# Just got a new bike .. not sure if it fits.



## Eirikur (Aug 15, 2012)

Hi guys, I just got a 2012 Focus Izalco Pro 2.0.
I am 188cm (6´2") inseam length about 89cm (35").
The dealer suggested a 58cm frame and that is the one bike he has.
The bike comes originally with 120m stem and I just find the reach is too far.
When I am sitting comfortably with my hands on the hoods, I need a 90mm stem to block the view of my front axle.
The length of the top tube is quite long aswell .. 570mm.
This is my first roadbike and the bike kinda feels a bit too big.

What do you guys think.
Should I try to get a 56cm frame or try to fit this one ?


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

you should forget about trying to judge your fit by whether you can see the front hub or not...and after you do that, you should get a fitting done by someone that knows what they're doing. then you can decide whether the Focus will fit or not.


----------



## oldandtired (Aug 2, 2011)

Well dude
Nobody here can tell you if your bike's too big. Only a knowledgeable bike fitter, in person, can do that. However, even though it's anecdotal, I will say that I am 6 ft tall with a 32.5 inch cycling inseam and I ride a bike with a 57 cm top tube. The Focus is a race bike and will fit like a race bike...long and low. Don't base your opinion of whether it fits based on the hackneyed idea of the handlebar obscuring the front axle. Get a second opinion from a qualified individual.


----------



## barters (Nov 4, 2012)

Given your height you cannot be too far wrong on that size.


----------



## Torelli4 (Mar 1, 2005)

Put your measurements in the Competitive Cyclist bike fit calculator. That will get you in the ballpark. FWIW I'm 5'11" and ride a 570mm top tube. A 58cm should be perfect.


----------



## brianmcg (Oct 12, 2002)

At 6'2 I would have you on a 60 at least. 

It may not be the reach but the amount of saddle to bar drop. If you can raise the bars about 3-4 cm that will help a lot. 

Take a pic of you on the bike.


----------



## eflayer2 (Feb 15, 2002)

I am 5'11, 62 yo, not very flexible. I need my bars even with the saddle. I ride one bike with a 59.5 top tube and my current Roubaix is a 58 with a 58.2 top tube. You gotta ride what feels right. Photos of my rides:

https://picasaweb.google.com/107231724174916923201/CurtloSteelRoubaixCarbon#


----------



## FTR (Sep 20, 2006)

brianmcg said:


> At 6'2 I would have you on a 60 at least.
> 
> It may not be the reach but the amount of saddle to bar drop. If you can raise the bars about 3-4 cm that will help a lot.
> 
> Take a pic of you on the bike.


And in my case you would be wrong.
6' 2.5" tall on a 58cm with a 110mm stem and using only a small number of spacers.
My new bike will be a 59cm but that is because they only come in a 57.5cm or 59cm in the sizes that fit me and the 57.5cm had way to short a head tube and seat tube for my liking.

Me in pink.


----------



## FTR (Sep 20, 2006)

Eirikur said:


> Hi guys, I just got a 2012 Focus Izalco Pro 2.0.
> I am 188cm (6´2") inseam length about 89cm (35").
> The dealer suggested a 58cm frame and that is the one bike he has.
> The bike comes originally with 120m stem and I just find the reach is too far.
> ...


Just re-read this.
Why do you think the TT is "quite long"?
Looking at the geometry chart I would argue that it is "quite short" for a 58cm.
I would argue that it is actually a 57cm frame with a long seat tube (longer than a "square shaped frame" might have).
It also has a short head tube (as would be expected for a race bike).
As a "first roadbike" I would wonder if this is the best option for you.


----------



## Eirikur (Aug 15, 2012)

FTR said:


> Just re-read this.
> Why do you think the TT is "quite long"?
> Looking at the geometry chart I would argue that it is "quite short" for a 58cm.
> I would argue that it is actually a 57cm frame with a long seat tube (longer than a "square shaped frame" might have).
> ...



You are right FTR ..

First of all I should have gone for a more relaxed geometry frame, the Focus Cayo Evo would have been a better choice.
I did however solve this by getting a zero offset seatpost (instead of 20mm setback), a 110mm stem and the bike feels right, the seatpost swap did alot alone.
I also have the feeling I will go to the original stem (120mm) soon, I am working on my flexibility.


----------



## FTR (Sep 20, 2006)

So long as you can get your setback where it needs to be through a straight seatpost.
All a straight seatpost is doing really is being straight versus setback if your saddle position is right.
Keep in mind that seat height and setback are the *FIRST *things that you need to get right.
You should be in a position setback wise that sees you using your quads and hamstrings in unison and neither should be getting used more than the other.
At the end of a long ride you should not feel that either is aching more than the other.

Go and have a read of Steve Hogg's website to learn more.
Specifically read the posts about Seat Height and setback.
After that if you want to get fancy read about arch support, wedging and shimming.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

Eirikur said:


> You are right FTR ..
> 
> First of all I should have gone for a more relaxed geometry frame, the Focus Cayo Evo would have been a better choice.
> I did however solve this by getting a zero offset seatpost (instead of 20mm setback), a 110mm stem and the bike feels right, the seatpost swap did alot alone.
> I also have the feeling I will go to the original stem (120mm) soon, I am working on my flexibility.


sounds to me like you would do well with a session with a good fitter - you shouldn't be solving reach issues by changing your saddle position. Saddle setback/position should be done without regard to reach. Once it is set, you can then address reach. FWIW, it doesn't sound to me like the issue is reach - it's stack (height) caused by the short head tube (stack and reach interact but that's another discussion). That can be solved via spacers and stem angle. I'm about your height and would put a 140 stem on that size frame since a 57 top tube is on the short side.


----------



## FTR (Sep 20, 2006)

stevesbike said:


> I'm about your height and would put a 140 stem on that size frame since a 57 top tube is on the short side.


But this is why you should not give specific advice on the internet as I am also about his height would not use anywhere near that length stem even with a 57cm ETT. I would go to 120mm at best/worst.


----------



## captain stubbing (Mar 30, 2011)

according to wiggle sizing someone your size would fit a 60cm focus izalco....

Wiggle | Focus Izalco Team 2.0 Dura Ace Di2 2012 | Road Bikes

would doubt the 58 would be too small.

btw, the cayo has identical geometry to the izalco.


----------



## FTR (Sep 20, 2006)

captain stubbing said:


> according to wiggle sizing someone your size would fit a 60cm focus izalco....
> 
> Wiggle | Focus Izalco Team 2.0 Dura Ace Di2 2012 | Road Bikes
> 
> ...


Actually they do not have a 58cm, 60cm or any other cm according to that chart.
They have an XL and XXL which have ETT's of 57cm and 58.2cm.
I would be paying absolutely no attention to the ST length (58cm and 60cm) as this measurement has very little to do with whether the bike will fit you or not.
I agree with you that based on that chart the XXL may be the better fit.


----------



## captain stubbing (Mar 30, 2011)

yes it does:
Sizing information
Size Guide (Focus Road Bikes)
Frame Size Rider Height (cm)
48cm (XX Small) 145 - 155
50cm (X Small) 155 - 165
52cm (Small) 165 - 172
54cm (Medium) 172 - 176
56cm (Large) 176 - 180
*58cm (X Large) 180 - 185*
60cm (XX Large) 185 - 190
62cm (XXX Large) 190 - 200

The 58cm is the XL, the size corresponds with the seat tube length (58cm) and not the top tube length (57cm).

Not sure why you would say the XXL (60cm) would be a better fit when you feel that the XL (58cm) is too big??


----------



## FTR (Sep 20, 2006)

I had not seen that geometry info when I first posted and must apologise to brianmcg for arguing that he was wrong about the 60cm.
The OP is 188cm so he should be on the XXL according to the info you have just posted.
looking at the geometry chart on Wiggle's website the XXL is a 58cm ETT, which is what I ride.
The confusion comes because I was thinking 58cm ETT but the XL is actually only a 57cm ETT with a 58cm ST.
For me I would take the XXL which is a 58.2cm ETT and a 60cm ST.
For them to call the XL a 58cm when it only has a 57cm ETT is confusing to say the least.


I pay absolutely no attention to the ST length when I am sizing a bike.
ETT is far more important and then HT length followed by ST length. 
Lastly I look at standover and so long as I can get on it, that is standover enough.


----------



## captain stubbing (Mar 30, 2011)

FTR said:


> I had not seen that geometry info when I first posted and must apologise to brianmcg for arguing that he was wrong about the 60cm.
> The OP is 188cm so he should be on the XXL according to the info you have just posted.
> looking at the geometry chart on Wiggle's website the XXL is a 58cm ETT, which is what I ride.
> The confusion comes because I was thinking 58cm ETT but the XL is actually only a 57cm ETT with a 58cm ST.
> ...


oops sorry FTR, i thought you were the OP!

yes agreed that ett is most important!


----------



## FTR (Sep 20, 2006)

captain stubbing said:


> oops sorry FTR, i thought you were the OP!
> 
> yes agreed that ett is most important!


Hahahahaa.
I was wondering what happened. 
No problem.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

FTR said:


> But this is why you should not give specific advice on the internet as I am also about his height would not use anywhere near that length stem even with a 57cm ETT. I would go to 120mm at best/worst.


I agree - the remark about what size stem I'd use wasn't meant to suggest he should too - just meant to indicate the top tube wasn't long wrt the seat tube.


----------



## DJT21 (May 22, 2011)

stevesbike said:


> I agree - the remark about what size stem I'd use wasn't meant to suggest he should too - just meant to indicate the top tube wasn't long wrt the seat tube.


You've made the classic mistake of only considering the TT length. What about the seat tube angle? You've neglected to mention that, and for what its worth, its a fairly steep at 73.5 degrees.

This means you need to run more saddle setback to get your saddle into a similar position as on a frame with say a 72 degree seat tube angle (which might have a 59cm TT)

But, I'm a similar height to the OP and have a similar inside leg measurement and run a frame with similar dimensions and it fits a treat with a 120mm stem.


----------



## FTR (Sep 20, 2006)

DJT21 said:


> You've made the classic mistake of only considering the TT length. What about the seat tube angle? You've neglected to mention that, and for what its worth, its a fairly steep at 73.5 degrees.
> 
> This means you need to run more saddle setback to get your saddle into a similar position as on a frame with say a 72 degree seat tube angle (which might have a 59cm TT)
> 
> But, I'm a similar height to the OP and have a similar inside leg measurement and run a frame with similar dimensions and it fits a treat with a 120mm stem.


Yeah, but do you have a similar torso length?
Similar upper leg length?
Similar lower leg length?
Same shoe size?
Similar arm length?
Similar upper arm length?
Similar forearm length?
Are you as flexible or more flexible than him?
Do you run your cleats forward or back?

Every single one of these things and countless others will impact on how that bike fits.
Which is why nobody should say I am a similar height with a similar inseam and therefore...........(insert whatever advice you want to provide).


----------



## tednugent (Apr 26, 2010)

cxwrench said:


> you should forget about trying to judge your fit by whether you can see the front hub or not...and after you do that, you should get a fitting done by someone that knows what they're doing. then you can decide whether the Focus will fit or not.


cough cough... cxwrench already nailed it.... get fitted... they may have to replace the stem & seatpost if they have to. That's why they have a stash of parts for this reason.


----------



## DJT21 (May 22, 2011)

FTR said:


> Yeah, but do you have a similar torso length?
> Similar upper leg length?
> Similar lower leg length?
> Same shoe size?
> ...


Who knows?

Which is why trying to fit a bike via the internet is pointless.

Just saying like, I'm similar dimensions, so if he's struggling, it may be worth stretching a bit a persevering if he's not yet used to a low, stretched out position. It may come.


----------



## FTR (Sep 20, 2006)

DJT21 said:


> Who knows?
> 
> Which is why trying to fit a bike via the internet is pointless.


Which is what I said above.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

DJT21 said:


> You've made the classic mistake of only considering the TT length. What about the seat tube angle? You've neglected to mention that, and for what its worth, its a fairly steep at 73.5 degrees.
> 
> This means you need to run more saddle setback to get your saddle into a similar position as on a frame with say a 72 degree seat tube angle (which might have a 59cm TT)
> 
> But, I'm a similar height to the OP and have a similar inside leg measurement and run a frame with similar dimensions and it fits a treat with a 120mm stem.


In my first post, I told the OP to adjust his saddle position first and then worry about reach. Too many riders/shops use saddle fore/aft to adjust reach, which results in poor fit. If you set saddle setback relative to center of BB, you eliminate differences in seat tube angle (since that becomes a virtual angle in relation to saddle position). That's one reason why I mentioned stack and reach, since they also are based on BB and eliminate seat tube angles from measurements. 

More generally, I don't think anyone is suggesting specific fits over the Internet, merely reassuring the OP that his frame size should work fine for his height with the proper fitting session.


----------

