# Long Body, short legs - Frame Size?



## Tripey2003 (Dec 22, 2013)

Hi all,
I've got a quandary, most bike size charts seem to be sized for mr average, but at 5'10" and with 30" inseam, I'm not mr average. Not realising this, I bought a bike online with a 54cm frame, which should fit my overall size. 

I went to my LBS to get it setup for me, and the guy there told me that it was too large for me. Though I was a little dubious of his technique for making that call.

So I bought the same frame but in 51cm size (with a view to returning one of the bikes). 

Now with both frames in front of me, I still can't decide which is the best fit. I've taken some photos (below) on each bike. 

So far it seems the large frame (white) is in my crotch when I'm out of the saddle, and the seat needs to be set very low. On the smaller frame (black) I felt a little cramped on the 'down bar' (though perhaps lengthening the stem could solve that).

Does anyone have a good eye for a fit, and can help me?


----------



## Gatorfreak (Feb 20, 2012)

Looks like you could probably make either one work but if you're in between sizes I'd go with the smaller frame. You can always raise the saddle and get a longer stem. 

Don't worry about stand over height. How much are you going to do that? What matters is how you feel riding it.


----------



## brianmcg (Oct 12, 2002)

Just eyeballing I think the 54 fits you better. For what its worth I'm your height and have similar fit issues and I ride a 56. I like the larger size better. As Gator stated you could make either work buy adjusting the stem and saddle height.


----------



## Crank-a-Roo (Mar 21, 2003)

If you have a long torso, you need a longer top tube. 54cm looks fine.


----------



## PlatyPius (Feb 1, 2009)

I'm 5' 11" with a 29" inseam. I feel your pain. Literally. Because you have to go with the larger one. I ride a 55-56 just so I can get the proper top tube length. Luckily, I almost never find myself needing to stand over my bike when actually riding.

Keep the 54cm. Sell the 51 or send it back. Never visit that bike shop again - at least not for fitting. And next time....well, you've learned the importance of "try before you buy". Also, custom frames are almost required for some of us. If you get to the point that you want/need a better bike, consider having a frame built for you.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

Don't worry about stand over height ... it's only important when standing over the bike, when riding it ... it's irrelevant.

With that said, the 54 is a better fit, though I'd suggest a zero degree post (assuming you are not using one already). On the 51 you are on the back of the saddle due to the steeper seat tube angle, the 54 you are a bit forward. Putting a zero degree post will allow you to move the saddle forward and under you.

The 54 also allows for less spacers under the stem, which in the end will be better.


----------



## pone (Sep 19, 2012)

me too; 5' 10" with 30" inseam. i had to go with a higher stand-over height to get a comfortable fit. the balls rest on the frame while standing, but not dangerously so, and i'm happy with the larger frame while i'm riding. however it can restrict your seat-to-bar height ratio.


----------



## Tripey2003 (Dec 22, 2013)

Hi guys, Thanks for the feedback so quickly. It seems that most think the 54 looks the better fit. It also I'm pleased not to be the only one our there shaped like a chimp.

One question. No1 priority is to have the best fit, however, while the 2 frames are identical, the components are not, and the 51cm has Ultegra, versus 105 on the 54cm. Plus, the low seat on the 54 looks odd. 
If I changed the 110mm Stem on the 51cm for a 130mm stem it would make the distance from seat tube to handlebar identical between the 2 bikes. Would this make the 51cm frame as good as/better fit than the 54 (i.e. it would adjust the length to fit the long body, whilst maintaining leg position optimised for my stubby little pins?)?

Good point about not worrying the stand over - i'll soon learn not to jump off the seat where it hurts...!


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

Tripey2003 said:


> One question. No1 priority is to have the best fit, however, while the 2 frames are identical, the components are not, and the 51cm has Ultegra, versus 105 on the 54cm. Plus, the low seat on the 54 looks odd.


People that have short legs will always have a low "Looking" saddle ... it just comes with shorter legs. I go through the same thing at 5'11" and a 32.5" inseam length, but I have long arms so require a lot of saddle to bar drop ... which means I tend to ride smaller bikes to get the steeper Seat Tube Angle and shorter Heat Tube.

With that said ... I'm currently riding a 56cm CAAD10 that fits pretty well, though I'd prefer an extra .5 degree to the STA and a bit more stand over clearance.

As for components ... You will see minimal (if any) difference between the 105 and Ultegra components. Buy the bike on fit, not components.





> If I changed the 110mm Stem on the 51cm for a 130mm stem it would make the distance from seat tube to handlebar identical between the 2 bikes. Would this make the 51cm frame as good as/better fit than the 54 (i.e. it would adjust the length to fit the long body, whilst maintaining leg position optimised for my stubby little pins?)?


It would help with reach, but may put you too far over the front of the bike. When I ride smaller bikes, I find them to be twitchy handling when out of the saddle sprinting at speed due to being so far over the front of the bike.

The 51 just looks to be too small ... it's not that you can't "Make" it fit, but the 54 is a better fit overall with less compromises in getting it right.


----------



## fast ferd (Jan 30, 2009)

Another long torso, short legs rider here. I experienced the most success with the smaller frame, given the choice. Then use a long stem. The old school tactic of obscuring the front hub from sight - in a routine riding position - seems to work for me. In your case, the 54cm from your pics "looks" better to me.

Handlebar width/depth play an important role in cockpit comfort, as does getting the fore/aft of the saddle position. Don't forget crank arm length, either. Some 54cm's come with a 172.5; you might need 170's.


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

I think your bike shop has led you down the wrong path. 54 is a good size (assuming 54 means 54 effective) for someone of your size and 51 is too small. Plain and simple 51 should not be under consideration.


----------



## Peter P. (Dec 30, 2006)

I looked at the photos; even the 54cm frame is too short in the top tube/stem. Your shoulders look scrunched up and your back angle is too upright.

And your seat height is too low because of the bend in your knee that I see, not from the frame size.

Installing a 13cm stem on the 51cm frame will place too much weight over the front of the bike.


----------



## Tripey2003 (Dec 22, 2013)

Hi Wookie,
Thanks for all your information.

Could you tell me a bit about the zero degree post please - its the first time I've heard anything about it. How do I know whether I'm using one already?

Many Thanks


----------



## PlatyPius (Feb 1, 2009)

Tripey2003 said:


> Hi Wookie,
> Thanks for all your information.
> 
> Could you tell me a bit about the zero degree post please - its the first time I've heard anything about it. How do I know whether I'm using one already?
> ...


I have to use a zero offset seatpost also. Otherwise, I ride on the nose of my saddle due to my femurs being so short.


----------



## Guest (Dec 22, 2013)

The 54 fits you better to my eye. Possibly a 10mm longer stem on the 54cm bike might help you stretch out. 

But ride it for a while and see. It's nice to ride on the hoods with you elbows bent and your forarms level more or less. If it's to short you will feel cramped up and if it's to long then your reaching out to much. You have to find your position. 

I am 5ft 10in and ride a 54.1cm bike with a 55.8cm top tube and a 110cm stem. My jeans have a 30in inseam. However the fit of my bike was not based on my pants. It was based on meaurements of all aspects of my body. 


But with a carpenters level pull it up into your groin with the same force as a bike seat would have. Cycling shorts on and socks on/no shoes. Mark the wall with the bubble in the middle (level) and mark the wall. Measure to the ground in MM's. Then just multiply by 0.65.

Example for me 0. 832mm (inseam measurement) from above x 0.65 equals 54.1cm seat tube. I just do not know the measurement system for the top tube but the number came out 2mm shorter then what has felt good to me for 35yrs. Previously I also looked for bikes with a 56cm top tube as Jim Langley in the 80's measured me and that was what he said. Now 35yrs later Tim Neenan measured me and said 55.8. So I figure two giants in the industry know whats up with that. My actual top tube is 55.8. The frame was built for me by Tim Neenan. 

Anyway measure your inseam and see how that comes out. I am guessing the 54cm will be pretty good and you should consider a longer stem if you feel cramped after riding a while. 

Here is the formula for the seat height. 

Inseam as measured above x 0.883 will equal the seat height. The seat adjustment will be from the dead center of your crankset/spindle to the very top of your saddle measured along the seat tube line. For me it's 735mm but I cheated a bit and raised it to 739mm because I figured since I have a flexible seat it settles down to much. Anyway I am right in there. You want your feet to be flat at the bottom of the pedal stroke and not a toe down position that most cyclist seem to go for.

Look at the position the Pro's ride in. flat footed at the bottom, elbows bent, forarms level. Upper arms do not bend towards your body as they will be vertical or forward. Drop a plumb line from the bony protuberance of you knee and it should drop down to the middle of the ball of your foot with crank arms level. Your crank arm length should be 172.5mm. 

Anyway that is what I know pretty much. I am not an expert and I am not a certified fitter but you learn stuff over 35years on the bike.

Anyway the 54 looks better then the stumpy one to me.


----------



## headloss (Mar 3, 2013)

another vote for the 54... you look cramped on the black bike (definitely need a longer stem at the least). Saddle looks a bit low in both (more noticeable on the black bike), but that could just be the angle of the bike relative to your sitting position (hard to judge without actually seeing you riding).

I'm 5'9" with (I'd guess) about a 30.5" inseam. I'm comfortable on a 56 but there are clearance issues. I'd still rather size up than down (in part due to the longer headtube).


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

Tripey2003 said:


> Hi Wookie,
> Thanks for all your information.
> 
> Could you tell me a bit about the zero degree post please - its the first time I've heard anything about it. How do I know whether I'm using one already?
> ...


A zero degree post is just that ... no set back. Here is an example with a Thompson seat post:









Here is an example with some set back:









As you can see the clamp on the zero offset post is directly over the center, while the clamp on the Ritchey is behind the center of the post. Generally this will allow you to move your saddle forward (or center it on the rails) if you have short legs/femurs compared to stock laid back posts.


----------



## duriel (Oct 10, 2013)

Similar situation here, except 65 and not so flexible. 
I'm just under 6' with 30" inseam.
My old trek was a 60, my new Pino is a 57 I think. My seat is slammed down & I use a max setback seatpost to move the seat back. I think my femors are long part of my leg. The big frame gives me stretch out room. I ride with the seat/bars almost level, but i am layed over more. 
Going with a forward seatpost I felt I had too much wt on the front wheel & hands. I am kinda top heavy, big trunk & shoulders in relation to legs.


----------



## Roland44 (Mar 21, 2013)

PlatyPius said:


> I have to use a zero offset seatpost also. Otherwise, I ride on the nose of my saddle due to my femurs being so short.


Yeah, same here. It kind of sucks at first but you get used to it. For what it's worth, if I were the OP I would go with the 54cm.


----------



## metalheart (Sep 3, 2010)

I am close to you in size, about a 1/2" taller with a 30" inseam. I had a custom bike built with a seat tube of 50 or so cm and an effective top tube of 54.2 cm and I think the headtube is about 14cm. Before that a bike shop "fitted" me for a 58, but I ended up riding a 57 for a year before I bought the custom bike. I tried to rent a 52 cm Roubaix and it did not work since I could not get the correct seat height without the seat post being too far out of the seat tube.


----------



## Fignon's Barber (Mar 2, 2004)

54cm with longer stem and zero degree seat post.


----------

