# Ridley sizing?



## ms6073

I ride a Giant TCX Advanced SL (size large) but had been contemplating a Ridley X-Night prior to getting the Giant and discarded the idea based on what seemed to be some rather large dimensions for the Ridley. For example, based on the X-Night geometry chart, a size 56 has a 560mm top tube length and 885mm (34.8") stand-over height. With my 812mm (32") inseam, the geometry chart for the Ridley would indicate the frame is way to big but this past weekend I got to take a brief spin on a friends size 56 and felt that frame offered good clearance. So what gives? Can Ridley riders offer any insight on why my perception does not give with Ridley's geometry charts?


----------



## pretender

Stand-over is an unreliable and worthless dimension.

For bike fit, I say pay the most attention to top tube (horizontal), seat tube angle, and head tube length. Ridleys have short top tubes, but steep seat tubes, so you probably want to use a seatpost with a lot of setback. So even though your Giant has a 57.5 TT and the Ridley a 56, they actually might be a good match, with the correct seatposts.

The Ridley headtubes are generous, which is great IMO. I think _very few_ of us are thinking, Darn it, if only I could manage to get my handlebars lower.


----------



## Magsdad

I can also offer my findings:

The charts are sometimes wrong. When I bought my Crossbow, I found several issues with the published charts. In fact, I purchased mine through Competitive Cyclist and every number in the columns to the right of the bike size had been shifted up. Therefore, the numbers were all reading incorrectly. Luckily, I figured it out and was still able to make a good choice. 

I agree with pretender, as the next thing on my list is a setback post.


----------



## cyclevt

*I'm going through this debate myself*

I have spent the last week on a friend's size 54 Xfire with a 100 stem. He just bought a new frame in a size 52 and will probably sell the 54 if the 52 fits him better.

For the road I ride a 56ETT with a 120 stem. My cross bike is a Redline 56 with a ETT of 56.5 using a 100 stem.

I really like the 54 xfire and in the words of it's owner "it rides bigger". 

The ridley is vertically tall (at least compared to my Redline) and has a steeper STA and shorter chainstays.

Based on all the numbers, I was not convinced it would be big enough. But, based on a week of riding it, I really hope it's for sale soon!


----------



## Mosovich

*I just took the gamble and won..*

I was scared to death to buy a Ridley, but was able to test ride a friends 56 for a short spin.. Like probably 50 yards.. Got home and ordered one hoping it would all work out and it DID! Fits like a glove.. I'm sitting on the TT, but when in the saddle it feels GREAT!!


----------



## dozerdog

Mosovich said:


> I was scared to death to buy a Ridley, but was able to test ride a friends 56 for a short spin.. Like probably 50 yards.. Got home and ordered one hoping it would all work out and it DID! Fits like a glove.. I'm sitting on the TT, but when in the saddle it feels GREAT!!


So are there standover heights correct on the Ridley site I can not see how they can be or do they have very high bottom brackets? What is the standover and bottom bracket height on your new 56? I am looking at an other bike where the measurements of the 56 x-ride are identical but the standover is off by a full 2 inches which seems inpossible if the seatubes are the same.

Bike looks great by the way.


----------



## MontyCrisco

Ridley cross frame sizing is just plain goofy. I ride a ~56 TT on most road bikes (e.g., my Excalibur is a M, which is 55.5 cm TT, IIRC), but my Crossbow is a 52 and fits me perfectly.


----------



## Magsdad

*You are correct.*

The bottom brackets are a little high.

My Ridley is a 54, with a standover height of 85 cm. The graph has definitely been corrected, as I know when I bought mine, it was listed as 87, which didn't make sense. I usually ride w/ a 56 top tube, 120 stem, have an inseam of 32", and the 54 works to a T. I want a setback post to get a little more over the rear. Other than that, its great!

Besides, I love the way Ridleys handle and "feel" under me.


----------



## ms6073

Thanks for the all the responses. Really like the design of the Ridley X-Night especialy the tighter rear triangle as compared to my Giant and will probably be hopping on the bandwagon in June. Gave a call to the US distributor who indicated the new model with all internal cable runs like Stybars current WC frameset will be available by June.


----------



## Salsa_Lover

I followed the advice many gave about sizing down for Ridley

I ride a 56cm road I was strongly adviced here and by the frame seller to go to a Ridley 52.

I bought it and it was too small, enough standover to be flat footed over it but too cramped.

I sold it and bought a 54, this one fits much better, I ride it with a 13cm stem to match my road bike. ( for info my road bike is a 56 colnago, so 55cm TT and 12 cm stem, The Ridley has 54cm TT and 13cm stem = same fit )

If I am flat footed over it I touch the top tube sure... but it also depends on how high are your tyres and you almost never need to plant both feet on the floor.
YMMV


----------



## ms6073

Thanks for all the responses. So while it is not yet available in the US, anyone know if the new 2011/12 X-Night with the rear deraileur cable running internally inside the drive side seat stay is already available for purchase abroad - Belgium, UK, etc?


----------



## dozerdog

Anyone out there that rides a 58 X-Fire how tall are you and what is your inseam? Can I ride a 58 Ridley with a 35.5" inseam?


----------



## steve_e_f

I just got a 58cm xbow that I won in a raffle. They told me I could order any size so I got the 58 because my Bianchi cross bike is a 58. The difference in size between the two bikes is staggering though. The Ridley is just so so tall. The top tube height is actually taller than my 60cm Felt road bike.

So are people saying that this is the way it is supposed to be? Ridleys just build their frames with curious geometry? I myself prefer a bit of stand-over height, so this one has thrown me for a loop. I'm 6'1 ish. 34" inseam.


----------



## Mosovich

*I'd gone with..*

a 56 probably and run a longer stem.. It's hard, but I just went with the TT.. You can see that I don't have a lot of seat post, but it rides great..


----------



## pretender

steve_e_f said:


> I just got a 58cm xbow that I won in a raffle. They told me I could order any size so I got the 58 because my Bianchi cross bike is a 58. The difference in size between the two bikes is staggering though. The Ridley is just so so tall. The top tube height is actually taller than my 60cm Felt road bike.
> 
> So are people saying that this is the way it is supposed to be? Ridleys just build their frames with curious geometry? I myself prefer a bit of stand-over height, so this one has thrown me for a loop. I'm 6'1 ish. 34" inseam.


Ridley sizes are based on seattube C-C, not C-T as most companies use. It's really not as mysterious as everyone seems to think.

A Ridley 56 would probably fit you perfectly.


----------



## macming

Sorry to bump a really old thread, but I'm looking at a few Ridley X fires and one X night. They range from 52, 54 and 56cm.

I'm 5'10 with 31" of inseam. I'm on a Giant TCR M/L, which is a bit stretched out with a 90mm stem. Which size do you recommend?

Thanks,

Ming


----------



## Mosovich

*While I've got ..*

my 56 for sale, I'd say go with the 54 I would think.. The seat angle is a little steeper on the Ridley, so although a 56 has a 56 TT, and the ML has a 57 on your Giant, the seat angle is slacker on the Giant.. With a 54, you could use an 110 stem and should be a good fit. Also, with just a 31 inseam, I'm thinking you won't have much post sticking out of a 56 at all.. Hope this helps.


----------



## macming

Mosovich said:


> my 56 for sale, I'd say go with the 54 I would think.. The seat angle is a little steeper on the Ridley, so although a 56 has a 56 TT, and the ML has a 57 on your Giant, the seat angle is slacker on the Giant.. With a 54, you could use an 110 stem and should be a good fit. Also, with just a 31 inseam, I'm thinking you won't have much post sticking out of a 56 at all.. Hope this helps.


This DEFINITELY helps  I was all set to look at the 50cm (sell is 5'9" and claims its a good fit), but I think that is wayy too small.

The 54 is a X Night with the ISP, so I'd wan to make sure I have some seat post showing for a chance of resale.

Also, I just measured my Kona, it has a 56cm TT, but a stand over of 82cm. If the 54cm Ridley has a stand over height of 87cm, should I be concerned? I realize Ridley bikes have a high stand over, and short TT. So I guess I should either fit by the TT, forget about the stand over, or get the stand over that I need, and work with a SHORT TT.

Why is it so complicated?


----------



## Mosovich

Go with the 54.. Focus on TT, not stand over..


----------



## macming

Mosovich said:


> Go with the 54.. Focus on TT, not stand over..


Thanks for the tip! I'll take a look at the 54cm first  It's a good deal too on a brand new frame :idea:


----------



## pmurf767

*Ridley X-Fire as multipurpose bike?*

Hello folks,
this is my first venture into the forum....I am looking to get a crossbike and I'm considering the Ridley X-Fire. There seems to be a lot of discussion about the standover and relatively short TT. I am 6'1" with a 32 inseam considering a 56. Masovich is selling his 56...how come? Also any thoughts on this bike as just a random cruise bike vs something like a Lynskey Cooper CX titanium?


----------



## macming

Mosovich said:


> Go with the 54.. Focus on TT, not stand over..


I grabbed the 54 and it really fits like a glove! I don't know how they measured the stand over at 87cm for the 54. 

My inseam is only 31" and I can clear the top tube wearing sandles. Oh well at least it worked out to my favour 



pmurf767 said:


> Hello folks,
> this is my first venture into the forum....I am looking to get a crossbike and I'm considering the Ridley X-Fire. There seems to be a lot of discussion about the standover and relatively short TT. I am 6'1" with a 32 inseam considering a 56. Masovich is selling his 56...how come? Also any thoughts on this bike as just a random cruise bike vs something like a Lynskey Cooper CX titanium?


I think the 56 will fit you OK. I'm 5'10" with a 31" inseam, and the 54 fits really well. You still may not have a lot of seat post showing, but at least the TT on the 56 will suit you better


----------



## rearviewmirror

macming said:


> Sorry to bump a really old thread, but I'm looking at a few Ridley X fires and one X night. They range from 52, 54 and 56cm.
> 
> I'm 5'10 with 31" of inseam. I'm on a Giant TCR M/L, which is a bit stretched out with a 90mm stem. Which size do you recommend?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Ming


I ordered a 56 X-Fire... I too have the M/L Giant TCX. I based my order on the ETT of both bikes being 560mm. I hope the Ridley fits well.

EDIT: after reading more threads I changed my order to a 54. According to Ridley this will suit a 182cm rider, perfect.


----------



## atpjunkie

*I ride 60 cm -61cm road bikes*



dozerdog said:


> Anyone out there that rides a 58 X-Fire how tall are you and what is your inseam? Can I ride a 58 Ridley with a 35.5" inseam?


and rode a 58 Ridley. I have a 34.5" inseam, you will be fine @ 35.5" but if you are long in the torsoe the TT may feel short


----------



## macming

rearviewmirror said:


> I ordered a 56 X-Fire... I too have the M/L Giant TCX. I based my order on the ETT of both bikes being 560mm. I hope the Ridley fits well.
> 
> EDIT: after reading more threads I changed my order to a 54. According to Ridley this will suit a 182cm rider, perfect.


I have a M/L TCR Advanced, which may have different geometry 

My 54cm X night is finally built up and fits me pretty well with a 54cm stem. The overall TT is definitely shorter than the Giant, but I don't mind for CX purposes. I'm 5'10" and the stand over on the RIdley isn't NEARLY as bad as the geometry charts made it out to be.

The stand over measurement was 87cm according to the measurement, and my Kona was measured at 80 - 81cm. The X night is no higher than my Kona, which worked great!


----------



## ean10775

macming said:


> I grabbed the 54 and it really fits like a glove! I don't know how they measured the stand over at 87cm for the 54.
> 
> My inseam is only 31" and I can clear the top tube wearing sandles. Oh well at least it worked out to my favour


That's surprising, because normally with the Ridley cross bikes, I've found they do fir larger because of the higher bottom bracket.


----------



## macming

ean10775 said:


> That's surprising, because normally with the Ridley cross bikes, I've found they do fir larger because of the higher bottom bracket.


I'm pleasantly surprised as well. The general rule is to go down a size for Cross, and Ridleys run even bigger.

I just went from a 56 -> 54cm for my x night and it worked great.


----------



## pretender

Ridley frame size is based on seattube C-to-C, not C-to-T. Their bikes have relatively high BBs, horizontal top tubes, steep seattube angles, and long headtubes because, well, _they're for cyclocross_.

People seem to think it's some crazy Belgian mystery. It's not.


----------



## jrm

*"The general rule is to go down a size for Cross"*

um no its not.


----------



## kevinznet

Can any Ridley X-Fire 54/56 rider mind to share what the exact standover height from floor to TT?
I've 32.5" insane and 6.1" height


----------



## twin001

MontyCrisco said:


> Ridley cross frame sizing is just plain goofy. I ride a ~56 TT on most road bikes (e.g., my Excalibur is a M, which is 55.5 cm TT, IIRC), but my Crossbow is a 52 and fits me perfectly.


Same here. 56 BMC road, and I have a 51cm Ridley X-Bow. I do have a Thompson setback seatpost on the Ridely w/ a 100mm stem. The 54 was way too tall for me, and I have a 33in inseam.


----------



## dapperdan

Ok sorry to bump this thread but looking for insight on Ridley frames. My current road setup is a Giant TCR ISP M/L, seat height is 81cm to top of saddle, 57cm TT, with a 110 stem. I've been shopping for a cross frame but have been hesitant of Ridley due to thier sizing. So am I wrong to be looking at a 58cm Ridley, or should I be looking at a 56cm? I'd prefer not to run over a 110 stem for the handling aspect, but any ideas would be welcomed as this is my first cross frame. 
Thanks


----------



## jroden

dapperdan said:


> Ok sorry to bump this thread but looking for insight on Ridley frames. My current road setup is a Giant TCR ISP M/L, seat height is 81cm to top of saddle, 57cm TT, with a 110 stem. I've been shopping for a cross frame but have been hesitant of Ridley due to thier sizing. So am I wrong to be looking at a 58cm Ridley, or should I be looking at a 56cm? I'd prefer not to run over a 110 stem for the handling aspect, but any ideas would be welcomed as this is my first cross frame.
> Thanks


I realize they are popular, but it seems like most frames are moving to a lower bottom bracket and more road like standover, I'm not clear why ridley needs to raise the bike and rider up like that and what is served. My experience has been that I corner better on a lower BB and that when I jump on a bike I want it as low as possible


----------



## pretender

Ridleys are purpose-built cross racing bikes. The high BB allows you to pedal through turns. Horizontal top tube with long headtube gives you a big triangle, great for portaging.

Here's an article that discusses some of the tradeoffs of high/low BB:
The Geometry of Bike Handling | Cycling Tips

Also this:
Adam Myerson's Ridley X-Fire Cyclocross Bike | Bicycling Magazine


----------



## jroden

pretender said:


> Ridleys are purpose-built cross racing bikes. The high BB allows you to pedal through turns. Horizontal top tube with long headtube gives you a big triangle, great for portaging.
> 
> Here's an article that discusses some of the tradeoffs of high/low BB:
> The Geometry of Bike Handling | Cycling Tips
> 
> Also this:
> Adam Myerson's Ridley X-Fire Cyclocross Bike | Bicycling Magazine


interesting. I ride a 58.5 top tube, in a 58 ridley that would be a 57.5 top tube, but I suspect a lot taller bike. Maybe I'll throw a leg over one sometime. I owned a 56 ridley for about 3 miles and sold it for a loss of course, it was just way too short across the top, but crazy tall. But that was 10 years ago too.


----------

