# I am a freak.



## jsidney (Aug 24, 2011)

I was checking measuring methods for bikes.

I noticed one place just went by height then another place told how long your legs should be for a given height.

I am 5'8 1/2 so my legs should have a 32-32.5 inseam. My inseam is 30 so I should only be 5'5.

I have learned that I am a physical freak


----------



## vontress (Jul 19, 2009)

I'm 6'2"with 32"inseam. A little odd, but I'll be able to still touch my toes when I'm 90. How many can do that?


----------



## andulong (Nov 23, 2006)

Also...make sure you are measuring your inseam correctly.


----------



## NJBiker72 (Jul 9, 2011)

I'm just under 6' with a 32" inseam. Long known I was a freak.


----------



## jsidney (Aug 24, 2011)

andulong said:


> Also...make sure you are measuring your inseam correctly.



Yep, and I tried out three different bikes and the results seemed to match expectations off of the measurements

If I went by how tall I am I end up with too big of a bike.


----------



## JasperL (Aug 21, 2011)

I have nearly the same measurements- 5'8" with a 29" inseam. I don't think it's very rare though. A friend who introduced me to road biking is nearly identical. 

And like you I was originally slotted for a bike that was too large. I demo'd a bike marked way down that felt really good. Their "expert" took one look at my height and said "nope you need the next size." long story short-my friend told me to insist on a proper fitting and it came back....smaller was perfect fit both by the book and how it felt.


----------



## Mr. Versatile (Nov 24, 2005)

The only reason you think you're a freak is because you've never seen me. I'm 6'3, have a 32" inseam, but a loong torso & 37" sleeves. I usually ride a 58 to60 cm bike or a large, but because my upper body is so long I almost always need a 140 stem & deep drop bars.


----------



## redondoaveb (Jan 16, 2011)

vontress said:


> I'm 6'2"with 32"inseam. A little odd, but I'll be able to still touch my toes when I'm 90. How many can do that?


What's odd is thinking that anyone would want to touch your toes. :yikes:


----------



## jsidney (Aug 24, 2011)

Mr. Versatile said:


> The only reason you think you're a freak is because you've never seen me. I'm 6'3, have a 32" inseam, but a loong torso & 37" sleeves. I usually ride a 58 to60 cm bike or a large, but because my upper body is so long I almost always need a 140 stem & deep drop bars.


Wow, your ratio beats mine badly.


----------



## jsidney (Aug 24, 2011)

I just realized, I need a bike that is long relative to it's height since I have legs too short for my torso.

Oh no, I am doomed.


----------



## RUFUSPHOTO (Oct 14, 2010)

I am 5'9" with a 30" inseam. Long torso.


----------



## dbleyepatches (Jun 22, 2011)

I fall into the other camp. 5'11" with a 35" inseam. If I get a bike that fits my legs I can't reach the bars!


----------



## jsidney (Aug 24, 2011)

How do you solve the issue of the bike is short enough for you but not long enough for you?

Remember, I am a rookie.


----------



## RJohn (Mar 24, 2009)

Longer stem. I too am a freak. By your definition not mine. As long as my legs reach the ground I'll be fine.


----------



## jsidney (Aug 24, 2011)

I hate to say this but the bike I have been riding has a 33 inch stand over. The first time I got on it I almost fell over. I cannot stand over the frame.

I get on by putting a foot on the pedal and kind of jumping over moving forward at the same time. Bike is way too big for me.


----------



## psycleridr (Jul 21, 2005)

RUFUSPHOTO said:


> I am 5'9" with a 30" inseam. Long torso.


These are also ,y measurements but I prefer to call them well proportioned


----------



## Mr. Versatile (Nov 24, 2005)

jsidney said:


> How do you solve the issue of the bike is short enough for you but not long enough for you?
> 
> Remember, I am a rookie.


When I shop for bikes, which is almost never anymore, I go to the mfg. web site & look at their geometry chart. I look for bikes with a long top tube. Some "off the shelf" bikes fit me perfectly while others are just wrong for me. I've always wanted a Masi. Nope....shortish top tubes. I have a 60 cm DeRosa that has a 59.5 top tube. I was hit by a car a couple of years ago & my bike was trashed (not the DeRosa thank God). I ended up with a Giant Defy Advanced. Fits me well. So, ya just gotta look around. If you'd like a Specialized, for example, google their site & check the top tubes lengths in the size range you think your inseam can handle. Then compare them against Giant, Trek, or anything else you're interested in. Then there's always the custom frame. Contact a frame maker like Carl Strong for example. There will be an extensive interview about your dimensions, weight, frame materials, what you'd like in a bike it terms of handling, climbing, and what and how you're going to use the bike. Than can be $$$$$$$$$, though.


----------



## fuzzy (Jul 19, 2011)

I thought it was just me. I am 5'9" with 30" inseam. I have a road bike that was given to me that is much too large. I can ride it but it is brutal. I had to ride it today because of a flat on my other bike...I also have a comfort style bike I ride a lot also. I did 12 miles but I was climbing all over that bike to try and stay comfortable, just no way to get the seat set for me so I do a lot of standing and coasting.

I am looking at used road bikes so I am trying to find out all I can about sizing and this thread has helped, if any of you that are about the same size find something that works well feel free to post the make, model and size you are comfortable on. I know there are a lot of variables but just for curiosity.


----------



## Guest (Sep 11, 2011)

Relative to my height (66") I have long legs (just shy of 32" inseam), and a short torso ("trunk" measurement using competitive cyclist calculator is 24.5") -- Ordinary size small shirts look like dresses on me, usually going many inches lower than my crotch, and it was impossible for me to find jeans that fit until "skinny jeans" became popular... I'm also a natural lightweight (125lb after 4 years of inactivity and little attention to diet; 115lb when I used to run competitively) 

I've tried out lots of bikes lately (was shopping around for my first road bike -- up to this point I've usually run flat-bar bikes for short-distance commutes/ store runs only). I found I tended to prefer smaller frames, with a longer-than-stock stem, and seat slid back slightly on the rails. 

Going a size up using a shorter stem keeping all else equal (ie making the saddle-to-bottom bracket distance and angle the same as before) I found the balance and handling was off -- with my weight disproportionally over the rear wheel. The smaller frame, with my body leaning over the front more works better for weight distribution for me I suspect because I have very little weight in my arms/ skinny upper body.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

PhotonFreak said:


> Relative to my height (66") I have long legs (just shy of 32" inseam), and a short torso ("trunk" measurement using competitive cyclist calculator is 24.5") -- Ordinary size small shirts look like dresses on me, usually going many inches lower than my crotch, and it was impossible for me to find jeans that fit until "skinny jeans" became popular... I'm also a natural lightweight (125lb after 4 years of inactivity and little attention to diet; 115lb when I used to run competitively)
> 
> I've tried out lots of bikes lately (was shopping around for my first road bike -- up to this point I've usually run flat-bar bikes for short-distance commutes/ store runs only). I found I tended to prefer smaller frames, with a longer-than-stock stem, and seat slid back slightly on the rails.
> 
> Going a size up using a shorter stem keeping all else equal (ie making the saddle-to-bottom bracket distance and angle the same as before) I found the balance and handling was off -- with my weight disproportionally over the rear wheel. The smaller frame, with my body leaning over the front more works better for weight distribution for me I suspect *because I have very little weight in my arms/ skinny upper body*.


It's not about your weight, it's about your f/r weight _distribution_.

Because your height is disproportionately in your legs, the larger frame (with requisite longer effective top tube) dictates that you'll run a shorter stem. It also dictates that your weight is rearward biased, lightening the front end and adversely affecting steering/ handling.

Conversely, the smaller frame (and shorter effective top tube) moves you slightly forward for better a balance (~45/65) of f/r weight distribution. 

This is why I often say it isn't a shortish stem that makes a bike twitchy, it's incorrect f/r weight distribution.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

fuzzy said:


> I thought it was just me. *I am 5'9" with 30" inseam.* I have a road bike that was given to me that is much too large. I can ride it but it is brutal. I had to ride it today because of a flat on my other bike...I also have a comfort style bike I ride a lot also. I did 12 miles but I was climbing all over that bike to try and stay comfortable, just no way to get the seat set for me so I do a lot of standing and coasting.
> 
> I am looking at used road bikes so I am trying to find out all I can about sizing and this thread has helped, if any of you that are about the same size find something that works well feel free to post the make, model and size you are comfortable on. I know there are a lot of variables but just for curiosity.


Proportioned short legs/ longer torso you'll need a slightly smaller frame running a slightly longer stem. Because compact geo bikes (sloping top tube) generally have comparably lower standover height, I suspect that in a brand with a longish reach for it's size would work well for you. 

Off the top of my head (meaning, a _real _guestimate) something with a 545-555mm effective top tube.


----------



## fuzzy (Jul 19, 2011)

PJ352 said:


> Proportioned short legs/ longer torso you'll need a slightly smaller frame running a slightly longer stem. Because compact geo bikes (sloping top tube) generally have comparably lower standover height, I suspect that in a brand with a longish reach for it's size would work well for you.
> 
> Off the top of my head (meaning, a _real _guestimate) something with a 545-555mm effective top tube.


Thanks, I will definitely keep that in mind as I shop. :thumbsup:


----------



## fuzzy (Jul 19, 2011)

Thanks PJ352 for the frame size help.

I found a nice used Trek 2.3, it is size 56cm, the effective top tube is 560. It was interesting that the guy told me he was selling it because it was a little too big for him, he was one inch shorter than me and one inch shorter inseam but he was having problems because his arms are not long. I was a bit skepetical at first but when I rode it I was happy. He had flipped the stem and I have not flipped it back yet, I do feel like I could use a little more distance to the bars but I am trying to dial in the seat right now. The stand over is tight against my crotch but I can stand flat footed. 

I know it will take me a while to get used to riding this style bike to start with since I have mostly been riding a comfort bike. I am going to try and get use to the bike and just make minor adjustments that I feel are necessary to start with. I do enjoy riding it and it is much faster than my other bike but I am still slow and need to lose some weight and have a feeling I may be making a lot of tweaks and I don't mind but I think this frame size is going to work for me. I am also moving slow because I don't want to scratch up my new ride . I did my first timed ride today and was avg mph at 13.91 for 12 miles... I know, slow, but a start LOL.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

fuzzy said:


> Thanks PJ352 for the frame size help.
> 
> I found a nice used Trek 2.3, it is size 56cm, the effective top tube is 560. It was interesting that the guy told me he was selling it because it was a little too big for him, he was one inch shorter than me and one inch shorter inseam but he was having problems because his arms are not long. I was a bit skepetical at first but when I rode it I was happy. He had flipped the stem and I have not flipped it back yet, I do feel like I could use a little more distance to the bars but I am trying to dial in the seat right now. The stand over is tight against my crotch but I can stand flat footed.
> 
> I know it will take me a while to get used to riding this style bike to start with since I have mostly been riding a comfort bike. I am going to try and get use to the bike and just make minor adjustments that I feel are necessary to start with. I do enjoy riding it and it is much faster than my other bike but I am still slow and need to lose some weight and have a feeling I may be making a lot of tweaks and I don't mind but I think this frame size is going to work for me. I am also moving slow because I don't want to scratch up my new ride . I did my first timed ride today and was avg mph at 13.91 for 12 miles... I know, slow, but a start LOL.


You're welcome, and congrats on the new bike! Post pics when you get a chance.

I see that I was a little off on my top tube estimate (545-550 versus the Trek's 560), so I'll have to brush up on my internet 'guestimating' skills.  I can see why the seller thought the bike was too large. At ~5' 8" with less than a 30" inseam he should be looking at 52/54cm Trek 2 series frames.

FWIW, I'd put your first 12 mile effort in the 'very good' range, but don't get too hung up on numbers. Just put in saddle time, maintaining a moderate effort and building base miles while becoming more acquainted with ride/ handling of your new bike. 

As far as fit adjustments, consider taking your bike to a reputable LBS and paying for a standard fitting. It'll run about $50, but might save you from making mistakes along the way and causing yourself discomfort. I say this because while it's not a bad thing to learn something about bike geo and fit, some fixes/ remedies are counter intuitive, so guessing wrong could cause another problem, with the cycle continuing without a remedy.

If you do decide to go it alone with fit, take some time to read up on the topic and post questions/ thoughts here and we can assist. Since you mentioned saddle adjustments and reach, just as a FYI, don't adjust saddle fore/ aft to compensate for that. Get saddle height, fore/ aft and tilt adjusted prior to making reach/ drop adjustments, and they should be done with changes to stem length/ angle and spacer set up.


----------



## fuzzy (Jul 19, 2011)

Here is my new bike. I have left everything the same as in the picture except I took off the selle italia seat and ultegra pd 6700 pedals and put on a Terry liberator seat and some platform pedals. The Terry seat is a little more comfortable for me right now. I want to ride a little while before I go to clipless pedals. I am trying to give myself some riding time before I start changing much of anything. My hands get a little numb and my butt gets sore but both those are getting less noticable with more riding time. I want to try and let my body do some adjusting before I do bike adjusting. My knees and legs seem to be doing fine so far.I am sure I will be making some changes as I go along.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

Nice bike, congrats!

It's pretty common for new riders to have sore butts (which should subside with some saddle time), but hand numbness could mean too much weight is borne by your arms and hands. This is normally one of those counter intuitive fixes, so if it persists and you want to make the adjustments yourself, post and we'll provide some info.


----------



## velocanman (Jul 15, 2011)

PJ352 said:


> It's not about your weight, it's about your f/r weight _distribution_.
> 
> Because your height is disproportionately in your legs, the larger frame (with requisite longer effective top tube) dictates that you'll run a shorter stem. It also dictates that your weight is rearward biased, lightening the front end and adversely affecting steering/ handling.
> 
> ...


PJ, this is an interesting point but, I believe, incomplete. In his case he really needs the long top tube to stretch out. He won't have a short stem because his reach is long. The longer wheelbase bikes are also inherently more stable.

As an aside, I do believe short stems are primarily what make road bikes twitchy. This is why we run short stems on 29er MTBs--to speed up the steering.

I believe a 56cm bike would fit him with about a 110 cm stem to start with. This should be a well-balanced bike--he will just be sitting lower.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

velocanman said:


> PJ, this is an interesting point but, I believe, incomplete. In his case he really needs the long top tube to stretch out. He won't have a short stem because his reach is long. The longer wheelbase bikes are also inherently more stable.
> 
> As an aside, I do believe short stems are primarily what make road bikes twitchy. This is why we run short stems on 29er MTBs--to speed up the steering.
> 
> I believe a 56cm bike would fit him with about a 110 cm stem to start with. This should be a well-balanced bike--he will just be sitting lower.


We'll have to agree to disagree on this. IMO/E no one that's 5' 6" tall with a 32" inseam is going to fit on a 56cm bike, even considering variances in sizing between brands/ models. 

Very generally speaking, he'll fit on something close to Spec's Tarmac in a 52cm - probably running ~90mm stem. But since we're doing an 'internet fitting' here, I'm ball parking, because there are a variety of factors not being considered.

Re: the belief that short stems = twitchy steering, a lot of people believe that. But if you think about it, the only time a rider would choose a 'shortish' stem is when they're on a too large frame which places them too far rearward from front-center, thus my belief that f/r weight distribution (in this case, too little weight up front) lightens the front end, making steering 'feel' twitchy. The length (or lack thereof) of the stem, matters not.


----------



## velocanman (Jul 15, 2011)

jsidney said:


> I was checking measuring methods for bikes.
> 
> I noticed one place just went by height then another place told how long your legs should be for a given height.
> 
> ...


Jssydney, for some reason I thought you said you were 5'_11". Got mixed up with some rrsponses and I apologize.

Another way to look at it is this: with a short inseam your torso is proportionally longer. You might have the inseam of someone 5'-5" but you have the reach of someone 5'-10". 

It is my opinion that anything smaller than a 54 will jam you up on the top tube.

PJ, I will write up my thoughts on f/r weight distribution for another post. I need to corelate to real bike measurements. It might make sense then, or just give more ways to refute my thoughts. 

Sent from my Android.


----------



## Natedogz (Aug 25, 2010)

Meh, we're all different. Nobody is 'perfect'. Just make sure you get a perfect fit.


----------



## fuzzy (Jul 19, 2011)

I moved my seat back about 3/8" and tilted the front down a notch, was still a little rough. Today I lowered the seat about 5/8" and was much more comfortable during the ride. I felt tired when I started but with the seat more dialed in I did my longest ride so far, about 20.5 miles. My hands still get a little numb but not as much as they did, I think a lot of it may have to do with me needing more time for my arms and hands to adjust some but tomorrow I am going to tilt the handle bars up a few degrees in the front to raise the hoods just a little and see if that helps. I want to keep the changes very subtle and let my body adjust some too because I am sure I am not in the greatest riding shape yet.


----------



## jsidney (Aug 24, 2011)

I have a bike now that I really like the fit of. I played around and fiddled here and fiddled there and I like it. I did get another trek 520. Problem is it got dented in the top tube:cryin:

I wanted to turn it into my versatile general duty bike. I will see if the dent can be fixed, if not I will still keep it and make it the bike I use in bad weather. Also if it can't be fixed I will search for another 520 or go for a 620 for general utility. I still want a big dummy as my heavy hauler.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

fuzzy said:


> I moved my seat back about 3/8" and tilted the front down a notch, was still a little rough. Today I lowered the seat about 5/8" and was much more comfortable during the ride. I felt tired when I started but with the seat more dialed in I did my longest ride so far, about 20.5 miles. *My hands still get a little numb but not as much as they did, I think a lot of it may have to do with me needing more time for my arms and hands to adjust* some but tomorrow I am going to tilt the handle bars up a few degrees in the front to raise the hoods just a little and see if that helps. I want to keep the changes very subtle and let my body adjust some too because I am sure I am not in the greatest riding shape yet.


As I mentioned previously, new riders acclimating to road riding generally experience some level of butt discomfort, but arm/ hand numbness is generally attributed to excessive frontal weight - but not exclusively. Frequently changing hand position, keeping a relaxed upper torso (arms slightly bent) and generally maintaining good form will help. Also, using good quality gloves and bar tape will help quell road vibrations that IME can contribute to hand numbness. 

From a fit perspective, this is one of those counter intuitive situations. Many times, to correct the frontal weigh tissue, saddle adjustments are required. Leveling and moving the saddle rearward 2-3mm's usually helps, but if it's just your hands that are getting numb, tilting the bars (thus the hoods) up is worth a try as well. 

Making small changes slowly is smart. As you say, it's gives our bodies time to adjust, and it also helps us track the results of the changes.


----------

