# What To Buy- I'm Confused



## reidcc (Mar 12, 2005)

Help!

I am a 220 lb weekend guy. I am 5' 9" tall, and wear a 30" inseam pant. I currently ride a Trek 1220 56 CM which is a wee bit tall, and up for sale. i want a steel frame.

HEre's my dilemna: I would love a Sarthe- the Orange is killer, and a 51 CM should do the trick. Its on sale the week at $1425.

I also found a leftover 2002 Zurich it is marked as 54 CM, but that is wrong- it looks slightly shorter than a 2002 53 CM Alp D'Huez(maybe its a 53 or a 51CM).It just barely clears my you know whats. Price on that is $1300 with stock full Ultegra and Racelite wheels.

I also found a 2003 51 CM Buenos Aires for $999(mix of 105/Ultegra) with Select wheels. If the shop will allow a trade-up- I'd rather go with Racelite wheels.

I have NOT been able to ride ANY yet- and I read soo much on the smoothness of ride, and my Trek ride is jarring.

Should I even look at the newer combo framed AL/Carbon Tourmalet Alp D' Huez? Would the ride be better? I plan on buying this week.

Thanks,
Chris


----------



## dcp (Feb 17, 2005)

*Get fit*

Man, getting a bike that fits is way more important than the brand. I don't see you fitting on a 51, but get some help to determine what does fit. It is best to get some knowledgeable help, but there are some on-line fit measuring resources which can help you. Try a Google search for bike fit.


----------



## reidcc (Mar 12, 2005)

I always thought use top tube height first and then top tube length second. On a Lemond(53 CM center to center) barely gives me clearance- thats why I thought a 51CM might actually be the Lemond frame size.

Actual reach would be done with Stem length right?

Unfortunately- what I am looking at is at three different shops. I know realistically- I should be fitted, but didn't want to waste one shops time IF I were going to decide on the other bike.

Chris


----------



## dcp (Feb 17, 2005)

Most people get fit for height first based on a cycling inseam (which will be longer than your pant inseam). You measure your cycling inseam by pushing a book up as high as it will go while standing and measuring. Look at http://www.coloradocyclist.com/BikeFit/index.cfm

A larger bike will be built with a larger top tube length. You refine the reach with the stem length and angle.

Some folks think reach is not given enough attention in this method.

I am about your size and ride a 56 CT, which is a bit big, but I prefer this. I wouldn't be surprised that 54 CT is right for you. Standover height is virtually irrelevant. 



reidcc said:


> I always thought use top tube height first and then top tube length second. On a Lemond(53 CM center to center) barely gives me clearance- thats why I thought a 51CM might actually be the Lemond frame size.
> 
> Actual reach would be done with Stem length right?
> 
> ...


----------



## jakerson (Jun 15, 2004)

*are you sure that a 56 is that much too big?*

I'm about 5'9,1/2" and I wear a 30" inseam - and as far as I can tell, a perfect frame for me would be a 55, but I've ridden lots of 56's and they seem to work just fine for me. I suppose that I would go for a 55 if I could, but when I have tried 54s, they have seemed smallish. 

I don't think that standover height is all that critical - if it were, the new compact frames wouldn't make sense at all... so I somewhat agree with the above posters... but I think that for me, the top tube length is more important. I have a fairly long trunk. If you are getting pain - knees, back, elbows, somewhere else, that might tell you about the fit of your bike... I think that standover height might be interesting, but I'm not sure it is the most relevant - at ALL.

OH YEAH - by the way I got a new bike this past weekend... a Madone 5.2... I'm almost finished putting the extras on it... (saddle, seat post, wheels, bottle cage, crank, pedals, etc) 

Heres a pic:


----------



## reidcc (Mar 12, 2005)

When I ride with my Trek I seem to have 2 issues of pain- more of a numbness though. As much as I try to move my hands around on both the top of bars, the hoods, and the drops- my hands almost always go numb. The other issue I have is that my feet go numb after about 10 miles, and by 25 I've had it. I don't believe this is unique to the Trek though- because I have 2 mountain bikes, and seem to have the same issues. My Trek is a 56 CM frame- bonded aluminum from 1997- stock stem and all.

I live in a fairly hilly area of Central Mass- in fact I have a huge 2 1/2 mile climb to get home! WhenI ride the hills up, I am mostly in the saddle. I do not seem to have any issue stretching out to hit the drop bars at all.

My real reason for wanting a change is because of the jarring and roughness on roads here. The secondary reason for something new is to help get me re-invigorated. I hopeto try out some bikes this week after work- now that the rains have stopped.

Chris


----------



## MC Hammer Pants (Feb 24, 2005)

I ride a 2004 Lemond Buenos Aires (55). I am very nearly 5'11''... The fit of the bike is good for me, although I am moving to a longer stem... at times I wish I had gone with the 57 because I have long arms and I am scrunched up right now... but then something else would be just off...

this turned out super long, I guess I dont want to go to bed, so here is the short of it: 

The 51 may leave you without enough reach. You can use a longer stem, but only to a point. Tiny standover on the 53 is not in-and-of-itself a reason to dismiss the bike. Riding them will tell you more than anyone on the forum could, although I wish I had done more asking before I bought my bike...

The numbness is a bad thing... last I heard repeated numbness could cause nerve damage. Now, I have NO medical qualifications, but I would not take it lightly. Numb hands means too much pressure... bars too close or too far, or a seat that is tilted forward. Numb feat sounds like shoes that are too tight, or possibly a cleat alignment problem.


Details:

I dont know how technical to get about fit, when I bought my bike I knew nothing, and since I got the inkling that I was sold too small a frame I have done a lot of research... I own a goniometer now and I measure my angles and all that jazz... but even then its just a starting point.

Standover height is not particularly important IMO... if there is none, then the frame is too big... if you can fit a coffee mug in over the top tube, then its too small... but for some people their proportions demand making concessions. You said a 53 left you "almost none" so maybe a 51 would be better ... depends on how long your arms/trunk are.

My friend is a short guy, and had a hell of a time finding a bike that fit... he went with a bigger frame, with very little stand over, in order to avoid having to use a stem that was too long to keep the handling reasonable... so far that set-up has worked for him.

If you do go with the bigger frame, then your seat will end up being lower to maintain the proper knee angle. Since you are a "recreational rider" you may prefer this. If you like your seat up above the bars a few centimeters, then take that into consideration.

Also keep in mind that different frame sizes can come with different forks and cranks. Most people cant tell the difference between cranks, so I wouldnt worry about that too much, unless youre a perfectionist like me. Different frames do vary in their amounts of trail though... so the handling could be different between them. Although again, it probably would not be enough to notice. 

I would surmise that your numb hands come from an improper reach to the bars (I have problems because my reach is too short and my wrists/hands get jammed, but you could be reaching too far and putting too much weight on them). It could also be caused by your seat being tilted too far forward, if you cant sit up with your hands off the bars without sliding forward, then you should tilt your seat back some. 

The numbness in the feet I would expect to be shoes that are too small... your heel should be held firm but you need to have toe wiggle. When I walk around in my road shoes my heel moves, but it is firm when riding. I think the stiff sole throws people when they are trying on shoes because it practically forces your heel to move when walking no matter what. 

Also, check to make sure that your cleat is under the ball of your foot, I have heard that a forward cleat position can cause foot numbness. Frequently bike shops just screw the cleat on and pretend like they dont know any better (tsk tsk), so you might need to make an adjustment.

wow... how verbose of me... I hope that was helpful...


----------



## BartowWing (Mar 9, 2005)

reidcc said:


> Help!
> 
> I am a 220 lb weekend guy. I am 5' 9" tall, and wear a 30" inseam pant. I currently ride a Trek 1220 56 CM which is a wee bit tall, and up for sale. i want a steel frame.
> 
> ...



I am your height and weight. I bought a Sarthe just today. But for me a 54 is the size that fits. Tomorrow will be the first real ride...

Bart


----------



## reidcc (Mar 12, 2005)

Thanks all-

All this time I always thought an inch of standover clearance was what you went by first- and then reach to the bars. It seems reach is primary and standover secondary.

Left out one important detail that I actually meant to list- I do not have shoes. I use sneakers with rat traps and toe straps. I have some pretty messed up feet and need to wear orthotics. The shoes I see road bikers wear look extremely hard and tight. I had considered getting at least MTB shoes with the recessed cleat and pedals for those. At least that way if I had to walk I'd be somewhat comfortable.

As I said- I hope to hit some places for the next 3 days after work- and actually test ride some units.

Chris


----------



## reidcc (Mar 12, 2005)

BartowWing said:


> I am your height and weight. I bought a Sarthe just today. But for me a 54 is the size that fits. Tomorrow will be the first real ride...
> 
> Bart


That Sarthe is one SWEET looking machine. It seemed much lighter than the Criox De Fer- I am sure the wheels had much to do with that.

How do you like the frame material? What do others think of True Temper Platinum OX vs Reynolds 853?


----------



## reidcc (Mar 12, 2005)

I just tried out a Sarthe 51 CM and a 53 CM at lunch. The 51 CM - while giving me a small amount of clearance for standover- left me with no room in front, and too much over the bars.

The 53- REALLY didn't feel much different for standove(what is 2 CM?)- but did give me more room out front- and that was with a smaller stem(80??). I took the 53 CM for a ride, and while I only was out for 10 minutes- it felt great. It seemed like butter compared to my Trek 1220. I can buy this until Sunday for $1425.

Tonight- I will check out the Zurich(2002) that is all Ultegra with Race-Light wheels. I need to verify what frame size it is and what kind of out front room I have. I can pick this up for $1300 as a leftover.


----------



## reidcc (Mar 12, 2005)

I just put my Trek on my trainer and pedalled for a while. This thing just FEELS long on the top tube. When I use the top of the bars- it feels like I have the weight of me completely against the bars, and my back seems to be around a 45 degree angle.

When I try to drop down to the lower bars- I'd really forgotten how tough a chore it is to get down and stretch out.

It certainly didn't feel this uncomfortable on the Sarthe today at lunch  

Sounds like I've got myself completely convinced its time to make the change.


Chris


----------



## Tracer (Nov 27, 2004)

5'6" 32"inseam and on a 51cm sarthe. love it! the ride is very smooth. i turned the bars up a bit to lessen the stretched out feeling (i'm a mountain biker at heart). bike is super comfortable, i can see lowering the bars again when i get a little more used to the roadie positioning. i dont think you'll regret the sarthe unless you are a weight weenie and must have the lightest bike.


----------



## rriddle3 (Aug 5, 2004)

Okay, here's some more useless info. I'm 5'9" with a 32" bike inseam and in a LeMond steel frame (flat top tube) I can use either a 51cm or a 53cm frame (if they made a 52cm it would be perfect) with tweaking of the bars, stem, and saddle one way or another. It sounds like you are in about the same same situation, so I say get the one that makes you feel good about it and make the slight fit adjustments via the component fitting.


----------



## dcp (Feb 17, 2005)

*Frame Size*

This thread is becoming a mecca for those favoring small sized frames. Just as a point of order, under the LeMond formula, the "ideal" frame size for a 32" cycling inseam would be 54.5. Obviously, ride what feels right to you. Just wanted to throw in a contraian point of view.



rriddle3 said:


> Okay, here's some more useless info. I'm 5'9" with a 32" bike inseam and in a LeMond steel frame (flat top tube) I can use either a 51cm or a 53cm frame (if they made a 52cm it would be perfect) with tweaking of the bars, stem, and saddle one way or another. It sounds like you are in about the same same situation, so I say get the one that makes you feel good about it and make the slight fit adjustments via the component fitting.


----------



## tyroja00 (Feb 11, 2005)

I have 05 Maillot Jaune and just got rid of an 03 Tourmalet. I am about your same height except I weigh 160 lbs and have broad shoulders. I found that I had to extend my stem 10mm. I definitely think you should get the 53, maybe even the 55 but probably the 53 and adjust the stem and layback. If you get a chance to try the spine, I would recommend it. I had the same frame as the Sarthe, but in Reynolds 853 (which I think is better). I was hesitant to switch to the spine frame b/c I was a traditionalist who wasn't too eager for a sloping toptube. But, honestly, the bike fits exactly like my Tourmalet did. In addition, it rode better, was stiffer, and lighter. Anyway, I'd try it out before you ultimately decide on the Sarthe. Not that I don't think the Sarthe is awesome, b/c I do. But in the end, I like the spine frames better and I actually outfitted mine with Campy Record which I never would have done on my Tourmalet.


----------



## reidcc (Mar 12, 2005)

I tried out a Jamis Quest today 2003. It is the all 105 group with Cosmos wheels and chrome finish on frame. My thoughts are- its nice to spend only $1000 instead of $1400 for the Sarthe- but spending that much I want to be comfortable.

The Quest is a 55 CM, and its the only one he had left. Obviously I don't have really any standover clearance, but once I sat and road- the top tube didn't feel anywhere near as long as my Trek. As for ride- it felt every bit as good as the Sarthe.

As for components- it doesn't matter a BIG deal to me: Campy Veloce vs Shimano 105. Comos Wheels vs Bontrager Race- Lite- I think the Bontragers would be lighter.
The Quest doesn't have that KOOL look of the bright orange paint- but it does look easier to hide scratches and to care for.

I was all set to plonk down a deposit to order the Sarthe- when I saw the Jamis. It felt good and looked good.

Now I gotta think!

Chris


----------



## iamandy (Jun 20, 2003)

get the lemond.

why?
frame is great.
its orange!
campy.
way better wheels.
better resell.
sounds like the shop is a good shop (helped a lot with fitting and let you test ride).

this is a Lemond bb, doubt anyone will talk you into a Jamis here!

I have a 05 Buenos Aires and it rides amazing. So smooth, light and responsive. I agree with the person above, if you can, try out a spine bike. But the Sarthe is a beautiful bike, no one says a Jamis is a beautiful bike. It's nice, people will say "Oh, Nice bike!" but you will never here "Wow, that's a beautiful bike..."


----------



## reidcc (Mar 12, 2005)

iamandy said:


> get the lemond.
> 
> 
> 
> I have a 05 Buenos Aires and it rides amazing. So smooth, light and responsive. I agree with the person above, if you can, try out a spine bike. But the Sarthe is a beautiful bike, no one says a Jamis is a beautiful bike. It's nice, people will say "Oh, Nice bike!" but you will never here "Wow, that's a beautiful bike..."


 Thanks Mandy!
I was thinking that all along. The Jamis just doesn't have that reach out and grab you looks- like the Sarthe does.

I checked out a 2002 Lemond Zurich- marked as a 54CM- after measuring the frame, its 53 CM seat tube- but its top tube is 2 CM shorter than a Lemond 53CM- so I thinks its a WSD if there was one back then. I was interested in that as well- because it was $1300. Its the only size they have though.

Looks like the Sarthe wins. They all had the same ride and comfort- but the Sarthe has the barand name AND the looks.

Chris


----------



## reidcc (Mar 12, 2005)

ARRRGGGGH!!!

My LBS tells me yesterday that bike is not in stock either at distro or at Lemond. Delivery is 2 WEEKS. Guess I can't take it to Myrtle Beach S.C. next week!!!

I leave the 14th and come back the following Saturday. Guess I gotta take my Trek 1220 instead.

I can't wait.


Chris


----------



## reidcc (Mar 12, 2005)

Checked with LBS Saturday morning 23rd- argh- 2 MORE weeks!!!!!

Chris


reidcc said:


> ARRRGGGGH!!!
> 
> My LBS tells me yesterday that bike is not in stock either at distro or at Lemond. Delivery is 2 WEEKS. Guess I can't take it to Myrtle Beach S.C. next week!!!
> 
> ...


----------



## Bazeljet (May 4, 2005)

what size Sarthe did you decide on? I see the 51 is out of stock but 53/55/57 are all in great supply.


----------



## reidcc (Mar 12, 2005)

Hi-
I ordered a 53 cm. The trailer left Wisconsin the 26th, and was at another shop Friday afternoon last week. My LBS went down to pick it up Monday, and I get it tonight. My LBS is a Trek dealer(no Lemond). They had to use a dealer to get it.

Chris


----------



## reidcc (Mar 12, 2005)

*Sarthe- First Ride Report*

Took the baby out for its maiden voyage for me. Don't laugh- but this was a first for me on two fronts:

One the new bike, and Two- its the first time I've ever used shoes and clipless pedals!!!!

Leaving my house- its two and a half miles all downhill. The ride is really really smooth - my butt and hands really appreciate this! I am getting some noise between my chain and front rings, and yes I am using the trim feature on the Campy FD. The more I rode, and the more I shifted- the shifting began to get crisper- it actually felt like a wet noodle at first-very sloppy. 

One of the big problems I had in the past was my feet would begin to get numb after 6 or so miles. I had always used rat traps with clips and straps- never really wanted to learn the new. I really wanted to try something different for my feet this time, and thought the added stiffness in shoes would help(I also have bad feet and use orthodics).

I took the cheap way out just to get my "feet wet" and bought Shimano 520 pedals with Diadora Explorer MTB shoes(yes I wanted the recessed cleat in case I needed to walk anywhere). Turns out I NEEDED to!!!

I MADE A BIG MISTAKE by not getting the Triple in front. The city I live in- is very hilly and coupled with my ride uphill going home- I ran out of gear before I hit the steeps. My past bike was a stock Trek 1220 with RSX Triple and 7 speed- don't recall the actual cluster sizes. I could always make my hills- but I figured with 20 speeds I'd be okay.
WRONG. My climb is ROUGHLY 750 to 800 feet over 2 and a half miles. There are two very steep sections where I had to walk. I must admit I am extremely out of shape at 225 lbs and carry a spare tire aroud my waist!!!!

I might need to either look at a taller gear cluster in the rear, or adding the granny gear and long cage out back.

It's gonna pour for the weekend(what else is new!!!) so I won't be able to take this thing anywhere for an extended ride.


Chris


----------

