# Sizing Question



## jwilk (Mar 6, 2008)

I am 6'1", 33.5 inch inseam, and weigh 190 lbs. My current ride is a 61cm Specialized Tarmac SL. I am thinking hard about a EP and have made some inquiries as to fit. I was surprised to hear 54/55cm would be an appropriate size frame. This may be Colnago specific and am having trouble getting my brain wrapped around going from a 61 to a 54/55. 

Hey.......now I know why I got dropped last Sunday.......my frame is too big! Any thoughts or suggestions? There is not much stock in my size where I live to go demo.


----------



## slamy (Mar 15, 2004)

54/55 what? center to top or center to center? Traditionally Colnago's are measured from the center of the bottom bracket to the top of the seat tube. So if the 55 is a center to center measurement then it would be a 57 center to top. Under Lemond's formula for fitting bike frames, a 33.5 inseam would probably ride a 56-57 center to top or a 54-55 center to center frame. But with your odd measurements I would not be sure if you should worry more about the seat tube size or the top tube size, since seat height is more easy to adjust then the stem size. BTW this info is for a traditional sized frame, compacts I'm not sure how to measure since I don't own one and probably won't own one.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

jwilk said:


> I am 6'1", 33.5 inch inseam, and weigh 190 lbs. My current ride is a 61cm Specialized Tarmac SL. I am thinking hard about a EP and have made some inquiries as to fit. I was surprised to hear 54/55cm would be an appropriate size frame. This may be Colnago specific and am having trouble getting my brain wrapped around going from a 61 to a 54/55.
> 
> Hey.......now I know why I got dropped last Sunday.......my frame is too big! Any thoughts or suggestions? There is not much stock in my size where I live to go demo.


To some degree frame sizes vary among manufacturers. Also, sloping TT's play a part, so it's best to focus on your reach requirements and size accordingly. If your Tarmac is a recent model, Spec will have the geo archived for reference. Look at the effective TT and match it as closely as possible to the EP you're considering. It won't tell the whole story, but it'll get you close. 

Post the year here and we can compare it to the EP (if I can find it.  )


----------



## jwilk (Mar 6, 2008)

I took some time and went to LBS (not really local) and they sized me for either a traditional 58 or sloping 56. They indicated that the sloping actually gives them more options in terms of adjustments. They couldn't believe I have been riding the 61 Specialized Tarmac SL. 

Thanks for the help......


----------



## Corndog (Jan 18, 2006)

FYI: I am near your height and also have a short inseam (ie all torso). 6' 1.5", 33.25" inseam.

I have been riding a size 56 Tarmac SL S-works with a 130mm stem. People like us often have to get small sized frames and use long stems. This is because a "normal" sized frame would have a head tube that is WAY too tall for us. I'm also VERY surprised that you've been riding a size 61 Tarmac... I used to ride a 58 Tarmac for a bit and wasn't happy until I went down another size. 

Based off of my inseam measurement and height, I was recommended a 56 or a 57 traditional Colnago or a 52 sloping as ideal by Mike at Maestro. That would be paired to a 140mm stem. 

I just purchased a 56 Extreme Power two days ago and am currently waiting for my frame to arrive. Colnago's front center measurements combined with their slack head tube angle means they take well to long stems. So don't be afraid to run a 130mm or 140mm and going down a size. 

Pay close attention to the reach on Colnagos... from a size 55 to 58 there isn't much change at all. That's because the seat tube angle changes nearly wipe out the top tube length increase. I'd pick one based on the head tube height you prefer, to get the right saddle to bar drop. Then size your stem accordingly.

Also, you can now get a 57 EP, Saronni Red from Back Country Outlet for $2300. If you like the color JUMP on it. You'll never find another deal that good. If you use live.com to navigate to the store, you can save another 12.7%. I think the longer head tube on the 57 would be good for you, coming off the 61 Tarmac. It will let you get a lower position than your Tarmac, but not require as many spacers as a 56.


----------



## fabsroman (Jul 14, 2006)

I will also not quite a surprise that you are riding a 61cm Specialized. I ride a 53cm traditional Colnago and am 5' 9" with a 31" inseam. With a c/c measurement, that would essentially be a 51cm frame. Your frame's seat tube is 4" taller than mine, and you are only 4" taller than me total, and your inseam is only 2.5" longer than mine. No way you should have been riding a 61cm. Who fitted you to that bike?


----------



## jwilk (Mar 6, 2008)

Pulled the trigger on an '08 EP in PR00 with a sloping 56 frame. The guys in the shop both ride Colnago's and felt the sloping 56 is the best fit and also allows for more fine tuning of the fit. 

I will need to decide on bars, stem, and seatpost. The shop recommends FSA.....any other thoughts? I don't want to do a lot of mixing and matching.

Thanks for your feedback. I am curious to see the difference a proper fit will make.


----------



## fabsroman (Jul 14, 2006)

What does a 56 sloping translate to in traditional sizing? I ride a 50 sloping at 5' 9" and a 31" inseam, which equates to a 54 traditional. Optimally, a 53 traditional is my correct size, but I can ride anything from a 52 sloping to a 48 sloping.

I just looked up the sizing chart, and it was as I thought. The 56 sloping is the equivalent of a 60cm traditional frame with a virtual top tube length of 58cm. I would assume that they did a good fit. The sloping frames are good for people that have short legs with normal arms, or normal legs with long arms (i.e., they decrease the amount of standover while still allowing for the appropriate amount of reach).

The key measurement would have been your reach, which I don't think you ever gave us.


----------



## Eric_H (Feb 5, 2004)

*58 traditional = 54 sloping*

To the OP, in 2008 a 58 traditional is the same size a 54 sloping. Same angles, same horizontal top tube length (56.3), same head tube length (165). The 56 sloping is more like a 60/61 traditional in Colnago geometry. I find it odd that the shop would say to fit you on a 58 trad, but a 56 sloping. There is about 1.5 cm difference in reach between the two sizes, factoring in the slight change in seat tube angle.

FWIW, I am 6' w/ 33.7" cycling inseam and I am riding a 57 traditional with 130 stem. I could also ride a 58 traditional or 54 sloping.

Looking at the Colnago website, I see some subtle changes in the geometry tables from 2008 to 2009. Specifically, the 58 traditional has a slightly slacker seat tube angle (72.83 from 73) and slightly longer top tube (56.5 from 56.3). The 54 sloping also reflects the same geometry.


----------



## fabsroman (Jul 14, 2006)

This is what I was trying to hint at with my "assume they did a good fit" post above. I think a 56 sloping might be a little too big, unless he has some really long arms compared to his inseam and overall height.


----------



## jwilk (Mar 6, 2008)

Boy am I confused....I think I'll call the LBS first thing and slow everything down a little. I don't want to make the same mistake again.


----------



## fabsroman (Jul 14, 2006)

I spent 2 weeks trying to figure out what was the optimum Colnago size for me. Before buying a Colnago in 2006, the last time I bought a bike was 1985 and the sizing was really easy. All the bikes were sized the same way and there were no sloping top tubes whatsoever.

My big dilemma was trying to figure out how the Colnago sloping sizes compared to the traditional sizes. I knew I needed around a 51cm c/c measured traditional frame that could give me a reach of 65cm. So, I had to convert that to Colnago sizing and found that the 53cm traditional is what I needed. However, I wanted the Cristallo which only came in sloping sizes, so I had to figure out which one equaled a 53 c/t traditional Colnago size, and it turned out that the 48 sloping and 50 sloping were right in the middle of a 53 c/t traditional Colnago. I went with the 50 sloping because it would allow me to position the bars higher (i.e., higher head tube) during my old age.

What you have to realize is that a 56 sloping frame is nowhere near a 56 traditional when it comes to Colnagos. Next, I had to try and size a Bianchi, and it turns out that I ride a 53cm sloping Bianchi that puts me in the exact same spot as a 53 traditional Colnago.

Sizing frames nowadays is utterly nuts. Take your time and get it right, because the frame isn't cheap.


----------



## jwilk (Mar 6, 2008)

Drove over to shop yesterday and spent an hour getting measured again as well as sitting on a 57 DeRosa so they could measure me on a bike and they did not have a Colnago built up in my size. They said the DeRosa has similar geometry to Colnago and they could get a feel for me and how I'd fit on the Colnago.

They put my inseam closer to 34in but felt the main challenge is my torso. This led them to be more resolved that the 56 sloping will work. It should be here in a week or so for build up. I think I'm more interested in seeing if the shift to a smaller frame makes a difference than in getting the new bike.


----------



## fabsroman (Jul 14, 2006)

The 56 sloping is like a 60cm traditional Colnago, which probably equates to a 58 cm c/c frame measurement. If I remember correctly, your old bike is a 61, but how was that measured? If it was measured c/c, then you will see a 3cm difference. If it was measured c/t, you will only see a 1cm difference.

3cm's is a big difference. 1cm, not so much so. I can hardly notice the difference between my 50 sloping (i.e., 54 traditional), and 53cm Bianchi. The reach is 1/2 cm different, but hardly even noticeable and I set the bikes up with the same amount of drop from saddle to bars.

Let us know how it goes and post pics of the bike/frame when you get it.


----------



## Corndog (Jan 18, 2006)

Fitters in the US seem very reluctant to use longer stems on bikes. But, at least the 56 sloping has a shorter head tube than your Tarmac. The effective top tube of the Colnago is also shorter than your Tarmac.


----------



## toast (Jan 6, 2005)

How long is the stem on your Tarmac?
Isn't 61cm the largest they make the Tarmac? That does sound big for you. But again, you may have long arms, great flexibility or something else going on in your set up.

As another data point, I have measurements very close to yours, just about 6'1 and just under 34 inseam. 
I was on a 60cm Trek, and went to a 59cm Colnago.
The set up on the bikes makes the contact points almost exactly the same, but the Colnago hoods are about 1cm lower.


----------



## jwilk (Mar 6, 2008)

The other day I rode my Specialized E5 58 for the first time in a while and............it felt better. The SL is now for sale and I will ride the E5 till the EP arrives and gets built up. I am hopeful the frame will arrive by the end of the week. I picked up the Campy SR 11 today. The only thing left is to choose between Ritchey or FSA h-bars and stem, Campy Record or FSA seatpost.


----------



## fabsroman (Jul 14, 2006)

Do it the easy way. Go with the FSA bars and stem, and possibly the seatpost if it matches the bars and stem. If the seatpost doesn't match the bars and stem, go with the Campy Record seatpost. Speaking of posts, make sure you post some pics once it is finished.


----------



## jwilk (Mar 6, 2008)

Frame is in and should be finished and ready for sizing Sunday. Will start with SR 11 groupset, FSA bars and stem, Seatpost made by FSA for Colnago, and Fizik Arionne saddle from SL. More to follow........


----------



## cc60006 (Oct 12, 2005)

*56cm sloping should be close to your size....*

I'm 6'1" as well and sell Colnagos. I am personally a 58cm traditional or a 56s. Enjoy the bike and please post pictures to let us see. What color did you decide on?


----------



## jwilk (Mar 6, 2008)

Picked up Saturday.....rode for short time yesterday....
View attachment 154441


----------

