# 5"10 with long legs and short reach.



## saga (Jan 4, 2008)

32" - 33" inseam. Looking at buying a Tarmac. Of course I will try and test ride a few sizes but just thought I'd put this out there and see if there was anyone like me as to be honest I think I'm pretty much an average size but when it comes to bikes average is more 5"8. 

So I'm in the middle of sizes, a 54.5cm or a 56.5cm.

For what it's worth I think I like a top tube that is 54ish and a seattube length that is 57-58cm. So most of my bikes, mostly mountain bikes have a lot of seatpost showing.

Any tips would be great and anyone who's had the same problem.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

saga said:


> 32" - 33" inseam. Looking at buying a Tarmac. Of course I will try and test ride a few sizes but just thought I'd put this out there and see if there was anyone like me as to be honest I think I'm pretty much an average size but when it comes to bikes average is more 5"8.
> 
> So I'm in the middle of sizes, a 54.5cm or a 56.5cm.
> 
> ...


If that's your _cycling_ inseam (and not pants inseam) then yes, you're proportioned longer legs/ shorter torso, but not by much. 

You seem to know some about bike geo and your preferences, so it would be a good idea to gather some info about your current bike (if available) like effective TT and saddle height, and compare your bikes geo to that of the Tarmac.

You have 2" on me. I have a cycling inseam of about 31" and ride a 52 cm Tarmac (ETT = 537), so our reach is close. Without knowing your saddle height, I'm guessing, but you might be more comfortable (reach-wise) on a 54 cm Tarmac, but as you say the LBS and test rides will determine that.

Lastly, when looking at bikes with compact geo, focus more on the effective TT lengths and less on seat tube length, because once adaquate reach is attained, the saddle height is easier to adjust for (within limits, of course).

EDIT: My mistake. I picked up the remark about _being *like *someone 5' 8"_ as your height, but the suggestions re: taking some measurements and comparing geo's still applies. Given that the 54 cm Tarmac has an effective TT of 548, it still might be your best option, with a lot of seatpost showing.


----------



## tom_h (May 6, 2008)

You _are_ in the grey area between a 54 or 56 cm Tarmac frame, which you already figured out.

IIRC, the 54 frame has a significantly shorter head tube, than the 56 (assuming "standard", not "team" versions). 

Thus, a 54 would likely have a larger saddle-to-handlebar drop, than the 56 -- maybe up to 2 cm more. You don't want an extreme upward tilting stem or excessive spacers under stem, on a 54. Could your body handle the extra drop?

Also consider your specific handlebars -- there are 'traditional' and 'short reach' bars that differ up to c. 2 cm in 'reach', so this will interact with top tube and stem length.

Point of reference, Me: 
5 ft 10.5 inch , 34.0 inch true inseam, 
56cm Tarmac with 10 cm stem (30mm spacers, 6º down tilt) and 3T Ergosum bars, is very well fitting


----------



## RedRider93 (Jan 28, 2009)

I am basically the same at 5'10.5 with an inseam of about 33. I would say go with the 54, the 56 will feel sluggish and awkward with the original stem, it may feel better with a slightly shorter stem, but I know is the 54 feels perfect for me. I really love a lot of saddle bar drop though, so that might have been what did it for me on the 54 vs. 56, that and the fact that the top tube on the 56 just felt like to much of a stretch


----------



## spastook (Nov 30, 2007)

I'm 5-10 with a 32" inseam (pant size) I've ridden a 56cm Tarmac and the fit was perfect. If you feel too extended just swap out stems.


----------



## tom_h (May 6, 2008)

spastook said:


> I'm 5-10 with a 32" inseam (pant size) I've ridden a 56cm Tarmac and the fit was perfect. If you feel too extended just swap out stems.


So _maybe_ a 34inch "true cycling" inseam?? 
So as not to confuse the O.P. ?

Pants inseams are not much help, because pants styles and personal preference can easily make up to 2" variation. Maybe 4" if you like Pee-Wee Herman style pants ;-)


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

tom_h said:


> So _maybe_ a 34inch "true cycling" inseam??
> So as not to confuse the O.P. ?
> 
> *Pants inseams are not much help*, because pants styles and personal preference can easily make up to 2" variation. Maybe 4" if you like Pee-Wee Herman style pants ;-)


I'd go a bit further and say they're of _no_ value. There's nothing wrong with offering a best guess (and I've posted the same), but it is worthwhile to remind the OP that an in person fitting is the preferred way to approach the sizing/ fitting issue. Even two people with the same height/ same cycling inseam have notable differences such as fitness, riding styles and personal preferences, not to mention differences in arm length/ reach.


----------



## spastook (Nov 30, 2007)

PJ352 said:


> I'd go a bit further and say they're of _no_ value. There's nothing wrong with offering a best guess (and I've posted the same), but it is worthwhile to remind the OP that an in person fitting is the preferred way to approach the sizing/ fitting issue. Even two people with the same height/ same cycling inseam have notable differences such as fitness, riding styles and personal preferences, not to mention differences in arm length/ reach.



True but I was just trying to give him a "ballpark" estimate. I'm 5-10 of average overall preportions, and a 56cm Tarmac was an excellent fit for me. If he went with a 54cm he would have an extra inch of saddle to handlebar drop. With a 56 he should be able to dial in the correct top tube length with stem selection.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

spastook said:


> True but I was just trying to give him a "ballpark" estimate. I'm 5-10 of average overall preportions, and a 56cm Tarmac was an excellent fit for me. If he went with a 54cm he would have an extra inch of saddle to handlebar drop. With a 56 he should be able to dial in the correct top tube length with stem selection.


Good points, and it wasn't my intention to criticize, but simply to keep focus on the fact that an in person sizing/ fitting is in order, for the reasons mentioned. And your (and Tom's) reference to HT lengths affecting saddle to bar drop points up just one of several issues that come into play. Another, effective TT length, changes from 548 to 565 from the 54 to 56, so (depending on the OP's current stem length) it might not be an option to go with a shorter (by 2 cm's) stem.

I'm not saying this applies to the OP, but IME the more a persons proportions vary, the more custom becomes the preferred route. Otherwise, it's all about compromises in fit.


----------

