# Did I purchase a bike to big?



## Sparelink (Jul 5, 2014)

I picked up a fuji roubaix with a 61cm frame. I have done the measurements from competitive cyclist multiple times to make sure my measurement came out correct. half my measurement are within the ranges and half are not. do you think i went to big?


----------



## joeinchi (Sep 24, 2010)

You may get better feedback if you share your measurements:

Inseam:
Trunk:
Forearm:
Arm:
Thigh:
Lower Leg:
Sternal Notch:
Total Body Height:

Someone with similar numbers can, at least, tell you what they ride.


----------



## Sparelink (Jul 5, 2014)

Here are my measurements


----------



## robt57 (Jul 23, 2011)

Honestly, I do not see how your thigh and lower leg meas = inseam is possible. 

You got some mis-measurements I think.

Other than that I think you need a 58. BUT if you can lift the 61 1" min both tires off the ground while over it in your cycling shoes you may just need a shorter stem to fit.


----------



## joeinchi (Sep 24, 2010)

Metric? Who uses metric? 

For some, it's easier to recommend approximate fit for a 6 ft rider with 32.5" inseam than using cm (even though all bike specs are in cm).

@ robt57: Leg numbers are probably okay. On the CC Calculator, upper leg measurement starts from your backside (while seated) to the knee and lower leg starts from top of knee to the floor. That total is 12-18" > inseam.

Inseam: 32.5"
Trunk: 28.0"
Forearm: 13.8"
Arm: 28.1"
Thigh: 25.6"
Lower Leg: 25.2"
Sternal Notch: 59.3"
Total Body Height: 71.9"


----------



## joeinchi (Sep 24, 2010)

I think the answer is "it depends." The CC calculator gets you in the ballpark but what it doesn't factor is saddle shape, head tube length, steerer spacers, stem angle and handlebar reach. All of which affect your "saddle handlebar" measurement and actual distance to the hoods. Through a combination of setting, though, you've already reduced your "saddle handlebar" distance by 3-6cm compared to their range of recommendations which effectively produces a smaller bike fit.

But the real determinant when it comes to fit, comfort and efficiency is your _effective_ torso length. Pics below demonstrate the range of positions different riders utilize and how it affects reach. If you curve your back signficantly, the reach shortens. If you roll your pelvis forward and ride with a fairly flat back, then you'll be longer.

Source: https://www.stevehoggbikefitting.com/bikefit/2011/05/seat-set-back-for-road-bikes/








If I'm not mistaken, the Roubaix has "race" geometry and the next size down (58) features an ETT which is 1.5cm shorter than the 61's (0.6"). Importantly, it also has a HT which is 2cm shorter than the 61's which would lower the handlebars and might actually make it feel longer. Something to consider.

I think you're probably fine but, again, it depends largely on how you sit on the bike.


----------



## aureliajulia (May 25, 2009)

From what I understand, CC takes returns without question. Why don't you take the bike to a bike shop and get sized and an opinion as to whether the bike actually fits? If the bike fits, then get a fitting. Just a sizing shouldn't cost much.

You need a fitting anyway, might as well do it right away.

Edit: your arms are 30 inches? That's an incredibly long reach.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

I'll offer upfront that I'm not a fan of online fit calculators, and this is why. Fraught with errors and confuses more than clarifies. 

Bottom line is, no matter what the numbers suggest, you have to be comfortable on the bike, so (as was suggested) find a reputable fitter, get sizing assessed and go from there. 

If sizing is off, depending on how much, a fitting is apt to not go well, but at least then you'll *know* versus guessing by numbers.


----------



## aureliajulia (May 25, 2009)

PJ352 said:


> I'll offer upfront that I'm not a fan of online fit calculators, and this is why. Fraught with errors and confuses more than clarifies.
> 
> .


Online calculators just don't work for me. They put me on a bike at least two sizes bigger than I need. Probably because my inseam is 33.5, and I'm only 5'7".


----------



## robt57 (Jul 23, 2011)

joeinchi said:


> @ robt57: Leg numbers are probably okay. On the CC Calculator, upper leg measurement starts from your backside (while seated) to the knee and lower leg starts from top of knee to the floor. That total is 12-18" > inseam.


Actually I based that comment on my own 34.25" inseam and shorter numbers for both of the leg measurements. I don't know anyone who ride a freakishly longer bike than myself. The French Fit is close to what I ride using that calc. The other two I would feel like I was on a clown circus bike. My elbows and knees would be encroaching on each others air space.


----------



## 9W9W (Apr 5, 2012)

I'm six feet....alright 5'11" and 4/5ths and am most comfortable on a 56 frame, have a "55.8" with a steep 73.7 STA. I'm looking at 56cm frames, maybe at 58cm frames. I rode a rental 58 Fuji Finest 1.0 (I think that's what it was called). It was huge! I'm looking to build a bike and I'm looking at frames with a stack of 570-580 and a reach of 395-400. 

One of the things that I hated about a frame that's way too large - and not something I thought of before - in was that out of the saddle climbs the top tube would hit the inside of my thighs as I rocked the bike side to side a bit. 

Sixty one - even with all the caveats of proportions and individual sizing - I think you may have gone too big. 

I used the same calculator with a bike purchase a while back. I had my SO help, laser levels, yardsticks, chairs the whole bit. My results put me on a 56-57 @ 6 feet.

Since it's quite possible that you may have gone too large, why don't you take it to a bike shop. Plunk down $75-100 and get it fitted...or at least have the guy try. If you need some really short stem to make it work (<100), it's likely too big. See if you can borrow a stem or two from a buddy so you don't have to buy a stem from the LBS on the spot for a fit. 

In my humble opinion, definitely have someone who knows look at it so you don't go out of the return period.

Here's another way to look at it. You bought the largest bike size available. You're six feet. Do you think the bean counters at Fuji would have wanted to make something bigger to be able to have an offering for riders taller than 6'? Like 6'2-6'3? If you think that's an economical decision, then you're probably on a frame meant for a taller guy.


----------



## joeinchi (Sep 24, 2010)

robt57 said:


> The other two I would feel like I was on a clown circus bike. My elbows and knees would be encroaching on each others air space.


LOL Gotacha' :thumbsup:


----------



## robt57 (Jul 23, 2011)

joeinchi said:


> LOL Gotacha' :thumbsup:



Although, if one had a Kim Kardashian like butt, the wall to knee measurement could be a bit longerer.. err ...


I'd add that set back saddle numbers do not seem generous. Take those and look and Thomas Voeckler's saddle, seatpost and seat tube angle. Of course comparing a pro to a civilian... But he must have 4" + of setback, and that is a small frame...
Pic distortion not withstanding...

Taken off my TV TDF stage dejour... I spoke french, and said french twice now today...


----------



## Shuffleman (Sep 4, 2013)

PJ352 said:


> I'll offer upfront that I'm not a fan of online fit calculators, and this is why. Fraught with errors and confuses more than clarifies.
> 
> Bottom line is, no matter what the numbers suggest, you have to be comfortable on the bike, so (as was suggested) find a reputable fitter, get sizing assessed and go from there.
> 
> If sizing is off, depending on how much, a fitting is apt to not go well, but at least then you'll *know* versus guessing by numbers.


This is really good advice. If you are not sure than it can't hurt to take it in and have a professional look at it and you. Most of us, myself included, really do not know how to measure ourselves properly. Just because you wear a pant size that states 32" Long, does not necessarily mean that is your true inseam. I am 6'02 and ride a 59 Colnago. It is very comfortable for me. My previous bike was a 61 Felt, which was actually smaller. 
Take it to a fitter and ask their opinion and then pay for a fitting. It will be a well spent $50 even if all it does is give you peace of mind.


----------



## duriel (Oct 10, 2013)

I'm going to say it is too big, but may fit with a short stem. 
I'm thinking if you have long legs & short torso, you would want a smaller frame than if you are short legs & long torso (which is what I have). I like big bikes to get stretched out in the torso & my seat is almost slammed to the frame compared to other riders.
I am not a racer and about the same height as you. I ride a 57.5. with a normal stem & a 58.5 with a short stem.


----------



## plag (Apr 30, 2007)

It looks like the seat tube maybe a little too big, my put your family jewels in some danger.


----------



## Ventruck (Mar 9, 2009)

If it's a straight up 61* personally think it's way big. Like, you'll get it to fit but you're playing with extremes. This is coming from someone who is 5'10 (~178cm) with a longer inseam, and once had a Giant TCR in size L (so it would fit like a 56-58). I could make it work because it really was a versatile fit, but it looked forced and ultimately I moved on to a 53/54cm frame. As of right now I'm on a TCR again, but size M (50-54). If there was an S/M I would've considered that too.

I'm not discounting the idea that you'll get along with a 61cm frame, but it's something I've never heard of. Only example I could name for remote over-sizing was Lance at 5'9" and using a 58. Otherwise the Schlecks were (I can't believe this has already become a thing of the past) 6'2" on 56cm bikes. Cav at 5'9" is on a 49.

*that saddle/handlebar number looks funny for the Fuji. I'm not sure if that was a typo or this frame is looking way different than I imagine.


----------

