# Please help! 54cm too big for me? +Pics of new bike!



## Ranilus (Feb 26, 2010)

Hi all! So I got my 54cm Caad9 5 a few days ago....

Before when I test rode it I thought the 54cm was a tad too large, mainly for my upper body reach. The LBS guys absolutely insisted on 54cm being the right size for me, and said things would feel better once they fit the bike for me. I asked how a 52cm would work, they said they'd have to pull the saddle way back and swap for a longer stem blah blah and it would just not be right for me. 

Anyway, I thought what the heck, and took the pro's words for it. Plus I thought my body needed time to build strength for the riding position. 

Now I've ridden the bike more extensively a few times, it just doesn't feel right. It feels difficult to control (and I am not totally new to riding a road bike). There is much strain on my back/waist, and also on my shoulders because I have to raise my arms pretty high to reach the hoods. And when on the bike I just don't feel like I am able to exert power from my abs into the drive chain, because all my strength is focused on holding my upper body way flatter than it should be and trying to keep it there. And these are experiences coming from less than 20 min. rides. 

Anyway, I know you guys would suggest using online fit calculator from competitivecyclist and stuff, but I just wanted a quick opinion. 

So here's a few pictures of my bike, see how low the seatpost is raised! Isn't it supposed to be higher than that?




























I so should've checked with competitivecyclist and be more firm on my own feels rather than some LBS workers who claimed they went through Trek professional training and stuff. But maybe I just need to build more upper body strength? What do you guys think? Either way I think I put those Fizik bar tapes on too quickly.

:mad2: :mad2: :mad2:


----------



## ping771 (Apr 10, 2006)

Judging by the way your 54cm bike looks, it seems that a 52cm may not (but not out of the question) fit. Although the 52cm has a shorter top tube, it also has a very short head tube (like 12cm). I see that on your 54, you have quite a number of spacers on it, and in fact, you can't put any more on it! Obviously, it's to shorten your reach to the bar and levers. The question is whether your present "insufficient" reach is due to (a) that you are not presently flexible enough to ride with a lower bar position (which you can change and adapt over time, and eventually, take a few of the spacers out, which would lengthen your "reach"), (b) the top tube is simply too long (something that is a product of your torso length which you can't change), or (c) both (a) and (b). If the answer is just (a) you can keep the bike and as you get more flexible in the hamstrings, hips, lower back, you can gradually take a few spacers out. Presently, you can also get a shorter stem and flip it so it is more upright until you acheive a less upright (i.e., a lower) position. 

If the answer is b or c, then I would take the bike back as it appears to have very few miles and say that you want a 52cm with no extra charge. If they have to resell your 54cm as a used bike, tough sh-t, but they have to give you full value for your purchase. (I would have asked the bike shop before I paid for that 54cm if I could take it back for a 52cm for no charge if I wasn't happy and see what their response was.)

I don't know what kind of rider you presently are, and plan to be, but the way the bike is set up, you don't have much of a drop (difference between saddle height and bar height), so it appears it's a very upright position. If that is what makes you comfortable, and if that is the position you're happy with, then stick with it. However, if you intend on a lower position, lowering it given your present bodily complaints will only worsen your pain since lowering it will increase the distance your back and arms will have to reach the hoods and drops.


----------



## djg714 (Oct 24, 2005)

You are saying that blue bike in the picture is too big for you?


----------



## Ranilus (Feb 26, 2010)

ping771 said:


> Judging by the way your 54cm bike looks, it seems that a 52cm may not (but not out of the question) fit. Although the 52cm has a shorter top tube, it also has a very short head tube (like 12cm). I see that on your 54, you have quite a number of spacers on it, and in fact, you can't put any more on it! Obviously, it's to shorten your reach to the bar and levers. The question is whether your present "insufficient" reach is due to (a) that you are not presently flexible enough to ride with a lower bar position (which you can change and adapt over time, and eventually, take a few of the spacers out, which would lengthen your "reach"), (b) the top tube is simply too long (something that is a product of your torso length which you can't change), or (c) both (a) and (b). If the answer is just (a) you can keep the bike and as you get more flexible in the hamstrings, hips, lower back, you can gradually take a few spacers out. Presently, you can also get a shorter stem and flip it so it is more upright until you acheive a less upright (i.e., a lower) position.
> 
> If the answer is b or c, then I would take the bike back as it appears to have very few miles and say that you want a 52cm with no extra charge. If they have to resell your 54cm as a used bike, tough sh-t, but they have to give you full value for your purchase. (I would have asked the bike shop before I paid for that 54cm if I could take it back for a 52cm for no charge if I wasn't happy and see what their response was.)
> 
> I don't know what kind of rider you presently are, and plan to be, but the way the bike is set up, you don't have much of a drop (difference between saddle height and bar height), so it appears it's a very upright position. If that is what makes you comfortable, and if that is the position you're happy with, then stick with it. However, if you intend on a lower position, lowering it given your present bodily complaints will only worsen your pain since lowering it will increase the distance your back and arms will have to reach the hoods and drops.


Thank you for the detailed reply! I am pretty flexible, as I can press most of my palm down flat on the ground, with my legs straight and knees unbent. 

As for the non-existent drop: If I were to raise the seatpost any higher, my legs will be way too extended when pedals are at the 6 o'clock position. As for spacers, the LBS guys told me I am flexible enough to remove ALL the spacers, but since I haven't ridden in a while I chose to leave them on for now until I get more comfortable. 

So maybe I just need to built up some strength?


----------



## Ranilus (Feb 26, 2010)

djg714 said:


> You are saying that blue bike in the picture is too big for you?


Maybe. I'm pretty much an amatuer so I dunno! 

I am about 5''10, I guess in general a 54cm would be about right. But when I stand over the top tube, there is basically no clearance between the top tube, and, ugghh, you know. Maybe my legs are shorter than my torso...?


----------



## ping771 (Apr 10, 2006)

Of course I didn't imply to raise the saddle--the little drop is due to the bar height, which is adjustable. Since you are flexible, then I don't know if riding in a lower position is uncomfortable because simply you're not used to it, or, if it's not right based on your torso measurements. You can measure yourself on a website and see what numbers you come up with, but that is just a tool to get you in the ballpark so to speak as to where you need to be in terms of fit. But your body will tell you better than any calculator, or for that matter, any bike fitter. If you feel you can't adapt, feel inefficiencies in positioning or if there is pain or discomfort, which stays constant for more than 2 weeks of solid riding, it has to be the bike fit, which you must change one way or another.


----------



## djg714 (Oct 24, 2005)

Don't know what to tell you, because I'm 5'10 and ride a 56 Caad9.


----------



## tober1 (Feb 6, 2009)

I'm 5'11" and I ride a 56cm ('09 CAAD9-5). I don't think it's too big for you at all. Though it's pretty hard to tell without pictures of you ON the bike. 
It's also a traditional geometry (.vs sloping top tubes) so standing over the top tube doesn't mean much. 
You'll notice in the pic above that he has a similar amount of seatpost showing and mine is quite a similar length. I wouldn't worry too much. 
You could just be in a break-in period. It's definitely an aggressive geo. Perhaps you should try the Synapse or something with a little more relaxed geo???
Whatever happens. Enjoy the ride!


----------



## Ranilus (Feb 26, 2010)

tober1 said:


> I'm 5'11" and I ride a 56cm ('09 CAAD9-5). I don't think it's too big for you at all. Though it's pretty hard to tell without pictures of you ON the bike.
> It's also a traditional geometry (.vs sloping top tubes) so standing over the top tube doesn't mean much.
> You'll notice in the pic above that he has a similar amount of seatpost showing and mine is quite a similar length. I wouldn't worry too much.
> You could just be in a break-in period. It's definitely an aggressive geo. Perhaps you should try the Synapse or something with a little more relaxed geo???
> Whatever happens. Enjoy the ride!


Thanks! My mind was set on the caad9 since this is the last year "handmade" in USA. That got into my head lol. 

But thank you so much for all your advices, I will give it two more weeks and if it doesn't work out, I'll just have to put it up on craigslist or something


----------



## Ranilus (Feb 26, 2010)

djg714 said:


> Don't know what to tell you, because I'm 5'10 and ride a 56 Caad9.


Very sweet bike and classy paint job! Dunno who designed the graphics for this years paint job.


----------



## Ranilus (Feb 26, 2010)

ping771 said:


> Of course I didn't imply to raise the saddle--the little drop is due to the bar height, which is adjustable. Since you are flexible, then I don't know if riding in a lower position is uncomfortable because simply you're not used to it, or, if it's not right based on your torso measurements. You can measure yourself on a website and see what numbers you come up with, but that is just a tool to get you in the ballpark so to speak as to where you need to be in terms of fit. But your body will tell you better than any calculator, or for that matter, any bike fitter. If you feel you can't adapt, feel inefficiencies in positioning or if there is pain or discomfort, which stays constant for more than 2 weeks of solid riding, it has to be the bike fit, which you must change one way or another.


Yes. I will give it some time! Thanks


----------



## Dan Gerous (Mar 28, 2005)

Ranilus said:


> Maybe. I'm pretty much an amatuer so I dunno!
> 
> I am about 5''10, I guess in general a 54cm would be about right. But when I stand over the top tube, there is basically no clearance between the top tube, and, ugghh, you know. Maybe my legs are shorter than my torso...?


I'm 5'9.5" and on a 54, I could probably be on a 56 but I feel better on a 54, it fits me perfectly. Not that it matters to you though.

Standover height is not important, you don't fit a bike to stand over it, you fit it to ride on it.

It's hard to judge fit over the web. And while online fit guides are a good place to start, it's just a rough starting point. Even most professional fittings, they have to rely on how you feel, on your personal preferences but it takes time and experience to rely on those.

Keywords I think is that you say you haven't been riding in a while. As fitness, strength comes from riding, you'll probably end up feeling better on it and probably be able to lower the handlebar. Your body and muscles will develop and adapt. Just give your self some time and if you move things, go little by little. Like it was said, an aggressive race bike geometry is not the most comfortable for inexperienced riders. Give yourself a bit more time.

Maybe it's because I have been riding for many years but I find my do-it-yourself fits much better than any fittings I have tried in the past. Now I just copy the measures from bike to bike then fine tunes from there depending on the saddle model, pedal type and bike use...


----------



## Hank Stamper (Sep 9, 2009)

Ranilus said:


> Maybe. I'm pretty much an amatuer so I dunno!
> 
> I am about 5''10, I guess in general a 54cm would be about right. But when I stand over the top tube, there is basically no clearance between the top tube, and, ugghh, you know. Maybe my legs are shorter than my torso...?


This doesn't make sense to me unless you have a massively long head, or that stem is A LOT longer than it looks. How long is the stem?
If you're 5' 10" and can't straddle the top tube that means your legs are really short for a 5'10" person (I'm 5' 8" and straddle it fine) which in turn means you have a really long torso for a 5 10 person. Which is where the confusion begins. A 5 10 person with a long torso should not have a reach issue with a 54. I'm 5 8 with 'ordinary' proportions and the reach on my 54 is only slightly to long. I don't understand how it could be too long for a 5 10 person with a proportionatly long torso.

Sounds like a weak core to me.
But this is the internet......who knows. A picture of you on the bike might help.


----------



## Ranilus (Feb 26, 2010)

Hank Stamper said:


> This doesn't make sense to me unless you have a massively long head, or that stem is A LOT longer than it looks. How long is the stem?
> If you're 5' 10" and can't straddle the top tube that means your legs are really short for a 5'10" person (I'm 5' 8" and straddle it fine) which in turn means you have a really long torso for a 5 10 person. Which is where the confusion begins. A 5 10 person with a long torso should not have a reach issue with a 54. I'm 5 8 with 'ordinary' proportions and the reach on my 54 is only slightly to long. I don't understand how it could be too long for a 5 10 person with a proportionatly long torso.
> 
> Sounds like a weak core to me.
> But this is the internet......who knows. A picture of you on the bike might help.


Not really confident with my body image right now to dare posting pictures of my actual self LOL


----------



## modernist (Nov 7, 2005)

One thing to consider is that assuming you use the competitive cyclist fit calculator or similar, typically the results they give you is a range of sizes. Sometimes even a range of sizes according to riding style.

As far as how much seat post is showing, don't let that guide you as some riders have very long torsos and short legs(even here you can break it down to length of femur etc etc) or vice versa. What you need to determine is where exactly is does it feel too large. A better way to judge that is to have someone experienced in fitting look at you on the actual bike and have you pedaling under load. This will allow them to take measurements, listen to feedback from you and then possibly recommend different set backs, stem lengths, bar heights etc.

Also, everyone will chime in as to what size they ride and how tall they are and this might give you a very rough reference point but that's all that is, a rough guide.


----------



## Hank Stamper (Sep 9, 2009)

Ranilus said:


> Not really confident with my body image right now to dare posting pictures of my actual self LOL


You can't blame the bike shop for that. I think that about confirms the issue is core strentgh not the bike being too big.


----------



## milkbaby (Aug 14, 2009)

From the pics, on a 52cm it seems like you'd have to have your saddle slammed all the way back. If you're feeling stretched out, why don't you just get the store to swap out your stem for a shorter one?

Additionally, from what you said about "body image" it sounds like you are not as fit as you'd like and may be carrying some "bulk"... So until you build up the strength in your core and lose some of the surrounding excess, maybe you could also flip the stem which will raise the handlebars AND shorten the reach. That seems like it would take pressure off your shoulders and your lower back as you'd be more upright.

It seems like people want to copy the pros with a huge amount of seatpost showing and their handlebars slammed, but how many of us are as skinny and strong as those guys? Probably not many!


----------



## modernist (Nov 7, 2005)

Hank Stamper said:


> You can't blame the bike shop for that. I think that about confirms the issue is core strentgh not the bike being too big.


Hank, I hope you are kidding, right? You surmise that his problem is a weak core just because he has body issues? His body issue may be something totally unrelated(but I won't go there).  Besides, as beneficial as a strong core is in many aspects, it shouldn't make up for a bad fit or needing adjustments to his current set up.


----------



## Hank Stamper (Sep 9, 2009)

modernist said:


> Hank, I hope you are kidding, right? You surmise that his problem is a weak core just because he has body issues? His body issue may be something totally unrelated(but I won't go there).  Besides, as beneficial as a strong core is in many aspects, it shouldn't make up for a bad fit or needing adjustments to his current set up.


No I'm not. I do realize this is the internet and fitting advise/opinions are useless and often wrong but am not joking about a 5 10 person with proportionatly short legs (thus long torso) and the symtoms described on a 54 having core strenth issues being what I think it the best guess possible given the constraints of internet fitting diagnosis.


----------



## bikerjulio (Jan 19, 2010)

speaking from my own experience, after a long layoff of several years, it took several months at least of daily riding to get comfortable again on the bike. You could try the non-permament suggestions above to try to get a little more comfortable now, and consider another "fitting" to the bike after you are in better shape. good luck and keep at it.


----------



## modernist (Nov 7, 2005)

Hank Stamper said:


> No I'm not. I do realize this is the internet and fitting advise/opinions are useless and often wrong but am not joking about a 5 10 person with proportionatly short legs (thus long torso) and the symtoms described on a 54 having core strenth issues being what I think it the best guess possible given the constraints of internet fitting diagnosis.


Hank, hold up first he says that "I am _about_ 5''10..." (italics mine) second, we are assuming he has a long torso based on ??? what if he has a short torso and very long arms and gets his height from his shoulders on up? 

It's possible that he may actually be too stretched out on this bike as well. Strong core or not, no one can last very long on a ride relying solely on one's core to keep them in position. It's like bending at the waist to a 45 degree angle(relative the floor) and holding that position for 2 or 3 hours or however long he typically rides. Without the arms being in a position to comfortably help support the torso(which could be the case if the reach is too far), one would tire prematurely. Look at the bar drop in the pictures, it's not extreme.


----------



## Hank Stamper (Sep 9, 2009)

modernist said:


> Hank, hold up first he says that "I am _about_ 5''10..." (italics mine) second, we are assuming he has a long torso based on ??? .


To quote myself: "If you're 5' 10" and can't straddle the top tube that means your legs are really short for a 5'10" person (I'm 5' 8" and straddle it fine) which in turn means you have a really long torso for a 5 10 person."

He also said the seat is as high as it can go for his legs (paraphrase). 
If he's really 5 10 I don't think there's much question he has short legs, thus a long torso.


----------



## jlyle (Jul 20, 2007)

Ranilus said:


> Maybe. I'm pretty much an amatuer so I dunno!
> 
> I am about 5''10, I guess in general a 54cm would be about right. But when I stand over the top tube, there is basically no clearance between the top tube, and, ugghh, you know. Maybe my legs are shorter than my torso...?


FWIW, I'm 5'8" and ride a 52cm CAAD7 and a 52cm SuperSix. I can't imagine you would be comfortable on a smaller frame. I would suggest getting a professional bike fitting (one where they video tape you on your bike, fit your shoes, seat, everything); the best ~$100 you will ever spend. http://pvbike.com/articles/well-fit-you-right-pg39.htm Get the fitting at a different store than the one you bought the bike from.


----------



## ghostryder (Dec 28, 2009)

Ranilus said:


> Hi all! So I got my 54cm Caad9 5 a few days ago....
> 
> Before when I test rode it I thought the 54cm was a tad too large, mainly for my upper body reach. The LBS guys absolutely insisted on 54cm being the right size for me, and said things would feel better once they fit the bike for me. I asked how a 52cm would work, they said they'd have to pull the saddle way back and swap for a longer stem blah blah and it would just not be right for me.
> 
> ...



I am very near to your height. I have long legs, shorter torso. 54 should fit, however i think you need a 90 mm stema nd you should be fine. You might be running a 120 or 110. Try the 90mm stem or even an 80mm.


----------



## T K (Feb 11, 2009)

From me sitting here, I would say unless you have very short legs for someone 5'10" or you are really 5'6" you are on the correct bike. I'm 5'8" of normal (I hope) proportions and I couldn't fathom being on a 52.
It takes a while to get used to the feel of a road bike, many factors involved. My hands would go numb, neck would hurt ect. Eventually it wouldn't anymore. Just ride it, listen to your body and make slight adjustments as you go. Trust me it will all come together.
Nice new ride by the way.


----------



## Toona (Mar 8, 2006)

*54 C-Dale*

I am 5'9" with a 30 inch inseam and here is my 54 Caad 9 set up.


----------



## Nutmegger2010 (Apr 12, 2010)

Had similar discussion at my LBS this weekend when I picked up my 54 CAAD9 4. The guy at the shop put me on a trainer to see how I looked on it. I'm 5.9. 
He said I measured correctly to the 54, but was concerned about how flexible I was (I'm in my early 50s)
While the 52 is shorter , he said the handle bars would be lower. 
I ended up with the 54. Have only ridden it once (17 miles) and had no issues. My legs are short. When I stand over the bike - I just touch the bar. 
My other bike (Gary Fisher - commuter) is also a 54 0 and no issues there.
Good luck


----------



## STARNUT (Jun 19, 2005)

:idea: 

This is pointless and the second you mention the asshats' in Little Rock 'fitting' you should be treated as suspect. They publish 3 'fits' to cover everything in the event someone buys the wrong bike that have the "you chose the wrong fit option" excuse. Seen it happen......... more than once.

More to the point. If you water the bikes down to their stack and reach (as every one should do) a 52 and a 54 are 0.1 cm different in reach despite what the top tube is. They are a 38.2 and a 38.3 cm reach. That is to say, assuming you're fit properly (maybe a big assumption), the difference in reach/cockpit is almost nothing. Meaning (among other thing things), the 52 will "feel" just as long as a 54. Again, that assumes you're being fit correctly. _*IF*_, you are on the fence about the size (between these 2 bikes only), chose by headtube length as one is a 120 and the other a 140. Thus, judging by your stack, you have the correct size. Second, your LBS is wrong (less wrong than the dudes in Little Rock but still wrong). Again, the reach is the same. If you look at the pic below. I _could_ ride a 52 with the _exact_ same setup only with the addition of the 'cone' spacer from Cannondale and a 130 stem (in leu of a 120) to correct the negative reach caused by the artificial increase in stack and end up with the exact same contact points/points in space. You'd be the same amount behind the BB on both bikes since the reach is only 0.1 cm different and the only significant difference is stack, thus......... no saddle way back. Your ass is where it is, no matter the size. It's _ always_ x amount behind the BB. Your legs don't get longer and shorter based on frame size.

For a little back ground................. I'm 6'0", 36" inseam, and size 45/45.5 Sidi and ride a 54cm Super6. Height has jack to do with it, anyone that says otherwise is ill informed. Without torso length, foot size, inseam length, and arm length we're making a ton of assumptions that are likely not correct. Listen to your LBS, even if they went through some Trek fitting thing. That's better than spitting out a bunch of numbers to cover 2-3 sizes just to sell you something. Your LBS has you on the right size. Nutmeggers shop get it (even though the 52 is not shorter by any noticeable amount).

Here's a pic of the current hoopdie'. 54cm frame, fits like a glove.











Starnut


----------



## Nutmegger2010 (Apr 12, 2010)

Pointless - perhaps - typically I read this site after a long work day....so not always on my 'game' - my point was to lend the original Poster some support. I am new to this 'sport' and trying to make the best of it and the community. And clearly I do this risking some 'expect' being insulted. So it goes.


----------



## Devastator (May 11, 2009)

STARNUT said:


> :idea:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Sweet bike I love the Superleggera bit


----------

