# what best fits a 5'4" short rider 50cm vs 48cm or 47cm



## MarkZeus

I currently have a 50cm and It feels a little big for me for my build 5'4.5" 160. I replaced my stem to a 60-70cm (from a 90cm) and moved the seat forward and It seem to fit me better. I'm just wondering If a 48cm frame would fit me better so I don't have to get a real short stem. What is the trade off of getting a too small of a frame? Thanx in advance.


----------



## PinarelloFan

I'm 5'6 and I have a 48 and two 50's .. I have to imagine if you have ridden on a 48 , you would not need to ask this question .. Unless you have very long legs or the frames tt is short for a 50 it's gotta be too big... you can get away w/ it , but you and you body will be better served on a 48


----------



## zamboni

The best thing to do is going down to LBS and have them fit you on a 48 do a test drive, I'm 5'5 and riding a 50 size frame.


----------



## MarkZeus

I'm going to do that thanx. I'm going to check out a 47cm sometime today.


----------



## zamboni

Mark,

If you are staying with Cannondale they don't offer 47cm.


----------



## mtbguate

I'm 5'6 and run a 48" six13


----------



## chibi

I'm 5ft 4in and just got a 48cm Caad 9. Although the 42cm handlebar it came with is too 
wide.


----------



## MarkZeus

Sorry I forgot to mention the 47cm size they have have in a Synapse and they don't have a 48cm size for the super6 & system6. I test rode a 50cm super6 and it fit me better, probably due to a shorter toptube and decided to purchase it, mentioned in the other thread http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showthread.php?t=134575.


----------



## cannondalekeith

I too am 5' 6" and I ride a 48cm System 6.

Hope this helps.

Keith


----------



## zamboni

Should you be on a 50cm instead of 48cm ?


----------



## cannondalekeith

I'm not sure if your question was directed at me, but I rode both the 50 and 48 and found the 48 to be a better fit for me personally. I did the same when I got my Caad 7 and found the 48 to be a better match as well. I have been very happy with the fit and and very comfortable on long rides. 

Keith


----------



## zamboni

Keith,

I'm 5'4 and 50cm fit me just right my wife had a 48cm Six13 and it felt a bit cramp.


----------



## s2ktaxi

arm length, torso length and flexibility are major factors as well. I am 5' 6.75" and ride a 50cm. A prior LBS fitted me to a 52cm CAAD4 and I was never comfortable on it. I'm much better on the 50cm. But a friend who is my height fits better on a 52cm.


----------



## rollinrob

I have a 48 cm caad 8. I am 5-4 and change... It fits ok with an 80 cm stem. The steep Seat tube angle really screws this bike up. ITs at 74.5. My 07 orca is at 73.7 aand fits like a glove.


----------



## Redster

I use a 50 Super six and I'm 5'5".I have long torso and arms and it fits me good with a 110mm stem.I rode a 48 before years back and felt cramped.it lt all depends on your body measurements. Go to a good bike fitter,pay the cost and it will save you from a costly mistake.


----------



## rcjunkie3000

*47cm or 50cm for 5' 5" newb rider*

Instead of making a new thread I thought I piggy back off this one since it is a similar question.

I am looking to get a new carbon road frame because my current 50cm (effective top tube is 54.50cm) carbon frame seems a bit large and I had to move the seat all the way up and get a 90mm stem and I still feel I have to stretch ( I am not that flexible and can only grab my shins when stretching down, knees locked).

I went on www.wrenchscience.com and the final results showed I need a Frame Size center-to-center: 50cm OR a Frame Size center-to-top: 52cm 

A 47cm frame I am looking at has an effective top tube measurement of 52.49. Should I go with the effective top tube measurement vs getting the frame measured center to top or center to center?

My Overall Reach from Wrench Science.com is 62.42 cm so the 52.49cm ETT frame plus a 100mm (10cm) stem should be close to my overall reach numbers.

This is going to be a long term investment and I would like to get your thoughts on this. Based on the numbers it looks like a good fit but every bike store I visit does not have anything smaller than a 50cm in stock. Looking to get one online now.

If you guys need more info let me know. Thanks in advance. :thumbsup:

BTW, my old 50cm and the 47cm I am looking at are both compact frames.


----------



## ph0enix

Damn, those are some long stems (60-70 and 90cm)  ...mine is 90mm.


----------



## r_mutt

rcjunkie3000 said:


> Instead of making a new thread I thought I piggy back off this one since it is a similar question.
> 
> I am looking to get a new carbon road frame because my current 50cm (effective top tube is 54.50cm) carbon frame seems a bit large and I had to move the seat all the way up and get a 90mm stem and I still feel I have to stretch ( I am not that flexible and can only grab my shins when stretching down, knees locked).
> 
> I went on www.wrenchscience.com and the final results showed I need a Frame Size center-to-center: 50cm OR a Frame Size center-to-top: 52cm
> 
> A 47cm frame I am looking at has an effective top tube measurement of 52.49. Should I go with the effective top tube measurement vs getting the frame measured center to top or center to center?
> 
> My Overall Reach from Wrench Science.com is 62.42 cm so the 52.49cm ETT frame plus a 100mm (10cm) stem should be close to my overall reach numbers.
> 
> This is going to be a long term investment and I would like to get your thoughts on this. Based on the numbers it looks like a good fit but every bike store I visit does not have anything smaller than a 50cm in stock. Looking to get one online now.
> 
> If you guys need more info let me know. Thanks in advance. :thumbsup:
> 
> BTW, my old 50cm and the 47cm I am looking at are both compact frames.



on a sloping frame, you should always look at effective top tube as the number for reference. the length of a sloping top tube is irrelevant. the important number is how long it is in an imaginary horizontal plane (effective top tube length).

just for reference, if you find that your reach to the bars is too long, it should not be compensated with by moving your saddle forward! saddle positioning is dependent on fibula length and how you pedal. generally, in layman's terms, KOP or knee over pedal. when the crank is horizontal, you would want your lower leg in a correct position in relation to the pedal/crank. i would see a fitter as even experienced riders have trouble setting up seat setback.


----------



## M.Ray

You should also consider that most frames 57 and smaller, come with smaller wheels (650 instead of 700). Some say it doesn´t matter because the power you get from having the right fit with a frame that fits you compensates the smaller wheels. In my particular opinion, I think it makes you go slower. So my advise is go get it all, a frame you size but with 700 size wheels.


----------



## ph0enix

M.Ray said:


> You should also consider that most frames 57 and smaller, come with smaller wheels (650 instead of 700). Some say it doesn´t matter because the power you get from having the right fit with a frame that fits you compensates the smaller wheels. In my particular opinion, I think it makes you go slower. So my advise is go get it all, a frame you size but with 700 size wheels.


Probably no point in replying to a 5-year old thread


----------



## M.Ray

hahahaha never saw the date, I was just browsing on frame sizes and bumped into this thread!
Anyway...
Take care!


----------

