Question about frame size / saddle height

-Trek-

When I got this bike the guy at the shop said that a 58cm frame was the right size for me (I'm 180cm or 5ft 11) I didn't know any better it was my first bike:). So now I have the saddle height set right for me (i.e While sitting in the saddle with pedals in a vertical position there is a slight bend in my knee). So to get to the point my seat post is no more than 15cm off the frame but yet every road bike I see has the seat post nearly 30cm above the frame. I'm just curious was this frame size too big for me?

The answer is probably obvious seeing that I had to turn the seat post around so I could bring the the saddle more forward.

Would appreciate any thoughts / input

blorg

What bike is it? A traditional geometry bike would have less seatpost showing than a compact geometry frame. I always had far less seatpost on my Trek than any subsequent bike, if that is it. Indeed when I transferred the components over to a new frame the seatpost was too short!

58cm could be OK for 5'11", certainly not a million miles off, I am 6ft and all my bikes are 58cm.

If reach to the bars is OK and the saddle position is OK regarding the pedals, there really isn't much problem. Only issue would be you might be limited how low you could get your drop which for most people is not an issue. There is nothing that mandates how much seatpost you need to have showing.

If reach is not OK you can fix it be getting a different stem.

papac

How much seat post showing varies from bike to bike and I wouldn't worry about it neccessarily.

What model of bike is it?Somebody can give a better opinion on fit if we know that.

I had to turn the seat post around so I could bring the the saddle more forward

This sounds really dodgy to me. After seat height you should adjust saddle fore and aft position so the front of you knee is over the middle of the pedal spindle when pedals are horizontal. (If you google KOPS saddle fore and aft you should find a video) If this is way out-and it sounds like it might be-you could injure yourself.Be careful.

If a bike shop sells you the wrong size bike they have to replace/refund afaik.

Lumen

The amount of seatpost showing doesn't really matter when you're cycling - your body can't feel that. The only things that matter are the relationship in space between feet, hands and arse, and the position of your centre of mass (fore-aft) over the bike.

Standover height (balls to top tube) has traditionally been the basis of sizing a road bike, but reach is more important.

If your reach is fine, i.e. you don't feel overstretched or cramped in the upper body, then the bike is about the right size.

It may be that you just have shorter legs/longer torso than most.

5'11" riders are most often fitted to 56cm or 58cm frames. The larger size will have a longer headtube, so give a slightly more upright position for a given number of headset spacers.

-Trek-

Thanks for all the replies.

The bike is a trek 1.2

I'm comfortable now riding (took a long time to get set up right), it's just like I said in the OP that the saddle looks very low compared to other bikes I've seen, but I guess like you all say once your comfortable....

Edit: On reflection I probably would go for a smaller frame if I was buying again (hindsight being 20/20 and all)

Jumpy

Lumen wrote: »

Standover height (balls to top tube) has traditionally been the basis of sizing a road bike

Dont do this naked. The older you get, the more it will skew your results.

blorg

Trekmad wrote: »

I'm comfortable now riding (took a long time to get set up right), it's just like I said in the OP that the saddle looks very low compared to other bikes I've seen, but I guess like you all say once your comfortable....

Edit: On reflection I probably would go for a smaller frame if I was buying again (hindsight being 20/20 and all)

I rode a 58cm Trek myself. You are probably between sizes and either would do. Treks tend to have not a lot of seatpost showing, it is just the frame design (most other bikes have a top tube that slopes down more, so the seat clamp is lower- needing a longer seatpost.)

As long as you are comfortable I really wouldn't worry about it.

martyc5674

I have a trek 1.2, 54cm but then im 5'4"...anyway i find it perfect size.
I just went out and measured the amount of exposed seatpost the black section) and it is 14.5 cm which is just under 6 inches.
Id rotate your seatpost the right way round tho if i were you.
Marty.


Im actually 5'8" !!!

horizon26

Lance Armstrong uses a 58 trek madone and he is 5' 9 or is it 10.He is under 5' 11''.I think the bike is to big for him but who am I to say this!You are between sizes and both should be ok.

Home:Ballyhoura

martyc5674 wrote: »

I have a trek 1.2, 54cm but then im 5'4"...anyway i find it perfect size.

Madness, I'm 5'7 (171cm) and ride a Trek 1.5 in a 52cm as my winter trainer rig and it fits perfectly, although I do like a racier position with the bars dropped down as much as possible using a -17° 110mm stem (-6° 120mm on the race bike due to much smaller headtube). I have measured it millimeter by millimeter and have put on the same bars and tape and pedals and saddle as my race bike (all cheaper models of same shape/size and lesser quality obviously) and now they are the exact same position/geometry wise (but not feel/performance wise thank god, at least I can see where the >€1k difference went to!) . So, my point is it is not always about frame size/saddle height but other factors play a major part too (like saddle fore/aft in relation to bb, stem length, bar reach drop and frame geometry etc...). If it matters to you, I have roughly 16cm of seatpost showing on the Trek (52cm frame) and roughly 17cm showing on the Orbea (51cm frame). See below for picture comparisons! I hope this helps and answers your question somewhat! Best of luck

Trek photo photoshopped to avoid embarrassment of 3cms of spacers stacked above the stem! Don't worry, I'm getting it cut soon. (Is this job done easily enough if using the right bits/tools or would I be best of leaving it into the shop who know what they are doing? I realise it is not something you want to go wrong with anyway!)

-Trek-

martyc5674 wrote: »

Id rotate your seatpost the right way round tho if i were you

I would but then the pointy end of the saddle will be going somewhere I am not comfortable with.

Honestly I cant set it up much better than it is, if I were to rotate the post the right way round I would have to buy a new handlebar set-up to prevent stretching. And tbh I rather go and shell out on a new bike rather than going down that road (its my first bike, I'm allowed to make mistakes:D).

DirkVoodoo

Trekmad wrote: »

I would but then the pointy end of the saddle will be going somewhere I am not comfortable with.

Honestly I cant set it up much better than it is, if I were to rotate the post the right way round I would have to buy a new handlebar set-up to prevent stretching. And tbh I rather go and shell out on a new bike rather than going down that road (its my first bike, I'm allowed to make mistakes:D).

Any chance of a picture of your setup?

There may be solutions that you have not thought of yet regarding stem length, seatpost setback, saddle with longer rails, etc.

I agree with the others, the amount of seatpost showing does not matter. Sure, a lot of pros have very impressive drops from saddle to bars but for the casual cyclist I would not worry. Chances are your flexibility and core are not as good as their's anyway.

Oh, and turn your seatpost back the correct way.

-Trek-

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

Oh, and turn your seatpost back the correct way.

oh come on there is enough suffering in this lifetime without getting a colonscopy saddle style .

I don't have a recent picture at the mo (made a few mods i.e clipless pedals) and wont till the w/e.

Its not really an obsession about seat post height, its just when I see other road bikes it gives the impression they are using a smaller frame and ramping up the seat height.

DirkVoodoo

This is a stock photo of a 2010 Trek 1.2:



Does the setup look similar to yours? How low down is the seatpost? Feel free to stick it into a photo editing program and adjust the setup.

I returned my bike when I bought it after 1 week because I felt the size was wrong, there wasn't too much hassle. Of course, this would depend on how long you have had the bike.

If it is a major issue (hard to tell without seeing you on it) then the best thing is to sell it and chalk it up to experience. I also had to do this when I was recommended a large Giant SCR over a medium. No point injuring yourself.

-Trek-

I dont think the setup changed much since.

lescol

Have a look at the pictures here:- http://www.bikedynamics.co.uk/guidelines.htm

As it says "rules of thumb". I think the third picture is the best place to start re saddle set back.

martyc5674

Lads...bit of a typo back there!!
Im 5'8" on a 54 cm frame!!
Marty.

Home:Ballyhoura

martyc5674 wrote: »

Lads...bit of a typo back there!!
Im 5'8" on a 54 cm frame!!
Marty.

Thank god for that, I was wondering what kind of bike fit/position you had! Not to worry

martyc5674

Home:Ballyhoura wrote: »

Thank god for that, I was wondering what kind of bike fit/position you had! Not to worry

Lol!
Must get back out now on the bike doing the Limerick hill challenge once we get a thaw...been off de fags now 6 weeks and raring to go.
Marty.

Home:Ballyhoura

martyc5674 wrote: »

Lol!
Must get back out now on the bike doing the Limerick hill challenge once we get a thaw...been off de fags now 6 weeks and raring to go.
Marty.

Yeah, just checked out the roads there an the MTB and they really aren't ready yet. We just had to get snow again last night didn't we, I'm sick of the turbo trainer at this stage. And fair play to ya for going off the fags...lets see what improvements you can make in your hill climb times as a result! Cheers

Dan_85

Hey, this seems like a logical place to ask about a bike frame...

i'm going to be buying a bike second hand which i have yet to see. the frame size is 54 like my current bike but the top tube ''cross bar'' is sloped on this bike. will this affect my position? won't the reach be a tad closer? all input and suggestions welcome.

i think the bike is a willier

blorg

Dan_85 wrote: »

Hey, this seems like a logical place to ask about a bike frame...

i'm going to be buying a bike second hand which i have yet to see. the frame size is 54 like my current bike but the top tube ''cross bar'' is sloped on this bike. will this affect my position? won't the reach be a tad closer? all input and suggestions welcome.

i think the bike is a willier

That is called a "compact" frame. Generally they are sized not according to the actual seat tube length but rather based on the "virtual" seat tube length- this is what the seat tube would be if the top tube was horizontal. In terms of reach similarly you want to compare "effective" top tube rather than the actual top tube. See in this example that the "sizes" do not correspond to the actual seat tube. This allows comparison to standard geometry frames.



According to this though Wilier size on a S/M/L system rather than numbers so if the guy selling has simply measured the seat tube then no, it will NOT be comparable to your current bike. Better confirm what the actual size is and look the geometry up on the internet.

bbosco

Dan_85 wrote: »

Hey, this seems like a logical place to ask about a bike frame...

i'm going to be buying a bike second hand which i have yet to see. the frame size is 54 like my current bike but the top tube ''cross bar'' is sloped on this bike. will this affect my position? won't the reach be a tad closer? all input and suggestions welcome.

i think the bike is a willier

What you want to find out is the effective top tube length i.e. the horizontal distance between the head tube and an imaginary extension of the seat-tube. This should be listed on the Willier website. This can then be compared directly with the top tube length of standard, non-sloping frames.


Edit: Blorg beat me to it :-)
What I'm talking about is '2' on the diagram.

-Trek-

Ah damn it. I thought the pictures I attached were coming through with my posts, ah well you answered my question anyway.

Thanks for all the input.

<Hangs head in shame >

Dan_85

Thanks a mill guys! bbosco and blorg