# lemond sizing



## nmadse1 (Apr 19, 2008)

Just hoping to get some direction on Lemond sizing from anyone who's ridden them before. In general, I know they run a little large compared to most sizings. 

I'm 5'10, 32" inseam - wondering if I should go 55cm or 57cm. Any thoughts would be aprreciated. Thanks.


----------



## C-40 (Feb 4, 2004)

*info..*

Specific size numbers mean nothing. Compare the head tube length, with the headset, for vertical size. The frame reach comparison requires the TT length plus corrections for any difference in the seat tube angle (steeper STAs make the reach longer).


If that 32 inch inseam is a cycling inseam and not a pants inseam, you've got short legs and both sizes are too large (vertically).


----------



## Stogaguy (Feb 11, 2006)

*55 cm will be too big*

I have a 55 cm Poprad that fits me pretty well. My dimensions:
5' 10" tall
33.3" cycling inseam

Like C-40 said, if that 32" figure is a true cycling inseam the 55 cm will be too big by most people's standards.


----------



## jmt114 (Mar 20, 2008)

I am 5'10 and ride a 55 cm LeMond Chambery, but I have shorter legs than you. (31" pant inseam) and a longer torso. LeMonds have longer top tubes than is typical. I find it to be a very comfortable bike. 

Ride one and see what you think. I tried a 53 and it felt too small.


----------



## rkb (Apr 4, 2007)

I'm 5'10 and have a 32 pant inseam and about a 34 cycling inseam and I ride a 55cm Tete. Very comfortable bike. The top tubes are long and because of this I have a short stem (90mm). The stock stem on this bike is a 100 so my 90 does not changing the handling like it would if you put it on a 57 or 59 frame. I looked at the 53 but I like the taller headtube that the 55 offers. So from that point of view I went with the 55 and tuned the reach with the stem and some short reach bars. Just remember that a 55cm LeMond has an effective top tube of 56.5cm


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

If you find that you have a short inseam for your height you will do well to look at the sloping top tube models. If you allow stand over clearance to dictate the bike's size (on a bike with level top tube) you will wind up with a shorter top tube than you need.


----------



## pdxtim (Nov 15, 2004)

*Lemond frames are measured differently too*

Remember Lemond frames are measured c-c, that is, from center of bottom bracket to center of top tube. Most frames seem to be measured c-t, from center of bottom bracket to top of top tube. I have a 55 cm Lemond and it measures 58 cm from center of bottom bracket to top of top tube. I am 5'10" with a 33" cycling inseam and also have used a short (90 mm) stem cause the reach is a little long for me. I'm selling it cause it's too big. 

While we're on this topic, does anyone know why Lemond just doesn't call the frame I describe above a 58 cm frame???????


----------



## marknelson (Oct 18, 2007)

I'm 5' 11" with a 32" pant inseam... a few weeks ago I test rode both a 57 and a 55 Lemond. The 57 was far too big for me, I've now put about 300 miles on the 55 and it feels great.


----------



## C-40 (Feb 4, 2004)

*c-c*

Measuring c-c is probably the oldest method and makes perfect sense because it defines the frame based on the tube centerlines. You can change tube sizes and the dimensions remain the same.

These days, a lot of the "tubes" are no longer round and the old methods of measuring are less relevant.

I never pay any attention to a frame's advertised size. I look at the head tube length, with the headset, the TT length, the seat tube angle and standover height last.


----------



## trener1 (Jan 22, 2004)

*Lemond vs Ridley*

To take this one step further.
I am about 5' 9" - 5' 10" about a 31 inseam. 
The other day I test rode both a 53 & 55 Lemond, oddly enough they both felt good, though the shop recommended that I go with the 53, just so that I would have more room to modify my position down the road, should I want to.
In any case, I am also thinking of the deal on the Ridley, however looking at the effective TT length on the Medium, it seems like the the M Ridley has the same TT length as the 55 Lemond, and for some reason I can't picture myself on a small, so might the Ridley just not be right for me?.


----------



## mschol17 (Jun 11, 2006)

I'm 5' 11" and I ride a 57 cm Sarthe with a 12 cm -10 degree stem. What really matters is how high you need the bars relative to the saddle, and how much reach you feel comfortable with. If you need the bars close to saddle height, you probably need the 57 with a flipped stem. If you can deal with a big drop and prefer reaching down rather than out, get the 55. 

My only thought is that I think having the bars further forward makes climbing more enjoyable for the most part.


----------



## cmg (Oct 27, 2004)

trener1 said:


> To take this one step further.
> I am about 5' 9" - 5' 10" about a 31 inseam.
> The other day I test rode both a 53 & 55 Lemond, oddly enough they both felt good, though the shop recommended that I go with the 53, just so that I would have more room to modify my position down the road, should I want to.
> In any case, I am also thinking of the deal on the Ridley, however looking at the effective TT length on the Medium, it seems like the the M Ridley has the same TT length as the 55 Lemond, and for some reason I can't picture myself on a small, so might the Ridley just not be right for me?.


Does the Ridley have a similar STA? Similar head tube height? sounds right.


----------



## C-40 (Feb 4, 2004)

*info..*



trener1 said:


> To take this one step further.
> I am about 5' 9" - 5' 10" about a 31 inseam.
> The other day I test rode both a 53 & 55 Lemond, oddly enough they both felt good, though the shop recommended that I go with the 53, just so that I would have more room to modify my position down the road, should I want to.
> In any case, I am also thinking of the deal on the Ridley, however looking at the effective TT length on the Medium, it seems like the the M Ridley has the same TT length as the 55 Lemond, and for some reason I can't picture myself on a small, so might the Ridley just not be right for me?.


31 inches sounds like a pants inseam, not a cycling inseam. To get accurate advice, you need to post a cycling inseam or an accurate saddle height. FWIW, the 55cm Lemond and medium ridely will fit about the same. The 2cm jump in the TT length between the 53 and 55cm frames is huge and unusual.


----------



## trener1 (Jan 22, 2004)

Sorry guys, but what is a cycling inseam?
And if I am looking at a 53 Lemond would a Small Ridley work? for some reason I can't picture myself on a Small


----------

