# frame size for cannondale caad8



## masn (Jul 9, 2008)

hello! i`m new here and have a short question. i`m interested in a cannondale caad8-frame and asking myself, which size is perfect for me. height: 182cm (5'97) and inseam: 88cm (34.7"). i`m going to drive sporty but long tours, too. my anatomy is "normal". thank you for helping me and getting a good start with this sport!

attachment: frame geometry table


----------



## Camilo (Jun 23, 2007)

Go to competativecyclist.com or wrenchscience.com website and do their fit calculators with accurate measurements of your body. Then compare to cannondale chart. I don't think you can figure it out with the info you've given.

By the way, I have a CAAD7 which is virtually identical to the CAAD 8. I'm very happy with the fit and comfort of the bike, but it is a full-on racing geometry and possibly not ideal for long tours or relaxed cycling. You might consider other frame geometry that will be as good quality, as good weight, but more relaxed.


----------



## El Guapo (Dec 10, 2002)

*I'm 5'10 with a 31.5" inseam and ride a 54 CAAD8 with a 120 stem...*

I'm entirely too lazy to do a metric/standard conversion...my apologies.


----------



## Camilo (Jun 23, 2007)

El Guapo said:


> I'm 5'10 with a 31.5" inseam and ride a 54 CAAD8 with a 120 stem...I'm entirely too lazy to do a metric/standard conversion...my apologies.



I'm 5'8" with a 32+" "cycling" inseam (30" pants inseam) and ride a 54 CAAD7 - which I believe has the exact same geometry / measurements as a CAAD8. Anyway, I use either a 90 mm stem with conventional bars and now a 100 mm stem with shorter reach/drop bars. The standover on this frame is very adequate and I have plenty of seat post showing (just saying it's not right down on the top tube).

My only issue is that I wouldn't mind a little less seat/handlebar drop. I would consider a 56 frame and think standover would be fine, but I think the top tube would be too long.


----------



## masn (Jul 9, 2008)

i think, the measurements i made are not very exact or i didn`t understand correctly how to measure.. the results are not very convictive that`s why i ask for your experiences.


----------



## C-40 (Feb 4, 2004)

*advice...*

I would never rely on any online fit calculator. FWIW, you've got relatively long legs if the inseam you posted is an accurate cycling inseam. You've got 5cm more inseam than I do and 14cm more height, so you're not quite a long legged as I am.

The problem for newer riders is the size of frame that fits your inseam best, might be considered one size too small, if you can't tolerate a fairly large saddle to handlebar drop. Even if the inseam you posted is accurate, your saddle height could vary by 2-3cm, depending on whether you prefer to pedal toes-down, heels-up or more level footed. The total stack height of pedals and shoes can also vary by as much as 1cm.

An average saddle height for someone with an 88cm inseam would be about 78cm. The smallest frame you could ride would have a head tube length of about 170mm. That would be a 58cm frame. A larger frame might be recommended for a new rider, but then you get into problems with a TT that is too long.

I'd go with the 58cm and use whatever combination of spacer and stem angle you need to start with, planning to lower the bars a bit later.


----------



## masn (Jul 9, 2008)

*frame measurement?*

in europe measurement of the frame is often center of bottom bracket to absolute top of seat tube. cannondale uses (as i know) center of bottom bracket to top of top tube. an other measurement i heard of is center of bottom bracket to center of top tube. which is the usual measurement you mean if you talk about a 58 or what else? thanks a lot!


----------



## C-40 (Feb 4, 2004)

*info..*



masn said:


> in europe measurement of the frame is often center of bottom bracket to absolute top of seat tube. cannondale uses (as i know) center of bottom bracket to top of top tube. an other measurement i heard of is center of bottom bracket to center of top tube. which is the usual measurement you mean if you talk about a 58 or what else? thanks a lot!


You asked about a C'dale and posted a geometry chart, so I'm referring to a 58cm C'dale, based on that chart.

When you start looking at the true vertical size of other brands, it's the head tube length that counts, since the majority of today's frames having sloping TTs and "frame size" numbers don't mean much. I opay little attention to any brand's "frame size' numbers. That's why I referred to a specific 170mm head tube length. When the headset is added, it will increase into the 185-190mm range. If you look at some brand, like Colnago, that uses a conventional rather than integrated headset, it will add 25-30mm to the head tube length, so keep that in mind.

The head tube length only establishes the vertical size of the frame. You also have to look at the TT length and the seat tube angle to compare the reach of different frames. Unless you get a professional fitting and some riding experience, you can only make an intelligent guess about the best frame reach.


----------



## masn (Jul 9, 2008)

it took some time but now i drove both sizes (56, 58) and i`m still not sure. 56 feels different compared to 58 but both are ok. i cannot see a decisive difference. i should drive them for hours to get a better impression but that`s not possible. perhaps there are still some advices for me? it`s a lot money and i`d hate to make the wrong decision


----------



## cmg (Oct 27, 2004)

Which one allows you to use a 10cm stem? which one uses a setback seatpost? which one doesn't need unusal tweaking to fit? can you let go of the bars and not fall forward.?yep, you going to have to do aat least a 20 mile ride if not longer to to test fit.


----------



## masn (Jul 9, 2008)

good questions.. and i cannot give an answer. the stems were 110mm and setback seatpost were installed. BUT i didn`t had the chance to do a long ride. this is the essential problem as it seems


----------



## masn (Jul 9, 2008)

should i drive the 54 to test it or is it definitely too small? thanks a lot!


----------



## cmg (Oct 27, 2004)

Suspect the 54 is going to be to small but only you can tell if it fits. if the saddle needs to be slammed all the way back on a setback post or you have a more than 4 cm of saddle to handlebar drop or you need more than 2-3cm of stem spacers under the stem those might be the flags that the frame is too small. But then again if this is from a shop can't they give you a fitting? or a long test ride?


----------



## axebiker (Aug 22, 2003)

masn said:


> it took some time but now i drove both sizes (56, 58) and i`m still not sure. 56 feels different compared to 58 but both are ok. i cannot see a decisive difference. i should drive them for hours to get a better impression but that`s not possible. perhaps there are still some advices for me? it`s a lot money and i`d hate to make the wrong decision


Don't you have anyone in the shop helping you?  

You are slighlty taller and longer legged than I am, and I usually ride a 56-57cm (down from YEARS at 58cm), and find them quite comfortable. One thing I have learned - it's easier to make a smaller frame bigger than a bigger frame smaller. Food for thought.


----------

