm. To take this measurement accurately, you really need to have the bike set level, on a trainer, and ride it for a few minutes, then stop pedaling and take the measurement. If you just jump on the bike and take the measurement, you may not be sitting in the same position as you would during normal riding.

I'd work on the saddle height first. Try placing the foot horizontal with the leg locked at the bottom of the stroke first and see how much lower that is. It was suggested that a goniometer be used to measure the leg angle, but that only works if you can figure out what your "normal" foot angle is while pedaling. For example, if you adjust the saddle height as I described above, it requires about a 2-3cm rise of the heel to produce the commonly recommend 30 degree angle between the upper and lower leg at the bottom of the stroke. If the foot angle isn't normal, the goniometer reading will be incorrect.

As for stem length, one of my guidelines is to insure that you have no arm to knee interference when your hands are in the hooks, you can reach the brake levers and your upper back is nearly horizontal. If your knees and arms hit, then the cockpit is too short and a longer stem should be tried.

Yours is a classic example of the broad and poor suggestions from this calculator. While it's easy to predict a frame size, based on your inseam, the calculator has no idea if you have the fitness or desire for a racing fit with 8-10cm of drop from the saddle to bars or a 4-5cm drop. To add to the confusion, fewer and fewer frames have either of the traditional c-c or c-t sizes listed. Brands like Trek have never used either one.

TT length by itself, does not determine the frame reach. That requires a seat tube angle to go with it.

In a nutshell, you've got 3cm less inseam and 5-6cm more height than I do. A typical c-c frame size (like LOOK) would be either a 51cm or a 53cm. Either frame could be setup to fit the same, but the larger frame would require a shorter stem and 2cm fewer steering tube spacers or less stem angle. FWIW, even with 3cm more inseam I ride the smaller 51cm, since I can tolerate a 9-10cm drop to the handlebars. I'm shorter so I may want less reach and I like my saddle back a bit, further reducing the stem length I can tolerate. I still use a midsized 110mm stem.

Thanks for the input C-40.

I'm still confused about selecting the appropriate frame size for me. Based on these numbers it appears only a custom frame would really accomodate my relatively short legs and long torso. But I'm sure there must be factory frame out there that would work well for me.

I did a test ride on a Trek 52cm frame a few days ago and it absolutely felt like I was riding a kiddy bike... the entire bike felt ridiculously small. I also rode a LeMond Chambery 53cm, which felt much better for me, but I think I would prefer a few more centimeters of arm reach for my liking. Clearly, the way these two bikes are sized and their geometry where much more than just 1 cm apart.

Unfortunatley, there are very few LBSs in my vicinity and the three I visited most recently didn't inspire my confidence. I asked each of them to size me for a bike and they didn't take any kind of measurements or anything, they just sized me by eye and then got a bike from a rack they thought looked like a good fit. One shop said they would charge me $100 to do a fitting if I bring in my own bike, but said it wasn't necessary in order to buy one of their in-stock bikes since they carry standard frame sizes (whatever that means).

I ride purely for fitness, I'm not interested in racing or competition of any kind, and I ride solely on paved smooth road surfaces, no offroad or loose surfaces. Comfort is paramount, power and speed are secondary. I ride about 2500-3000 miles a year. My cateye says I rode 8,000 miles in the past 3 years. My average speed is around 17-18mph on my current Bianchi hybrid. But my Bianchi is ready to retire after 17 years of good service, so I am looking into getting a new road bike. I just can't seem to find a decent LBS that can instruct me or size me up properly, so before I drop a good chunk of change on a new bike I want to be sure it's sized right for me.

The best thing to do these days is forget about frame "size" and concentrate on the cirtical dimensions of TT length, seat tube angle and head tube length (with headset and spacers). Take a tape measure with you, so you can at least measure the head tube length. Trek uses an oddball method of measuring frame size, which makes all of their frames smaller than the size would suggest.

The "52cm" Trek that you tested might be too small, but it depends on the exact model. Keep in mind that saddle fore/aft position must be set first. If the saddle is too far forward, it will make the frame feel smaller, since the cockpit length is shortened. The bike may also have had a short stem, making the bike feel even smaller. Since your inseam is only 3cm less than mine, you can probably ride the same size frame that I would, use 1cm more steering tube spacer and produce a 5-6cm drop to the bars. Even though you are taller, if you want a more conservative and comfortable position, you would probably not want any longer reach than I have on my bike.

Looking at the geometry of the 53cm Lemond, I can see that it should fit fairly well. Notice that it only comes with a short 100mm stem. The 51cm frame with a 110mm stem would have about the same reach, with the saddle in the same position relative to the BB. The 51cm comes stock with a really short 90mm stem, so if you test rode it, you would think it was too small, but it's just the stem that needs to be 20mm longer. That's the size I would choose to get a shorter head tube. If you want the bars to have less than a 5-6cm drop, the the larger 53cm might be the better choice.

http://www.lemondbikes.com/bike_archive/2007/road_racing/carbon_aluminum_spine/chambery.php?tab=2

Finding a stock bike that will fit should be no problem. Remember that stems come in length ranging from 80-130mm, so the reach to the handlebars can be adjusted over quite a range. I like to use stems in the 100-120mm range. Above or below that, says the frame doesn't fit very well.

The best thing to do these days is forget about frame "size" and concentrate on the cirtical dimensions of TT length, seat tube angle and head tube length (with headset and spacers). Take a tape measure with you, so you can at least measure the head tube length. Trek uses an oddball method of measuring frame size, which makes all of their frames smaller than the size would suggest.

The "52cm" Trek that you tested might be too small, but it depends on the exact model. Keep in mind that saddle fore/aft position must be set first. If the saddle is too far forward, it will make the frame feel smaller, since the cockpit length is shortened. The bike may also have had a short stem, making the bike feel even smaller. Since your inseam is only 3cm less than mine, you can probably ride the same size frame that I would, use 1cm more steering tube spacer and produce a 5-6cm drop to the bars. Even though you are taller, if you want a more conservative and comfortable position, you would probably not want any longer reach than I have on my bike.

Looking at the geometry of the 53cm Lemond, I can see that it should fit fairly well. Notice that it only comes with a short 100mm stem. The 51cm frame with a 110mm stem would have about the same reach, with the saddle in the same position relative to the BB. The 51cm comes stock with a really short 90mm stem, so if you test rode it, you would think it was too small, but it's just the stem that needs to be 20mm longer. That's the size I would choose to get a shorter head tube. If you want the bars to have less than a 5-6cm drop, the the larger 53cm might be the better choice.

http://www.lemondbikes.com/bike_archive/2007/road_racing/carbon_aluminum_spine/chambery.php?tab=2

Finding a stock bike that will fit should be no problem. Remember that stems come in length ranging from 80-130mm, so the reach to the handlebars can be adjusted over quite a range. I like to use stems in the 100-120mm range. Above or below that, says the frame doesn't fit very well.

C-40, thanks for your help.

The LeMond felt pretty good, but I still felt the TT was a little short, which I guess could be remedied with a longer stem.

I'm more interested in comfort than speed or power, so I don't want too much drop. With comfort as the primary objective, what else would you suggest in the geometry and the setup?

The geometry won't affect comfort to any degree. Just be sure you have the saddle height and fore/aft position adjusted first, then get the stem length and handlebar height you want.

Don't judge the fit of a bike based on a test ride, unless the sadde if properly adjusted and you've got at least a 110mm stem. I don't know why manufacturers want to put such short stems on their stock bikes. Even a 100mm stem can cause my knees to occasionally hit the handlebars when riding out of the saddle. If you have a small drop from saddle to bars, an even longer stem is often desired.

Stock bikes also might no have the brake/shift levers mounted properly and/or have bars with a downward angle from the top to the brake hood.

Well I ended up picking up the small TCR advanced frame. What a difference! I've got a lot of seatpost showing but the top tube is sooooo much better for me. I've also have a bit more drop than before (9 cm), but I have no problem with it. I think I'm just so thankful not to be so stretched out that I'd have had no problems with even more drop.

I bought a set of Easton EC90 SLX3 bars in 40 cm which have a much shorter reach than the bars that came on my medium frame bike.

My knee-over-pedal position is much better as well. In fact with the non-setback seat post I've got the seat pretty much as far back as it can go (based on the marks on the seat rails that you aren't supposed to exceed). I could probably almost go back to a set-back seatpost but by my calcs that would put the seat at the opposite extreme (as far back as allowed by the marks on the rails). So I'm going to stick with the non-setback post. I really can't explain this one as both frames should have had the same seat-tube angle. So this should not have changed.

Between the new frame and the narrower/shorter/shallower bars it's an amazing difference. It looks a little goofy with so much seatpost showing but with longs legs, a short torso and a compact geometry frame I'm just going to have to live with that.

Thanks for the input everyone.

Hey Doc_D. I'm just a bit taller than you at 5'8" and my last bike which i got used was an XS. It fit me nice. I just moved up to an S or a 52 in Fuji sizing and its below what all the Fit calculators recommended I get. Even the Fuji site recommended a larger frame at 54 for my size. But I'm perfectly happy with the size of my bike now. I can't imagine having a 54 cuz then I'd need a 80mm stem or shorter. Its a good thing you got the right size for you. I just wanted to chime in and say that those fit guides aren't always correct and that a lot of guys in my area actually use small size frames and they're all about our height.

post a photo of the new setup.

First you want to properly line up your cleats to the pedal. For simplicity's sake you want to take it to neutral - meaning your foot should be pointing straight when clipped in. Then you want to adjust your cleats so that the ball of your foot is about 4 - 5 mm in front of the pedal spindle.


Hi, I've read somewhere that the ball of your foot should be inline with the pedal spindle. Benefits?