# Need help with Ridley Crosswind Sizing



## creila (Nov 15, 2007)

I am looking at a Ridley Crosswind as a new cyclocross bike. I am a mountain biker and have never been on a road or cyclocross bike before. I am 5" 11.5 " with a 33.5" inseam. Any opinions on what size bike I need from other Crosswind riders would be greatly appreciated. Thanks


----------



## Thor (May 25, 2004)

I have a 2005 56cm Crosswind. I am 6' 1" and have a 34" inseam and I just have slight clearance on the standover. The TT is right on though, if not a little on the short side. 

There was a good thread a while back on Ridley sizing, you should do a search and read that thread.

Thor


----------



## creila (Nov 15, 2007)

I looked through the other threads and still trying to decide. A 54cm would give me more standover height, but I am worried the TT may be too short. The 56cm standover height would be right at my crotch.


----------



## Thor (May 25, 2004)

I believe you would find a 56 to be too tall for you. 

If you can, stop by a some local cross race and ask a Ridley owner if you can try his bike or stand over it.

Thor


----------



## pretender (Sep 18, 2007)

Standover height is irrelevant.


----------



## creila (Nov 15, 2007)

pretender - would you say a 56cm Crosswind is a better fit even though I could barely straddle the top tube with both feet on the ground?


----------



## pretender (Sep 18, 2007)

creila said:


> pretender - would you say a 56cm Crosswind is a better fit even though I could barely straddle the top tube with both feet on the ground?


The best fit is what allows you to pedal the bike with greatest efficiency and comfort.

Fred Flintstone may not have had pedals, but thankfully we do.


----------



## FrancisB (Sep 10, 2006)

Just saw that this is your first roadbike;

Honestly, your best bet is to pay for a professional fitting; If you've only ridden Mtn bikes, you have no idea what size you need. Getting the wrong bike will suck. Spend the 50 to 100 bucks and get fitted.


You're basically 6'0, with what looks to be an average length torso. I'm 6'1", with a 34" inseam, and find the 56 good for CX. My roadbike has another 1.5CM in TT length. 

standover height isn't critical, but you are probably a 'tweener. No one but a qualified fitter who sees you pedal on a bike will be able to give a definitive answer on the "best" size for you. Note that it's possible to be OK on either size, but Pretender is right; one size will be best for you. Pay the money up front, it's cheaper than selling your frame for 1/2 price a few months from now...

You should also ride one; they ride differently than most CX bikes. High BB, and short TT, and fast handling...

I love it, but YMMV. 

Just a side note, at yesterdays USGP in Portland, there were scores of Ridley's. Easily the most common bike at the upper levels. I was surprised. I can have the bike, now if I could only have the lungs and legs...


----------



## creila (Nov 15, 2007)

FrancisB - thanks for the reply. I am trying to buy a bike over the internet to save some cash. Like you said, I am probably buying a bike that didn't fit someone else. My LBS only carries Cannondale cross bikes which have a different geometry than Ridleys. I am trying to match top tube sizes, but I think I should be looking at BB-TT length instead. What do you think?


----------



## FrancisB (Sep 10, 2006)

I think you're right to focus on TT length vs. ST length.

It's really hard to compare a specific bike (such as the Ridley) by finding another bike with similar dimensions. There are so many variables; TT length, chainstay length, ST, HT angle, etc. 

If you're going to take a flyer on an unridden bike, I would still get fitted at your LSF, (but pay them for their time if you're not going to buy a bike from them. I'm upfront when I do that). Then figure a bike about 1cm shorter TT, is probably a good size for you as a CX bike.

Know the prices, if the bike doesn't work out, you should be able to sell it for close to what you paid for it.

You know, Cannondale makes a nice CX bike, there are many advantages to having an LSF in your corner, especially if you are just starting out. Now that cross season is over, they might even be on sale. Add to that the fact you'll get a bike that fits, a (likely) discount on other stuff you'll need, and it's not a bad thing to check out.

My experience w/ebay has been poor; I've bought 2 bikes, and both required much more work (bent derailler on one, new BB and HS needed on the other). Add shipping to that, and the great deal wasn't such a great deal...

good luck,
Francis


----------



## pretender (Sep 18, 2007)

creila said:


> I am trying to match top tube sizes, but I think I should be looking at BB-TT length instead. What do you think?


It's a combination of both. For example, suppose you have two frames with the same top tube, but one has 54 seat tube and the other 56. The top tube will actually feel longer on the 54, because you'll be using 2cm more seatpost on the 54.

I recommend going to zinncycles.com and going through his frame size widget, just for a starting point.


----------



## jerry_in_VT (Oct 13, 2006)

*plus one for top tube*

I have never hit my boys on the top tube while standing over my cross bike _while riding_ my cross bike.

as an MTB guy, it will feel huge to you (a road frame) since mtbs are all slopers these days. however, you should really focus on the TT length and not worry about having tons of seatpost sticking out so you dont look like a wanker (mtb dudes, so image conscious).

I would suggest measureing your reach on the MTB, and the associated effective TT length (horizontal). Note your MTB stem length as well (effective horizontal again).

I would then select the cross bike top tube length to give you a 100mm stem. Converting everything to horizontal again.

I assume you plan to race, and if so, you will likely begin to adapt your MTB position to be lower and longer, eventually, on the cross bike. By going with the 100 stem at your MTB length, you will be probably one stage longer due to the probably larger seat to stem drop. Then you will be able to continue to stretch out and adapt to a roadie-ish position by lengthening the stem, etc. And worst case, you can still be comfortable in your MTB position on the cross bike with a short or riser stem.

All this is totally off the cuff here (including the MTB humor), but my intent is just to lay out a thought process, not give you the final TT number.

One more suggestion - consider that on the cross bike your weight will/should be more over the front wheel then on an MTB, unless you race a hardtail and short stroke fork (old school like). I think way to many cross over folks ride in their mtb position (back and upright) and while on the MTB this may give better control, on the cross bike it makes you really unstable in the corner. Again, IMHO only.

J


----------



## creila (Nov 15, 2007)

jerry, thanks for the input. WHat you have explained makes more sense to me since it is in "MTB"ing terms I can relate to. I am really stretched out on my MTB - I think I will feel cramped with too short of a TT on the cross bike. I will focus on the TT length and go from there. Thank You


----------



## Thor (May 25, 2004)

One last comment from me on this, the BB on the Ridley is very high, hence the high standover. The high BB makes for a high seat, which makes for a high jump getting on the bike and a high center of gravity. I have mine because my teammate shopped by TT length and couldn't even straddle the bike when he built it. 

The BB clearance is over an inch greater than my Fuji cross bike. I was shocked at how tall the bike was when I got it home and put wheels under it. I run a 110 stem FWIW. I am used to the bike now and love it. It handles very well.

So shop carefully and try to find one to try out before hand. 

Not sure where you are located, if you are in the MD/VA/PA area, stop by the Rockburn cross race and you can try mine.

Thor


----------



## jerry_in_VT (Oct 13, 2006)

creila said:


> jerry, thanks for the input. WHat you have explained makes more sense to me since it is in "MTB"ing terms I can relate to. I am really stretched out on my MTB - I think I will feel cramped with too short of a TT on the cross bike. I will focus on the TT length and go from there. Thank You


If you ride your MTB long and low like I do (on the hardtail) you are probably pretty forward on it too? I use a zero setback post on both bikes, mtb and cross, and run the seat pretty far forward. On my road bike I am much more "centered".

Point being, if you have an agressive MTB set up, you may be inclined to run that low/heavy on the front wheel on the cross bike too. that set up rocks for me. If so, be careful you give yourself enough top tube to work with, as a long stem on a cross bike can make the steering and handling rather unpredictable, IMHO. I run a long stem on the MTB, but a 100 on the cross bike. That said, my cross bike is a hand me down so I didnt get to pick. Its too "tall" form me, but just right in the TT. I have short legs, a hunch back, and long arms, though. So who knows.

I guess my initial point was, think of the cross bike like an old school racing hardtail, not a FS trail bike, and you will be OK.


----------



## tdblanchard (Dec 21, 2006)

I just got my Crosswind built up Saturday night and raced her Sunday morning...
I'm 6 foot with a 34" inseam.
I got a 56 after weeks of deliberation.
54 seemed like the right fit until i rode my buddy's Crossbow (same exact geometry). I just needed a little more height up front.
This bike is the best fitting cross bike I've ever ridden.
~~my $.02


----------

