# Bmc 55



## Digger51

I am 5' 10.5" tall with a 32 inch inseam. The LBS has a BMC RM01 55 in stock. Will this be the right fit for me or will it be too small? When sized for a Bianchi a LBS told me I needed a 57, so I am unsure. Perhaps both shops are correct and I can go either way.


----------



## Safeway

Take it for a ride and see how it fits.


----------



## Digger51

Safeway said:


> Take it for a ride and see how it fits.


It was at another store, so they are moving over to the LBS and I can ride it then.


----------



## Quattro_Assi_07

Digger51 said:


> I am 5' 10.5" tall with a 32 inch inseam. The LBS has a BMC RM01 55 in stock. Will this be the right fit for me or will it be too small? When sized for a Bianchi a LBS told me I needed a 57, so I am unsure. Perhaps both shops are correct and I can go either way.


I am 5'10" and have always ridden 55-56. When I purchased my first BMC, I found that way too large and settled on a 53, which has served me well through three different BMC frames now. The way I found this out? I took the different sized bikes out for a ride, just as the other poster has suggested. BMCs in my experience, tend to run a little large for their marked size.


----------



## Digger51

Quattro_Assi_07 said:


> I am 5'10" and have always ridden 55-56. When I purchased my first BMC, I found that way too large and settled on a 53, which has served me well through three different BMC frames now. The way I found this out? I took the different sized bikes out for a ride, just as the other poster has suggested. BMCs in my experience, tend to run a little large for their marked size.


I rode the 53 today and it seemed a little small, but you just confirmed what I suspected; that BMC runs a little large.

I had them put a hold on the 55 and bring it to the shop near me. They gave me a quote of $3800 with a fitting and 2 years free maintenance and tune ups. This is a really nice bike and I am pretty sure I am going to get it. I really like the Bianchi Sempre also, but with the BMC I get more bike for just a little more money. I am looking into the Pinarello Prince suggested earlier, but I think the BMC wins this race.


----------



## 2002

I am 5'11" with a 32" inseam and ride a 55cm BMC. The bike fit is perfect. I agree that BMC runs a little larger.


----------



## qatarbhoy

I'm 6' and also went with 55cm based on the BMC sizing chart published by Evans Cycles. BMCs run large, and bicycle sizes are completely inconsistent across manufacturers, that is for sure.


----------



## looigi

You guys have short legs/long torsos or are using your pants inseam rather than your physical inseam. This usually comes out ~2-4" more that pants inseams. I'm an averagely proportioned 5'9" and have a 34" physical inseam and wear 31" pants. I ride a 55 but would probably go for a 53 if I was getting another as I need a -17 degree stem to get the bars as low as I like them on the 55. 

Measuring physical inseam from CO Cyclist: "Stand with your back against a wall, your bare feet 6" apart on a hard floor, looking straight ahead. Place a book or carpenter's square between your legs with one edge against the wall, and pull it up firmly into your crotch, simulating the pressure of your saddle while riding. Have a helper measure from the top edge of the book to the floor, in centimeters. (You can convert inches to centimeters by multiplying inches by 2.54.) Repeat two or three times, for consistency, and average the results to get your inseam length."


----------



## Digger51

looigi said:


> You guys have short legs/long torsos or are using your pants inseam rather than your physical inseam. This usually comes out ~2-4" more that pants inseams. I'm an averagely proportioned 5'9" and have a 34" physical inseam and wear 31" pants. I ride a 55 but would probably go for a 53 if I was getting another as I need a -17 degree stem to get the bars as low as I like them on the 55.
> 
> Measuring physical inseam from CO Cyclist: "Stand with your back against a wall, your bare feet 6" apart on a hard floor, looking straight ahead. Place a book or carpenter's square between your legs with one edge against the wall, and pull it up firmly into your crotch, simulating the pressure of your saddle while riding. Have a helper measure from the top edge of the book to the floor, in centimeters. (You can convert inches to centimeters by multiplying inches by 2.54.) Repeat two or three times, for consistency, and average the results to get your inseam length."


I measure 57cm so the BMC 55 is probably correct for me.


----------



## macedeno21

Always look at a company's geometry chart and compare center to center top tube lengths. after that look at the size of the head tube to determine if the new bike will have a higher stack height. I am 6'0" and a little longer on the torso but have short femurs and I am riding a 55cm. This is my bike here SLAM THAT STEM, This is Mike and you can see how it fits me. (My saddle is slammed forward because I have short femurs, waiting for a zero setback post to come in)


----------



## Peanya

Didn't see this thread. I don't understand how people say they "run big". I'm 5'11" and am riding a 57cm with a 100mm stem. Perfect fit for me. A 55cm would have been too small for me, although for a more flexible person, a 55 would be a good fit due to the shorter head tube.


----------



## Wilier_speed

2010 BMC Bikes at the Sea Otter Classic - YouTube

At around 4:10 Fabio Selvig of BMC USA talks a little bit about sizing. Seems like you minus 2 or 3 cm from your normal size to fit BMC. I normally ride a 52cm in other brands and I find a BMC 50cm fits perfectly.


----------



## svt boost

I bought a 2011 BMC RMO1 on October from CC (Blue 55 SRAM red). I am 5'11" with a 32-33 in inseam. I rode a 53 at a local bike shop, and while they wanted to sell it to me, I felt it was a little small altough it felt ok. I ordered the 55 on faith, and it seems to fit pretty well.


----------



## Digger51

I got the 55cm and it is a really good fit. I am 5' 10.5" with a 32" inseam for pants. Of course the top tube on the BMC 55cm is 56cm which is perfect for me.


----------



## carbonLORD

I'm 6'3" and the 57cm SLT01 fits perfectly with a 110mm stem. Going smaller is always better then going too large. Big George Hincapie is also 6'3" and rides a 57. Just sayin.


----------



## Yerma

Peanya said:


> Didn't see this thread. I don't understand how people say they "run big". I'm 5'11" and am riding a 57cm with a 100mm stem. Perfect fit for me. A 55cm would have been too small for me, although for a more flexible person, a 55 would be a good fit due to the shorter head tube.


Overall height is just one part of the equation. I'm 5'11" but have a 35 inseam. I like the handling of the 57 better than the 55 but due to BMC's tall stand over ht. it causes the seat-post to be shoved too low. I wished the design featured a slight slope to the top tube. Add the fact that BMC uses rather steep seat tube angles and shallow head tube angles compared to many manufactures which reduces the reach.


----------



## holy cromoly

I am 5'11 and ride the 54 BMC.


----------



## marathon marke

carbonLORD said:


> I'm 6'3" and the 57cm SLT01 fits perfectly with a 110mm stem. Going smaller is always better then going too large. Big George Hincapie is also 6'3" and rides a 57. Just sayin.


Why do people continue to use overall height when determining frame size? Inseam is probably the* most *important measurement, followed by overall height. I'm 6'1.5", but I need a 60cm (BMC) frame because my inseam is 38". If you look at Hincapie, he has a long torso, quite the opposite of me. Inseam is most important of all.


----------



## looigi

marathon marke said:


> Inseam is most important of all.


Not necessarily. A wide range of inseams is easily accommodated by adjusting the saddle height. There is usually less range of adjustment in distance from the saddle to the bars, and except for moving the seat back and forth on the rails, you need to change out seatposts or stems. So, top tube effective length is more salient, and this relates to the length of the torso and arms.


----------



## marathon marke

looigi said:


> Not necessarily. A wide range of inseams is easily accommodated by adjusting the saddle height. There is usually less range of adjustment in distance from the saddle to the bars, and except for moving the seat back and forth on the rails, you need to change out seatposts or stems. So, top tube effective length is more salient, and this relates to the length of the torso and arms.


I guess I'll have to say I was half right.  I think I was reacting to so many people that appear to be using only overall height to determine their frame size. Just too many different body proportions to depend on that.


----------



## BigTex_BMC

I'm 5'9 and my BMC SR02 is a 54, and it's a perfect fit.


----------



## batura

Prefect thread for me! I am 5' 11" with an 31.5" inseam. Looking at the above posts, I see that people in my inseam size or 32" use 54 or 55 frames in BMC. However, in many websites it is said that there should be an inch distance between your crotch and the top tube while standing on the bike.

I have a 50 size RM01 and when I stand on it the distance between my crotch and the top tube is about an inch. However the distance between the saddle and the bar is too short. So I have bought a 130 mm stem recently. 

Recenty I have found a 53cm sized SLC01 for a good price. And I would like to ask whether it would be too large for me or not.

Best,

batura


----------



## holy cromoly

As you can tell by other posts, BMCs are sized a bit differently. 

I typically ride a 55cm on most other bikes and I am 5'10" with a 31" inseam. I prefer a 55cm top tube with a 100mm stem.

On BMC compact frames (Streetracer & Roadracer) I ride a 54cm.
And BMC traditional frames (Team & Race Machines) I ride a 53cm.

Like many others, I've went "down" in size when moving over to BMC. Despite the smaller size, the top tube length is the same as other bike makers' 55cm or mediums. So prioritize top tube.

The crotch distance is a bit over rated and out dated as a sizing technique. You'll sit and ride the bike more often than you will stop and stand over the top tube.


----------



## PaxRomana

I am 5'10. My SLC was a 53.


----------



## holy cromoly

As others who are 5'10" can tell you, we are in that in-between zone of a medium and a large frame. Only a test ride can reveal whether to go with the smaller or bigger size.

I demo'd a Team Machine during the BMC event recently, and the BMC rep said I should be riding a 53 Team Machine. 

BMC trivia: the rep said Hincapie rides a 55cm and Cadel rides a 50cm.


----------



## ultraman6970

Maybe is too late but the OP has to pick a BMC frame which length is about 54 to 55... over 56 in lenght will be way too long. 

Times when the size of the frame matter are long gone, now the top tube is the way to go.

In my case the team machine that should fit me is like 53 or so, which length is 55 i believe, more than that the bike will get way too long at least to me. Im around 5'10 32 inseam


----------



## HVentura

Hi, I'm 5'11" (better to say 179 cm) with a 33" inseam, my current bike is 56 (56cm set tube and 56cm Ef. Top tube) and i always feel a bit stretched on it, a nice deal on a 53 SLR has appeared, can someone give me some feedback about if it would be too small for me? Thanks for the feedback.


----------



## looigi

Depends on your preferences/fit. I ride a 55 SLR. I'm 5'9" with a 33.5" bike inseam. Top of saddle is 74.5cm above the BB measured along the seat tube. Tops of my bars are 10cm below the top of my saddle which requires a -17 degree stem with one 5mm spacer. Stem is 110mm long. I could certainly fit on a 53.


----------



## JMM

If you buy your first road bike, you should always try a number of sizes and frames to see what fits best. If you found something very well fitting, just measure the dimensions of your old bike and compare them with what you want to get. A bit of variation can always be dealt with by moving the saddle a little, different offset on the seat post or a different steam, although all these parts bear a slight change of handling characteristics.


----------



## zion rasta

I am 6'1" and ride a 55cm BMC with a 120mm stem zero setback. I thought it was going to be too small since my cervelo is a 58. 

So I bought a 30mm setback post thinking that I was going to need some space and boy was I wrong. My saddle is in the center of the rails on their zero/5mm setback stream post.

Note that the reach for the BMC 55 is 392mm which is very close to most 58s and 57s out there.


----------



## majbuzz

Just picked up a new Team Machine and couldn't be more thrilled with it. My old bike was a 56cm Colnago and the BMC that fit me is a 53. Primarily due to the saddle to bar reach. I have a 32in inseam and am 70in tall. Rode the 55 and it felt too long for sure, plus it put me in a more upright position IMO.


----------



## svt boost

Almost 18 mo later from my original post, if I had to do it over again I would not get the 55, and go with the 53 due to the top tube lenght. I ended up buying a shorter stem; all was exacerbated once I cut my steering tube and dropped the stem. It is ok...just not perfect.


----------



## looigi

svt boost said:


> ... all was exacerbated once I cut my steering tube and dropped the stem...


In my experience, the lower I put the bars, the longer the stem I use. The decrease in bar height pivots my torso forward moving my shoulders forward.


----------



## lbozzi

Hi, I have my own dilemma. I'm 5'10. Currently ride a look585 56cm TT with 2cm spacers under stem for bar drop of 7-8cm. I'm really interested in the bmc team machine, but having difficulty btn 53cm or 55cm. If I choose the 53cm I think the reach will be perfect but the stack is 15mm lower than my current setup meaning more headset spacers or try to deal with the larger handlebar drop. If I choose the 55cm frame the headtube length will be good but since the frame set TT doesn't slope very much I find the TT height is greater than I would prefer causing the exposed seatpost to be smallish. Any thoughts from experienced BMC riders appreciated.


----------



## looigi

What's the angle and length of your stem? The length and angle can make a significant diff in the amount of spacers. Check this stem calculator. 

Bike Stem Calculator - Brightspoke

I'm 5'9" on a 55 SLR01 and run a 110mm stem at -17 degrees with a 5mm spacer to get a 10 cm saddle to bartop drop.

I'm am not troubled by the length of lack thereof of the exposed seatpost.


----------



## Guod

5'11, 33" inseam and really long arms for my height (fingertip to fingertip 6'1"). I ride a 55 SLR01, zero setback, 120mm stem (-10). My seat is fairly far back.


----------



## lbozzi

-6 deg 100cm stem. I could flip the stem and save 20mm of shim under stem but I just don't care for the flipped look on such a nice frame. A local shop has a 55cm team machine to demo, so I'm going to go,a ride it tomorrow to see what I think. 
Thanks for your reply that stem calculator is nice?


----------



## looigi

lbozzi said:


> -6 deg 100cm stem. I could flip the stem and save 20mm of shim under stem but I just don't care for the flipped look on such a nice frame. A local shop has a 55cm team machine to demo, so I'm going to go,a ride it tomorrow to see what I think.
> Thanks for your reply that stem calculator is nice?


Essentially you're trading off the cosmetics of seatpost exposure, vs spacers, vs stem angle, which is an entirely personal thing, but a 0 degree stem would save 10mm of spacer and not be that heinous in my view. FWIW, here's what my bike looks like with -17 degree stem:

View attachment 276114


----------

