# Sizing advice needed Focus Izalco/ Cayo



## kimare (Aug 20, 2012)

I've decided to go for a Focus Izalco Pro 4.0 but is a bit unsure about the Izalco sizings. I'm 185cm (6'1") with a 87cm (34") inseam. Unfortunatly I'm unable to try the Izalco before I buy, but the retailer says I should go for a XL, so does the Focus catalog. But still concerned the XL will be to big because I've tried a Cannondale Supersix where the 56cm fits me nicely. And the geometry is quite comparable to the Izalco.

Supersix 56
Toptube 560mm
Seattube 540mm
Headtube 155mm
Seat Tube Angle 73.5
Head Tube Angle 73
Afaik the Supersix comes with a 100mm stem

Izalco L
Toptube 555mm
Seattube 560mm
Headtube 150mm 
Seat Tube Angle 73.5
Head Tube Angle 73.5
Afaik the Izalco comes with a 110mm stem

The way I see it with my untrained eye will then the cockpit on the stock Focus L/56 exceed in length the stock Supersix 56 cockpit. On the basis of theory, will a Izalco L/56 fit better than XL/58. It remains only to verify that the difference between theory and practice matches, I hope someone here is able to help me with that last one.

Izalco XL
Toptube 570mm
Seattube 580mm
Headtube 170mm
Seat Tube Angle 73.5
Head Tube Angle 73.5

If I decide to go for a XL should I then ask for a 20mm shorter stem?


----------



## Blue Star (Jun 9, 2012)

Do you have a current bike to compare with?

I'm a cm shorter than you, but with a cm longer inseam. If it were me, I'd go with the XL with a 100cm stem. It's not that the L wouldn't be comfortable but, at 50, I'd need to make up the headtube difference with spacers. 

Sorry I can't be of more assistance. It's tough without going for a significant test ride, but the recommendations that you've received make sense to me looking at the numbers.


----------



## kimare (Aug 20, 2012)

Blue Star said:


> Do you have a current bike to compare with?
> 
> I'm a cm shorter than you, but with a cm longer inseam. If it were me, I'd go with the XL with a 100cm stem. It's not that the L wouldn't be comfortable but, at 50, I'd need to make up the headtube difference with spacers.
> 
> Sorry I can't be of more assistance. It's tough without going for a significant test ride, but the recommendations that you've received make sense to me looking at the numbers.


Thanks for your advice, unfortunatly I don't have a road bike now, but I have a MTB with the following:
Toptube 615mm
Seattube 508mm
Headtube 130mm
Stem 100mm

This setup fits me comfortably, is it transferable anyway to a roadbike?

According to the Biomechanicalcycling excel sheet at weightweenies (sorry can't link) which have recieved positive feedback. I'm 555mm horizontal and 568mm vertical. If these are correct it seems like the Izalco L/56 frame are made with me in mind.

I would also mention that I have very long arms.


----------



## Blue Star (Jun 9, 2012)

From a geometry point of view, I'm pretty sure that you could be fitted to either bike. If you have lower back issues, limited flexibility, aging body and that sort of thing, the L might prove uncomfortable as you'll be put into a more forward, lower down position. this is better if you compete or generally ride aggressively. Also, the shorter wheelbase may be more responsive, or unstable depending on how you ride.

I weighed in with the XL just because I'm unfamiliar with the bike and that you were told by the manufacturer that the XL would be more appropriate. My racing bike, a Marinoni, matches up more with L but has a longer head tube and a tighter rear geometry. I've recently changed the stem to have a more upright riding position.

Hopefully you'll get some input from others who have experience with the Izalco (maybe change the title to include the bike model).


----------



## kimare (Aug 20, 2012)

Blue Star said:


> From a geometry point of view, I'm pretty sure that you could be fitted to either bike. If you have lower back issues, limited flexibility, aging body and that sort of thing, the L might prove uncomfortable as you'll be put into a more forward, lower down position. this is better if you compete or generally ride aggressively. Also, the shorter wheelbase may be more responsive, or unstable depending on how you ride.
> 
> I weighed in with the XL just because I'm unfamiliar with the bike and that you were told by the manufacturer that the XL would be more appropriate. My racing bike, a Marinoni, matches up more with L but has a longer head tube and a tighter rear geometry. I've recently changed the stem to have a more upright riding position.
> 
> Hopefully you'll get some input from others who have experience with the Izalco (maybe change the title to include the bike model).


Thanks you're probably right, but from reading description I might go for a XL, I'm able to touch the ground with my fingers but that might be more related to unusal long arms than flexibility.

I've changed the title as both the Izalco and Cayo share the same geometry this season, I don't know how it was previous seasons.


----------



## AkbarnJeff (May 31, 2005)

I am 5'11" with a 32" inseam and the large izalco was fine- almost too big. My current bike (non-izalco) is a 55. I think the large will fit you fine


----------



## tuffguy1500 (Jul 17, 2008)

I have the 54cm (M) and I'm 5'9" with a 31" inseam. My purpose of this bike was racing and centuries,and just going fast in general. The size is one down from what I normally buy, and with only a few mm change in the headset spacing and the saddle, it's a perfect fit for me. The advice given to me by many shops was go down a size for a pure racing bike. It did take a few months to fully adapt my muscles to being in a lower overall position, but damn do I ever love it now.


----------



## teoky (Mar 5, 2012)

I thought it is better to go for the smaller size and you can always put a longer stem rather than going for a larger size and putting in a shorter stem and the bike becoming twitchy ?


----------



## mazador (Dec 25, 2009)

While true that you can always put on a longer stem, it may not be possible to counter the increased drop at the bars with spacers. Izalco has a limit of 4cm on the all carbon fork. 

However, if you liked the 56 SuperSix size then there is nothing in the 5mm top tube and head tube differences that would stop you from setting up the Izalco to your liking. 

For what it's worth I'm riding a 58/XL Izalco which completements a 59cm Via Nirone. I'm around 6'2" but it's leg, arm & torso proportions (not to mention rider preferences) that are significant hence don't let the absolute height sway you.


----------



## kimare (Aug 20, 2012)

I've been out trying more bikes today.

Nakamura Pursuit 6.0 54cm (Norwegian brand):
Toptube 555mm
Seattube 540mm
Headtube 155mm
Seat Tube Angle 73.5
Head Tube Angle 73

This felt a bit too aggresive 

Nakamura Pursuit 6.0 57cm
Toptube 570mm
Seattube 570mm
Headtube 190mm
Seat Tube Angle 73
Head Tube Angle 73

The second felt more comfortable naturally due to the larger headtube. 

As Izaclo have an even smaller headtube than this bike I'm leaning towards the XL/58, as compromise between these two.

I've also tried
Focus Variado L/56 TT545, ST560, HT150 felt too small
Specialized Allez L/56 TT565, ST530, HT170 felt correct
Scott Speedster XL/58 TT575, ST580, HT190 felt large but ok.

Keep in mind that I haven't rode any of these, but have been seating on them with the seatpost in about correct position.


----------



## mick wolfe (Feb 15, 2004)

I'm 6' and ride an Izalco XL. I'm not that flexible and needed that extra head tube length. All in all, the bike is a perfect fit for me.


----------



## kimare (Aug 20, 2012)

Alright now I got several registrations from different persons, some are noted here, lots are sendt via PM and some are found elsewhere on the net. I'll try to summarize.

If you're 
5'9" go for M/54 (100%) 2 registrations
5'10" go for L/56 (100%) 2 registrations
5'11" go for L/56 (100%) 5 registrations
6' go for L/56 (66%) or XL/58 (33%) 9 registrations
6'1" go for XL/58 (50%) or XXL/60 (25%) or XXXL/62 (25%) 4 registrations
6'2" go for XL/58 (75%) or XXL/60 (25%) 4 registrations

If we follow the trends a XL/58 would be appropriate, this combined with my experience from trying other bikes eartlier today have made make up my mind. Thanks to all who took their time,hopefully my investigations could be useful for others considering Izalco but are unable to try.


----------



## kimare (Aug 20, 2012)

Then I've ordered a brand new Izalco Pro 4.0, size XL/58. 
Price $1900, including av hefty 25% sales tax.

Again thanks to all who took their time to help me out


----------



## C-40 (Feb 4, 2004)

*thoughts...*

Is that 34 inch inseam a properly measured cycling inseam (from floor to saddle-like crotch contact in bare feet) or a pants inseam. Pants inseam is irrelevant.

If your cycling inseam is only 34 inches or 86cm, you would have short legs for your height. If your pants inseam is that length, then your cycling inseam would be perhaps as much as 36 inches or 91.5cm.

A frame must fitted with regard to both leg length and overall height.

Those with short legs and a long torso usually get stuck with a frame that's really too tall, in an effort to gain TT length and reach. Stock bikes will have stems that are too short and should be changed for longer models to avoid a too-tall frame.


----------



## morgan1819 (Nov 22, 2005)

C-40 said:


> Is that 34 inch inseam a properly measured cycling inseam (from floor to saddle-like crotch contact in bare feet) or a pants inseam. Pants inseam is irrelevant.
> 
> If your cycling inseam is only 34 inches or 86cm, you would have short legs for your height. If your pants inseam is that length, then your cycling inseam would be perhaps as much as 36 inches or 91.5cm.
> 
> ...


All true ... 

At the same time, if you have any stand-over clearance at all, it's a non-issue if the TT length is correct. When is the last time you clown-walked a top tube? Never for me, through many years of MTB's and road.


----------



## kimare (Aug 20, 2012)

C-40 said:


> Is that 34 inch inseam a properly measured cycling inseam (from floor to saddle-like crotch contact in bare feet) or a pants inseam. Pants inseam is irrelevant.
> 
> If your cycling inseam is only 34 inches or 86cm, you would have short legs for your height. If your pants inseam is that length, then your cycling inseam would be perhaps as much as 36 inches or 91.5cm.
> 
> ...


Yes my cycle inseam are 34", but I don't think I've got particular short legs.

"Men will typically have an inseam 46-47% of their height and although it may not sound like a big difference, less than 45% or more than 47.5% is noticeable short or long legged respectively. Contrary to some popular opinion, women do have longer legs, with 47.5% to 48.5% the usual range. So knowing this simple information, how might it affect our choice of bike."

BikeSize.Info Bike Sizing Specialists

As mention earlier my measurements are 185/87 which is 47% legs to height ratio.


----------

