Help! Carbon bike choices for me?

[LBTC]

Hi, ladies! I need a new road bike.

I currently have an aluminum Giant OCR 1 size small. Turns out it is actually too big, so we've found a buyer for my bike and we're starting to look for the replacement, in carbon fibre, and exactly the right size.

I'm 5' 1 1/2" tall, with about a 28" inseam. With such a small torso and very small hands, I'm likely to do better with a WSD.

I'd be looking for 105 or Ultegra level components.

Are any of you close to my size? What size bike do you ride? Do any of you have any recommendations for me? I'm thinking I'll need a 47, which will likely limit my options. Does that seem like the right size? What should I be looking at?

Let me know!

Hugs and butterflies,
~T~

[Wahine]

I would agree with the need for a WSD. Any of the models geared for the US should have frame sizes that would work for you, I'm sure that Trek does, their largest WSD frame just barely fits me and I'm 5'7" ish with a longer torso than most ladies. I fit a 54 Specialized Ruby, I know that they come in 48. I loved the bike and would suggest a test ride. I think it's a good value and you can get different component packages.

[kelownagirl]

No clue LB, but have an OCR1 too! I'm 5'3" and I have an extra small! One thing I liked about the OCR is that it was full ultegra... Too bad it's not carbon. Do they make carbon bikes with triples AND ultegra? I don't ever seem to see any...

[michelem]

LBTC,

It sounds as though we are very close in measurements. For me, it came down to an XS Giant and the 48cm Specialized Ruby. The Ruby won out for me as "something" just felt better about it (couldn't put my finger on it exactly - I just knew). Anyway, I think I tried over 10 bikes before landing on the Ruby. I tried non-WSD as well as WSD. I did NOT like the Trek Pilot WSD, but I have heard of others who LOVE it. So, of course, everyone has their own preferences and even those with the same measurements will love and hate the feel of different bikes.

I look forward to hearing your experiences in trying out lots of bikes, and especially seeing photos of the bike upon which you finally decide!

[deedolce]

We're almost twins! I have about a 28" inseam, and 5' 1.5" tall. I ride a Ruby Pro WSD and LOVE it. Awesome bike. The 48. Small hands here too, and it's no problem.

My story is that I had the Dolce Elite and found cracks in the head tube. Took it to the bike shop, and they replaced it with the Ruby Pro.

Good luck!

[michelem]

No clue LB, but have an OCR1 too! I'm 5'3" and I have an extra small! One thing I liked about the OCR is that it was full ultegra... Too bad it's not carbon. Do they make carbon bikes with triples AND ultegra? I don't ever seem to see any...

My 2007 Ruby Expert is a carbon triple Ultegra. The 2007 Cannondale Synapse Feminine came in a triple Ultegra as well, but I don't see any women's carbon triple Ultegra bikes by Cannondale this year!
If the 2007 Giant OCR Composite W I was looking at last year had felt just right, I would have had a triple put on it (it was a carbon Ultegra bike). This year, it doesn't appear as though Giant has any women's full Ultegra carbon bikes though (triple or otherwise). The OCR alu frame/carbon fork bikes don't even come in Ultegra anymore.

Why all the downgrades? I don't get it.

[ilima]

IMO, you probably need a bike with 650 wheels. Smaller bikes with 700c wheels are going to have steep seat tube angles (75-76 degrees), which will tend to put you in a more aggressive position that might not be comfortable.

A quick glance at the Trek & Specialized websites indicates they're not using 650 wheels in the small sizes. Felt is using 650 wheels on their small women's bike but for reasons inexplicable to me still have steep seat tube angles.

Not carbon, but the Merlin Camena (and Litespeed Bella) has a slacker seat tube angle and 650s on it's smallest sizes. You should at least ride one for comparison.

[OakLeaf]

I'm 5'3" with legs on the short side and I ride a 50 cm Cannondale Synapse. The standover height of the top tube is just slightly tall for me, but it fits me otherwise (and I *can* stand over it, just not with as much space as CW recommends). The 47 would definitely have been too small. I demo'ed a 48 cm Specialized Ruby last year, and it fit okay, but I definitely could've gone up to the next bigger frame size. All of these bikes have 700c wheels and I don't find them the least bit twitchy. I hadn't been on a road bike in 12 years before I rode the Specialized. It was a few months before I felt comfortable riding close side-by-side or in a tight paceline, but I think that had much more to do with the fact that my handling skills were EXTREMELY rusty, rather than any characteristics of the bike(s).

[NJBikeGal]

No offense to the suggestion, but I'd highly suggest not going with 650 wheels! There's no reason you should work that much harder than everyone else on the road just because you're small! You'll spin your legs with more cadence (expend more energy) to get the same amount of speed as someone on 700 wheels.

The Ruby is a great choice (sorry to beat a dead horse). And, it comes in small sizes that are built really well. One of the girls that rides for Aaron's has a Ruby Pro that is a 44! I've never seen a bike so small for an adult! It's TINY...still has 700 c wheels and she LOVES it!

[Torrilin]

No offense to the suggestion, but I'd highly suggest not going with 650 wheels! There's no reason you should work that much harder than everyone else on the road just because you're small! You'll spin your legs with more cadence (expend more energy) to get the same amount of speed as someone on 700 wheels.

Not particularly true. You'll have more variation in speed from a knobby tire vs a smooth one, or a low pressure tire vs a high pressure one than you will from a small tire vs a big one. It *is* more convenient to use the same size tires as everyone else, since it's easier to get tires and tubes if you run out at an event. For most riders, tire size just doesn't make a real difference in their speed. If it did, all bikes would still be specced with 27" wheels. Instead, we've got people on 16" wheel folders, 27" wheel vintage bikes, and everything in between .

The geometry compromises that happen for a short legged rider on a bike with 700C wheels can make a big difference or no difference. It depends on the rider's preferences. So someone who has short legs should try smaller wheeled bikes and see what *they* think.

[Tri Girl]

I'm barely 5'3" (I know I'm a little shorter) and am riding a Cervelo full carbon (granted, it's a tri bike, but they do make road bikes full carbon). I toyed with WSD, but in the end the 48 P2C is what won out. They make the Soloist and R3 which are the road bike versions in carbon.
I LOVE my bike. It has 650's and I absolutely LOVE the smaller wheels. I can accelerate much faster than on my Giant OCR1, have much better steering control, and in reality I'm not expending more energy or spinning that much more than someone on 700's. They are a better fit for me than my 700's. That's my opinion. Plus, on such a small frame, the 650's look more proportional to me thant he 700s. Again- my opinion.

[Jo-n-NY]

No offense to the suggestion, but I'd highly suggest not going with 650 wheels! There's no reason you should work that much harder than everyone else on the road just because you're small! You'll spin your legs with more cadence (expend more energy) to get the same amount of speed as someone on 700 wheels.

The Ruby is a great choice (sorry to beat a dead horse). And, it comes in small sizes that are built really well. One of the girls that rides for Aaron's has a Ruby Pro that is a 44! I've never seen a bike so small for an adult! It's TINY...still has 700 c wheels and she LOVES it!

I have to agree with NJBikeGal here....You should fit a Ruby just fine. I ride a Ruby Pro, however a little bigger than most my size - a 51 cm and I am 5'2, 29 inseam, but I like the less cramped feeling. You should fit perfectly on one of the smaller sizes, 48 or 44 with 700 wheels. One reason not to go with 650wheels unless "absolutely" necessary is, if you are in a pinch, get a flat, and you may even just once need to borrow a tube, not many people ride a 650 wheel. Another reason they are just not as common.

If you find that is what fits you best fine, but try a WSD bike with 700's and see for yourself.

~ JoAnn

[Aggie_Ama]

I am about the same size (height, inseam) and ride a Cannondale Synapse WSD, 47 cm. LOVE IT!! Although it has 700s I think it corners well with no toe overlap. She is also quite the little workhorse at climbing, I love how much stiffer she is than the inexpensive Fuji I used to have. Only downsize was the saddle that is comes with is a torture device, I had to swap it out quick. Mine is 105/Ultegra but it looks like this year it would be all 105. The next step up is all Ultegra but the website only list compact doubles. http://www.cannondale.com/bikes/08/c...el-8RWC3C.html

The Specialized Ruby is never a bad option and it looks like there is the comp with some mix of 105/Ultegra and the Expert with Full Ultegra.

[Bluetree]

Another happy Ruby rider here. 5-1 with a 27.5 inseam.

I ride a 44cm S-Works. I used to ride a 48cm, but it was too big. Sure, I could ride it somewhat comfortably but performance-wise, I needed a smaller, stiffer frame. Personally, I would NOT get a road bike with 650 wheels (TT bike is a different story), but it has a lot to do with the accessibility of different wheelsets.

I have shorter legs, but have not found the steeper angles to be any less comfortable or responsive, whether sprinting or on hillier centuries. In fact, I have experienced no downside at all to this bike's geometry.

[Triskeliongirl]

IMO, you probably need a bike with 650 wheels. Smaller bikes with 700c wheels are going to have steep seat tube angles (75-76 degrees), which will tend to put you in a more aggressive position that might not be comfortable.

A quick glance at the Trek & Specialized websites indicates they're not using 650 wheels in the small sizes. Felt is using 650 wheels on their small women's bike but for reasons inexplicable to me still have steep seat tube angles.

Not carbon, but the Merlin Camena (and Litespeed Bella) has a slacker seat tube angle and 650s on it's smallest sizes. You should at least ride one for comparison.

Wow, thanks for the tip on the merlin. I wish I knew about it when I was buying. Do you know of any carbon bikes with slack STAs in smaller sizes? I assumed I'd need to go custom for that. I ended up with terrys with 24" front wheels in order to get a 73 degree seat tube angle together with a shorter top tube (but 700c rear for 'normal' gearing). The problem I have with all the bikes these gals love, is the seat tube angles are so steep I can't get set up properly, my knee will be too far forward of the pedal axle even with a super laid back seatpost. And, BTW, wheel size does not dictate speed, its a combination of the wheel size and gearing. To see, go to sheldon browns site and plug in different wheels sizes and gear combinations. It will take virtually the SAME ENERGY to push the same gear ratio, but it will take a diff. gears to have the same gear ratio on bikes with different sized wheels. Its true that smaller wheels have slightly more rolling resistance, but its very slight and made up for by the closer drafting advantages. To me the only down side of smaller wheels is the reduced availablity of wheels/tires, and non-standardness of tubes and wheels, if you race. But the FIT advantages for smaller people are tremendous. And if you don't race, there are plenty of good wheel/tire options in both 24" and 650c, just not as many very high end ones as in 700c (I love the schwalbe stelvio, comes in all the odd sized, 20" for a bike friday, 24" for a terry or airnimall, 650c, etc., very high pressure and light, rolls real nice).