# Giant Sizing Question



## curtdawg6 (Feb 26, 2012)

I have a question on Giant TCR Sizing. I'm 5"10 with apparently a shorter torso. I'm test riding a M TCR but feel stretched with a 100 mm stem. Giant for some reason jumps from a 535 MM top tupe on the Small to a 555 on the M. Most companies go to 545. I really don't want to go shorter with the stem. Of course I'll ride first but does going down to s size S seem ridiculous? I figure I could run a 110 stem to mimic a 545 but am wondering what that's going to do to the seat height and angle aside from obviously making it higher? Anybody have any of the same experience with Giant?


----------



## icsloppl (Aug 25, 2009)

Your fit situation is typical of what a lot of Giant buyers see. At 5'10" you're at the high end of the Medium range according to Giant. You could go with a small, but several things will happen that you'll have to compensate for. If your legs are long, you'll be very bent over while standing. This position is useful for sprinting in the drops, but not much else.

The easy adjustment is to center the saddle on the post and rotate the bars so that the flat section between the stem and hoods is parallel to the ground, and with the hoods at a ~ 10 degree positive angle. If you look at the Giant site, that's how they have the bikes setup.

TCR Advanced SL 0 (2012) - Bikes | Giant Bicycles | United States

What you often find at dealers is the "standard" setup with a downward angle on the flats and the hoods parallel to the ground. The difference in extension is about 2cm's, which may be what you're looking for.


----------



## curtdawg6 (Feb 26, 2012)

Thanks for the response icsloppl! I'll try your suggestion and see how it feels. I've also thought about maybe going to a shallow bar with a 70mm reach. The fit is oh so close. Just really wish Giant would bring their top tube in. That one cm would make a world of difference.


----------



## icsloppl (Aug 25, 2009)

I think your experience is pretty typical. Compact frames aren't that much more difficult to fit than others but they are a bit different.
IMO at the price of the better models, we should expect that the dealer is both willing and able to provide an optimal fitting. A lot of them seem more experienced in the lower price-point bikes where the customer doesn't understand fit and doesn't really know the difference. Letting them get away wth that approach with the higher-end models isn't doing them or us any good in the long run.


----------



## tidi (Jan 11, 2008)

Glad this got brought up. I'm 179cm which is around 5'10' i think. I tried the medium and felt to stretched as well. So i borrowed a small and felt much better. I have a saddle height of 770mm which the frame/seatpost still accommodated me. My only gripe was the 'vertical compliance'. It was a tcr with 105 so comes with the aero shaped carbon post. I felt it a little soft but not uncomfortable. I like a bike to feel solid and stable which the giant was stable but after coming from an aluminium frame it felt overly plush to me.
Thanx for posting this topic.
Btw if i buy a small tcr i would go with wider bars and 172.5 cranks.


----------



## Sun Rider (Jul 8, 2012)

curtdawg6 said:


> Thanks for the response icsloppl! I'll try your suggestion and see how it feels. I've also thought about maybe going to a shallow bar with a 70mm reach. The fit is oh so close. Just really wish Giant would bring their top tube in. That one cm would make a world of difference.


Changing the stem on a new DEFY Advanced 0, Large, and was surprised to learn that the steering tube is 1 1/4" and not the universal 1 1/8". There are no after market stems in 1 1/4.
I have to buy Giant's. Going from the stock 110mm to 70mm.


----------



## darwinosx (Oct 12, 2010)

Sun Rider said:


> Changing the stem on a new DEFY Advanced 0, Large, and was surprised to learn that the steering tube is 1 1/4" and not the universal 1 1/8". There are no after market stems in 1 1/4.
> I have to buy Giant's. Going from the stock 110mm to 70mm.


Not true. FSA and Ritchey make stems in that size and at least one other company whose name I don't recall. Canyon also uses that size. Nothing wrong with Giant stems though.


----------



## darwinosx (Oct 12, 2010)

curtdawg6 said:


> I have a question on Giant TCR Sizing. I'm 5"10 with apparently a shorter torso. I'm test riding a M TCR but feel stretched with a 100 mm stem. Giant for some reason jumps from a 535 MM top tupe on the Small to a 555 on the M. Most companies go to 545. I really don't want to go shorter with the stem. Of course I'll ride first but does going down to s size S seem ridiculous? I figure I could run a 110 stem to mimic a 545 but am wondering what that's going to do to the seat height and angle aside from obviously making it higher? Anybody have any of the same experience with Giant?


Why don't you try a 90 mm stem? That's what I have on my large Defy Advanced. Your Giant dealer should provide whatever size you need.


----------



## Sun Rider (Jul 8, 2012)

darwinosx said:


> Not true. FSA and Ritchey make stems in that size and at least one other company whose name I don't recall. Canyon also uses that size. Nothing wrong with Giant stems though.


Thanks for the info. Your right, nothing wrong with the Giant stems.


----------



## tidi (Jan 11, 2008)

Can anyone pass on the front centre measurement of a small tcr from bb centre to front axle centre as the crow flies?
Sorry to hijack


----------



## darwinosx (Oct 12, 2010)

The measurements Giant provides are here but maybe they don't fnt what you are looking for.Bike Finder - Giant Bicycles | United States


----------



## Cannot (Jun 27, 2012)

I'm about 5'10" and my Defy 2 is M. It fits me pretty well.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

icsloppl said:


> Y
> *The easy adjustment is to center the saddle on the post* and rotate the bars so that the flat section between the stem and hoods is parallel to the ground, and with the hoods at a ~ 10 degree positive angle. If you look at the Giant site, that's how they have the bikes setup.


Bad advice, IMO/E. As he describes it, the OP's fit issue is simply excessive reach. That's not corrected by making adjustments at the saddle. Rather, as darwinosx states, employ a shorter stem. This method addresses the reach issue while preserving the riders f/r weight distribution.


----------



## tidi (Jan 11, 2008)

Anyone for a front centre measurement on a small current tcr ?


----------



## icsloppl (Aug 25, 2009)

PJ352 said:


> Bad advice, IMO/E. As he describes it, the OP's fit issue is simply excessive reach. That's not corrected by making adjustments at the saddle. Rather, as darwinosx states, employ a shorter stem. This method addresses the reach issue while preserving the riders f/r weight distribution.


So you know that the initial saddle postion of the bike in the shop is correct, even though there has been no attempt to fit it, and the bar position is optimal though you haven't seen it, correct?


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

icsloppl said:


> So you know that the initial saddle postion of the bike in the shop is correct, even though there has been no attempt to fit it, and the bar position is optimal though you haven't seen it, correct?


We only know what the OP has provided thus far, but seeing as he's mentioned test riding bikes it's not for you or I to do an 'internet fitting'. That's the LBS's job. We can, however advise on best practices, so he understands acceptable remedies and is then able to work with the fitter. 

And speaking of best practices, it's simply not correct to make saddle adjustments to address a reach issue, and that's what's being described here. I do agree that the proper saddle adjustments should be made _prior to_ addressing reach issues. Something the fitter should be aware of - but also the OP. 

All of this really comes down to fundamental, best practices of bike fit. Nothing more. 

OP: This brings up a point that the onus is on your LBS/ fitter to get sizing right. Sure, you can take a pro-active part in the process, offering what feels right and what doesn't, but don't fret over going with ~90 degree stem if that gets you in a comfortable range on reach. 

Remember too, that if you drop down to a small, you'll lose head tube height, so depending on flexibility, you may have to resort to taller stem angle/ headset configurations. Best to discuss these options with your fitter.


----------



## curtdawg6 (Feb 26, 2012)

Quick update for those that had the same issue: Through this process I found out a few things I never knew and probably exhausted the process more than I should have! After reading a ton, I saw that in addition to the stem, the handlebars also have a reach length- something I'd never considered before. Sure, I could've swapped the stem, but for me, dropping what to me is a lot of money on a bike, I really wanted the aesthetics to be what I really, really like. I like the look of a longer stem, nitpicky I know. The stock bars had a 90 mm reach, so I traded them for a set of Easton's with a 75 mm reach and got to a perfect feel. The reach to the straight part of the bar was no issue. Problem solved and I absolutely love riding the bike now. Thanks to everyone who added to the discussion!


----------



## darwinosx (Oct 12, 2010)

You are giving up correct fit for aesthetics that nobody will notice. Going down 10mm on a stem is not noticeable but makes a big difference in proper fit.
Your Giant dealer should have given you the correct stem length at no extra cost. They are stocked with stems to do so.
Those are already pretty compact bars like most these days so i don't know how much you are going to be able to compensate on reach.
I use Bontrager bars to get a shorter reach in a 46cm size bar.
The ones ending in -C are the compact bars.
Bontrager: Products > Components > Handlebars
I like this one for a flat top that feels better on my hands.
Bontrager: Blade VR-C 31.8 (Model #08350)

This is what a 90mm stem looks like on my Large size Defy.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

curtdawg6 said:


> Quick update for those that had the same issue: Through this process I found out a few things I never knew and probably exhausted the process more than I should have! After reading a ton, I saw that in addition to the stem, the handlebars also have a reach length- something I'd never considered before. Sure, I could've swapped the stem, but for me, dropping what to me is a lot of money on a bike, I really wanted the aesthetics to be what I really, really like. * I like the look of a longer stem, nitpicky I know. The stock bars had a 90 mm reach, so I traded them for a set of Easton's with a 75 mm reach and got to a perfect feel. The reach to the straight part of the bar was no issue. Problem solved *and I absolutely love riding the bike now. Thanks to everyone who added to the discussion!


IMO, you did exactly the right thing, and not because of aesthetics.

If you had shortened your reach by replacing the stem, it would have moved your bars closer. As you say, riding the tops wasn't an issue, so there was no need to change that. By replacing the bars with short reach, you brought only the part back that you needed to. A win-win IMHO and exactly the right way to do it.


----------



## darwinosx (Oct 12, 2010)

You think a shorter reach is going to compensate for 10mm of stem?


----------



## curtdawg6 (Feb 26, 2012)

For me three items were at play this being a bike I plan to race: 1) comfort 2) aesthetics (I want my race bike to look "racy" or whatever 3) supporting my local shop which is a startup and guys I'm good friends with. Their first idea was to go 90mm. Eventually I may have done that. But dropping a lot of money on a bike, I want every detail to be to my liking, even if it meant going to a different manufacturer. With the bars there were two things, the reach is 15mm shorter and we went from 44 to 42 on the width. The difference in feel was night and day.


----------



## darwinosx (Oct 12, 2010)

Whatever works for you is good. Enjoy the bike. I'm loving mine. Post a picture!


----------

