# Sizing Ridley X-Fire



## theartofbike

I'm looking to purchase a Ridley X-Fire but don't know what size to get.
I'm 5'8" with a 30" inseam. I ride a 54 cm road bike.
I measured my road bike and it seems to match best with a 50 cm.
But to go down two sizes seems crazy. Was thinking the 52 cm would fit but the stand over is higher. With the 50 I'm just concerned that the TT being too short and feeling tight on the bike.


----------



## jmoote

The 54 has a 545 mm top tube and the 52 a 535 mm TT. You didn't explcitly say, but if your "size" 54 road bike has a 54 cm top tube then I'd say take your pick of those two sizes depending how your road bike fits you. Choose the one that lets you run a 100-110 mm stem, IMO.


----------



## pacificaslim

The stand over is crazy high. If you have a local dealer, I'd go try them first. I was needing to go down two sizes and then the top tube was too short. Someone will come on here and say stand over doesn't matter, and maybe on a pure road bike I'd agree with them, but I didn't want a cross bike I couldn't jump up and remount easily and I wanted some clearance when standing.


----------



## Something Clever...

I am also 5'8" with a 30 inch inseam and was in your same shoes 2 months ago. I went with the 50cm ridley x-fire even though I normally ride a 54 cm road bike. My cycling coach had fit me to several bikes and I took his word on getting a 50cm. 

I AM VERY HAPPY WITH MY DECISION. 

The bike feels the same as my road bike when I use a 100mm stem and a thomson setback seatpost. The bike is TALL so a 52 would have punched my nuts as the 50cm is already tight.

I do not have any toe overlap either. Which I thought I would certainly have on such as "small sized" frame. I also have a size 42 shoe which may help a bit.


----------



## Salsa_Lover

theartofbike said:


> I'm looking to purchase a Ridley X-Fire but don't know what size to get.
> I'm 5'8" with a 30" inseam. I ride a 54 cm road bike.
> I measured my road bike and it seems to match best with a 50 cm.
> But to go down two sizes seems crazy. Was thinking the 52 cm would fit but the stand over is higher. With the 50 I'm just concerned that the TT being too short and feeling tight on the bike.


Go with a 52

I had the same predicament when I was deciding. I am 5'11" and ride a 56 road bike, the "expert" recomended me the 52. It was too small. I could make it fit with a long stem and a 32mm seatback post, but it wasn't good.

I bought a size 54 and this fits right. ( even though I just replaced the 110mm stem by a 130mm stem to have the same reach as my road bike). 

I think I could fit in the 56 but then the standover would be too high, the 54 is the good compromise for me.


----------



## roadcx

I ride 56cm Ridley's (X-Fire and CrossBow) and generally 58cm on the road (Felt FC, Kuota Kebel) or 60cm (Trek Madone).


----------



## theartofbike

*More Info.....*

Still don't know which to go with? 50 or 52? worried about being too tight in the Top Tube Length. 

Road Bike

Center BB top TT	478

EFF TT Length	545

Stand over 761

Ridley 50cm	

Center BB top TT	540
Center to Center	500

EFF TT Length	530

Stand over 800

Ridley 52cm

Center BB top TT	560
Center to Center	520

EFF TT Length	535

Stand over 820


Road has a 110 stem.

5’ 8” with 30” inseam


----------



## clivus

I am the same size as you and for the last 2 seasons raced a 52 X-fire. My advice would be to ignore standover and focus on TT length. I like to have 100mm or shorter stem on my cross bike, so I keep the TT length the same as my road bike, but use a 10mm shorter zero degree rise stem.. I have also ridden on and been comfortable with the 54. Based on your numbers the cockpit on the 50 will likely feel too short.


----------



## jmoote

No question, get the 52 and run a 110 stem like your road bike. When is the last time you "stood over" your bike except on the start line?


----------



## EvilScience

Absolutely fit to the top tube. I am even shorter (29" inseam), which means I cannot 'stand over' any production 'cross bike I have seen, unless it has a sloping TT (bad for shouldering, esp. in small frames). I don't have a lot of seatpost showing, which looks a little odd next to most gangly racer's bikes, but I have had no probs with the tight TT clearance while racing.


----------



## ohiorick

I am about the same size and I bought a 50 cm Xbow. It is a smaller size than my road bike, but CX is a different animal than riding on the road. You may want a more upright position on a CX bike. I would go with the 50 CM and you can always get a longer stem. I think you may get away with not being able to stand over a road bike, but you may be happy to be able to stand over a cross bike. It will depend on what you plan to do with this bike.


----------



## backinthesaddle

Ridleys size out CRAZY BIG. I'm 6'1" and ride a 54cm Ridley cross bike. Go to a race and seek out guys Ridleys. The majority of them are all riding frames that are too big. Look for the slammed posts and short stems.

If you're 5'8", go with the smaller of the two choices. It's easier to make a small bike ride big than vice versa.

I just built a 50cm for a client that's 5'7" and VERY long legged. It fits her perfectly.


----------



## theartofbike

*hummmm?*

So I was ready to ice my balls and go with the 52, but the last two posts having me thinking again. I guess I need to do some more measuring, don't really have the opportunity to seek another 52 or 50 Ridley. Friend has a 56 and rides a 56 road bike but the geometry changes with the larger sizes. I have a mountain bike that's a little too small and have toe over lap and all, so worried about the small cockpit. I am going to use it for some commuting as well as a little racing and riding fire roads and fields. I did sit on a Redline 52 and a Cannondale 54.. the 52 looked small but sitting on it felt good. The Cannondale was too big. Going back to the tape measure.


----------



## jmoote

backinthesaddle said:


> Ridleys size out CRAZY BIG. I'm 6'1" and ride a 54cm Ridley cross bike.


This makes no sense. I'm 5'11" and can easily ride a 58 X-Fire with lots of seatpost and a 110mm stem (my large Blue Norcross has almost identical geometry).

Ridleys do not size big, they size like cross bikes. If you don't like level top tubes and race oriented geometry, buy a hybrid.


----------



## Salsa_Lover

jmote I am 5'11" and I am on a 54 too,

a 58 would be way too large. even a road 58 is big for me.


----------



## jmoote

What is your saddle height BB to top? Mine is 800 mm, 175 mm cranks.

Not the greatest photo, but see below for me on my Norcross, 58 top tube (I'm in white and green). The only difference in geometry between that bike and a 58 X-Fire is a slight slope to the top tube and 20mm shorter headtube (which I've made up for with spacers). On an X-Fire everything would be the same except 20mm less spacers for me.


----------



## Salsa_Lover

you have long legs, that explains it. I am on the short side

I use 745mm BB to top-center of saddle ( 770 to seatbone point ), 172.5 cranks

last season I was using a 110mm 6°stem but this year switched to a 130mm 17° stem and the fit is much better.


----------



## backinthesaddle

Yep...on a 54 and a medium Helium.
Seat height is 79cm and I run 175mm cranks.

The 56cm X-Fire rode like a dump truck. My Salsa LC is a 54cm w/a 55cm TT. My Jericho is a 55cm w/a 55cm TT. All run 120mm stems and Deda deep bars. Thomson layback posts all around as well.

A 58cm Ridley cx would be waaay too big...

Here's the Salsa...


----------



## bartman601

I ride a 54 on the road and a 52 X-Fire for CX. I'm 5-8' with a 31 inseam. 110 stem. Fits great.


----------



## MontyCrisco

Ridley sizing is goofy. Consider going down even two sizes. I ride a Medium Excalibur as my road bike (56 cm TT), but have a 52 cm Crossbow w/ a 110 stem. It fits perfectly and is very nimble.


----------



## TXBDan

I'm 6'3 with long legs and ride a 56cm crossbow. Insane i know. Ridley's are basically women's fit bikes, shorter top tubes and longer seat tubes. just what i need. I LOVE how this bike fits me. I hate the feeling of trying to make a "normal" geometry with a TT thats too long for me work.


----------



## cswells212

I am 6'2'' with really long legs too. I am seriously considering a x-fire right now

I have a 56cm specy tricross sport right now that fits alright. I have never ridden a ridley, so I wouldnt know how they fit and there isn't a dealer in MI to try one...

Any suggestions?


----------



## cx_fan

Read this goofy article over at VN....if you want to be more confused

http://velonews.competitor.com/2010...enter-how-should-a-cyclocross-bike-fit_136539

Best bet, go to the races and find someone with a Ridley like someone else stated


----------



## pretender

Ridley bases their bike sizes on seat-tube center-to-center, while most other companies base them on center-to-top.

Is that so difficult to understand? Just look at their geometry charts FFS.

They even give sizing recommendations, if a geometry chart is too difficult to understand.
http://data.ridley-bikes.com/sizes/sizes2011-en.pdf


----------



## thebadger

I recently bought an X-Fire. I ride a 56cm C'dale on the road and had a 55cm Bianchi CX. I assumed a 54cm X-Fire would be right, based on the sizing charts, It probably would have been okay but, when I sat on the 52cm, it seemed to fit better.


----------



## musikfan

double post?


----------



## musikfan

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).


----------



## strathconaman

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.


----------



## Mosovich

*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?


----------



## mtbbmet

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.


----------



## akrafty1

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.


----------



## bassethound

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....


----------



## 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.


----------



## Pdxplosif

OnTheRivet said:


> 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.


----------



## whambat

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.


----------



## Corndog

Pdxplosif said:


> 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.)


----------



## nazgul

*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.


----------



## Starter

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.


----------



## pretender

Starter said:


> 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


----------



## Starter

pretender said:


> 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.


----------



## pretender

Starter said:


> 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.


----------



## pretender

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


----------



## Starter

pretender said:


> 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.


----------



## pretender

You piqued my curiosity enough to pull some data.
View attachment 308761


----------



## Corndog

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.


----------



## pretender

Corndog said:


> 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.


----------



## Starter

Corndog said:


> 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.


----------



## Corndog

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.


----------



## Thawne

Anyone with a 58cm that can share what the standover height of the top tube is?


----------

