# Pro bike sizing



## redondoaveb

I know that some (not sure if all) pro riders ride bikes that are small for them. I understand why they do. What I'm curious about is if the bike is too small then they aren't properly fit for the bike (are they)? They are riding potentially thousands of miles on a bike that doesn't fit properly? Yes, I know that they compensate with other adjustments but is it a proper fit?

Are they going against the bike fit theory just to get a lighter and quicker handling bike? 

The reason I'm asking is that us mere mortals should get a professional bike fit. Can you be set up properly on a frame that is small for you?

Just curious.


----------



## sherlock

Many of the ones on "smaller" frames have much longer (130mm) stems than usual.


----------



## 55x11

sherlock said:


> Many of the ones on "smaller" frames have much longer (130mm) stems than usual.


ditto. going with a frame 2 cm smaller (assuming it translates directly to 2cm less in effective tube length), but increasing the stem length by 2cm (say, from 100 to 120), and raising the seat by about 2cm to compensate for shorter seat post will get you to roughly the same position on the bike.


----------



## sherlock

You could also argue for slightly more weight on the front wheel, and therefore increased stability. Not a huge difference but you'd certainly notice it.


----------



## jorgy

I think it's largely a myth. I'm sure there are cases where an individual pro may not really fit his sponsor's bike and ends up using a longer stem, etc. It also goes the other way--Trek doesn't seem to make a TT bike small enough for Levi Leipheimer, for example.

I bet the vast majority of pros ride the correctly-sized bike.


----------



## redondoaveb

Makes sense. I'm curious how many members have thrown out the general rule of thumb for fit and have purchased a small bike and compensated with longer stem and seat post to achieve a quicker handling bike?

Would a reputable LBS even want to set you up on a small frame? Wouldn't a fit guide like on Competitive Cyclist be useless?

Can you get a proper fit on a bike that is essentially too small for you?

Still curious


----------



## redondoaveb

jorgy said:


> I think it's largely a myth. I'm sure there are cases where an individual pro may not really fit his sponsor's bike and ends up using a longer stem, etc. It also goes the other way--Trek doesn't seem to make a TT bike small enough for Levi Leipheimer, for example.
> 
> I bet the vast majority of pros ride the correctly-sized bike.


If pros are riding correctly sized bikes, why is their saddle to bar drop so great. They can't all have the same body dimensions (long legs).


----------



## 55x11

redondoaveb said:


> If pros are riding correctly sized bikes, why is their saddle to bar drop so great. They can't all have the same body dimensions (long legs).


Saddle to bar drop has nothing (or little) to do with the frame size. It has everything to do with being flexible and needing to get as aero as possible. Race frames tend to have short head tubes, and with no spacers and negative angle (flipped) stems one can get pretty low in the bars, regardless of the length of the top tube (frame size). The saddle height will be then defined by the leg length and bottom bracket height (as well as possibly crank length).

Head tubes do scale with frame size, but usually not as quickly as the top tube length. May be another reason why some prefer smaller size frames.

I do think it's a bit of a myth, it is not like pros ride tiny frames - the general rule of thumb is that if your fit gets you in the range between, say, 56 and 58 cm frames, pros tend to go with 56 and compensate for it with longer seatposts and stems.


----------



## redondoaveb

A smaller frame will have a shorter seat tube length which means you would have to raise your seat post to achieve the same height as a larger frame. I see pros riding with a lot of seat post showing, I assume it's because of a shorter seat tube length.

Does stack height come into play also?

Hope I'm not sounding redundant but I'm just trying to learn about bike geometry.


----------



## Wookiebiker

redondoaveb said:


> I'm curious how many members have thrown out the general rule of thumb for fit and have purchased a small bike and compensated with longer stem and seat post to achieve a quicker handling bike?


I have and for the most part it worked great...In fact when I have the money I'm considering doing it again.

The only issue I had going with a smaller frame was in a high speed out of the saddle sprint it was twitchy (I'm talking 38+ mph)...but downhill at speeds of 50+ mph it was fine.

Every other area I'd say it did as well as my current...more correctly sized bike.

To give you an idea of the difference in set ups:

*My small bike:* 

54.8cm TT (120mm stem)
15cm HT (15.7cm stack height...-17 degree)
53cm ST
73.5 degree STA
72.5 degree HTA

*My current bike:*

57cm TT (100mm stem)
11.2cm HT (with external headset...total stack height 14.5cm...-10 degree)
52cm st
74 degree STA
73.5 degree HTA


----------



## redondoaveb

Wookiebiker said:


> I have and for the most part it worked great...In fact when I have the money I'm considering doing it again.
> 
> The only issue I had going with a smaller frame was in a high speed out of the saddle sprint it was twitchy (I'm talking 38+ mph)...but downhill at speeds of 50+ mph it was fine.
> 
> Every other area I'd say it did as well as my current...more correctly sized bike.
> 
> To give you an idea of the difference in set ups:
> 
> *My small bike:*
> 
> 54.8cm TT (120mm stem)
> 15cm HT (15.7cm stack height...-17 degree)
> 53cm ST
> 73.5 degree STA
> 72.5 degree HTA
> 
> *My current bike:*
> 
> 57cm TT (100mm stem)
> 11.2cm HT (with external headset...total stack height 14.5cm...-10 degree)
> 52cm st
> 74 degree STA
> 73.5 degree HTA


That's what I'm talking about, thanks for the comparison. :thumbsup:


----------



## cda 455

redondoaveb said:


> Makes sense. I'm curious how many members have thrown out the general rule of thumb for fit and have purchased a small bike and compensated with longer stem and seat post to achieve a quicker handling bike?
> 
> Would a reputable LBS even want to set you up on a small frame? Wouldn't a fit guide like on Competitive Cyclist be useless?
> 
> Can you get a proper fit on a bike that is essentially too small for you?
> 
> Still curious


I'm doing the opposite; Fitting the biggest compact frame I can ride for several reasons:

1) Higher stack
2) Longer TT (For my long torso)
3) Compact geometry (For my short legs)
4) Avoid super long stem

I'm in the middle of designing a geometry fit for me and will have Carver make the Ti frame which will involve all of the above and more. I'm really bucking tradition with this frame design  .


----------



## redondoaveb

cda 455 said:


> I'm doing the opposite; Fitting the biggest compact frame I can ride for several reasons:
> 
> 1) Higher stack
> 2) Longer TT (For my long torso)
> 3) Compact geometry (For my short legs)
> 4) Avoid super long stem
> 
> I'm in the middle of designing a geometry fit for me and will have Carver make the Ti frame which will involve all of the above and more. I'm really bucking tradition with this frame design  .


Designing your own geometry, sounds fun and scary at the same time. How will you know what the handling characteristics will be like?


----------



## scirocco

It's true. Pros often do ride smaller frames than the LBS would recommend for your average joe with the same dimensions. The overwhelming reason is to get the bars low for aero reasons - which they can, because you don't reach the pro ranks without outstanding flexibility. You rarely see a pro with spacers under the bars, so if they were riding the next bigger size frame, the bars would be higher than they would want or could handle with comfort.

They then need a long stem to compensate for the relatively short top tube you get with a smaller frame. Anything to do with weight distribution or handling results from the small frame and long stem, rather than being reasons and causes of its selection.


----------



## cda 455

redondoaveb said:


> Designing your own geometry, sounds fun and scary at the same time. How will you know what the handling characteristics will be like?


I commandeered my wife's MTB HT and built it into a rigid-fork 69'er and am using it as a testbed.

For example; I'm in the middle of Jerry-rigging two seat posts to simulate a 70*/71* seat tube angle. I've found that no matter how big a frame I ride I scoot way back in the saddle. It's because I think I'm looking/feeling to balance myself. Even after playing with stem lengths (I currently own over a half dozen stems of various lengths and angles!) I still find myself wanting to slide way back in the saddle. 

My theory is that I'm trying to replicating a half-squat position, where I'm holding up my torso with ease. In other words; While standing, assume the position of being on your bike while in the drops. In that position, you're holding up your torso with ease because you naturally found your center of balance. I'm hoping to replicate that on a bike. Everyone has their own specific center of balance due to a numerous variables. My center of balance is a little further back than most because from my diaphragm up, I'm built very stocky (And I have a BIG head :lol: !). 

The idea came to me while I was reading Steve Hogg's bike-fitting website:

If a cyclist, while on the hoods, removes his/her hands from the bar and have little or no trouble holding up his/her torso, said cyclist is said to be very balanced. Because said cyclist is using minimal muscles to hold up torso, said cyclist has minimal restrictions on breathing. For example; Flex/tense your abdominal muscles like you were about to do a sit up. Now try to breathe while your abdominal muscles are flexed/tensed up.



Another idea I'm toying with is less BB drop with longer crank arms.


----------



## cda 455

scirocco said:


> It's true. Pros often do ride smaller frames than the LBS would recommend for your average joe with the same dimensions. The overwhelming reason is to get the bars low for aero reasons - which they can, because you don't reach the pro ranks without outstanding flexibility. You rarely see a pro with spacers under the bars, so if they were riding the next bigger size frame, the bars would be higher than they would want or could handle with comfort.
> 
> They then need a long stem to compensate for the relatively short top tube you get with a smaller frame. Anything to do with weight distribution or handling results from the small frame and long stem, rather than being reasons and causes of its selection.


I've read/heard that smaller frames (Especially compact geometry) are stiffer too.


----------



## Guest

I just recently (in the last couple weeks) got my first true road bike.. I did a fair amount of research beforehand and decided to go with a 52cm seat tube length bike (traditional level top-tube frame geometry) even though my height is 5'6.5". Most people my height would be recommended to go for a 54 or 56cm frame based on the minimal fitting process I've seen done at most bike shops ("pick the one with 1-1.5" of standover clearance; raise the seat until your leg is almost straight, then slide the seat so the kneecap is over the pedal axle"). 

In my case, I chose the smaller frame due to my unusual body proportions, I have long legs and a VERY short trunk/torso. That means I need something high but with short reach. Since the biggest variable with frame size is usually effective top tube length (which I need small) I choose a smaller frame with extended seat post and a longer than stock stem flipped "up". Given my long legs/high seat, even with my stem flipped up I still have substantial saddle-bar drop as well.

A "normal" sized frame for me would require a combination of a super short stem and/or sliding my seat too far forward for comfort.


----------



## cda 455

PhotonFreak said:


> I just recently (in the last couple weeks) got my first true road bike.. I did a fair amount of research beforehand and decided to go with a 52cm seat tube length bike (traditional level top-tube frame geometry) even though my height is 5'6.5". Most people my height would be recommended to go for a 54 or 56cm frame based on the minimal fitting process I've seen done at most bike shops ("pick the one with 1-1.5" of standover clearance; raise the seat until your leg is almost straight, then slide the seat so the kneecap is over the pedal axle").
> 
> In my case, I chose the smaller frame due to my unusual body proportions, I have long legs and a VERY short trunk/torso. That means I need something high but with short reach. Since the biggest variable with frame size is usually effective top tube length (which I need small) I choose a smaller frame with extended seat post and a longer than stock stem flipped "up". Given my long legs/high seat, even with my stem flipped up I still have substantial saddle-bar drop as well.
> 
> A "normal" sized frame for me would require a combination of a super short stem and/or sliding my seat too far forward for comfort.


You bring up good points.



You and I are opposite: I'm 6'1" with short legs (33" inseam) and a long torso (50Tall dress shirt).


----------



## woodys737

I ride a 52s Colnago CX-1 with a 120mm stem and a 25mm set back post. Reach, drop, saddle setback with respect to BB is exactly the same as my previous 54 and 56 scott bikes. The only thing that has really changed is the stem length and saddle position on the rail and how much post is exposed. What I'm getting at is the fit is identical unless I'm totally not understanding fit. The bikes handle differently but I attribute that more to the difference in geometry of the 52s Colnago v. 54 Addict v. 56 CR-1. 

So, what I don't understand are the comments in the thread that question whether the pros are fit correctly as 1) I don't believe there is ONE correct fit and 2) with all the variation in stems and posts a rider can be fit exactly the same to any number of different sized bikes. 

What am I missing?


----------



## wim

woodys737 said:


> What am I missing?


I had the same question until it occured to me that the OP's query is probably based on a misunderstanding of the word 'professional.' He says: _"The reason I'm asking is that us mere mortals should get a professional bike fit. Can you be set up properly on a frame that is small for you?"_ possibly meaning "a fit that makes you look like a professional."

As you probably know, "professional fit" simply means "a fitting done by someone who has declared himself a professional."


----------



## 55x11

redondoaveb said:


> A smaller frame will have a shorter seat tube length which means you would have to raise your seat post to achieve the same height as a larger frame. I see pros riding with a lot of seat post showing, I assume it's because of a shorter seat tube length.
> 
> Does stack height come into play also?
> 
> Hope I'm not sounding redundant but I'm just trying to learn about bike geometry.


Correct - if you ride smaller frame size, more of your seatpost has to show, due to smaller seat tube. The smaller size frames, with their slightly shorter head tubes do allow pros to achieve a slightly larger seat-to-bar drop, which may be desirable for aero advantage when in the drops - but in principle the same can be achieved on a larger frame as long as head tube size is kept small. Less seatpost will show, and shorter stem will be used, but the saddle-to-bars drop will be the same. In other words, large saddle-to-bar drop is not a negative outcome of using a smaller sized frame (they could have raised the bar by using washers and flipping it upward), it is a deliberate goal that is a little easier achieved with smaller frame.
A lot of more "relaxed" geometry frames feature taller head tubes that would be found in racing bikes of the same size, because frankly most of us joe-schmoes don't need a huge saddle-to-bar drop (and we often have to pay the price in terms of back pains and general comfort - may not be worth it considering how little is at stake in our solo-breakaways on our fun group rides).

For some extreme and fairly ridiculous stem/front end setups check out SLAM THAT STEM


----------



## spade2you

It's amusing how so many riders obsess with saddle to bar drop, but it's the last couple miles of the race where it matters and even in the pros you can see some riders who aren't comfortable and having issues with their back.


----------



## redondoaveb

Just seems that every time someone new to riding posts a question about bike fit, the general answer is "get a professional bike fit". I bet if you went to a half dozen "professional fitters", each one would probably set up your bike different. Seems like a "professional fit" is just a general guide as the more you ride, the better your flexibility gets. Case in point, yes I want a more aero positioning and my flexibility has increased, I have removed spacers, changed stem length, raised my saddle height and even tried different seat post set backs.

I am now riding a more aggressive position and it is comfortable for me and has made me more efficient (I feel). I wonder if I now went to a "professional fitter", if he (she) would cringe at my set up.

That's why I brought up tour professionals (although I never used the word "tour"). I'm sure a professional fitter would cringe at their set up too.

By the way, I'm not trying to compare myself to a tour pro, just using as an example.


----------



## cda 455

redondoaveb said:


> Just seems that every time someone new to riding posts a question about bike fit, the general answer is "get a professional bike fit". I bet if you went to a half dozen "professional fitters", each one would probably set up your bike different. Seems like a "professional fit" is just a general guide as the more you ride, the better your flexibility gets. Case in point, yes I want a more aero positioning and my flexibility has increased, I have removed spacers, changed stem length, raised my saddle height and even tried different seat post set backs.
> 
> I am now riding a more aggressive position and it is comfortable for me and has made me more efficient (I feel). I wonder if I now went to a "professional fitter", if he (she) would cringe at my set up.
> 
> That's why I brought up tour professionals (although I never used the word "tour"). I'm sure a professional fitter would cringe at their set up too.
> 
> By the way, I'm not trying to compare myself to a tour pro, just using as an example.


Good points.


Since I got back into cycling last year I've read tons of blogs, threads, research reports, etc. and have realized that there are so many traditions that blur proper fit. The first tradition I learned to ignore was KOPS. My first and second clue of KOPS being questionable was the tip of sliding forward in the saddle for high spinning and sliding back in the saddle for adding more power. My third clue was recumbent bike pedaling position. 

The second one was shoe/foot placement on the pedal. I placed my cleats as far back as the cleat holes allow. This places the widest part of my foot behind the pedal spindle. HUGE improvement in pedal comfort, power transfer, and energy/power efficiency. If there was an inexpensive shoe that had cleat hole adjustments in the middle of the shoe (Between the middle of the arch and behind the ball of the foot) I'd buy a pair in a heart beat. I got this idea from riders participating in RAAM.


----------



## twiggy

PhotonFreak said:


> I just recently (in the last couple weeks) got my first true road bike.. I did a fair amount of research beforehand and decided to go with a 52cm seat tube length bike (traditional level top-tube frame geometry) even though my height is 5'6.5". Most people my height would be recommended to go for a 54 or 56cm frame based on the minimal fitting process I've seen done at most bike shops ("pick the one with 1-1.5" of standover clearance; raise the seat until your leg is almost straight, then slide the seat so the kneecap is over the pedal axle").
> .


I agreee with most of your comment; but I disagree that many people at 5'6.5" would be recommended a 54cm or 56cm frame... I'm 5'10 and I ride a 54cm, and some people were recommending that I go down to a 52cm! Most people riding 56cm+ are 5'10"-6'1ish


----------



## 55x11

twiggy said:


> I agreee with most of your comment; but I disagree that many people at 5'6.5" would be recommended a 54cm or 56cm frame... I'm 5'10 and I ride a 54cm, and some people were recommending that I go down to a 52cm! Most people riding 56cm+ are 5'10"-6'1ish


Gilbert is 5'10" and he rides 56cm.
Photos | Cyclingnews.com


----------



## scirocco

55x11 said:


> Gilbert is 5'10" and he rides 56cm.
> Photos | Cyclingnews.com


Gilbert does not have the exceptional flexibility that some of the pros have (you can see that he always has a slight hump in his back) and thus can't handle such a low bar position, so doesn't need a really small frame.

Compare that with Jerome Coppel, who has unbelievable flexibility. He is 5'10" (same height as Gilbert) but rides a 53 cm to get the aero benefits of a lower bar position.


----------



## 55x11

scirocco said:


> Gilbert does not have the exceptional flexibility that some of the pros have (you can see that he always has a slight hump in his back) and thus can't handle such a low bar position, so doesn't need a really small frame.
> 
> Compare that with Jerome Coppel, who has unbelievable flexibility. He is 5'10" (same height as Gilbert) but rides a 53 cm to get the aero benefits of a lower bar position.


Hmm... No offense to Mr. Coppel, but....

Jerome Coppel vs. Philippe Gilbert.

I rest my case.


----------



## gmillwater

*Bike Fit*

I tend to agree that almost every "professional" bike fit will be slightly different. When I raced cat-3, our trainer would fit us on framesets up to 3 sizes smaller. He always stressed that this was a baseline and that the ultimate fit was up to us. Bottom line is...the best fit is where you are most comfortable for the type of event (road, TT, Tri, Persuit, etc). I'm 5' 6 1/2" and find that a 49cm allows me the most adjustment. It's alot easier to fit-up using extended stems and seatposts. However, it's impossible to fit-down if your frameset is too big.

Just food for thought...


----------



## gmillwater

BTW...the smaller frames according to Xavier (our trainer), is to provide greater aerodynamics and a stiffer frame.


----------



## nigel91

Yeah I'm 5'11'' and ride a 56 H2 Madone - I wondered why lots of pros who are my height had much higher seatposts than me and I figured smaller frame is probably the reason.

When i go fast enough to worry about saving a gram or two or notice the handling on my bike is not sharp enough I'll get a smaller frame lol.


----------



## TehYoyo

sherlock said:


> Many of the ones on "smaller" frames have much longer (130mm) stems than usual.


This. Mark Cavendish has a 135mm stem.


----------



## jspharmd

redondoaveb said:


> I am now riding a more aggressive position and it is comfortable for me and has made me more efficient (I feel). I wonder if I now went to a "professional fitter", if he (she) would cringe at my set up.


I would argue that a "professional fitter" would have a discussion with you before they started the fitting. They would ask about what type of riding you do and will be doing. They should also ask how you got to where you are on the bike (previous professional fit, bike shop did the quick fit, just moved stuff around until I felt comfortable, etc.). They should assess your current flexibility. I'm sure they should do more too. Then they should fit you. My thought is that if you haven't made extremely drastic changes (as your flexibility has improved), they probably won't have a ton of changes to your fit (provided you started in a good position). 

Just my 2 cents on the subject.


----------



## SFTifoso

Andy Schleck on a 56cm frame.










He now rides a 58cm Trek Madone, with H1 geometry. H1 geometry comes with very long reach and short stack; it's very racy in other words.










Lance Armstrong rides a 58cm Trek with H1 geo also, but he's 3 inches shorter than Andy. Lance's stem is 120 mm despite having a bike that some would consider too big for him.










Your bike fit is a very personal thing. There's no one set of rules that applies to everyone. Just get a bike size that matches what you're trying to accomplish, be it speed, comfort, etc.


----------



## knightev

a bunch of fun stuff concerning pros' bike set-ups to be found here:

Pro Bike: Ivan Basso's Cannondale SuperSix Hi-Mod Prototype - BikeRadar

most articles are a few years old, but still very interesting to see how they all set up their bikes!


----------



## foto

good handling and fit has as much to do with proportions as with height. It's all about getting the Center-of-Mass in the right place relative to the bike's wheelbase and turning axes. Thus, when comparing two riders of the same height, the one with short legs and arms and a long torso will want a larger frame then the leggy one with a small torso.

Similarly, seat-to-bar drop is dialed in to get the back as flat as comfortably as possible. A rider with longer arms will need more drop than a rider with shorter arms.

You can get seatposts >400mm, standover height and seat post length should be the least important factor when choosing a frame.


----------



## atimido

cda 455 said:


> I've read/heard that smaller frames (Especially compact geometry) are stiffer too.


^ This ^


----------



## atimido

I would take a bet that the size bike a pro rides also has to do with the type of race they are competing in for the day. 

Most of us would want a very stiff bike for climbing, so I would ride a smaller bike that day. However, if I was riding a flatter stage I may consider a larger frame, and forgo as much stiffness. 

The larger frame will allow less saddle height, and coupled with a longer stem for a more aerodynamic form, will provide less of a parachute effect with the body.


----------



## foto

The size <-> stiffness thing isn't true anymore.

Back in the 80s with lugged bikes big men were stuck with either whippy frames, heavy frames, or sizing down, since there was only one outer diameter tubing available to framebuilders.

Any frame can be any stiffness in the whole range of sizes these days.


----------



## davidka

wim said:


> As you probably know, "professional fit" simply means "a fitting done by someone who has declared himself a professional."


Indeed, I've seen as many bad ones as I have good ones. Both professionally done fits and professional rider's fits.

Mr. Coppel below is a great example. A rider his size on a 53cm bike is plainly wrong. One doesn't need to be flexible to ride a bike with an incredibly too short top tube. He makes it work but a correctly fitted bike would work better. 

Pros are generally not nearly as smart about bike fit as you'd think. Most developed their tastes when they were barely fully grown. Lets just say that there is a lot of vanity involved. Low, long stem = cool.



scirocco said:


> Compare that with Jerome Coppel, who has unbelievable flexibility. He is 5'10" (same height as Gilbert) but rides a 53 cm to get the aero benefits of a lower bar position.





foto said:


> The size <-> stiffness thing isn't true anymore.
> 
> Back in the 80s with lugged bikes big men were stuck with either whippy frames, heavy frames, or sizing down, since there was only one outer diameter tubing available to framebuilders.
> 
> Any frame can be any stiffness in the whole range of sizes these days.


It still is true. Any frame with the same tube shapes/sizes across sizes will be stiffer in the smaller sizes. A quick test ride or two and it's obvious. You'd need to be 6'2"+ to ride bikes large enough to notice it. Being a tall guy myself, I always find big bikes to have a more flexy front triangle but I value the fit I'm after over a little extra stiffness.


----------



## TREKIN

Great info


----------



## curtdawg6

Some good info here and I have a question that involves not only reach - but the fore and aft seat position. I'm right at 5'10 and recently bought a Giant TCR Medium frame. The top tube is 55.5 cm and I'm currently running a 100 mm stem. The reach definately feels long and I'm having minor knee pain. I can't quite put my finger on it, but when seated, it feels like my legs are pushing "out" instead of in a more up and down piston type motion and it causes pain in the front of the knee. I don't think saddle height is the issue because moving it up a MM or two or three causes chafing from the back and forth. Anyway, would swapping the stem aleviate some of that -- or does having a larger frame put you in a funky position behind the spindle?


----------



## foto

Just slide your saddle forward.



curtdawg6 said:


> Some good info here and I have a question that involves not only reach - but the fore and aft seat position. I'm right at 5'10 and recently bought a Giant TCR Medium frame. The top tube is 55.5 cm and I'm currently running a 100 mm stem. The reach definately feels long and I'm having minor knee pain. I can't quite put my finger on it, but when seated, it feels like my legs are pushing "out" instead of in a more up and down piston type motion and it causes pain in the front of the knee. I don't think saddle height is the issue because moving it up a MM or two or three causes chafing from the back and forth. Anyway, would swapping the stem aleviate some of that -- or does having a larger frame put you in a funky position behind the spindle?


----------



## curtdawg6

*Thought of that*



foto said:


> Just slide your saddle forward.


I've got it slammed forward. Forgot to mention that.


----------



## GDeAngelo

This is what I tell my customers every day. 

Lets fit the bike to you, if you aren't comfortable, you aren't happy. You don't really need to worry about aerodynamics. You are riding 5 hours a week and averaging 15 miles an hour. Now, if you were getting paid to ride a bike, then we set you to the bike. We put you in the most aerodynamic position we can. But we are also working with a finely tuned athlete that is in tip top shape, flexible and adaptable. 

There are benefits to having longer stems and ect. But a lot of it boils down to what bike company sponsors your team. You need to be comfortable and happy in all regards to your fit. Sometimes, you just need to make it work if you are sponsored by a brand that doesn't specifically work for you.


----------



## davidka

curtdawg6 said:


> I've got it slammed forward. Forgot to mention that.


Your existing position sounds kind of funky. At your size, I would've began with a large size frame. Take the bike to the shop where you purchased it, they should help you with at least a basic fit for the cost you paid for the bike. Chances are, you do not need to go shorter on reach, perhaps higher with the bar and back with the saddle. Being behind the BB is not a bad thing, just need to make the angles work for your range of motion.


----------



## icsloppl

curtdawg6 said:


> I've got it slammed forward. Forgot to mention that.


Move the seat back and down. You have a Fizik Arione, which is wildly wide near your sit bone location, which is both forcing your legs apart and causing chafing when you try to move it it the correct post extension.

At 5'10", an M is very likely the best fit for you IMO. The spindle to knee location is created by the overall distance from the BB to the seat and the seat tube angle. The distance will be the same regardless of the fram size. It's just a matter of how much of the distance is the post and how much is the seat tube.

Lastly, if the pain is in the front of the knee, the typical cause is the cleat position relative to the pedal spindle.


----------



## Local Hero

Are pros honest about their height?


----------



## cda 455

Local Hero said:


> Are pros *honest* about their height?



Do you really need to ask  ?


----------



## cda 455

Ronal55d said:


> I'm really bucking tradition with this frame design



Nice copy spammer.


----------



## zone5

Shorter wheelbase for better handling and a tad lighter.


----------

