# Need some Merckx sizing assistance...



## AMP (Jan 3, 2002)

Somehow I've convinced myself that I need a Merckx Team SC... Given that Eddy provides some sizing variety I'm having trouble deciding on size. Here is some info...

I have a look 555 and I'm satisfied with the fit. The TT is a little long, but with a 10cm stem I'm perfectly happy. My position is still pretty bunched up and I will stretch out as my flexibility improves. I'm guessing that I'll end up with an 11cm stem on this ride when all is said and done. I'll likely be dropping the bars to stretch out more than I'll be lengthening the stem)

It's a 59cm 555 and that works out as follows:

58cm TT
19.3cm HT
72.5 STA
72 HTA

Gita currently only has 56 and 58 Team SCs in stock:

56cm ST
57cm TT
72.8 STA
18cm HT (with the Record TTA headset it becomes roughly 19cm)

-or-

58cm ST
58.3cm TT
72.4cm STA
19cm HT

In looking at the TT and HT lengths the 56 would appear to be the better fit and I'll just need to go with a longer stem to compensate for the shorter TT. Over time I would probably end up with a 12cm stem on the 56. 

If I'm reading this correctly the 58 will be close to 1.5cm longer than the 56 (1.3cm from the TT and approximately 2 - 3 mm from the more slack STA)

I can get the bars high enough with the 56 and won't have to resort to a stupidly long seatpost either (BB to rail center for me is 75.5cm so I need about 17.5cm of exposed seatpost).


Am I on the right track here?

Thanks!!


----------



## Mosovich (Feb 3, 2004)

*Merckx sizing answers..*

I went through the Merckx sizing issue. I rode a 58 Trek with a 57 TT and I ended up with a 55 center to center with a 56.3 TT. It fits me awesome!! The guy at Cbike told me I needed a 58 and I would've been totally screwed if I'd listened to them. Not a good resource. He actually argued with me that I was ordering the wrong size, well, I didn't order it from them and couldn't be happier. Probably the best fitting bike I've owned.

I use a 130 stem.


----------



## bigbill (Feb 15, 2005)

Sizing just isn't what it used to be. Nowadays, I look at the top tube lenth to find my size. My Merckx is a 60cm c-c with a 58.5 top tube. My Pegoretti is a 60cm but has a dropped top tube so c-c on the seat tube is 57cm but measuring the top of the top tube is 58.5cm. Whatever you do, don't compromise on a big purchase like a top end bike frame. If it doesn't fit, it isn't a good deal.


----------



## Roger H (Feb 8, 2002)

*I'd go with the 58....*

I ride a 58 SC and I can't help but think that if you ride a 59 in the Look, you would be better off with the 58. I've considered the Look in the past and always felt the 59 would be my size.


----------



## friessco (Feb 8, 2005)

I think you actually have it backwards. The slacker seat tube angle serves to shorten the effective top tube if you want to keep the same knee to pedal relationship. After adjusting for this the top tube difference between the 56 and 58 is about 1 cm not 1.5 cm.


----------



## friessco (Feb 8, 2005)

Looking at the specs you posted on the Look frame, the Merckx 58 is closer in its specs to the Look 555 than the 56. The effective top tube of the 58 may be 2mm longer but the HT and SA are almost identical.


----------



## AMP (Jan 3, 2002)

Roger H said:


> I ride a 58 SC and I can't help but think that if you ride a 59 in the Look, you would be better off with the 58. I've considered the Look in the past and always felt the 59 would be my size.


 This was my initial thought as well, but after taking a closer look at my fit on the Look it's at the extreme high end of the size scale. I'm using a 10cm stem (which I consider to be the shortest practical stem length available for road) and my seatpost is inserted all the way to the maximum insertion point (Easton EC-70). Granted, I still have a healthy amount of post showing if the frame were any larger it would start to get silly.

Generally I base fit on a combo of TT length and HT length. In order to get an appropriate HT length I'm usually at the far end of the spectrum on TT length. Since Merckx tends to have slightly longer HTs it seems that I can get the HT length that I need with a shorter TT... which will allow me to use a longer stem... which may improve my overall weight distribution on the bike. Everything that I've read (and the geometry charts show it) is that Merckx frames run larger than their ST (and even TT) dimensions would indicate.


Of course, I could just throw all of this out the window and get that 59cm C-50 HP that a local shop has on sale... it will fit


----------



## AMP (Jan 3, 2002)

So I got bored yesterday afternoon and decided to plot up the ST and TT geometries of the various frames that I'm looking at with the end result being the coordinate of the center of the HT where it is intersected by the center of the TT.

The results were very interesting... The Merckx 56 is a good fit for TT length (still a bit long actually), but way too low. The 57 and 58 got longer and higher, but neither would provide a good fit for what I need. It just goes to show that STAs and ST lengths play a big role in the actual length of the bike.... going by individual numbers alone can result in a very poor fit.

The best fit (from the standpoint of the position of the seatpost binder and HT relative to the BB) appears to be a 59cm Colnago or a 58cm Pinarello.

My local Colnago dealer has a 59cm C50 on sale for $3400  Competitive Cyclist has Prince SLs @ $2100 and Dogmas @ $2800... Even with all of that I think that I may be leaning toward a Dream HP with the Geo paint scheme


----------



## twelvepercent (Nov 7, 2004)

Another possibility.....
I just recieved an '04 Fondriest carb-level plus as a backup frame from Col. Cyclist for $1299. I like the Fondriest Top Carbon fork alot better than the Easton EC-90 (but I have not tried the Merckx/Easton fork) I was considering a Merckx as well, but mixed reviews on the Merckx forks and the higher price steered me back to Fondriest. (I have a Carbon Lex). If the numbers work for you, you may well find the '04 plus as good or better than the Team SC (also lighter and less expensive)...The ride quality/stiffness combination is likely second to none. The '04 plus has CF chain & seat stays in the same grade as the Lex and the fork is the highest (F-1) grade CF.
The biggest problem with Fondriest is that the #'s are off on their charts. My Lex was listed as a 54 eff. TT and turned out to be 54.5. If you have any interest in Fondriest, call up ATA bike in Mass.
and ask them to measure the 57 plus'04 for you.(CC is $1299; ATA is $1799)
#'s on Fondriest USA site:'04 57 carb-level plus:TT=56; eff.TT=56.5; STA=73;ST(CC)=52
ST(CT)=55.5; HT=161; HT(w/extern.h.s.)=191
SB=16.6
....they do not list HTA, but is fairly steep since the trail is on the short side, rake=45
and is quick handling compared to Colnago.
....hope this helps for your next day of semi-boredom


----------



## eddymerckx#1 (Aug 5, 2005)

the pinarellos are sweet ,they remind me of f-1 race cars,colnagos are just ok to me ,at that price Id def. get a dogma,Im puttin a merckx leader together now.


----------

