# Flip-flopping between 56cm and 58cm frame



## zuuds (Nov 23, 2009)

I did the online fit calculator at Competitive Cyclist and was also measured at the LBS. The LBS measured me at 90cm inseam, 64cm torso, 69cm arm, and said a 56.5cm top tube is ideal for me. The online calculator recommends top tube length of 56.9 - 57.3 (competitive fit), 56.9 - 57.3 (Eddy fit), and 58.1 - 58.5 (French fit).

I've never owned a real road bike before, so can't use that as a baseline. Generally, I prefer a more upright riding position, and will be using the bike for some CX racing, but more for general fitness riding on roads and fire trails. 

I briefly tried a Scott CX Comp in 56cm (55.5cm TT) and 58cm (57cm TT). I felt a wee bit bunched up on the 56, and a wee bit stretched out on the 58, but neither was terrible. Coming from a MTB background, the lower standover of the 56 felt more familiar, but the higher standover of the 58 wasn't a deal-killer. 

I'm kind of leaning towards the 58 and a shorter stem. Anyone else have a similar sizing dilemma, and which way did you end up going?


----------



## jroden (Jun 15, 2004)

i think you are on the right track with a 58. People used to buy cross bikes shrimpy, but it seems like the more open courses allow for the use of a normal sized road bike.


----------



## laffeaux (Dec 12, 2001)

I'm 6' 1/2" (1.84 m) tall with a 34.5" (87 cm) inseam - somewhat similar to your size.

I like the cockpit length on the 58cm Scott - 57cm w/ 73 STA. The head tube on the 58cm frame is 180mm, which is longer than on bikes that I ride (even when the integrated headset is taken into account), but I could certainly make it work. The standover is listed at 82cm, which is plenty of clearance.

The website lists the 58cm as coming with a 120mm stem. If you're feeling a little stretched out, a 110cm or 100cm stem would help.

Given the two options, at my size, I'd go with the 58cm.


----------



## zuuds (Nov 23, 2009)

laffeaux said:


> The website lists the 58cm as coming with a 120mm stem. If you're feeling a little stretched out, a 110cm or 100cm stem would help.
> 
> Given the two options, at my size, I'd go with the 58cm.


Ah, good point, I didn't think about the size stem they came with. When the LBS ran my numbers, 110mm was my suggested stem length. 

Part of my rationale for leaning towards the 58cm frame is that it will have a taller head tube, which would further my goal of having a more upright riding position. On a 56cm frame, the shorter head tube plus more seatpost exposed would cause a more forward-crouched riding position. Is this reasoning correct?

I don't have my heart set on a Scott, but the LBS carried Scott and Giant. I didn't test ride the Giants, but I swung a leg over a size L TCX (55.5cm ST / 58.5 TT), and size M/L 
(53.5cm ST / 57cm TT) the "too bunched up" and "too stretched out" sensations seemed more exaggerated on the Giants than on the Scotts. (Also the 84cm standover on the size L Giant felt a little too close for comfort.)


----------



## shomyoface (Nov 24, 2007)

Two things: you cannot compare TT lengths of two (or more) frames without taking the SA into consideration - 1 degree of offset is close to 1cm difference at the seat; and two, look through the gallery and see how many folks bought frames too small with upward pointing stems and 3cm's of spacers.

You should buy the bike that fits, no one that you can "make work". The bike you need maybe another brand?


----------

