frame size + height

Ok, sorry for the bikeforums-esque question -- but I'm really curious. I just bought a bike that I hadn't had the benefit of riding first. The shop I ordered it from took lots of measurements and asked me to measure my bikes... And it turns out that It's a smaller frame than anyone probably would have put me on if I walked into the shop. But I've put a couple of hours in on the trainer (roads are still a little gritty to take my new bike onto :eek:), and it feels really comfortable.

I'm 5'6". The new bike is an XS, 49cm frame. Top tube is 51.5 cm. I have a 110mm, 71 deg stem on it and a slightly setback seatpost. I have to say, it feels really good -- I don't feel cramped at all.

So, how tall are you, what is your toptube length, and how long is your stem?

I'm curious to know if I'm way out of the normal range on such a small frame.

I'm 5'4". I ride a small giant frame which has a 53.5 cm TT and I use a 90 cm stem.

spoke

I'm 5'5", and a bit long of torso. At least, so sayeth the bike shops. Until they pointed that out, I'd never noticed. :o

I ride a 53cm LeMond with a 54.5cm effective top tube and a 90mm stem. My singlespeed is a Small from Giant with a 53.2cm effective top tube and a 100mm stem.

It is always interesting to see how different we all are in our bike setups.
I am 5'4" and on the road I ride a 48 sloping frame with an effective top tube of 53.1 and a 80mm stem.

If you have a short torso, your bike might be just perfect for you!

I think a lot of Bikeshops tend to dwell on the fact that women have long legs and they put us on bikes that fit our legs but then our arms and torsos are shorter so we are miserable on them!
Enjoy your bike and forget about the numbers. it's the comfort that is important!

OK, this is embarrassing, but I can't remember exactly what my current TT is. It is written down somewhere.

But, I do remember that after my fitting and measuring my current bike (which seems to fit pretty well), the bike shop folks and I decided that when I go to test ride, I am probably looking to test 49's in men's bikes, and 52's in women's.

I know my current bike (a man's bike) is bigger than a 49, but it also has much more relaxed geometry and HT length, etc, than the 49 I am thinking of testing. So, maybe the more aggressive position makes the smaller frame seem more reasonable?

I am 5'6" with a 29" inseam.

I don't know what my top tube length is, but when I got my Luna, it turned out to be smaller than any bike I've ever ridden. I'm 5'6" and it's about a 49cm (custom, so not exact). It's also the MOST comfortable bike I've ever ridden.

Sounds like you got a sweet fit. Don't overthink it if it works. Just ride and have fun. Congratulations on your new bike!

Is that the Scott?

I'm 5'6", and my bike has a 525 top tube with a 90mm 73 degree stem and also have a slightly setback seatpost. My bike has a sloping top tube because I have short legs!

5'0" 28.5/29ish bike inseam (so yeah - short torso)

44cm frame, 49.5 effective top tube, 80mm stem

Almost 5'6 and I ride a 49cm bike, just about the exact same measurements as you.
I was originally put on a 50 or 51, don't remember-whatever a small giant is. And I rode 2 of them for a little over a year, I constantly had shoulder issues because I was to stretched out. The next bike I went to(the litespeed) I went down to the 49 and ever since then there is no turning back! I have continously been told by shops, when they look at me, that there is no way I would fit on a 49, but once they see me on it they say it is perfect.(i just have a big drop between saddle and handle bars, which I prefer- but I'm not stretched out).

Sounds like we are similar:-)

My Bianchi C2C is a 50cm w/ 52.5 top tube c-c, stem 80mm/10deg rise
I am 5'7" with a 32" inseam... short body, long legs.
I have a friend who is my same height and rides a 54cm Trek. (opposite of me long body, short legs) Treks usually have long top tubes. I can hardly reach the bars on her bike, but the stand over is fine.

It's all about comfort. Most women on average have long thigh bones, shorter frames give you more leverage... or so I've been told.

I'm on a "S" sloper with a 51ST, 52.5TT with a 110stem.

I'm 5'6" with a 32 inseam.

I'm 5'4" with a 28.5" inseam (short legs, long torso, short arms). I ride a 19" (Terry) ~ 48cm bike with a 50.2 cm TT and a 100mm stem. I have NO set back on my seat post and I don't remember the rise on my stem (it's not much, if any).

I'm 5'4" with a 30.5 inseam, with long femurs and a short torso and short arms. I ride a 17.5" terry with a 48.3 cm TT, 9 cm stem, 73 degree STA, and the most laid back seat post I could find (2.5cm) with the saddle set as far back as it can go.

I'm 5'7" with 31.5" inseam (actually more like 5'7.75" and 31.75" inseam, but who's counting?)

My "54" bike has a 55cm virtual top tube with a 75mm stem and zero setback seatpost; it seems to fit well. I might prefer a 52 with a "normal" seatpost and slightly longer stem (less overall weight? more traditional looking?) , but I have no way of knowing for sure and like others have said, I shouldn't worry about it if it's comfy.