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.

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jocelynlf

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"
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 :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ana

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."

---

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?

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OakLeaf

Is it just for people who are too shy to put the end of the tape into their crotch hard, with their finger?

---

And the prize goes to Oakleaf, for giving me my first bonafide LOL for the day!

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...)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KnottedYet

(fingers, well, depends on whose you use what you'll get there...)

---

:D:D

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.