5'3", measured 29" inseam, short femurs.
Nominal 50 cm frame, measured spec 47 cm c-to-c, 50.5 cm effective top tube length, 100 mm stem with 7 degree rise, 75 degree seat angle, not sure what the seatpost setback is but it's in the 1-2 cm range.
Printable View
5'3", measured 29" inseam, short femurs.
Nominal 50 cm frame, measured spec 47 cm c-to-c, 50.5 cm effective top tube length, 100 mm stem with 7 degree rise, 75 degree seat angle, not sure what the seatpost setback is but it's in the 1-2 cm range.
5'1", 27" inseam.
My dearly departed bike was a 42cm, but I think the lady it was built for might have had shorter legs:longer torso compared to me. I only cleared the top tube by an inch. When I had the bike fitted Smiley raised the seat and brought the handlebars closer in to shorten the cockpit.
Not sure what the measurements of my new bike are. Rodriguez has its own sizing system, and they've put me down for an "S1," which is their smallest standard size. Should be ready in two weeks. It feels like I'm waiting for somebody to be born!
I like to say I'm 5'2". Its a lie; I'm 5'1". my inseam is only 26"Quote:
Originally Posted by jocelynlf
I went to the bike shop to talk about a bike build and they gently suggested I get a new one. I can't figure out if I'm a 43cm Long haul trucker or a broke Bianchi owner.
I am a beginner and I ride a 49 WSD Lemond with top tube of 510mm. I'm 5'3" with a short inseam of about 30" and a "long torso for my height." My LBS had to shorten the stem on my bike from 85 to 65 but now it fits SOOOO much better :) I'm still tweeking my bike fit and have not been out on the road since my fit adjustment so we'll have to see how it worked out.
Looking back on my bike buying experience now, I wish I had shopped around more to find a bike geometry that would have initially fit me better (perhaps a Cannondale or Specialized) because I feel like my top tube length is too long even though I have a "long torso for my height." I don't think I'm small enough to have the next Lemond frame size down (45cm with 498 top tube) though but 12mm isn't much of a difference so maybe it would have worked but I know sometimes the smallest change can make the biggest difference. I just hate considering that it might have been better for me because it instills feelings of buyer regret, etc. I tried a Trek 47cm frame (top tube is 494mm) and it felt really cramped in the drops but the 47cm also came with a standard 65 stem which is what I switched my 49 Lemond to. So, perhaps if I had a shorter top tube with a longer stem.... I'm just really not sure.
The bike store I where I purchased my bike said that usually people can fit 2 different size bikes but that it's a matter of preference but I suspect they put me on the bike they had built and in stock instead of having me try both sizes and making the best recommendation for me :mad: :(
I think it will be a long time before I get another road bike but when I do, it will be very carefully selected :)
I know I'm always curious about other women's bike proportions and frame sizes too :)
This kind of boggles me. I'm 5'6" with a 29.5" inseam...you're 3" shorter than me, with almost the same inseam...and they say you have a long torso?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ana
Uh oh...my legs are even shorter than I thought! :o
I sometimes wonder if people are using comparable inseam measures, since there seems to be so much variation. My "bike" inseam is 31.5", but my pants inseam is shorter than that (I'm not really sure what it is actually...it might even be longer for pants I intend to wear with heels I guess, but it's different). That's the measurement I get if I stand on the floor barefoot, put a book between my legs with the same pressure against my crotch as a saddle would have, and measure from the floor to the spine of the book...
This is interesting to see, how much variation there is in set-up. Thanks for sharing... I guess maybe the consensus is I'm a *little* off the norm but my setup is not unheard of for someone my size...
Since your pants don't sit in your crotch the same way your saddle does....oh that would be awful. :p Hm, I never thought of the inseams being different.
This is an interesting thread and makes me feel better about the frame I am waiting on. I am 5'6" with a 32" cycling inseam. My current road bike is a 53cm with a 535 effective top tube, and I have a 5 cm stem on it, plus a setback seatpost.
The frame I've ordered is a 50cm with an effective top tube of 524. I almost went down to the 48cm -- ETT of 521 -- but we decided the 50 would do it. I am having some buyer's remorse so some of this data is making me feel better.
I'm 5'4", but when I use the book method I measure an inseam of 31.75". Pretty long for as short as I am. (Then again, my belly button seems to be only an inch below my chest). On my Surly, I have a TT of 525 and a 90mm stem. I tried 70mm, but it was way too short. Around 625 total for TT and stem seems to be the most comfortable. My Surly is 46cm, and the standover is about 1/2" higher than my Burley, which was a 53cm, so you can't just figure that you are one size and one size only. Obviously manufacturers have different sizing.
I don't quite understand this "book method" of measuring.
Is it just for people who are too shy to put the end of the tape into their crotch hard, with their finger? ;) Or is there something else happening with the book?
And the prize goes to Oakleaf, for giving me my first bonafide LOL for the day!Quote:
Originally Posted by OakLeaf
the book just makes sure you get the "average minimum" of the contours of your crotch.
(fingers, well, depends on whose you use what you'll get there...)
:D:DQuote:
Originally Posted by KnottedYet
5'4.5" and I ride a 49cm Merlin. I have pretty normal body proportions, although I do have longish arms.
My bike has traditional road geometry with a 52.5cm top tube and a ~10cm head tube. I use an 80mm stem and short-n-shallow bars. My seatpost is a non-setback Thomson with my saddle just about all the way back.