# Yet another sizing thread...



## Just Sam (Feb 24, 2004)

I've been trying to decide on a frameset to replace the CAAD 7 I was on when I got into an SUV vs. bike accident and have decided on a LOOK 555/565/585. Problem is there isn't a dealer within 2-300 miles. I went and had a fitting two years ago, I had purchased a CAAD5 56cm from a friend who never used it. Upon doing the fitting the bike shop told me I needed a 58cm frame, which they happily sold me (hence the CAAD 7 Frame). 

I've been looking at the geometry for the CAAD 7 frames opposed to what they wrote down for my optimal measurements, and it's just not making any sense. I'm 172 lbs and 6'.5" (notice thats .5 and not 5) with a 32.5" inseam. The fit sheet they gave me lists the following:

46.0 - Handlebar Width C to C
55.5 - Seat Tube C. TT to BB 
72.5 - Seat Tube Angle
56.6 - Top Tube Length
9.5 - Stem C. to Top Tube C. (Rise)
100 - Stem Length
26.5 - BB to Toe
172.5 - Crank Length
80.0 - Saddle Height
2.5 - Saddle Setback
53 - Seat Tip to HB
59 - Seat to HB Drop Top-Top
69 - Seat Tip to Brake Hood

Now looking at that and comparing to the CAAD 7 Geometry it would look to me like a 56 frameset would have been optimal. Now I'm not sure if the measurements I have are from when they were fitting me to the 56 frameset and they just didn't update it to the 58. I haven't ever really felt comfortable on the 58, I've felt somewhat stretched out (which could be due to my limited flexiblity). Would it be best for me to go with a 55 frameset and use a longer stem if necessary or go with the 57? FWIW I don't race or ever plan to, primarily do ~200 miles a week of solo riding and occasionally do a charity ride, etc. I'd prefer to get a 565 or 585, though reading on these forums the 555 seems to be a slightly softer ride which is what I"m looking for (just like the colors of the 565/585 better).

Any input would be appreciated, thanks!


----------



## C-40 (Feb 4, 2004)

*reliable measurements...*

If you don't have reliable measurements, it's tough to make a recommendation. Important info would include your actual saddle height, the stem length, angle and amount of spacer (or better yet, the head tube length with headset and spacers).

One thing I can tell you is a 32.5 inch inseam (83cm) does not jive with an 80cm saddle height. I've got that inseam and I'm 6 inches shorter with a 72cm saddle height.

Assuming that the 80cm saddle height is reasonably accurate, you've got relatively long legs and a short torso. The 57cm would be a must from a vertical fit standpoint. Fortunately, the seat tube angle on the 57cm is 72.5 degrees, which make the reach about 6mm shorter than your 58cm C'dale. The LOOK might require one size longer stem, once you get the saddle in the same fore/aft location as the C'dale.


----------



## fillmore (Apr 2, 2005)

The saddle setback of 2.5 cm seems a little short. I'm 5'7" and my saddle setback is about 4.5cm.


----------



## Just Sam (Feb 24, 2004)

*Thanks for the feedback...*



C-40 said:


> One thing I can tell you is a 32.5 inch inseam (83cm) does not jive with an 80cm saddle height. I've got that inseam and I'm 6 inches shorter with a 72cm saddle height.
> 
> Assuming that the 80cm saddle height is reasonably accurate, you've got relatively long legs and a short torso. The 57cm would be a must from a vertical fit standpoint. Fortunately, the seat tube angle on the 57cm is 72.5 degrees, which make the reach about 6mm shorter than your 58cm C'dale. The LOOK might require one size longer stem, once you get the saddle in the same fore/aft location as the C'dale.


The inseam my wife measured was inaccurate, it is actually 35". My saddle height is 31.25" (center of BB to contact point of seat) Drop from seat to handle bars is 4.25". Considering the measurements of the fitting I had and the frame the sold me/adjusted for me, I'm not too sure that it is optimal. I'm going to call them this morning and discuss the measurements vs. frame and see what they say.


----------



## stevecaz (Feb 25, 2005)

*This sounds familiar to me*

Ok, I'd ridden 58cm C-dales for a long time in my teens and early 20s. But in 2000, after a long stretch of not road riding (I was MTBing) or having a C-dale, I bought a new one. After 3 hours of test riding and keeping the shop open late, I surprised myself by buying the just-in 2001 56cm Cannondale. I am 6'-1" and I can't remember by dimensions off-hand. I went back the next day to pick it up (they needed to tune it), and another guy at the shop said "no way can you buy a 56cm, you must get the 58" I let my wallet counter my instincts because the only 58cm they had was outgoing year model and saving $200 bucks. Thus began 4 years of riding hell and I never really fit on this bike. My problem was my long legs needed a good saddle setback. But this created a real long reach even with a short stem. I was so stretched out that I had no choice but to push the saddle forwards, which led to lots of groin pain as I was placing weight off my sit bones and onto the pubic bones. 

Try out the Competitivecyclist.com fitting calculator. Click on road and then fit calculator on the bottom of the page. It is what I used after being so unhappy with the 58cm. It told me the long saddle setback I needed and that I should have a 56cm top tube. It might not work for everyone but it changed my riding life. 

After this I sold my 58cm frame on ebay, bought a used 56cm 2002 R3000 frame on ebay, and it has been magical ever since. I believe I am similar to you, and my guess is you really need the 56cm too. But, questions of sizing can never really be answered in forums because it is so personnal. The Look frame I keep eyeing is the 55cm 565/585 because it has a 56cm top tube. I actually couldn't get the 555 because it goes from too short (55.5cm) to too long (57.5 I think). 

My suggestion is to try and get some ride time again on a frame with a 56cm top tube. What many people don't consider is that if you can look at only one part of a frame size, the top tube is the most important. If you find a really nice position on a 56cm top tube frame, then the 55cm Look frame (which has a 56cm top tube) would likely work well. 

What I'd like to know is the vertical distance from the ground to the top of the headset (where spacers would start) on the 565/585 frame. This would give an indication of how many spacers and/or degree of rise on stem needed to achieve an acceptible saddle to bar drop. Could someone please who has this frame measure this.


----------



## Just Sam (Feb 24, 2004)

I did the competitive cyclist fit before coming here (though I had an inaccurate measurement for my inseam), here are the results with an accurate inseam measurement.

Measurements
-------------------------------------------
Inseam: 35
Trunk: 28.5
Forearm: 14.5
Arm: 26
Thigh: 24
Lower Leg: 23.25
Sternal Notch: 59
Total Body Height: 72.5


The Competitive Fit (cm)
-------------------------------------------
Seat tube range c-c: 57.6 - 58.1
Seat tube range c-t: 59.4 - 59.9
Top tube length: 58.3 - 58.7
Stem Length: 12.2 - 12.8
BB-Saddle Position: 84.4 - 86.4
Saddle-Handlebar: 57.4 - 58.0
Saddle Setback: 5.1 - 5.5
Seatpost Type: NON-SETBACK


The Eddy Fit (cm)
-------------------------------------------
Seat tube range c-c: 58.8 - 59.3
Seat tube range c-t: 60.6 - 61.1
Top tube length: 58.3 - 58.7
Stem Length: 11.1 - 11.7
BB-Saddle Position: 83.6 - 85.6
Saddle-Handlebar: 58.2 - 58.8
Saddle Setback: 6.3 - 6.7
Seatpost Type: SETBACK


The French Fit (cm)
-------------------------------------------
Seat tube range c-c: 60.5 - 61.0
Seat tube range c-t: 62.3 - 62.8
Top tube length: 59.5 - 59.9
Stem Length: 11.3 - 11.9
BB-Saddle Position: 81.9 - 83.9
Saddle-Handlebar: 59.9 - 60.5
Saddle Setback: 5.8 - 6.2
Seatpost Type: SETBACK


----------

