Canyon Ultimate AL sizing (long legs, short torso)

Wotaco

Could somebody please suggest what Ultimate AL frame size I should get? I'm thinking that a 56 or 58 would do the trick, but I'm not quite sure. My long-ish legs a short-ish torso makes the decision harder...

Inseam             88 cm 
Trunk              64 cm 
Forearm            35 cm 
Arm                67 cm 
Thigh              60 cm 
Lower Leg          57.5 cm 
Sternal Notch      148 cm 
Total Body Height  181 cm 
Torso              60cm

Anybody here have the same kind of measures and a Canyon to go with them?
Canyon:




BR,
W

Mr. Skeffington

I'd go for the 58 if I was you.

Whats the length of the top tube and stem on your current bike?

Beasty

Presumably in general, with long legs/short torso you would go for a smaller frame than if you have short legs/long torso, given the sizing basically drives the distance between saddle and bars (although you can fine tune with different length stems)?

Statler

I'm 182cm and 85 inseam, have a 58, I could have got away with the 56 but the 58 was a closer match to previous frames I was comfortable on. You should be fine with the 58... Make sure the stem length suits you though, they're an unusual size steerer tube, very hard to get a stem for but Canyon will swap one out for you when you order if the size doesn't suit...

Wotaco

Beasty wrote: »

Presumably in general, with long legs/short torso you would go for a smaller frame than if you have short legs/long torso, given the sizing basically drives the distance between saddle and bars (although you can fine tune with different length stems)?

Will going with a smaller frame make a very "aerodynamic" fit? I suppose the height difference between the saddle and handlebar is going to be greater if I go with a smaller frame(?)

Idleater

Wotaco wrote: »

Will going with a smaller frame make a very "aerodynamic" fit? I suppose the height difference between the saddle and handlebar is going to be greater if I go with a smaller frame(?)

Aerodynamic yes, assuming your core muscles are able to support your torso.
I have the same sizing and asked the same question when I went for a bike fit. Seeing as I'm quite inflexible, the 56 orbea was correct for me instead of the 53.
The issue is the drop from the saddle to the bars, not the reach which can be accommodated with stem length.
The 2cm stack height difference will required 4cm of spacers to accommodate the increase in seat post.
My stem is now exactly on top of the headset meaning no spacers, and I still have my 9cm drop as per bike fit.
Also remember that you'll have drop handle bars to go lower, which may be very low if your frame is too small rendering them useless.

moggs1972

larger frame will mean longer top tube and (possibly) longer stem with canyon. if you have short torso i suggest you go with the smaller frame size, for what its worth im 180cm with a similar inseam and i have a 54cm canyon, i just added a longer stem.

Wotaco

moggs1972 wrote: »

larger frame will mean longer top tube and (possibly) longer stem with canyon. if you have short torso i suggest you go with the smaller frame size, for what its worth im 180cm with a similar inseam and i have a 54cm canyon, i just added a longer stem.

You must have a very aerodynamic fit with that frame size?

moggs1972

Wotaco wrote: »

You must have a very aerodynamic fit with that frame size?

yeah its a pretty aero fit but importantly its all in proportion, i got a fitting recently in b2r to make sure

Sr. Assumpta

Wotaco, it may seem a little extreme right now, but in pursuit of a perfect-fit Canyon (I love my Canyon, I want everyone to know this joy.....) perhaps you should consider trimming your ungainly legs and lengthening your torso???? :pac:

velo.2010

A word to the wise on fitting guards and 25mm tyres on an Ultimate AL. Spent yesterday evening fitting the damn things (Crud MK II). 25mm won't go on.:( 23mm are a squeeze but with some manipulation they fit.

kipple

Also Canyon changed their geometry for 2012. So be careful taking advice on what size fits people as this is based on older geometry.

I have a copy of the Roadlite geometry from last year if you are interested.

Wotaco

Noticed this, does anybody have the old Ultimate Al geometry?

Lumen

Wotaco wrote: »

Noticed this, does anybody have the old Ultimate Al geometry?

My spreadsheet says...

Horiz. TT:
58: 565
56: 553.5
54: 543.2

HT angle:
58: 73.5
56: 73
54: 72.5

HT length:
58: 170
56: 160
54: 151

ST angle:
58: 73.5
56: 74
54: 74.5

kipple

Download the 2011 catalog here:

http://www.canyon.com/_en/service/downloads.html

velo.2010

Interesting. So Canyon have basically redefined what a 56cm is! Having got rid of the 54cm option they've shortened up the 56cm to accommodate the old 54's and pushed anyone who was a 56 up to a 58 from what I can see.

Wotaco

Very interesting indeed, most bikes except the 58cm have change quite a lot.
The new 56cm is, as said, smaller and the new 58cm is closer to the old 56cm in terms of reach and stack. However, the top tube on the 58 is still 13mm longer when comparing these two models. How is that even possible?

velo.2010

I'm a tad under 6'0 and am on a 58cm because of Canyon's funky sizing. The new 56cm has an aggressive headtube height besides the even slightly shorter toptube - actually it really isn't a 56cm anymore.

Wotaco, I think your looking at the 58cm and having to ask canyon to swop the 110mm stem for a 100mm.

kipple

The stack/reach ratio is the same for each size of the roadlite and ultimate al. The ratio is different for each model.

The roadlite has more stack and less reach compared to the ultimate al.

So the geometry of the roadlite may be better for those with long leggs/short torso??