# Do pros/racers typically ride smaller frames?



## slimjw (Jul 30, 2008)

Looking at building up a new bike and am wondering if I should base the frame size off my current bike or perhaps go a bit smaller.

Current bike is a 2001 Pinarello Prince 56cm. Top tube and seat tube are both 56cm. Head tube is 16.3. 110 stem. 6 feet tall, 33 inch inseam. It has been fit well and feels comfortable.

I guess the reason I ask is because I see a lot of pros and local racers on what seem like smaller bikes. Examples; Hincapie is 6'3 and rides a 57. Ballan is the same height and rides a 55?!

I've done the Competitive Cyclist fit calculator and it recommends and even longer top tube (between 56 and 57).

Anyone have first hand experience with this or care to weigh in either way? Thanks.


----------



## Daren (Jul 25, 2008)

If you are comfortable, have no aches or pains that can be addressed as a fit issue, and feel as if you are fitted to optimize your power output, why change? Especially at the cost of a new frame set. Change solely for the sake of change will probably only lead to displeasure and/or discomfort.


----------



## Dave Hickey (Jan 27, 2002)

slimjw said:


> It has been fit well and feels comfortable.
> 
> .


Why change sizes? If it's not broken..........


----------



## slimjw (Jul 30, 2008)

Well, I'm getting a carbon frame as the aluminum can be rough on longer rides, so a purchase is definite at this point. Not changing for the sake of change. 

I just wanted to get feedback from anyone who has (or hasn't) run a smaller frame to achieve a more aggressive position and see how that worked out. I realize that if my current fit ain't broke there's no need to fix it, but I want to know what the differences would be if I went down a size. 

Example, I'm looking at getting a BMC and with their geometry the 55 with its longer TT (56) would approximate my current fit, while the 53 (TT 55) is just a hair smaller. And the usual size things factor in; smaller bike is stiffer and lighter.


----------



## Dave Hickey (Jan 27, 2002)

I understand...I'm not suggesting you don't buy a new bike...I buy at least one per year

As for sizing, I'm probably the wrong person to ask. 

I've ridden frames smaller than ideal and I hated it. Shorter head tube is the main reason. I'm not very flexible and prefer higher bars than pros/racers run.


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Mar 20, 2010)

When I was racing in the the '70's our bikes were often considerably smaller than 'recommended'. Part of this was that it was the best (only?) way to get a stiffer frame from the 531 tubing. It also helped a bit with aerodynamics. The bikes recommended to me today based on 'today's recommendations' are generally around 53-54 (I'm 5'11") and seem right in the pocket with my old crit frames but smaller than my old road frames.


----------



## JacoStillLives (May 7, 2010)

slimjw said:


> Looking at building up a new bike and am wondering if I should base the frame size off my current bike or perhaps go a bit smaller.
> 
> Current bike is a 2001 Pinarello Prince 56cm. Top tube and seat tube are both 56cm. Head tube is 16.3. 110 stem. 6 feet tall, 33 inch inseam. It has been fit well and feels comfortable.
> 
> ...


Yes, but LA is 5'10" and rides a 58cm..


----------



## Hank Stamper (Sep 9, 2009)

slimjw said:


> I just wanted to get feedback from anyone who has (or hasn't) run a smaller frame to achieve a more aggressive position and see how that worked out. I realize that if my current fit ain't broke there's no need to fix it, but I want to know what the differences would be if I went down a size.


It worked out well.
But a better way to describe my scenario than "run a smaller frame to achieve a more aggressive position" would be "get a properly sized frame to run more drop than the one that was too big allowed for"

So yeah I went to a smaller frame and it worked out great but every situation is unique so I wouldn't make anything of my experience if I was you.


----------



## mitmoned (Apr 7, 2008)

JacoStillLives said:


> Yes, but LA is 5'10" and rides a 58cm..


While this is true, you have to look at the geometry of a 58cm Trek bike. The effective TT of a Trek is 57.2 cm, which would be considered a tad on the long side for someone 5'10". However, he's older and maybe not as flexible. Plus, he has so many people working for him and knows how to hide in a pack that he really doesn't need to hunker down any further to fight the wind. However, sitting more upright while spinning up climbs tends to be easier. Well, he makes it look easy at least.

I'm 5'10.5" and ride a 56.5 TT bike. So hearing a 6' person on a smaller bike intrigues me. But I know that overall height and even inseam aren't true baselines for bike fit. 

Like the OP, I am interested to hear how many people ride smallish bikes. Heck look at Ryan Trebon's bike and try not to shake your head in disbelief.


----------



## JoelS (Aug 25, 2008)

One of my bikes is a size small. I have more saddle to bar drop on that one than on my slightly larger other bike. Both are comfortable, but I think I prefer the larger one.


----------



## giosblue (Aug 2, 2009)

You need to decide how much drop you want from the saddle to the bars,.
pros ride smaller frames and they have a fair drop from the saddle,
Personally I prefer the bars higher, so I ride a larger frame. I'm 5.11 and I ride a 58cm Trek and a 57cm Litespeed. It depends how you measure the frame.

I'm a tourist so I tend to go for comfort.


----------



## milkbaby (Aug 14, 2009)

I am 5'6" and ride one bike with an effective top tube of 53.5 cm and another bike that is smaller, about 51 cm (just eyeballing it versus the other). The big difference is the amount of saddle to bar drop I run on the 2 bikes turns out different. The bigger frame is limiting the amount of drop I can achieve unless I want to go to a really short stem.

As far as the pros go, they can dial it up 65-70 kph at the end of a 200 km ride, but I cannot. I don't need to have a bike set up like theirs...


----------



## sanrensho (Jan 2, 2003)

Like the others have said, it depends on whether you want to achieve a more aggressive position. Certainly, going to a smaller frame gives you more flexibility with saddle-to-bar drop. However, if you end up preferring your old position, you'll probably be running a lot of spacers.


----------



## C-40 (Feb 4, 2004)

*special case...*

You've got short legs and a long torso, if that 33 inches (84cm) is an accurate cycling inseam. That would mean a saddle height only around 74cm. A frame that has the head tube length that's appropriate for that saddle height (130-150mm) may require a 130-140mm stem, but that's common for the pros.

When comparing frames you need to look at the head tube length, the TT length and the seat tube angle. Even better are brands that list the stack and reach (Trek, C'dale and Cervelo). Stack eliminates the BB drop and fork length variations.


----------



## Fai Mao (Nov 3, 2008)

I have the classic "Chimp Build" short legs, short torso and long arms. I am 6 foot tall and I ride a 54 cm Bataglin Road bike, a 56 cm Waterford, a 52 cm Sam Hillborn, and a 52 cm compact frame Vitus

I can echo the replies above. Buy what makes YOU happy and comfortable not what someone else rides. Also pro-racers are PAID to ride and paid to win. and that changes the equation somewhat.

BTW I thought Lance Armstrong was about 6 foot 2 or 3 inches. He is fairly tall for racer.


----------



## JacoStillLives (May 7, 2010)

Fai Mao said:


> BTW I thought Lance Armstrong was about 6 foot 2 or 3 inches. He is fairly tall for racer.


According to Wikipedia he's 5'9.5"


----------



## Dave Hickey (Jan 27, 2002)

JacoStillLives said:


> According to Wikipedia he's 5'9.5"



He is 5'9".... I can't speak for the latest Treks he rides but the older Treks were measured from the center of the bottom bracket to the top of the seat collar.. His 58cm frame was closer to a 56cm from other manufacturers

To the OP, final thought on the subject.. you are going to spend some serious coin on a new frame.. Don't send the money on something that you "think" might work, what what pros ride or what a bunch of people on an internet forum offer as their experience... it's meaningless to your personal fit...

If you are thinking about a smaller size, test ride it.....be sure....


----------



## Fai Mao (Nov 3, 2008)

Wikipedia is a notoriously unreliable source.


----------



## slimjw (Jul 30, 2008)

Thanks for all the answers, everyone. I wound up going for the 55 (TT, ST, and HT closer to my current ride) and will see how it works out.


----------



## Allez Rouge (Jan 1, 1970)

Wikipedia's accuracy aside, 5'-9" is what I have always remembered reading, too, but according to his page on the Team Radio Shack web site, Armstrong is 5'-8" tall.

Of course it's possible he's shrunk. People do that when they get old. 

/Hmmm, said web page also gives his height as 177cm, which works out to about 5'-9 5/8". That's nearly a 2" variation so one value or the other is clearly wrong. As mentioned, 5'-9" is the number I've always seen.


----------



## slimjw (Jul 30, 2008)

5'9 and 160-165 pounds at race weight? I think there are some shenanigans going on out there on the internets, y'all...


----------



## terbennett (Apr 1, 2006)

slimjw said:


> Looking at building up a new bike and am wondering if I should base the frame size off my current bike or perhaps go a bit smaller.
> 
> Current bike is a 2001 Pinarello Prince 56cm. Top tube and seat tube are both 56cm. Head tube is 16.3. 110 stem. 6 feet tall, 33 inch inseam. It has been fit well and feels comfortable.
> 
> ...


Wow! I'm the same height with a 34" inseam and I currently ride a 58 cm Felt. When I rode Treks, 60 cm fit me better. Sounds like your bike is already on the small side as it is. If it fits, don't change.


----------



## bwhite_4 (Aug 29, 2006)

In general, if nothing is broken with your current position, don't change it. If you want a super long drop, then try a smaller frame with more setback and a longer stem and see if it handles how you expect. 

As for the pro's sizing you pointed out, not all companies sizes are "standard". You have to look at the effective top tube to get a general idea of "reach" (of course depending on STA and HTA).

For the record, I'm 5'10" and have bikes that are 550 and 555 effective TT with 120 stems on each. That's a 53 on a BMC.


----------



## danl1 (Jul 23, 2005)

What any group does (on average, since obviously there will be variances) or what any individual that isn't exactly your same size, fitness, flexibility, and goals and interests on the bike has absolutely no bearing on what size bike you should buy.

Never mind that 'size' is something of a fiction anyway. My two main bikes are a 57 and a 63, and fit identically without any particularly weird parts or slams. There's only 1.5cm's difference in the top tube, one has a 100cm quill stem - stock on the bike. The other has a 110 threadless that's got a +7 rise - again, the stock item on the bike. Minor differences in bar and hood reach cover the few mm's difference left over. 

And no, despite lore, a smaller frame is not stiffer. I mean sure, it is as an independent object, but if the contact points remain the same distance from one another, the leverage remains the same, and so the flexion does too. Actually, the longer stems, posts and smaller bracing triangles probably mean the smaller bike under the same person is less stiff.

The trend for excessive bar-saddle drop is often poorly considered - it essentially damns the rider to using the hoods for most riding, leaving the drops only for 'emergency' efforts, and not allowing the tops to be as upright as they could stand to be for long seated climbing efforts. A proper fit will make the drops perfectly comfortable yet very efficient, and leave the hoods for more measured pack riding. 

If I were going to make meaningless blanket advice - which I'm not - I'd advise getting the largest bike that allows a proper fit without doing anything goofy, rather than the smallest. They ride better, they track better, they're stiffer. There's arguably a small weight penalty, but it's not of an amount that would be noticed.


----------



## dcl10 (Jul 2, 2010)

danl1 said:


> What any group does (on average, since obviously there will be variances) or what any individual that isn't exactly your same size, fitness, flexibility, and goals and interests on the bike has absolutely no bearing on what size bike you should buy.
> 
> Never mind that 'size' is something of a fiction anyway. My two main bikes are a 57 and a 63, and fit identically without any particularly weird parts or slams. There's only 1.5cm's difference in the top tube, one has a 100cm quill stem - stock on the bike. The other has a 110 threadless that's got a +7 rise - again, the stock item on the bike. Minor differences in bar and hood reach cover the few mm's difference left over.
> 
> ...


If you do not believe smaller Frames are stiffer take a look at "The Rinard Frame Deflection Test" on Sheldon browns website. Here is an excerpt.

"All frame builders know that smaller frames are inherently stiffer and larger frames are inherently more flexible. What I found in my testing is that this effect is greater than I thought. Even the lightest tube sets, when made into a small frame, end up nearly the same stiffness as the heaviest tube sets, when made into a large frame"

And there is a chart a as well with all the deflection data, which conclusively shows that smaller frames are stiffer, and all the stiffest frames tested were also the smallest frames. As far as weight you are generally loosing 100-150 grams, which in the grand scheme of things is not a big deal, but the way frames are priced these days that 100 grams would cost you at least one or two thousand dollars.


----------



## JoelS (Aug 25, 2008)

dcl10 said:


> If you do not believe smaller Frames are stiffer take a look at "The Rinard Frame Deflection Test" on Sheldon browns website. Here is an excerpt.
> 
> "All frame builders know that smaller frames are inherently stiffer and larger frames are inherently more flexible. What I found in my testing is that this effect is greater than I thought. Even the lightest tube sets, when made into a small frame, end up nearly the same stiffness as the heaviest tube sets, when made into a large frame"
> 
> And there is a chart a as well with all the deflection data, which conclusively shows that smaller frames are stiffer, and all the stiffest frames tested were also the smallest frames. As far as weight you are generally loosing 100-150 grams, which in the grand scheme of things is not a big deal, but the way frames are priced these days that 100 grams would cost you at least one or two thousand dollars.


I think you missed his point. It wasn't that the frame wouldn't be stiffer in a smaller size. It was that when coupled with the long seat tube and long stem, the extra flexibility of the long stem would offset the stiffness in the frame. 

Maybe? Maybe not? But that was what I took from his post.


----------



## foofighter (Dec 19, 2008)

there are recent pics floating around with contador on his TT bike and some pics of andy schleck on his bike. They look like they're riding kids bikes the frame looks so small on them. I wish i can find the pics for reference. But I swear they run way smaller sized frames and run these long ass stems

here's one


----------



## temoore (Mar 9, 2004)

A couple of articles on fitting / frame size:
http://www.peterwhitecycles.com/fitting.htm
http://www.rivbike.com/article/bike_fit/choosing_a_frame_size

I like Peter White's article and have used his philosophy for the most part in setting up my current bike. 
The Rivendell article suggests more bikes than not are with frames that are too small. 
It would appear from these articles and others that if you need a large seat to bar drop, a larger frame may make that more difficult to achieve. For me, that is not a requirement, I just need a bike that I can ride for longer distances and that is comfortable climbing.


----------



## jsedlak (Jun 17, 2008)

I remember hearing or reading that one idea to fitting a bike is to get the smallest bike you can comfortably ride. Not sure if that makes any practical difference in sizing a bike. I sometimes see my bike as really small (6' 2", 33in IS, 58cm Trek) and other times I see it as normal sized.



JoelS said:


> I think you missed his point. It wasn't that the frame wouldn't be stiffer in a smaller size. It was that when coupled with the long seat tube and long stem, the extra flexibility of the long stem would offset the stiffness in the frame.
> 
> Maybe? Maybe not? But that was what I took from his post.


If this were true it would certainly play into the whole "stiff where power transfer matters, flexible where comfort matters" mantra.


----------



## brblue (Jan 28, 2003)

foofighter said:


> there are recent pics floating around with contador on his TT bike and some pics of andy schleck on his bike. They look like they're riding kids bikes the frame looks so small on them. I wish i can find the pics for reference. But I swear they run way smaller sized frames and run these long ass stems
> 
> here's one


actually the guy in the picture seems pretty upgright to me 
But agreed, a picture of Alessandro Ballan on the bike recalls medieval torture methods..


----------



## satanas (Nov 8, 2002)

I've been quite impressed with the amounts of seat-bar drop I've been seeing in the TDF coverage the last week. I think the pros are riding smaller frames than ever. Many of the guys are using really long stems, and angling the bars up with the levers set high on the curve so that they can use the tops of the bars.

Almost nobody now would set themselves up like Eddy Merckx, Bernard Hinault or Greg Lemond used to. Now they all tend to look like Fignon used to at the start of his career - small frame with massive seatpost.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*yes but that is*



JacoStillLives said:


> Yes, but LA is 5'10" and rides a 58cm..


a Trek 58 which is more like a real 56
I ride 60-61s on most bikes I can ride a 63 Trek


----------



## nfosterma (Jan 24, 2007)

slimjw said:


> Thanks for all the answers, everyone. I wound up going for the 55 (TT, ST, and HT closer to my current ride) and will see how it works out.


FWIW, this seems to be the smart move. I too used to ride a Pinarello and recently switched to a BMC. I'm a little shorter than you (5' 9") and my Pinarello was a 54 and I dropped to the 53 for the BMC (SLC01). The dimensions matched nearly perfectly, and after a few rides and a few tweaks, I'm was very comfortable on my new bike. Three months now, and I'm very happy with the switch.

Good Luck on the new ride!!!


----------



## Tomasd (Jul 9, 2010)

My shoes are 48, which places a limitation to the frame geometry, the front-center distance. I have been riding a 58cm frame with the front-center distance of 59 cm. Even though it has never happened, the shoes can touch the front wheel. What is the optimal solution - should this be considered when selecting a proper frame? I suppose the front-center 59cm is standard, there may not be many geometries longer in this size, and I would not want a bigger frame.


----------



## paredown (Oct 18, 2006)

Dave Moulton doesn't think overlap is much of a problem, since you rarely do a slow hard turn on a bike where the interference would be an issue.

I remember Crescent bikes from back in the day that had crazy overlap--and not just in small frame sizes where this tends to be more of a problem. Friends that had them didn't seem to crash any more often than the rest of us...


----------



## dysfunction (Apr 2, 2010)

My last road bike had some significant overlap, was never an issue. It'd be far more of an issue on a mountainbike IMO.


----------



## jeeper006 (May 10, 2010)

i recently bought a spech Allez with a 49cm frame, yah sounds super small, did to me too. im 5'7 but after doing a fit test found out i have normal torso length and shorter legs than normal, ( i laugh everytime i say that.hahaha). however the 49cm works fine, we flipped the stem, slid the seat back 3/4 inch and viola a perfect fitting bike. 

I was extremely skeptical at first thinking that maybe my LBS was just trying to get rid of the small framed bike, because evrything i read online said for my height a 53-54cm would be the size i need. so immediately after purchasing it i took a 30 mile ride and felt fantastic. The shop owner also said that fit varys from bike manufacturer to maufacturer.

i know you all probably know all this already, i just thought i'd share!!


----------



## BikeFixer (May 19, 2009)

dysfunction said:


> My last road bike had some significant overlap, was never an issue. It'd be far more of an issue on a mountainbike IMO.



+1
Both my road and cross bikes have toe overlap it is not a problem
I'm not sure but I don't think my mtn bike has any but a mtn bike that was that short in wheelbase would probably not be the best handling thing anyway right? :thumbsup:


----------



## Tomasd (Jul 9, 2010)

Thanks for your comments, I am glad to hear it is not an issue.


----------



## jonehall (Oct 22, 2009)

C-40 and B White4 have it right.

And to add to a lot of the other posts here - it really depends on your specific proportions. For example, I have long legs and arms, but a really short torso. My saddle height is often higher than some of my riding buddies who run a larger frame than me. But with my short reach, i need a shorter top tube, hence a smaller frame (and spacers).

If I were you I would take your existing bike to a fitter and tell him what you like and don't like about your current set up. Then get advice from the fitter about sizing up or down, or looking for anything in particular in the geometry of your new carbon frame. 

I would NOT get fit on the same day as you intend to purchase. You don't want your fitter to be a sales employee who is motivated to sell you a frame that day - you want him concentrating on your fit.

Enjoy the new bike!


----------



## jlwdm (Nov 7, 2009)

jonehall said:


> ...
> 
> If I were you I would take your existing bike to a fitter and tell him what you like and don't like about your current set up. Then get advice from the fitter about sizing up or down, or looking for anything in particular in the geometry of your new carbon frame.
> 
> ...


No more advice for the OP, he posted he made his purchase 2 weeks ago.

Jeff


----------

