# 90mm stem on a 58cm bike



## BillyK (Aug 5, 2010)

Greetings,
Long story short, I was sold a bike that I'm now being told is too small for me. The LBS that I purchased it from (not my primary LBS) was insistent that 58cm was my size, because supposedly Bianchi's run small. He even claimed that he rides a larger Bianchi than other bikes he has ridden. After test riding the bike and bringing it home, I scheduled a fit with my primary LBS. Oh BTW, this Bianchi place didn't even offer what I would consider an acceptable fitting. I basically guided the guy through adjusting my saddle height and aft/fore. It was completely cheesy. I kind of suspected this going in but I figured I'd grab the bike since it was a good deal and then just schedule a real fitting at my primary LBS which is awesome. So I show up at my primary LBS and we slap the bike up on the trainer. He takes a bunch of measurements and then dials in my saddle adjustments. Everything is feeling great as far as that goes. He then starts to examine my reach and notices that my shoulders are rolled forward and I'm reaching too much. After taking some measurements he basically says that this bike was designed for someone taller. To compensate for the extended reach, we end up going with a 90mm stem. (Bontrager Race X Lite) It was basically between that or a Specialized stem. The Bontrager looked much better aesthetically so I decided to give that a whirl. After installation, the fit was definitely much more comfortable. (Not nearly as stretched, slight bend in the elbows) My shoulders were still slightly rolled but the consensus was that once I improved flexibility, I should be fine. My fitter seemed to be fine with a 20mm adjustment, but did say he'd never go more than 20mm, otherwise he'd straight out tell you that the bike is too big. BTW, the original stem was 110mm in case you didn't do the math. I guess my question is: Assuming that I'm comfortable, and the jury is still out as I need to log more miles, is this an acceptable setup? (58cm bike with a 90mm stem) Is it that unusual for someone to buy a bike and then have to shorten the stem by 20mm? I really like the bike and I'm hoping that I don't have to sell it. BTW, I don't think I mentioned my dimensions. (5'10 1/2 w/32-inch inseam) Oh, I placed a call to Bianchi HQ this afternoon letting them know about my experience. (sized incorrectly, piss poor fitting, and some other **** I won't even get into) I'd be interested in your thoughts. I'm hoping that you'll convince me to keep the bike and try and make it work but I'll respect your honesty. Here are some pictures. Thanks guys.




























Here is a link that includes the geometry chart for this model/year. The next size down would have been a 55cm. The changes are in 3cm increments.

https://www.bianchiusa.com/archives/09-bicycles/09-c2c/928-carbon-k-vid/09-c2c-928-105-comp/


----------



## JoelS (Aug 25, 2008)

A 90mm stem is perfectly acceptable. We need to see pictures of you on the bike for further comments.

FWIW, I use a 90mm stem.


----------



## zion rasta (Aug 15, 2004)

You have a 90mm stem because you bought a one size too big. at 5'10 the you shoud have been on the 55 and not the 58. I am 6'2" and I would fit on the 58 with a 120mm stem perfect.

It seems like the dealer push sold you what they had to close a sell. If I was you, I would definitely take it back and say that it does not fit. This is not the manufacturer's fault. It's like blaming Nike for Foot Locker selling you a shoe that is too big for you...


----------



## simonaway427 (Jul 12, 2010)

5'10 is way to short for a 58 - even if the frame "fits small".

But hey, if you're physically comfortable on that bike with the 90mm - then by all means keep it. Its a gorgeous bike!


----------



## Tommy Walker (Aug 14, 2009)

I am 5'10" and have a 56cm frame and a 90mm stem. It's difficult to tell size from frame to frame because of the geometry, but in general, it seems you have a bigger frame and thus the 90mm stem is probably about right.

Your words: _*After installation, the fit was definitely much more comfortable. (Not nearly as stretched, slight bend in the elbows) My shoulders were still slightly rolled but the consensus was that once I improved flexibility,*_ are probably the tale of the tape.


----------



## BillyK (Aug 5, 2010)

Understood, but quite frankly, I didn't want to deal with this guy. He's the type of guy who would have claimed that the biked fits you regardless of what I said. Besides, I thought it was important to let Bianchi know what kind of bike shop is representing their company. I'm not optimistic, but I'm hoping that they'll bring the hammer down on the LBS. BTW, when I was telling my story to HQ, they were like "Didn't they determine that the bike was too big during the fit?".....I was like "ahhh no, that's the problem, they didn't really do what I'd call a proper fitting". 



zion rasta said:


> You have a 90mm stem because you bought a one size too big. at 5'10 the you shoud have been on the 55 and not the 58. I am 6'2" and I would fit on the 58 with a 120mm stem perfect.
> 
> It seems like the dealer push sold you what they had to close a sell. If I was you, I would definitely take it back and say that it does not fit. This is not the manufacturer's fault. It's like blaming Nike for Foot Locker selling you a shoe that is too big for you...


----------



## dcl10 (Jul 2, 2010)

Well I'm basically the same same height, but with a 33in inseam. I usually get fitted at a 56cm, though I prefer a smaller frame and usually ride a 54cm. The effective TT is defiantly short for a 58cm though, and is more like a 57cm. Its 30mm longer than my 54, and I use a 130mm stem, so my setup is slightly longer than your 58cm with a 90mm stem. Being that we are essentially the same height and I have a longer inseam I would assume you most likely have a longer torso. So I think maybe there is some room for improvement as far as flexibility is concerned, but in any case there is nothing really wrong with using a 90mm stem. Some might not find the aesthetics as pleasing as say a 110mm stem, but fit wise I think your fine.


----------



## Dave Hickey (Jan 27, 2002)

Something to keep in mind..

A 58cm has a taller head tube than a 55cm...you have a fair about of spacers and an up turned stem.......nothing wrong with that at all but if you switch to a smaller frame, you will require even more spacers and/or a greater rise stem...

My vote is keep it if it's comfortable as shown..nothing wrong with a 90mm stem


----------



## Kuma601 (Jan 22, 2004)

Fit seems fine but for the experienced here, they'd want to know your cycling dimensions and how your previous bike fit you. The 90 is fine and as you progress, you may well be putting a 100 or that 110 back on, in combination with removing spacers if you want a more aggressive position. 

With what I see, if you dropped down a frame size, the fit would be quite aggressive and that may or may not be comfortable with that level of saddle to bar drop. With the stem already in the positive position, I suspect the 55 would have lots of spacers and a +17 stem to fit you currently. I think how you are set-up is  but in the absence of you on the bike, it is just my speculative thoughts. 

BTW...if you are comfortable as you mention that is what matters.


----------



## BillyK (Aug 5, 2010)

Sorry for the crappy picture, but best I could do at the moment.
How's the reach look? Workable with some added flexibility?


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

Echoing the majority sentiment here: with the number of spacers and the upturned stem you have now _and being comfortable with that_, what could you possibly gain from a smaller frame? Those who proclaim that a certain length stem goes with a certain size frame are generally guided by photos of elite racers in their mid-20s rather than the realities of recreational road cycling. Enjoy your bike and ride lots—no one will take notice of your 90 mm stem, especially when you pass them looking powerful and comfortable on a bike that fits you.

As an aside: you wrote "Long story short, I was sold a bike that I'm now being told is too small for me." Did you mean to say "too large for me" or am I missing something here?

/w


----------



## Dave Hickey (Jan 27, 2002)

It looks fine to me.....BTW, great looking bike.....


----------



## frdfandc (Nov 27, 2007)

I think at 5"10 it might be a tad large. but the next size down would be too small. You are an in-betweener. I'm trying to decifer the geometry chart, and if I'm reading it correctly, the bikes are sized smaller than the advertised size. But I could be wrong without proper frame reference when matched with the geometry chart.

But as long as you are comfortable on the bike, it will be fine. 90mm stems are not an issue to get the sizing correct. My 58cm Fuji Roubaix Pro came with a 110mm stem. I originally installed a 90mm stem as the 110 was too long. I then switched out the handlebars and the components from the 105 5600 shifters to 2010 Force stuff. With the handlebar change and shifter change, my reach changed by almost 10mm. So I took off the 90 and installed an 80mm stem. Much, much better.


----------



## esac (Jun 1, 2010)

i think the fit is good. you have plenty of room to make proper adjustments, the faster, more flexible you get.


----------



## BillyK (Aug 5, 2010)

frdfandc said:


> I think at 5"10 it might be a tad large. but the next size down would be too small. You are an in-betweener. I'm trying to decifer the geometry chart, and if I'm reading it correctly, the bikes are sized smaller than the advertised size. But I could be wrong without proper frame reference when matched with the geometry chart.


Yeah, I was unable to decipher that chart. I have no experience with those geometry charts so I had no idea what all the different row designations meant. (AI, AS, BI, BS) It's all Greek to me. Thanks for your feedback.


----------



## BillyK (Aug 5, 2010)

esac said:


> i think the fit is good. you have plenty of room to make proper adjustments, the faster, more flexible you get.


Thanks esac. That's what I'm hoping for.


----------



## BillyK (Aug 5, 2010)

Dave Hickey said:


> It looks fine to me.....BTW, great looking bike.....


Thanks Dave. I love the looks of the bike. I don't have much saddle time with it yet but I sure do feel good when I'm on it.  They changed the frame geometry the following year, (Infinito) but personally I like the looks of the 928 better. Something about that pot belly down tube.


----------



## BillyK (Aug 5, 2010)

wim said:


> Echoing the majority sentiment here: with the number of spacers and the upturned stem you have now _and being comfortable with that_, what could you possibly gain from a smaller frame? Those who proclaim that a certain length stem goes with a certain size frame are generally guided by photos of elite racers in their mid-20s rather than the realities of recreational road cycling. Enjoy your bike and ride lots—no one will take notice of your 90 mm stem, especially when you pass them looking powerful and comfortable on a bike that fits you.
> 
> As an aside: you wrote "Long story short, I was sold a bike that I'm now being told is too small for me." Did you mean to say "too large for me" or am I missing something here?
> 
> /w


Thanks for the words of encouragement. It's good to hear that certain frame sizes don't necessarily have to go with certain stem sizes. I guess I just wanted some expert opinions on whether or not I was resorting to extreme measures, and whether or not the bike was WAY too large for me and worth ditching. I'm pretty bummed about the bad LBS experience but I'll consider it a lesson learned.


----------



## pdxtim (Nov 15, 2004)

*long top tube*

In looking at the bike's geometry (which took a while to figure out with their "AI", "AS", "BI" etc. designations), it looks like the bike has somewhat of a long top tube for you. I'm not a huge expert, but a 575 cm top tube for someone 5'10" is, IMHO, at the far end of the curve. I'm not so sure someone your height would want to go much longer at all. On the other hand, the bike does have a long head tube, which does bring the bars up closer to you. Also, the 550 cm seat tube is kind of short in relation to the top tube. For comparison, my 53 cm 02 Lemond Buenos Aires and my 55 cm 2006 Jamis Quest both have top tubes of about 550, with the Lemond HT being 115 and the Jamis HT 150. They both seem to fit me well, but the Jamis is just a little easier on my back due to the longer HT. I'm 5'9" and some change, with a 33.5 inseam, so your legs are a little shorter and torso a little longer, so a longer top tube would work for you a little better. If you do have tight hamstrings and a tight low back, initially it may seem to big but with time and stretching maybe you'll be OK. One other thing: I can kind of see what the salesman was getting at when he said Bianchis run small. My Gunnar cross bike, for instance, is a 54 cm with a 565 top tube. Yours is a 58 with a 575. Overall though the bike seems to be on the large side for someone your size. As previous poster said, send pictures! (and hope things work out for you!)


----------



## f3rg (May 11, 2008)

The bike looks like it fits you. Looking at the amount of exposed seatpost, it seems about perfect. If you went down a size, you'd have a lot more post sticking out. If the frame was too big, you'd have less, and it'd look odd. Speaking of which, your knee has quite a bend in it at the bottom of the stroke; personally, I'd try raising the seat up another 10-15mm.

I also think the 90mm stem is too short, because it makes you sit too upright. If you like that, keep it, but a lot of riders prefer a more stretched position.


----------



## f3rg (May 11, 2008)

p.s. Lose the dork disc.


----------



## JoelS (Aug 25, 2008)

Looking at the picture, the bike is fine. As you develop more flexibility with a year or so of saddle time, you may very well be wanting a more aggressive posture. Then removing spacers and going to a longer stem will be fine.

Frankly, that looks like a good solid fit. I don't think that bike is too big as set. Stem length can sometimes be a good indicator, other times not. 

IMO, stop worrying about it and go ride!


----------



## BillyK (Aug 5, 2010)

f3rg said:


> The bike looks like it fits you. Looking at the amount of exposed seatpost, it seems about perfect. If you went down a size, you'd have a lot more post sticking out. If the frame was too big, you'd have less, and it'd look odd. Speaking of which, your knee has quite a bend in it at the bottom of the stroke; personally, I'd try raising the seat up another 10-15mm.
> 
> I also think the 90mm stem is too short, because it makes you sit too upright. If you like that, keep it, but a lot of riders prefer a more stretched position.



Thanks. The picture is a little misleading on the saddle height. I'm not clipped in nor am I at the most extended position. The angle is a fair amount less than what you see under normal riding conditions. I actually had a couple of professional opinions from the LBS on the saddle positioning while peddling on the trainer. Again, crappy picture. As I continue to work on my core and flexibility, maybe I'll be able to make some stem modifications going forward. My LBS suggested coming back in late in the spring after more saddle time to re-evaluate the fit. He even suggested that we may be able to flip the stem, etc. if I increase my flexibility. Thanks for your feedback.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

BillyK said:


> Thanks for the words of encouragement. It's good to hear that certain frame sizes don't necessarily have to go with certain stem sizes. I guess *I just wanted some expert opinions on whether or not I was resorting to extreme measures*, and whether or not the bike was WAY too large for me and worth ditching. I'm pretty bummed about the bad LBS experience but I'll consider it a lesson learned.


That's a key point here. Had your fitter been forced to adjust your saddle forward _along with_ the addition of the 90mm stem to accomodate your reach requirements, then I'd say it was possible the frame size was too large for you. 

From your description of the fit process (and your confidence in the fitter), indications are that he got the saddle adjustments dialed in first, then went on to make adjustments to reach. That's the right way to do it, and judging from the pic of you on the bike, I think you got the sizing right. As fitness/ flexibility improve, this size offers room for adjustment in both reach and drop.

Lastly, I agree with the other poster that your leg has a pronounced bend, but your positioned toes down in the photo. If you don't normally ride like that leave the saddle height as is, but if you do, raise it about 1cm.


----------



## pdxtim (Nov 15, 2004)

*regarding bike fit and picture...*

IMHO, your trunk is at 45 degrees to horizontal (perfect for rec riders) and your elbows bent 30 degrees (maybe just a tad too much, 15-20 is recommended). These look good. Your R knee however is bent about 48 degrees, which is quite a bit of flexion. Recommended is 25-35. I realize that in the picture you're not quite at the bottom of the spin, but the knee looks too flexed. Also, are you clipped in? It seems as though you're not, but if you are, your cleats are way forward on your shoe. Being clipped in will of course straighten your knee a little more, which would be a good thing. Maybe send another pic with the R foot clipped in, and with your R pedal at BDC (bottom dead center)?


----------



## pdxtim (Nov 15, 2004)

*look at some other bikes for designations*



BillyK said:


> Yeah, I was unable to decipher that chart. I have no experience with those geometry charts so I had no idea what all the different row designations meant. (AI, AS, BI, BS) It's all Greek to me. Thanks for your feedback.


Some of the other bike pages on that website have a schematic bike drawing that indicates what all those letters and numbers mean. It took me a while to find it.


----------



## BillyK (Aug 5, 2010)

BillyK said:


> Thanks. The picture is a little misleading on the saddle height. I'm not clipped in nor am I at the most extended position. The angle is a fair amount less than what you see under normal riding conditions. I actually had a couple of professional opinions from the LBS on the saddle positioning while peddling on the trainer. Again, crappy picture. As I continue to work on my core and flexibility, maybe I'll be able to make some stem modifications going forward. My LBS suggested coming back in late in the spring after more saddle time to re-evaluate the fit. He even suggested that we may be able to flip the stem, etc. if I increase my flexibility. Thanks for your feedback.



Here's a picture to judge my saddle height. Better?


----------



## Opus51569 (Jul 21, 2009)

Man, I don't know...that stem looks odd...oh, wait, never mind


----------



## zion rasta (Aug 15, 2004)

You look way upright... As you ride more you might change to a longer stem and a negative rise position. Were you a mountain biker? If so, you will eventually start lowering your stem and taking spacers off as you get more flexible...


----------



## Mr. Versatile (Nov 24, 2005)

I agree with pdxtim. It's a little hard to tell if your seat is too low. Aside from that I think the bike is perfect for you. I personally prefer a longer stem for a more "laid out" position, but as I said, that's just a preference.,


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

Perfect! :thumbsup:


----------



## Peanya (Jun 12, 2008)

f3rg said:


> p.s. Lose the dork disc.


That's the only thing that really looks out of place for me. Nice looking bike there.:thumbsup:


----------



## BillyK (Aug 5, 2010)

I've only been road riding for about 3 months now, approximately 75-100 miles/week, with a max ride of 30 miles. We have lots of hills here so I can get a pretty good workout pushing myself for 45-60 minutes. My average HR (for what it's worth) is typically 150-155 on most of my rides. (I'm 43 years old) As far as back flexibility goes, I was recently diagnosed as having some arthritis as well as a bulging disc. (L1/S5) They were both considered mild and I was given the green light to ride bikes as long as it didn't cause pain. I just wanted to explain my lack of flexibility. My lower back is typically tight and I realize I need to stretch and work on my core more consistently. I'm very disciplined at exercising but not so much when it comes to stretching and core work. I need to improve in that area.


----------



## matchmaker (Aug 15, 2009)

Looking at your position on the bike, I would say it is very acceptable. I use a 90mm stem myself on a real 56 bike and a 100mm stem on my 55 frame.

The most important thing is feeling comfortable on the bike. I think your position as it is is okay, so no need to sell the bike. It looks great and with the adaptations seems to fit you very well.


----------



## BillyK (Aug 5, 2010)

PJ352 said:


> That's a key point here. Had your fitter been forced to adjust your saddle forward _along with_ the addition of the 90mm stem to accomodate your reach requirements, then I'd say it was possible the frame size was too large for you.
> 
> From your description of the fit process (and your confidence in the fitter), indications are that he got the saddle adjustments dialed in first, then went on to make adjustments to reach. That's the right way to do it, and judging from the pic of you on the bike, I think you got the sizing right. As fitness/ flexibility improve, this size offers room for adjustment in both reach and drop.
> 
> Lastly, I agree with the other poster that your leg has a pronounced bend, but your positioned toes down in the photo. If you don't normally ride like that leave the saddle height as is, but if you do, raise it about 1cm.



You are correct. The saddle was dialed in first and NO saddle adjustment was made to compensate for the reach. That fitting was completely decoupled from the reach fitting. The standard 3:00-9:00 aft/fore setting with the plumb bob was spot on once he was done. The entire fitting took close to 2 hours. He was very thorough. I'm a regular customer there so they only charged me $45 for the fitting, but I had to fork out $90 for the Bontrager stem.


----------



## f3rg (May 11, 2008)

BillyK said:


> My LBS suggested coming back in late in the spring after more saddle time to re-evaluate the fit. He even suggested that we may be able to flip the stem, etc. if I increase my flexibility. Thanks for your feedback.


Screw the LBS. Ride it until you'd like to try a longer reach, then flip the stem, mess with spacers, or buy a longer stem, and put it on by yourself. You already said they sounded incompetent, so why go back?

Actually, why not just flip the stem and move the spacers around after a few rides, try it that way, and see what you think? As long as you have an Allen wrench, experimentation is free and takes all of a couple minutes.


----------



## BillyK (Aug 5, 2010)

f3rg said:


> Screw the LBS. Ride it until you'd like to try a longer reach, then flip the stem, mess with spacers, or buy a longer stem, and put it on by yourself. You already said they sounded incompetent, so why go back?
> 
> Actually, why not just flip the stem and move the spacers around after a few rides, try it that way, and see what you think? As long as you have an Allen wrench, experimentation is free and takes all of a couple minutes.


Sorry for the confusion. My primary LBS (the good guys) are the ones that suggested possibly coming back after awhile for a re-evaluation. I WILL NOT go back to the LBS that I purchased the bike from. Thanks.


----------



## Mr. Scary (Dec 7, 2005)

What's that dark, wiry looking stuff on your legs? It looks weird... 

You are to upright, once you start riding more you will want lower and longer IMO.


----------



## JoelS (Aug 25, 2008)

Just ride it.


----------



## Cpk (Aug 1, 2009)

f3rg said:


> I also think the 90mm stem is too short, because it makes you sit too upright. If you like that, keep it, but a lot of riders prefer a more stretched position.


I agree. I think a 100mm turned so that it is more parallel would be at least a bit racier position but the 90mm doesn't look bad at all. I'm the other way I'm 5' 9.75" on a bike with a 54.5 TT and a 130mm stem. 

Sometimes great deals aren't so great if the guy you have to work with makes them suck


----------



## fuzzalow (Mar 13, 2007)

Don't think this bike is sized too small, looks OK to me. Always better to err on the side of a smaller frame rather than a larger frame as modern racing-bike--type frame geometry handles better sized down rather than sized up.

As you ride more and get fitter and more fluid with your pedal stroke, the bars can be lowered (by flipping the stem) and later still stretched farther out with a longer stem. You might also be able to handle more leg extension. Maybe someone can help check your position and balance on the saddle as far as set-back. (BTW KOPS is rubbish so don't go by that or listen to anyone who fits by using that alone).

But for now, you 'll do OK with this setup as is.

Beautiful bike, love Bianchis - the italians always knew frame geometry best.


----------



## CyclePimps (Sep 1, 2010)

Looks fine to me too. And I agree with others that once you have better flexibility, you might try removing some spacers and get a longer stem. BTW...I ride a 56cm and use a 90mm stem. Nothing wrong with that at all.


----------



## alexp247365 (Dec 29, 2009)

The fit looks good, but remember that your fit is dynamic. Second picture looks better IMO.


----------



## FatTireFred (Jan 31, 2005)

zion rasta said:


> You have a 90mm stem because you bought a one size too big. at 5'10 the you shoud have been on the 55 and not the 58. I am 6'2" and I would fit on the 58 with a 120mm stem perfect.
> 
> It seems like the dealer push sold you what they had to close a sell. If I was you, I would definitely take it back and say that it does not fit. This is not the manufacturer's fault. It's like blaming Nike for Foot Locker selling you a shoe that is too big for you...




too big??? w/ that much post showing and the bars way up (flipped stem, under a stack of spacers and under an extended ht)? more like a ill-fitting frame, period


----------



## simonaway427 (Jul 12, 2010)

pdxtim said:


> IMHO, your trunk is at 45 degrees to horizontal (perfect for rec riders) and your elbows bent 30 degrees (maybe just a tad too much, 15-20 is recommended). These look good. Your R knee however is bent about 48 degrees, which is quite a bit of flexion. Recommended is 25-35. I realize that in the picture you're not quite at the bottom of the spin, but the knee looks too flexed. Also, are you clipped in? It seems as though you're not, but if you are, your cleats are way forward on your shoe. Being clipped in will of course straighten your knee a little more, which would be a good thing. Maybe send another pic with the R foot clipped in, and with your R pedal at BDC (bottom dead center)?


Good lord....whatever is comfortable for you, don't worry about numbers!!


----------



## Oxtox (Aug 16, 2006)

flip the 90 mm stem and ride the snot out of it.


----------



## richjones (Aug 21, 2010)

If in fact a 9cm stem is the optimal length for you on this bike and it's a 58 then I'm afraid this bike is too big for you. We can sugarcoat it and say "gee it seems ok," or "if if feels good," etc. But as you learn more about good fit and become more experienced you will figure out on your own that this bike is most likely too large (long). I think most experienced riders know that smaller frames (relative to your dimensions) handle better and are frankly more enjoyable to ride. 

If in fact the 9cm stem is the correct length then by definition this bike is too long for you.
If you study geometry charts for different bikes you will see variation in top tube length, seat tube angle and head tube length for given sizes. Not all manufacturers offer frames that will fit you correctly.

There seems to be some debate about whether or not a short stem impact handing. I think it does. I know I notice it.

As you get more experienced you will notice the difference in handling 1 cm up or down in frame sizes makes.

I spent the first 15 years of my cycling on frames that were too large for me. After learning more about good fit I ended up sizing down and found I was having a lot more fun riding than before. Typically the limiting factor is saddle to bar drop. Some riders can tolerate a lot (9 cm+) others much less (after 25 years of riding I ended up at 6.5cm) Saddle to bar drop tolerance is a factor of flexibility and experience. The key is the get a frame with the proper top tube length, seat tube angle and head tube length.


----------



## JoelS (Aug 25, 2008)

richjones said:


> If in fact a 9cm stem is the optimal length for you on this bike and its a 58 then I'm afraid this bike is too big for you. We can sugarcoat it and say "gee it seems ok," or "if if feels good," etc. But as you learn more about good fit and become more experienced you will figure out on your own that this bike is too large (long). I think most experienced riders know that smaller frames (relative to your dimensions) handle better and are frankly more enjoyable to ride.
> 
> If in fact the 9cm stem is the correct length then by definition this bike is too long for you.
> If you study geometry charts for different bikes you will see variation in top tube length, seat tube angle and head tube length for given sizes. Not all manufacturers offer frames that will fit you correctly.
> ...


IMO, the frame owned by the OP is the right size. 

Rich, since you seem so strongly inclined to say no, in your opinion what is the right stem size that a person should shoot for in selecting a frame? Huh? Why don't you tell us so that we'll all know. I'd also like to know where you find this "definition" that you mention in your post.


----------



## GPB (Mar 27, 2006)

I'm 5'11", ride a 58cm with 90mm stem (and like you had a 110). I also have spacers, but have the stem flipped. I've gotten more flexible over time and can ride quite a bit lower than I could originally, and the fit feels better today than when I bought it. Your fit looks perfect IMO...sweet looking ride. Enjoy it.


----------



## matchmaker (Aug 15, 2009)

JoelS said:


> IMO, the frame owned by the OP is the right size.
> 
> Rich, since you seem so strongly inclined to say no, in your opinion what is the right stem size that a person should shoot for in selecting a frame? Huh? Why don't you tell us so that we'll all know. I'd also like to know where you find this "definition" that you mention in your post.


I too would like to know that definition. Gee, I had better sell my bike, I have a 90 stem on it. Maybe the other one has to go to, as it has a 100mm stem... I could have probably kept it if I just decided to be uncomfortable on it and kept on using the 110 cm stem that came with it.


----------



## dcl10 (Jul 2, 2010)

I had a bike that came with a 90mm stem, does that mean it was too big? Seriously I see nothing wrong with the fit. The saddle height does not look awkward, and if you look at the front end setup there is almost no room for a shorter head tube as he already has the max. allowable spacers. Hell, Armstrong is the same height and rides a 58cm, and that's a true 58cm top tube. In any case I'd say he does not yet have the flexibility in his back and so is rolling his shoulders forward to compensate, so you use a shorter stem for the time being and if get that flexibility later you can get a longer stem, if not there is nothing wrong with a 90mm anyway.


----------



## Cni2i (Jun 28, 2010)

When I read 5'10" with a 58 cm size frame....I initially thought too big (the bike that is). But after seeing you on the bike, it actually looks okay. Honestly, just enjoy your bike, ride her more, and make necessary adjustments as needed. Cool bike.


----------



## richjones (Aug 21, 2010)

JoelS said:


> IMO, the frame owned by the OP is the right size.
> 
> Rich, since you seem so strongly inclined to say no, in your opinion what is the right stem size that a person should shoot for in selecting a frame? Huh? Why don't you tell us so that we'll all know. I'd also like to know where you find this "definition" that you mention in your post.


I think there is agreement among experienced knowledgeable riders that smaller frames relative to your body dimensions handle better. If you don't agree with this premise then there is no point in reading any further. 

The challenge is to choose the smallest frame that will allow you to achieve good fit. Good fit = good fore/aft balance on the bike, optimal reach and optimal saddle to bar drop without having to resort to excessively long or short stems or high rise stems and/or excessive steerer spacers. The fact that the OP needs to run a 9cm stem in order to get his reach correct tells me that more likely than not he could have sized down and still gotten his reach correct with a longer stem perhaps with another Bianchi or perhaps another with another manufacucturer. Of course the OP needs to also be cognizant of the saddle to bar drop implications. I haven't looked at the geometry charts for this bike but I assume one size smaller has a shorter head tube.

If the head tube on the smaller frame does not force him to add excessive spacers, etc in order to get his saddle to bar drop optimal then that would have been the better choice. But then that brings us to the topic of geometry between manufacturers. Not all manufacturers make bikes that will allow you to achieve optimum setup. That is one the mistakes I see bike buyers make. They focus in on a manufacturer without considering geometry.

As far as my comment regarding stem length it has been my observation that more often than not when I see folks with a setup that includes a short stem they typically also have minimal saddle to bar drop and not a lot of post showing all indicators of too large a frame.

As I mentioned there is some debate about whether short stem impacts handling when seated but out of the saddle is where you will really notice the difference between a 9cm stem and 11 or 12.


----------



## JoelS (Aug 25, 2008)

richjones said:


> I think there is agreement among experienced knowledgeable riders that smaller frames relative to your body dimensions handle better. If you don't agree with this premise then there is no point in reading any further.


Did you even LOOK at the picture he posted on pg2? There are a ton of spacers under the stem and it's turned up. A smaller frame would have a shorter head tube, resulting in a more aggressive posture. For this rider, that would not be wise. It also looks like if his flexibility improves, he'll be able to remove a few spacers and still have room for a longer stem.

Your entire post reads like you didn't look at his position on the bike.

This "agreement among experienced knowledgeable riders" that you mention may exist for you locally, but it certainly isn't universal. Aside from that, you seem to be implying that some of us are neither, and you certainly don't have the information to say that.

I continue to maintain that the OP looks properly fit on the right size frame. His fit may change with time and mileage, it may not. He doesn't need the more aggressive posture that you are implying. That "pro rider" fit does NOT work for everyone.


----------



## Dave Hickey (Jan 27, 2002)

richjones said:


> I think there is agreement among experienced knowledgeable riders that smaller frames relative to your body dimensions handle better. If you don't agree with this premise then there is no point in reading any further.


Maybe when I grow up I can be an experienced cyclist......Not everyone wants or needs a small frame relative body dimensions.. and a generic statement that small frames handle better is pure unadulterated BS


----------



## olr1 (Apr 2, 2005)

_I *think* there is agreement among experienced knowledgeable riders that smaller frames relative to your body dimensions handle better._

You *think* wrong.

Fit is important, but that statement does not automatically imply that small = better.

I'm an experienced, knowledgeable rider, been doing it for 20 years, raced in the UK and Europe, and my own personal preference is for a frame that fits me lengthwise and heightwise, not one that shows the most seatpost.


----------



## frmrench (Apr 10, 2009)

As others said, it's fine, and if you went with the smaller one you'd be dealing with the opposite issues, among them getting the bar high enough. 

But do have the shop remove that goofy spoke protector from the rear wheel. Nothing shouts newbie like one of those (except reflectors of course!).


----------



## GPB (Mar 27, 2006)

frmrench said:


> But do have the shop remove that goofy spoke protector from the rear wheel.


OP, if it's plastic, you can probably snip it off with scissors. :thumbsup:


----------



## Zen_Turtle (Aug 19, 2010)

Top tube difference between 56 and 58 is probably less than 20mm, don't see any problem with a 90mm stem...


----------



## BillyK (Aug 5, 2010)

Thanks everyone for all the great feedback. It's much appreciated. I'm feeling pretty good right now about keeping the bike. I guess I just needed some reassurance as to whether or not I was even in the ballpark as far as fit goes. I realize that it may not be "ideal", but I didn't want to keep the bike if the consensus was to ditch it. I did some stretching this morning and then went for a nice 22 mile ride, pushing it pretty hard most of the way. I felt really good and didn't experience any discomfort whatsoever. The stretching definitely improves the overall riding experience. 

Now lets address this "dork disc".  I haven't really researched it but isn't it there for safety reasons? (prevent the derailleur from flying into your wheel?) Or something to that effect if I recall. Not that I'm really concerned that's going to happen but should I really remove it? I'm assuming manufacturers put it on there for a reason, and I'm not really concerned about what people think of me. The one on my Secteur is clear so it doesn't stand out as much as the one on the Bianchi. So what's the consensus on dork discs? Please educate me on the purpose of this contraption. Thanks again everyone!


----------



## simonaway427 (Jul 12, 2010)

lose it...the look far outweighs the risk.


----------



## Oxtox (Aug 16, 2006)

dork disk keeps the chain out of the spokes if your rear derailleur is adjusted for crap.

just take it off.


----------



## kritiman (Jul 31, 2006)

BillyK said:


> Now lets address this "dork disc".  I haven't really researched it but isn't it there for safety reasons? (prevent the derailleur from flying into your wheel?) Or something to that effect if I recall. Not that I'm really concerned that's going to happen but should I really remove it? I'm assuming manufacturers put it on there for a reason, and I'm not really concerned about what people think of me. The one on my Secteur is clear so it doesn't stand out as much as the one on the Bianchi. So what's the consensus on dork discs? Please educate me on the purpose of this contraption. Thanks again everyone!


If you're not vain and don't care about style points, just leave it on.

I took mine off because it rattles a bit, not because people look down their noses at me.


----------



## Gall (Feb 6, 2004)

IMO ....This is a situation where a recreation/newbie rider wants to have the "pro" look but his body isnt able to. 

The frame is the wrong type not the wrong size for this rider. He should of shopped around and gotten a frame with a shorter TT and a taller head tube. THEN he could of used a 110-130 "un-flipped" stem with only a couple of spacers. 

Dont worry it has taken me years to figure this out. And now I am in the market for a frame with a short TT and a tall head tube. 

Try to get over what it looks like and ride...... 

Gall


----------



## pdxtim (Nov 15, 2004)

*looks better*



BillyK said:


> Here's a picture to judge my saddle height. Better?


Knee position (flexion) looks better in this pic.


----------



## heffergm (Jul 9, 2010)

You're fine. Seriously, all the "you'll kill yourself because of the bad handling if you run a stem 10mm shorter than what I deem ideal" talk is crazy. Just ride it, your fit looks good.

FWIW, I'm 5'10" as well, although I'm a bit of a freak of nature in that my cycling inseam is 34.5". I ride a 56 Trek and a 58 Neuvation. Both work. I run a 100m stem on the Trek and a 90mm on the Neuvation, the Neuvation flipped for negative drop and the Trek stem turned up (they're both 6 or 7 degrees). The saddle bar drop is then about the same between both bikes. There's no magic single combination of anything for any given rider. As long as you're comfortable and well fit don't worry about 10mm of stem length.


----------



## Kuma601 (Jan 22, 2004)

He's been riding for 3 months, the current position is fine. As he progresses, this frame allows position changes up or down. It is his bike, he's comfortable.


----------



## temoore (Mar 9, 2004)

richjones said:


> I think there is agreement among experienced knowledgeable riders that smaller frames relative to your body dimensions handle better. If you don't agree with this premise then there is no point in reading any further.


Not true. There are many opinions from experienced sources that would not agree.
Rivendell: 
http://www.rivbike.com/article/bike_fit/choosing_a_frame_size
Competitive Cycling:
http://www.competitivecyclist.com/za/CCY?PAGE=FIT_CALCULATOR_INTRO

Two of the three Competitive Cyclist fits have you on larger frames. It depends on riding style, type of rides you do, age, flexibility and more. A blanket statement will not be correct for all. When I built my Vamoots up this year I picked a slightly larger frame so that I can have 1 to 1.25 inches drop with 20 mm of spacers and a 100 mm stem. If I was a young racer, this frame would be too large to give me enough drop. But at 62 years, it is perfect.


----------



## CougarTrek (May 5, 2008)

I've shortened the stock stems by something closer to 60mm before. I ride my roadie with a 50mm stem now, no handling problems, no fitting problems, no nothing. Love everything about that bike.

Why there was a 100-110 stem (I don't remember which) stock on a 44cm XS bike to begin with is beyond me, but we (me, shop, fitter) knew the stem wasn't going to work before we even built the thing.

A 90mm stem is MORE than normal and it's also more than normal to swap stems out.

Heck even my custom built for me Cross bike has a 70mm on it.

The whole "gotta be 100mm stem or the bike don't fit" crap is just that, crap.

Your bike setup looks fine, you look fine on it, and presumably you have no fit pain or issues. All good in my book (and I'll echo that you might have ended up with too much drop on a smaller frame given your current setup...)


----------



## BillyK (Aug 5, 2010)

temoore said:


> Not true. There are many opinions from experienced sources that would not agree.
> Rivendell:
> http://www.rivbike.com/article/bike_fit/choosing_a_frame_size
> Competitive Cycling:
> ...



Just read the Rivendell article. Very interesting, thanks for sharing. I just checked my saddle height on both my bikes, (56cm Secteur & 58cm Bianchi) both of which were professionally fitted to me, and they both measure out at approximately 73.7cm. (29 inches) According to the chart, they'd put me on a 58-59 frame. Based on their methodology for fitting a bike, it appears that I'm sized perfectly. I even have a fistfull of seat post.


----------



## BillyK (Aug 5, 2010)

Trying to understand these geometry charts. The "top-tube length, horizontal" for my 56cm Secteur is 565mm. What I'm assuming is my horizontal top-tube length for my 58cm Bianchi is 575mm. (designation B1) Only a 1cm effective top tube length difference. The seat tube and head tube angles are pretty much identical. If I'm understanding the charts correctly, the difference in frame size is less than what you might initially think. Am I understanding this correctly?

Bianchi Geometry:
http://www.bianchiusa.com/archives/09-bicycles/09-c2c/928-carbon-k-vid/09-c2c-928-105-comp/

Secteur Geometry:
http://www.specialized.com/us/en/bc/SBCProduct.jsp?spid=52882&scid=1001&scname=Road


----------



## BruceG1 (Apr 6, 2010)

BillyK said:


> Understood, but quite frankly, I didn't want to deal with this guy. He's the type of guy who would have claimed that the biked fits you regardless of what I said.".


At this pioint you should have left the store and dealt with a shop you are comfortable with. Beautiful bike though.


----------



## pianopiano (Jun 4, 2005)

*get out there and ride*

At this point you should stop worrying about all of this stuff, because it will only start to drive you crazy. Just get out there and ride that beautiful bike! :thumbsup:


----------

