Printable View
no.... i mean the stem.... shortened it to this little bitty thing with a sharp upturn (you can't shorten the top tube of a premade bike! lol!!!)
even with my ruby... i got a size smaller (still good for leg extension... etc) but still had to shorten to a 90cm stem! part of that, though, was the additional length of the dura-ace hoods over the ultegra short reach!)
Rereading my first post made me realize somehow I cut out the part where I said I was worried about getting a bike "too small". I do want to get the good deal on the 2005 salebike...but really want to make sure I'm getting the right fit. And it seems that by reading more threads a lot of women my height are getting things bigger than 43-44.
Also, the smaller (43") comes with the 650 wheels....
I have no idea why I don't want smaller wheels as a new road bike rider. It just somehow seems. Wrong. ;)
In any case it just seems like there are so many opinions out there. In the end I'm not sure how much difference 3-4cm will make...going the smaller route anyway.
You know this is all stemming from me feeling short to begin with and wanting the biggest possible bike to avoid that "shortie" feeling I typically have :D
i'm 5'3" and my ruby is a 48... and, as i said... i still had to shorten the stem on her to a 90....
I had a very similar fear to yours!
I'm 5'4" but I have quite short legs. My first bike was a 49cm men's model and it was way too big (but I didn't know any better). When it was time for a better fit, I was told by my LBS 'fit guy' that I needed a 44cm in the Specialized WSD I was admiring. I test rode a 51cm model and had plenty of standover clearance due to the compact frame, but the reach was too long. I kept thinking that a 47 would be better than a 44 because I have short legs but a long torso. I even brought this up when we were placing the order and he re-did the calculations. If I'd gotten the 47, he'd barely be able to make the reach right with the shortest stem available (I guess I have a long torso but short arms). With the 44, it was right as is. I agreed and ordered the 44 (I test rode another 44cm model in the store).
Now, well over 1000 miles later, I'm VERY glad I listened to him. We rode 75 miles this past Sunday and I felt NO pain. NONE. My bike really, truly fits me. Yes, I hate that I can't fit two water bottles on the frame and yes, I hate that the guys make fun of my tiny bike...but you better believe that I LOVE the fit. Love it! Moral of the story: don't be turned off by a small bike!
I'm 5'1.5" with a 28" inseam. My 47" WSD Trek fits perfectly.
Why wouldn't you like 650's, though? They seem more proportional on small bikes.
it can make a LOT of difference in comfort!Quote:
Originally Posted by GirlWonder
Go ride it and see how it feels! That's the only way to really know. Either it will feel perfect, or something will be not quite right or lacking or outright bothersome.
Nanci
I will definitely try both the 43 and 47s on Saturday. Thus far I have yet to sit on a Trek at all...and I know it varies by model/make.
So, I guess I should start a new thread if I want recommendations on wide (but small) biking shoes?
I have pretty severe bunions that cause my shoes to need to be wide in the toe box (although everywhere else I'm narrow). I'm thinking I'll be a 37 or 38 in a biking shoe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eden
Well, there is variation amongst different individuals and their recommendations I guess. Was your old bike a Rivendell, or just a bike that you were trying to improve to ease your shoulder pain? The Riv bikes do have their own special frame proportions that are different from most others. I'll be picking up my new Rivendell Rambouillet by July 29th- my salesman is being very careful about making sure it fits me exactly right before I take it home. They will put the right length stem on while i'm there, before they tape the bars. I'm 5'5" and getting the 54cm (Rivendell measurements). 700c 37 tires.
I'm very hyped, and can't wait!!!
no the old bike was not a Riv - but personally I am very flexible forwards - much less so backwards (can put my palms flat on the floor, but can't do a back bend to save my life) and am actually much more comfortable in a more agressive position. It sounds backwards, but my neck and shoulder problems went away when I flipped my stem to position my upper body lower. Just goes to show there is no one fit fits all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lisa S.H.
I am 5'2.5" with a 28.5" inseam. My 46 cm Aegis Swift has a rather high bottom bracket, and as a result, I have very little standover (like 1/4"). It has never been a problem for me. The top tube is quite short (19.1") so it fits me perfect from that perspective - and that is probably the most important component of fit, as others have said. I have a 9 cm stem and 650c wheels and don't mind them one bit. I think they're cute. ;-) I have a small amount of toe overlap with them (I wear a size 7 shoe), so I would have a huge amount of toe overlap with a 700c front wheel - that's dangerous. So, that is something to consider when choosing between a 650c and a 700c bike. Since you have smaller feet, it may not be a problem for you.
Also, bike handling will be sacrificed the shorter your stem is. There is a reason that "stock" stems are 10cm. I have read that 9cm-11cm is good, and any shorter or longer can cause problems. I know I experienced some front-end twitchiness and difficulties climbing out of the saddle on my Terry Isis (44 cm frame), which came with a 6.5cm stem.
There are a lot of factors to keep in mind. I do agree with what several posters have said, though, that all things considered, a smaller frame is more desirable than a larger one, if you could potentially ride either. With a smaller frame, you can use a longer stem, for better handling. And, it's slightly lighter. 650c wheels are also lighter than 700s!
Just some random thoughts from past experience with small WSD road bikes...good luck, and let us know what you decide!
Emily
I agree with others that the most important component of fit in selecting a frame is the top tube length, and also the seat tube angle. It is obvious why top tube length is important, as it is one of the main determinants of reach. STA is a much overlooked determinant of reach, but an increase of only 1 degree in STA increases the reach by 1 cm, assuming a constant KOP position. A common problem in small sized bikes built around 700cc wheels is the top tubes are proportionally too long to fit the large wheel, hence the reach is too long. So, you need to figure out what reach you need and work back from there. While you can deal with a too long top tube by using a short stem, if the stem gets too short the handling becomes twitchy. I think seat tube length is one of the least important factors in selecting a frame, provided you have enough clearance to comfortably mount, dismount, and not be hurt in a fall. In the old days having too much seat post showing was a problem cuz you couldn't get your stem high enough (the problem rivendell cites), but there are now stems readily available that angle up as an alternative way to get enough height. You can easily swap out seat posts and stems, but you can't change your seat tube angle or top tube length. Also be careful when comparing frame sizes between manufacturers, as bottom bracket heights vary, as do whether the seat tube is being measured from center to center vs center to top. I can fit into bikes ranging from 44-51 cm depending on model. To determine your size in any given bike, you need to look at the published geometry, choose the frame with the reach parameters based on the published STA and TT length that are desirable for you, and then look at the standover height to see if its in a range you can fit with available seat posts and stems. I also look at the published fork trail, as they indicate the handling. I like a trail value in the 5-5.5 range. Many small framed bikes have trail values exceeding 6, which makes for sluggish handling (in an attempt to avoid toe clip overlap, they sometimes put on a fork with large rake or increase the head tube angle, which pushes the front wheel away, but gives awful balance over the bike). So, without even test riding a bike, by looking at these tables I know if it can be made to fit me and how it will handle. BTW, I am 5'4", 30.5" cycling inseam, and I ride a 44 cm (center to center) Terry Titanium Isis with a 73 degree STA, 48 cm TT, 24" front whee, 700cc rear wheel, angled stem that projects ~10 cm forward, and nitto noodel bars. My 44 cm Terry Classic touring bike is set up the same, but with a 49 cm TT and 9 cm stem. I like having the 700cc rear wheel since casettes are designed to give optimal gearing for a 700cc wheel, but the 24" front wheels let me get the reach I want without any compromises in bike handling or toe clip overlap.
I just got my new custom bike. My Aegis was a 44cm and I had lots of clearance over the tt, the new bike is a 48cm and I have almost no clearance.
It doesn't bother me at all, what matters is how perfect the fit is and how well she handles.
I probably wouldn't have looked at the clearance but I remembered your post so I made a point of checking it.
Kathi, when your clearance is that tight, be careful mounting and dismounting on hills. You always stand vertically relative to gravity, your bike's tt height is relative to the road. The effective standover height becomes greater by the reciprocal of the cosine of the slope angle (sorry to be so nerdly). One seldom starts and stops on steep hills anyway for other reasons, just be aware, as this is the one situation where it might matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kathi
Thanks Deb,
Another reason not to stop on hills!
I'm a little surprised that the standover is so tight, however, I do have to tilt the frame slightly sideways to clear the saddle. My legs either aren't long enough or I'm not flexible enough to go over the saddle without tilting the bike. Then I clip in to my pedal and push off so I guess that's why I didn't notice the standover being so close.