When is a 56 not a 56!

fat bloke

Quite maddening, this bike v's human geometry thing is!

I'm just poring over comparative geometry charts between my race bike (a cervelo), my training bike (a ridley) and canyon's geometries. Jesus Chr1st, it's like chalk and cheese and .... bananas. There seems to be no common ground between them at all at all.

I've always ridden a 56. The cervelo is a 56 therefore and has a top tube length of 56.4. It could probably do with being a tiny bit shorter due to a lack of flexibility on my part, but it's not a big issue, I've done big mile days on it without an issue.

The Ridley is a medium with a top tube length of 55. It could probably do with being a tiny bit longer, but again it's fine.

I'm just looking at the canyon website and trying to match one or other of the bikes up to the canyon geometires and fcuk me, I'm all over the place. You'd think the natural and obvious thing to do would be to go for the 56 but the top tube length of that seems uber short at 54.5. So should I be looking at a 58 Canyon then whose top tube is 55.4 - slap bang in the middle of my cervelo and my ridley.

I'd just be worried about buying a "58" cos in any other bike I've ever sat up on a 58 would be way too big.


I know canyon sizing is a bit contentious anyway, so with that in mind, has anyone else here got a 56 that is usually a 56? Are they unusually short in length as a rule?

Brian?

Have you used this?

http://www.canyon.com/_en/tools/pps.html

Sloping geometries mean that a 56 is rarely a 56 anymore. But a 54.5 can be a "virtual" 56.

My Fuji is a Large/55. But the effective top tube length is 58, so it's actually a 58.

Plastik

Forget the Canyon size and just go by the TT and HT from the geo chart. My brother put through an order on one last week, he's on a 55.5 Boardman but the geo of a 58 Canyon was almost identical. Both companies call those sizes Large. A 56 Canyon on the other hand would've lopped 30mm off the HT alone, the 58 is only 10mm lower than what he's comfortable on.

fat bloke

Brian? wrote: »

Have you used this?
http://www.canyon.com/_en/tools/pps.html

I did try it yeah, and it was .... inconclusive .

Plastik wrote: »

Forget the Canyon size and just go by the TT and HT from the geo chart.

Right Plastik. Riddle me this then.

My cervelo 56: HT 173 & TT 564
Canyon's 56: HT 175 & TT 545
Canyon's 58: HT 190 & TT 554

So going by HT I'm closer to the 56, but going by TT I'm closer to the 58. :rolleyes::eek::pac:

Which is the better metric do you reckon?

iwillhtfu

Funny enough I was actually put on a small on the canyon website. I currently have a 56 Fuji.

It does create a bit of concern when you're basically ordering with one eye closed.

There are a few boardsies with Canyons that have offered a test fit on their bikes before. Might be worth taking up an offer if you're considering buying one.

Plastik

190 HT on the 58 Canyon, are you sure about that? All the 58's I was looking at last week were 170.

*You're looking at the Roadlite

In that case I would go with the Canyon with the closer TT, and assuming you don't have the stem slammed on the Cervelo (have you?), I'd slam it on the Canyon to make up for the longer HT.

fat bloke

iwillhtfu wrote: »

Funny enough I was actually put on a small on the canyon website. I currently have a 56 Fuji.
Might be worth taking up an offer if you're considering buying one.

Did you buy a small canyon? That sounds mad. Fuji geometry for a 56 is a TT of 56! Canyon's small is a TT of 53.3.

My neighbour actually has two canyons but he thinks he ordered a 54, but canyon don't sell a 54 Their "small" they call 53, and their "medium" a 56.

fat bloke

Plastik wrote: »

190 HT on the 58 Canyon, are you sure about that? All the 58's I was looking at last week were 170.

Yeah, unless I'm reading it all wrong, here it is :

http://www.canyon.com/_en/roadbikes/bike.html?b=3192#tab-reiter2

Plastik

Post edited above!

Beasty

If you are between sizes that can be easily fixed by switching stems, so I would go for whichever your gut feel is. I ride (Cervelo and Ridley) 58/Large and my TT bikes are 56 (although for the track I don't have a separate pursuit bike so need to stick with 58 for that)

fat bloke

Yeah, the CF SLX is more clear cut, in that case I reckon I'd be a 56 cos the HT is the same as the cervelo and the TT is a bit shorter but not radically so.

For the roadlite it seems I'm right between two stools. I wonder what the seat tube has to say about things...

fat bloke

TBH my gut doesn't know diddly squat. When I was buying the cervelo I was convinced, based on top tube length that I should be on a 54, cos I wanted a shorter reach than my old Felt. But I went down to the shop to sit on one and it was a joke, the sloping top tube and resultant lower seat tube meant I'd need metres of seat post. In no way whatsoever was a 54 my size.

I'll dry my powder til I get back home and get d'aul measuring tape out and really and truly confuse the sh1t outta myself.

nilhg

How do the stack and reach figures of the various bikes compare? Cervelo seem to be big believers in using those figures to get fit as close as possible,

http://www.cervelo.com/en/engineering/thinking-and-processes/geometry-and-fit.html,

some interesting diagrams there.

Juan More Time

Personally I reckon the top tubes of most road bikes are a little on the short side for a guys like me who have the opposite problem, ie long torsos and short legs. My bike has only has an effective toptube of 56.5cm

This requires me to use a whooping 140mm handlebar stem to get a comfortable and balanced position. I'm not particularly tall at 179cm and my seat height is only 71cm

Tom Bonnen and Peter Sagan aren't able to get a comfortable position on their sponsors off the peg framesets, so they get special custom frames with longer than standard toptubes.

fat bloke

nilhg wrote: »

How do the stack and reach figures of the various bikes compare? Cervelo seem to be big believers in using those figures to get fit as close as possible,

http://www.cervelo.com/en/engineering/thinking-and-processes/geometry-and-fit.html,

some interesting diagrams there.

I think what it boils down to is that I don't really understand the measurements and how they synergise to create the perfect fit. If you can read some sense into 'em and translate it for my thick skull nihlg then please try

Cervelo 56 stack and reach are 580 and 387
Ridley (m) stack and reach are 553 and 391
Canyon 58 stack and reach are 598 and 377
Canyon 56 stack and reach are 581 and 373

Y'know, looking at that maybe a 56 is my man, with a slightly longer stem if I want it.

af_thefragile

I'ld say you really should be looking at the stack and reach to get the right measurements. Due to sloping tube and different geometries bikes could have the same top tube and head tube measurements but feel totally different because they'ld have different stack and reach. Reach would affect how far forward the handle bars are from you and stack would affect how high or low the handlebars are from your seating position. Also different riding styles would change the feel as well. If you're on a endurance style bike where you'll be sitting more upright, you'ld want a shorter reach. If you're on a racer or a TT where you'll be more slammed down, you'ld want a longer reach. If you don't have much hip flexibility and bending too low would be uncomfortable, then get a bike with a smaller reach. You can always add a bigger stem if you want more reach.

So what I'll say is look at the stack and reach of the bike you're most comfortable with and get the size which matches the measurements the closest!

Brian?

fat bloke wrote: »

I think what it boils down to is that I don't really understand the measurements and how they synergise to create the perfect fit. If you can read some sense into 'em and translate it for my thick skull nihlg then please try

Cervelo 56 stack and reach are 580 and 387
Ridley (m) stack and reach are 553 and 391
Canyon 58 stack and reach are 598 and 377
Canyon 56 stack and reach are 581 and 373

Y'know, looking at that maybe a 56 is my man, with a slightly longer stem if I want it.

I suspect you're over thinking it. What result did the canyon for calculator give you? You say it was inconclusive, but it must have given you some answer.

fat bloke

Brian? wrote: »

I suspect you're over thinking it. What result did the canyon for calculator give you? You say it was inconclusive, but it must have given you some answer.

Yeah, my arguments won't withstand much of your cross-examination, I was being deliberately evasive . I'm whiling away time here back west of Dingle in a mobile home and I don't have a measuring tape so I kinda plugged in some numbers from memory and some guesstimations, so the answer (a 56 as it happens) is nonsense until I get home and actually measure stuff .

Anyway, it's one of two is the final answer - it's a 56 or a 58, but one is right and one is wrong and wrong is worse than useless. In that sense I don't think it can be over-thunk. My cervelo is the right size for me. If it was a 54 it'd be way too small, if it was a 58, it'd be way too big, and a very very expensive mistake.

I'm not going to buy anything in the wifi darkness of Corca Dhuibhne, but I'd certainly like to get a handle on the numbers.

af_thefragile

You can always return the bike if it's too big or too small to get a smaller or bigger size. Though it'll be a bit pricey to post it back to Germany for Canyon...

nilhg

fat bloke wrote: »

Quite maddening, this bike v's human geometry thing is!

I'm just poring over comparative geometry charts between my race bike (a cervelo), my training bike (a ridley) and canyon's geometries. Jesus Chr1st, it's like chalk and cheese and .... bananas. There seems to be no common ground between them at all at all.

I've always ridden a 56. The cervelo is a 56 therefore and has a top tube length of 56.4. It could probably do with being a tiny bit shorter due to a lack of flexibility on my part, but it's not a big issue, I've done big mile days on it without an issue.

The Ridley is a medium with a top tube length of 55. It could probably do with being a tiny bit longer, but again it's fine.

I'm just looking at the canyon website and trying to match one or other of the bikes up to the canyon geometires and fcuk me, I'm all over the place. You'd think the natural and obvious thing to do would be to go for the 56 but the top tube length of that seems uber short at 54.5. So should I be looking at a 58 Canyon then whose top tube is 55.4 - slap bang in the middle of my cervelo and my ridley.

I'd just be worried about buying a "58" cos in any other bike I've ever sat up on a 58 would be way too big.


I know canyon sizing is a bit contentious anyway, so with that in mind, has anyone else here got a 56 that is usually a 56? Are they unusually short in length as a rule?

fat bloke wrote: »

I think what it boils down to is that I don't really understand the measurements and how they synergise to create the perfect fit. If you can read some sense into 'em and translate it for my thick skull nihlg then please try

Cervelo 56 stack and reach are 580 and 387
Ridley (m) stack and reach are 553 and 391
Canyon 58 stack and reach are 598 and 377
Canyon 56 stack and reach are 581 and 373

Y'know, looking at that maybe a 56 is my man, with a slightly longer stem if I want it.

I'm far from an expert on any of this so all the usual health warnings apply but I've been trying to get my head around some of this stuff so I'll throw my tuppence worth in.

I know you're not interested in a Trek but just have a look at the Madone 7 series where you can easily compare their H1 and H2 fits,

http://www.trekbikes.com/us/en/bikes/road/performance_race/madone_7_series/madone_7_9/#

The totally race orientated H1 56cm has a stack of 546 and a reach of 400, while the more dual purpose H2 fit 56cm has a stack of 577 and a reach of 387, so the H1 is lower and longer in the fit, which is rational for an aggressive race fit for presumably fit and supple rider.

Interestingly the H2 is very close to your Cervelo, while the H1 is closer to your Ridley but more aggressive.

If we look at the race Canyon the CF SLX, the 56 there has a stack of 560 and a reach of 383, so slightly more compact and possibly a little more aggressive than a Trek H2 but if you put a spacer/spacers under the stem could be very close to your Cervelo or Ridley.

http://www.canyon.com/_en/roadbikes/bike.html?b=3295#tab-reiter2

The Roadlite 56 with its 581/373 is shorter and taller than the CF SLX so is going to put you sitting slightly more upright, if you notice too it has a straight seatpost while the others have setback ones so I reckon you might end up considerably more upright on it even than the figures suggest, which might be comfortable enough on long spins but not performance orientated or what you are used to.

I'd suggest getting the figures straight in your head, doing the canyon calculator thing (it'd be interesting to see if it gives the same result for the various bike models?) then ringing Canyons UK office, I've never done it myself but I've heard that they are helpful and experienced in comparing to other brands.

I hope some of that makes sense, let us know how you get on.