Can't Decide!

[Kelly728]

Basically I made another thread because I'm an attention hog. Kidding, I was just worried I would not get many responses on the other thread.

Today I went for a few test rides at 3 different shops.

LBS #1: 6 miles away. Sent me out on a Trek 2.1WSD 50cm. I guess it felt okay but I was really struggling with getting enough power. I accounted it to the fact that I felt like I was riding without training wheels for the first time and didn't think too much of it.

LBS #2: 15 miles away, much larger shop. Had basically the same selection of bikes, but I humored them anyway since they were highly adamant about the idea that I needed the 52cm in the same bike. That made SUCH a difference. I didn't think I would be able to feel it but I was just cruising around that parking lot. They just said they'll need to swap out the stem and I'll be good to go. This will be $1200.

LBS #3: 20 miles away. 08 Giant TCR W Small (On sale? but looking around $1000 is the selling price.. confused). This felt fine but I had a much smaller test ride area. The seat needs to be raised a lot, but otherwise good fit. Also tried a Specialized Dolce Triple 51cm and I could tell this just didn't feel right.. I felt cramped.

My issues/questions:

Do I call the closer bike shop (no real difference in service) and ask them to order me the 52cm compact even though I walked in being completely clueless or stick with the the one in the further store since they feel I'm better off on this bike? Is a 52cm really too big for someone 5'3"?

Is it worth it to save the $200 and go for the Giant? I can't really tell what would make it a better or worse bike. I think I like the Trek better, but I really couldn't describe to you why!


Eeeeek. This is getting stressful.

[Aquila]

I see this as two questions, I guess, but maybe I'm reading wrong.

The first question is about which bike. I think you have to ride different bikes around until one really speaks to you. Test several, re-ride. Take the bikes out on the trail for a couple miles.

I know that seems long and drawn out, but the right bike makes riding a joy, and the wrong one makes it torture, so it's worth finding the right one.

The second question was about bike shops. I was able to narrow my choice down to one shop fairly quickly (of the three I went to in my community) because only one really talked to me about what I wanted from a bike and had me try out different ones, making adjustments, explaining things, and so forth. One of the others had WAY more bikes in the shop, but either they weren't interested or they didn't have bikes that could fit me (they had lots of men's bikes, and mountain/commuter bikes, but only one women's road bike).

Right now, it sounds like Bike shop #2 has the bike that fit you best and they took time to have you try a bike that fit well. But maybe I read wrong.

Good luck!

[Kelly728]

Right now, it sounds like Bike shop #2 has the bike that fit you best and they took time to have you try a bike that fit well. But maybe I read wrong.

Good luck!

I think I may have had 3 questions (my head is spinning so I really am making no sense right now). Which bike, which shop, and is a 52cm too big for someone so short. Even though it feels "right" I don't think I'm quite sure what right means!

The Trek feels like it may be speaking to me but the $200 difference is screaming if that make sense. I know I'll regret it if I don't get the one I want, I just have to mull over it!

I would say both took about the same about of time to fit me. LBS #1 started me on the 52 and put me down the the 50 because I looked like I was reaching. They moved that seat way up there in the adjustments! LBS #2 started me on the 50 and moved me up to the 52 since my knees were too bent on the smaller bike. Both were equal in how much time they took to explain everything. I guess I'm worried about sounding like a "know-it-all" when LBS #1 feels I should be on the smaller bike.

I'm just nervous about ending up on the wrong thing! (I swear I'm not usually this anxious or indecisive!)

[Tri Girl]

It can be so stressful when shopping for a new bike. Just go with your gut on this one. If you like the 2nd shop better and feel like they're leading you the right direction and you like the mechanics/salespeople/owner then go for it. When you buy a bike, you are buying a relationship with the shop. $200 won't matter if you don't feel comfortable/happy with your shop IMO.
I guess a 52 wouldn't be outrageous for a 5'3" person, but yowza! I have short legs and a short torso and my 48 fits me perfectly (but it's not WSD, so that might make a diff). I've ridden a 47 and have a 49 touring bike that's a bit big. I only wish I had the length to ride a 52- it would've made buying a bike allow me so many more choices.

Good luck with your decision, and make sure you let us know what you wind up choosing.

[salsabike]

I am 5' 4 1/2" and ride a 50.

Can you find a bike fitter to talk with before you buy anything?? E.g., we have PTs in this area who are cyclists and bike fitters. They have no vested interest in selling you a particular bike, and could give you good objective info on your particular fit needs. I think that would help a lot.

[ilima]

I am 5' 4 1/2" and ride a 50.

Same height and I ride a 49cm. Used to have a 52, which was rideable but too big.

[OakLeaf]

What was it about the 52 cm bike that felt so much better to you? Can they let you try it with the stem they're thinking about?

I'm 5'3" and I'm riding a 50 cm Cannondale WSD bike that's possibly marginally too big for me. But it all depends on your body proportions. Every manufacturer has their own sizing conventions too now, with the sloping top tubes - it's not like the old days when it was either center-to-center or center-to-top and the frame size was the actual measurement of the seat tube. With a horizontal top tube, my old custom frame was 47 cm c-to-c.

When you say your "knees were too bent" on the 50 cm bike, do you just mean seat height, or something else? Was the saddle raised as high as the seatpost would go, and you still couldn't straighten your legs on the pedal stroke?

[Kelly728]

I guess a 52 wouldn't be outrageous for a 5'3" person, but yowza! I have short legs and a short torso and my 48 fits me perfectly (but it's not WSD, so that might make a diff). I've ridden a 47 and have a 49 touring bike that's a bit big. I only wish I had the length to ride a 52- it would've made buying a bike allow me so many more choices.

I have over a 31" inseam so basically no torso.

Thanks salsa, I'll look around and see what I can find. I'd rather not lay out any more money (aka after this bike I won't have any money!) but this is getting difficult.

Oak- The seat tube on the 50cm was raised to the point where it was quite a bit above the handlebar stem. The 52cm was level with the handlebars. Maybe I was more comfortable because it was more upright?

[OakLeaf]

I have over a 31" inseam so basically no torso.

So that means that top tube length is going to be really critical for you, and if they're talking about putting a super short stem on the 52 cm bike to compensate, that could adversely affect the handling.

Seatposts generally have a lot of room to play with, so it's your torso length and arm reach that should determine your frame size, not your leg length.

[Eden]

Sounds like you may have a bit of a quandary..... It sounds like the shop could not put the seat post up any further on the smaller bike (there is an upper height limit having to do with the amount of post still in the seat tube), but you have a bit of a reach problem with the larger bike....

Being stretched out is never that great - you have less control and less power on the bike. If you can avoid trying to adapt a bike that is too long you'd probably be better off, but you certainly cannot put the seat post up too far - that's plain dangerous. I'm actually wondering if you might want to look into a smaller frame with non-compact geometry bike? Then there'd be less seat post out, but a shorter top tube. If I were you, I'd try looking at a 50cm non-wsd Trek 2.1 - I think it might solve your problem. The seat tube is longer and though the top tube is a bit longer too, it is not as long as the 52 wsd.

[uforgot]

I have over a 31" inseam so basically no torso.

Maybe I was more comfortable because it was more upright?

Hey, I'm 5'4", no torso! Isn't it fun having your waist right below your bust? Anyway, I have a 32"+ inseam. You and I must be all legs. 50cm bikes have always felt too small for me, and I have several inches of standover on those bikes. Besides standover, I look at top tube length. With being so "leggy" , do you also have the short arms? I find that I can't go any longer than a 52.5cm toptube with 90mm or shorter stem. WSD's are made for us.

If I had it to do over again, I'd get a fitting. Way cheaper than going through a lot of bikes. You can also get a friend to help you and go to www.wrenchscience.com and do their fit system. It will give you a starting point, or at least tell you if you are in range.