I must be built funny.

[Owlie]

I checked out bikes on a whim back in March when I was still in hiding. Apparently my legs require a different bike size than my torso. The only possible exception to this was the Trek Lexa, which was a wash as to whether I needed the 54 or a 56. I tried out a Dolce, which my back and shoulders absolutely loved, but I'm not sure how well my knees would get on with it unless I took it out for a long ride. The guy at the shop thought I'd need a 57cm until he let me try out the 54(?) cm they had. OOPS. (FYI, the effective top tube on the 57cm is longer than that on my too-long current bike.)

Sigh. I might have to go custom, but that won't be an option for a long, long time. Thoughts?

[emily_in_nc]

You don't say whether you're a long-legged, short-torso'd type or the opposite. If the former, try WSD frames; the latter, mens/unisex frames. Some people do have to go custom, but the majority of folks of your height should be able to fit a stock frame, with possible changes in stem, seatpost, handlebars to dial in the fit. I'd bet that you can fit a stock frame unless your proportions are extremely unusual.

[Biciclista]

what emily said

the fact is, most bikes are not made to fit most women well.

[ultraviolet]

Without information about what your proportions are, I don't think anyone can give you any advice or ideas.

For example: I seem to be a difficult fit because I have proportionally short legs and long torso, which most people would call lucky because that's what "unisex" frames are designed for, BUT...I have short arms, tiny hands and low-ish flexibility. In the end, what I've found is that I need a taller headtube than what's found on many road bikes, and I invariably end up having to put a short/shallow bar on most of my bikes along with short reach, or reach adjustable, brifters/levers. The stock road bike geometries that work best for me are LeMond (now defunct), Gary Fisher, Specialized Roubaix, and the Cervelo RS. I can make others work--my "race" bike is a BMC but I've left plenty of steerer on the fork and use a stem with a good bit of rise, and I have a couple of older steel bikes that I need to use taller stems on as well--but that's the short list of the bikes that are closest to "ideal" for me.

[emily_in_nc]

I'm wondering if since you're tall you didn't try WSD frames? Many folks think they are only for us shorties, but that's not true. They are made for folks with long legs and short torsos, no matter what their height -- or gender, actually; it's just that women are more likely to have this body proportion.

[indysteel]

Out of curiosity, what knee issue do you think you might have with the
Dolce? How would you otherwise describe your proportions?

[OakLeaf]

I'm also wondering what the issue with your knees might be.

It's true that only the smallest complete bikes come with cranks shorter than 170mm, but that's a crank swap, not a frame issue (and it's a swap I had to do on my 50cm C'dale).

If you're having trouble finding a frame with a short enough TT, but seat-wise you can fit on a larger frame, consider just buying a smaller frame and an uncut fork. Then you can set the handlebars and seat where you want them in relation to each other. Not the most inexpensive thing in the world but a whole lot cheaper than a custom frame!

If you're more specific about your proportions I bet there's someone here who can suggest a frame for you.

[Owlie]

Muirenn, I'm a hair shorter than you (5'6-3/4"), and I have the same problem you do. I need a pretty short top tube, and even some WSD bikes are too long.
My Giant is a 50cm/M, but they run big, by the looks of it--and the Avail's geometry isn't terribly different from the Defy.

My knees weren't terribly happy with the test rides, but that may well simply be because the seatpost was adjusted to "eh, close enough" and I have crappy knee ligaments. If it were properly adjusted (ie, when I'm actually serious about buying), it might well be a different story. It felt good otherwise (even better than the Treks), so I'm still keeping it on my "list"

I did in fact try out a Quest Femme (lovely bike), but I'd need a 54, and that's something that the shop doesn't stock and wouldn't until I'm serious about buying. I had the same problem with trying out a Cannondale.

[indysteel]

In looking at the geometry of the bikes you're looking at and comparing them (in the sizes the shops have had you try) to your Giant Avail, I'm sort of perplexed. The Giant's ETT is 540, which does seem a bit long to me for a 50 cm bike. But the Trek Lexa in both the 54 and 56 have the same or even longer top tubes than that, and the ETT of the Specialized Dolce in a 54 is only a few millimeters shorter than your Avail.

If you're too stretched out on a bike with a 540 ETT, then logic suggests to me that you should try smaller frames than the ones you've tested thus far.
Of course, it bears stating that there's more to fit than just reach. You should also keep a close eye on each bike's seat tube angle, because that may ultimately impact your reach and/or whether you can get your knees where the need to be in relation to your pedals.

If it were me, I'd seek out a shop that knows something about fit and does more than merely eye ball you. I'm not sure what's available in your area, but once you're back in Cincy--if you aren't already--you might consider a visit to Nebo Ridge on the north side of Indy. It truly might be worth your while to work with a decent fitter, and Nebo has one.

[Owlie]

The guy at the Trek shop did say that while I looked more comfortable on the 56, he thought it might be because I'm used to being stretched out.

The seat tube angles on each are different (73.7 and 73.4 for the Treks, 74 for the Dolce and 73.5 for the Giant), and if I remember correctly, I think the stock stem on the Dolce is shorter than the stock stem on my Avail, so that may have something to do with it. If anyone's got a link explaining geometry as it relates to fit, that would be awesome. I'm interested in learning more about frame geometry as a whole, and I think that's a good practical starting point.

As I said, I'm in no position to buy just yet, and they'd probably take a little more care with the fit when I show up and am serious about buying. I'll see what's available in the area with regard to fitters (thanks for the tip, Indy!).

[indysteel]

I can't provide a link to it at the moment because I'm on my Blackberry, but you might look at Peter White's website. He has a discussion on bike fit that might be helpful. Just Google his name and "bike fit."

But looking at your existing bike's geometry is a good place to start to determine what does and doesn't work for you. You mentioned feeling too stretched out on it, but have you ever worked with a fitter to tweak its set up? Even if you're determined to get a new bike, it's far easier to make informed decisions if you work first with what you already own as a frame of reference.

[OakLeaf]

Never been there, but HubBub in the Cleveland area has a rep for doing good fittings.

[Owlie]

I've heard of the shop...doesn't help because I'm moving back to Cincy.

So...It turns out that the Dolce I tried out was a 51 (oops). That would explain why the top tube felt better, but that might be pushing the "small" end, considering that my femurs probably need a 54 or 57.

[indysteel]

I've heard of the shop...doesn't help because I'm moving back to Cincy.

So...It turns out that the Dolce I tried out was a 51 (oops). That would explain why the top tube felt better, but that might be pushing the "small" end, considering that my femurs probably need a 54 or 57.

Sometime tells me that you do not need a 57. Heck, my husband is 6'2 and rides a 59-60. I am oddly proportioned, too. I have really short legs, but proportionally long femurs. I'm also long waisted with regular length arms. I'm a nut, basically. I'm 5'4 and more or less ride bikes in the 48-50 cm range. My main road bike--a 50 cm WSD Bianchi--has a relatively short top tube and a seat post that offers quite a bit of set back. Even with that, my saddle is pushed back to the limit on its rails.

As you look at bikes, you gotta remember that the frame itself dictates only part of the bike's geometry. There are other things you can tweak--stems, seat posts, saddles, handlebars, and stack---to accommodate weird proportions, at least within reason. That's why I'd really like to see you work with a shop that's going to do more than eyeball your standover and just plop you on a bike. You need to work with someone who actually understands the dynamics of bike fit.

[ultraviolet]

I am not a fit expert, but I'm going to make a guess that you should take a look at bikes with a fairly slack seat tube angle--something less than 74 degrees. Also probably with a tallish headtube--140mm or more.

Check out the Cervelo RS. I've know lots of women who always rode WSD frames because of reach issues that tried the RS and fell in love. The Cervelo RS has a 73 degree STA across all of its sizes, whereas most other companies vary STA with size.

I don't know the actual #s, but every degree of increase in STA translates to something like needing an centimeter of difference in top tube length. So, even if at first glance at the geometry charts you think the RS won't work, it's probably worth your time to try one out even if just to get another reference. Besides...it's a pretty sweet ride.