Sizing Ridley X-Fire - Page 2
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 49 of 49
  1. #26
    Biker
    Reputation: musikfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    51
    double post?
    Last edited by musikfan; 09-16-2010 at 10:03 AM.

  2. #27
    Biker
    Reputation: musikfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    51
    chime in :

    I'm about 5'8"
    my road tarmac is a 52
    my Ridley Crosswind is a 50
    both bikes share a 100 mm stem.
    My Ridley has a setback FSA seatpost
    my Tarmac has the stock (sort of setback seatpost).

    The standover is not an issue, it's TT you should worry about.
    my Ridley geometry is similar to my Tarmac - they both feel nimble and quick.
    The new Specialized CruX has newer faster geometry on it - similar to the Tarmac (crit bikes).

  3. #28
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    559
    I am 5' 7" (and a half, never forget about the 1/2)

    Ride a small Ridley Excalibur. Just bought a 52 X-Fire. Super. Fits perfect with a 100mm stem.

  4. #29
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,507

    You know...

    there are other brands out there... OR, go custom! I went with a custom Primus Mootry.. Couldn't be happier.. I really wanted a Ridley, and still do, but not the head ache it takes to figure out the sizing.. I'm 6' with a 31.5 inseam.. A 54 TT for me is just to damn short, although it fits good in other ways..

    Just curious, why do you want a Ridley? What about a Stevens, Giant or Specialized?
    Get this thing off my head!!!!!
    www.augustacrosscoalition.blogspot.com

  5. #30
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,388
    Ridley's do fit huge. I know, I've fit dozens of them. We are the biggest Ridely dealer within 1500km.
    I'm the same size as you, I ride a 50. Don't base it on TT length alone, but also factor in STA.

  6. #31
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: akrafty1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    141
    I am 5' 9" with a measured inseam of 838mm in my mtb shoes and got the 52. If I was any shorter I would have gotten the 50. I dont have much stand over but with a 110 stem the TT is the same as my 54 road bike (54.5). I do love the ridley so.

    Check your standover and your needed TT and go from there. The frames are Huge! Measure thrice and buy once.

  7. #32
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: bassethound's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    18
    I soooo wish I could fit on an X-Fire. There are crazy deals on them now and I'm in the market. But, I have a 79cm inseam. The TT on the 48 is perfect, but the stand over is 82.5.
    While I don't need a ton of clearence -3.5c would probably have me singing soprano.
    The 41 has a way short TT for me. I'd have to run a 130mm or greater stem. Grrrrr....

  8. #33
    Do not touch the trim.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    2,381
    Remember Ridleys have steep seat tubes so if you are coming from a 73 seat tube add another centimeter to the Ridley top tube as it has a 74d seat tube in the 48 size.

  9. #34
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by OnTheRivet
    Remember Ridleys have steep seat tubes so if you are coming from a 73 seat tube add another centimeter to the Ridley top tube as it has a 74d seat tube in the 48 size.
    thats a good point.
    Ridley's seem bigger because they ride higher than other bikes. Not certain what the A-C length on the fork is, but I know it must be long. I am 6'1.5" and im on their medium damocles for the road with a 56.5cm top tube. granted there is a fair amount of seat to handlebar drop, but the longer the arms, the more the drop in my opinion.
    when I line this bike up against my other bikes, it seems giant. They have high BB's, high stays and high forks.

  10. #35
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    20
    I'll chime in. I ride Ridleys. I'm 6'1" and ride a Large (essentially a 60) Excalibur and a 58 X-Fire. I would be super cramped on a 56 Ridley, if I were to follow some people's advice. I'm new to cross but I got fit at my LBS that has a large cross focus and followed their advice. I just did my first cross race and love the Ridley. The course had almost all super tight lower speed turns, I love the high bottom bracket for whipping around that stuff.

  11. #36
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    960
    Quote Originally Posted by Pdxplosif
    thats a good point.
    Ridley's seem bigger because they ride higher than other bikes. Not certain what the A-C length on the fork is, but I know it must be long. I am 6'1.5" and im on their medium damocles for the road with a 56.5cm top tube. granted there is a fair amount of seat to handlebar drop, but the longer the arms, the more the drop in my opinion.
    when I line this bike up against my other bikes, it seems giant. They have high BB's, high stays and high forks.

    Ridley CX bikes do not have tall AC length forks. They are pretty much industry standard and actually lower than a lot of others forks.

    They do have high BB and tall seat tubes. Some of their models have rather tall headtubes as well (but a lot of that is to match their taller BB, since that effectively raises your seat height compared to the front end of the bike.)

  12. #37
    DonRacer
    Reputation: nazgul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    63

    Another data point

    I'm 6'0" and ride a Medium Excalibur on the road, and a 56 X-Fire. The X-Fire is a tall bike but works for my 88cm inseam.

  13. #38
    semi-literate moron
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    151
    Here we are five years later, and their sizing is still confusing... Well, not too confusing, just wrong, plain and simple. Stand over height on a cross bike is important, particularly if you're racing. Period. Getting a proper stand over height with an X-Fire means running a top tube close to two inches shorter than other bikes. Yeah, I know slammed back saddles mounted to extra-long seat posts with plenty of setback and 130mm stems on a mess of spacers can make the numbers technically right again... But it's still insane. The X-Fire was designed by someone with no knowledge of proper bike fit, end of story. As someone else on this thread said... There are other brands out there.

  14. #39
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    5,270
    Quote Originally Posted by Starter View Post
    Here we are five years later, and their sizing is still confusing... Well, not too confusing, just wrong, plain and simple. Stand over height on a cross bike is important, particularly if you're racing. Period. Getting a proper stand over height with an X-Fire means running a top tube close to two inches shorter than other bikes. Yeah, I know slammed back saddles mounted to extra-long seat posts with plenty of setback and 130mm stems on a mess of spacers can make the numbers technically right again... But it's still insane. The X-Fire was designed by someone with no knowledge of proper bike fit, end of story. As someone else on this thread said... There are other brands out there.
    Oh no, we better tell these guys to buy better bikes!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sz0ITwl-CW8

  15. #40
    semi-literate moron
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    151
    Quote Originally Posted by pretender View Post
    Oh no, we better tell these guys to buy better bikes!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sz0ITwl-CW8
    Have you ever raced professionally? You'd ride an outsized cucumber with pumpkins for wheels if they told you to.

  16. #41
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    5,270
    Quote Originally Posted by Starter View Post
    Have you ever raced professionally? You'd ride an outsized cucumber with pumpkins for wheels if they told you to.
    OK I'll explain why both of your posts are absurd. 1) Ridley bikes have won at least 7 CX world championships since 2002. Nobody has won the WK on a cucumber. 2) Tons of good amateur racers, including yours truly, pay their own hard-earned money to race on Ridleys, and are pleased as punch to do so. 3) Standover height is not important on a CX bike. It is more important to have a large main triangle for portaging. 4) The Ridley CX geometry was developed by a team of designers who have a deep knowledge of proper bike fit.

  17. #42
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    5,270
    Here's an interesting story about a guy who chose to ride a crappy old 2008 blacked-out unmarked X-Fire in China. What a chump!
    Pro Bike: Thijs Al's China UCI Race-Winning Ridley - Cyclocross Magazine - Cyclocross News, Races, Bikes, Photos, Videos

  18. #43
    semi-literate moron
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    151
    Quote Originally Posted by pretender View Post
    OK I'll explain why both of your posts are absurd. 1) Ridley bikes have won at least 7 CX world championships since 2002. Nobody has won the WK on a cucumber. 2) Tons of good amateur racers, including yours truly, pay their own hard-earned money to race on Ridleys, and are pleased as punch to do so. 3) Standover height is not important on a CX bike. It is more important to have a large main triangle for portaging. 4) The Ridley CX geometry was developed by a team of designers who have a deep knowledge of proper bike fit.
    1) That's because no cucumber bicycle manufacturer has put the cash down. If they did, they'd have riders. And again, you can fix Ridley's bad geometry with stem and seatpost workarounds, and be competitive. But you shouldn't have to. 2) You're an am. You have no idea. The irony is, if a manufacturer came along that produced bicycles made out of cucumbers, and offered you a contract, you'd take it in an instant. 3) Granted, however valve caps generally aren't important either. But if a company designed them six feet long and made out of lead, they'd become important insomuch as they would pointlessly suck. Kind of like an extra 2.5 to 3 inches of standover height compared to bikes with similar TT lengths. That number is crazy. 4. The Ridley CX geometry was developed by a team of designers with a completely contrary idea of fit to literally the entire industry. Literally every other bike manufacturer says "huh, I don't think I'm going to design a bike sized vertically for someone 6'5" and horizontally for someone 5' 8"." Ridley designers think it's a fine idea. You're free to believe that represents a deep knowledge of proper bike fit; every single designer in the industry who does not work for Ridely disagrees.

  19. #44
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    5,270
    You piqued my curiosity enough to pull some data.
    Attachment 308761

  20. #45
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    960
    I'll echo pretender's comments 100%.

    Standover height is probably the least important aspect of geometry on any bicycle, CX or otherwise. It's a total red herring.

    Seriously, when was the last time you needed to "stand over" your TT with both feet flat on the ground. I've certainly never done that during a race and care barely think of any time I've done such.

    You might say at the start line, but then you have one foot clipped in, slightly leaned, ball of other foot, etc. I've never needed standover during a dismount in a race.

    What I do appreciate is a large open triangle to ease shouldering. This is really important for euros (you know, where Ridley is from), as they have a LOT more muddy races that turn into running events.

    A bit of extra seat tube length doesn't effect saddle hight or fit at all. The saddle is in a fix position from the BB either way. It just opens up the inside of the bike more. Once you realize standover is meaningless, this isn't an issue.

    Also, the taller BB height makes for easier pedaling in mud, side hills, and for hopping barriers and logs.

    Now, I personally think the traditional Ridley BB heights are a bit on the tall side, especially for races in the USA. But, they have tweaked those down slightly over the last few years and they really aren't much different than the other brands now. So, I'm not sure what your beef is?

    I think you're just terribly misinformed about what actually matters during a CX race and want to complain about a perceived flaw in a bike. Why complain about something being different? If it doesn't work for you.. don't buy it. Diversity in frame design is a good thing, it gives us options to seek out what we like and what works best for our application.

    I will say that I don't think Ridley CX bikes work the best for a gravel machine. The BB is a bit high for great high speed stability and cornering. But, they've always been great for me on an actual CX race course. I have some Ridley bikes still (and have owned many in the past), some custom steel bikes that have lower BB, and some new Specialized bike that have lower BB as well. I like the versatility of the Crux but would never bag on the Ridley for CX racing.

  21. #46
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    5,270
    Quote Originally Posted by Corndog View Post
    I will say that I don't think Ridley CX bikes work the best for a gravel machine.
    I don't care so much about BB height but I wish that MSO 40's fit under my X-Fire.

  22. #47
    semi-literate moron
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    151
    Quote Originally Posted by Corndog View Post
    I think you're just terribly misinformed about what actually matters during a CX race and want to complain about a perceived flaw in a bike. Why complain about something being different? If it doesn't work for you.. don't buy it. Diversity in frame design is a good thing, it gives us options to seek out what we like and what works best for our application.

    I will say that I don't think Ridley CX bikes work the best for a gravel machine. The BB is a bit high for great high speed stability and cornering. But, they've always been great for me on an actual CX race course. I have some Ridley bikes still (and have owned many in the past), some custom steel bikes that have lower BB, and some new Specialized bike that have lower BB as well. I like the versatility of the Crux but would never bag on the Ridley for CX racing.
    Maybe we're talking about different things.

    In a perfect world without crashes in traffic, standover height shouldn't matter on a CX bike. Much like a mirror-finish paint job wouldn't matter in a world without sunlight. Unfortunately, (or fortunately, actually) there is sunlight, so a mirror-finish bike is liable to blind someone and send them into the side of med van parked course-side.

    And since crashes in traffic are a part of the CX world, a TT two inches taller than one's inseam is transformed from something that shouldn't matter into an excellent (if painful) contraceptive device.

    I don't know about you two, but when I crash, it's generally because I got stuck in traffic, and somebody got nervous and caused a scene. In such an event, you often don't have the room to lay it down gracefully. Going down hard astride the TT is a real possibility.

    Is this an every day thing? No. Is it an important concern? Yes. So WHY have a TT 3 inches taller than it needs to be? What's the reasoning behind it? Bottom line, there is none. It's a stupid decision indicative of bad design, and again, something literally EVERY OTHER MANUFACTURER IN CX has avoided.

    I get what you two are saying with regards to overall performance... And like I pointed out, you can fix the geo by way of stem length and post setback... But why should you have to? Just get the geo right in the first place.

  23. #48
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    960
    I guess I just don't get it. I've never "crashed" on my TT with my neither regions, likewise not a single person I actually know has done so either.

    Now, I've botched a remount or two and given a shot to the boys with by saddle! But, if you find yourself doing such silliness then it's probably best to avoid bikes with tall (off the ground) top tubes.

  24. #49
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    Posts
    1
    Anyone with a 58cm that can share what the standover height of the top tube is?

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

THE SITE

ABOUT ROADBIKEREVIEW

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2020 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.