If your theoretical bike frame is a 54.9 you can probably safely fit on a 54, 55, or 56, depending upon the manufacturer. I've fit 53, 54 and 55 road bikes all quite well from different makers. Top tube is even a more important measurement but even so, stem length allows a reasonable degree of adjustability.

To understand the rational behind what the shop was doing have a look at this site. It explains road bike fit quite well.

http://www.coloradocyclist.com/bikefit/

I would expect a 56cm to fit you, considering your inseam. I'm 5'11" with a 36" inseam and I ride a 58... 54 seams way to small...

Ya, i agree. My buddy has the same inseam as I do, but he's 4 inches shorter than me. He rides a 54cm.

Thanks for the feedback all.

Keep in mind that it is easier to fit a bigger person on a small frame, than a small person on a big frame. The reason is that at least with a smaller frame you can get a longer stem and seatpost and move your saddle back. Pluse you'll save a little in weight.

You are the customer and don't sound satisfied about the fit or process that the shop went through. I don't blame you from what you described. That doesn't mean the bike won't fit (I'm 5'11" with long torso and ride a 56 Trek). That said, I do wish I had a better and more thorough fit done before I purchased my bike. My fault, not the store's.

My free advice: take your time and go to some other local shops. You may find that 56 is right and end up back at the first store, but I believe it's worth taking the time to get it done right.

Joe

I am no expert but I think it is a mistake to do fit just off inseam. Frankly just as in tri bike fit, I think the key measurement is "crotch to notch" and I focus more on top tube length than seat tube. This is especially important in the age of sloping top tubes which make ST length a real guessing game.

Check out www.wrenchscience.com or www.competitivecycling.com for some on line fit calculators. They are more comprehensive than what you LBS did. I am not saying they fit you wrong but there is more to fit than inseam length.

As I mentioned on another thread, I have twice paid more than 150 bucks for fittings. Rhey do a heck of a lot more than poke a stick at my crotch. They get you one a trainer and you pedal for about an hour while they change seat positions, stems and stem angles, bars and bar angles, spacers, and all the while asking you about your intended uses and observing your pedaling dynamics and flexibility (e.g. I am huge but need a relatively small top tube because I am not very flexible).

But, your fit was free. And, you presumably did not go to a fancy custom type shop like I did.

The shops here that do not charge for fittings do pretty much what you describe.

But on a smaller frame, wouldn't you need to adjust the seatpost higher.



Is there a rule for the maximum clearance between your saddle and the top of the seat tube?
I'm having sizing issues now because I need to change my bike frame [it was in the trunk of our car and we were rear-ended by a 10wheeler truck].



Thanks!

"Is there a rule for the maximum clearance between your saddle and the top of the seat tube?"

With compact geometry, some seatposts are over 400mm.

The more important rule, IMO, is the number of spacers under the stem. I can't see a reason for more than 2cm, yet you see bikes all the time with 5-8cm worth of spacers. Scary.

If your previous frame fit, just take the measurements from it and use them as a starting point.

What is your top tube length?

58 size is big for somebody who is 5'11".

---

--------------------------------------------------------
I see obsessed people.

Road bike fit really isn't that difficult (now, road bike designing ... that's something else entirely). Generally:

* Smaller is better than bigger. So, It's best (usually) to go with the smallest frame size that meets your fit criteria. As you've discovered, frequently 2-3 sizes can be *made* to fit. That doesn't mean there isn't a best size for your fit.

* Fit the bike to you. Not you to the bike. Seems obvious, but lots of people get this bassakward.

* Performance road bikes are meant to have long stems and lots of seatpost showing (with a fair amount of setback on that seatpost). At your height, I'd look for a frame that *needs* a 130 stem to fit. No shorter than 120 would be acceptable. Long stems handle better at speed than short ones.

* Most people aren't abnormal. If most people were abnormal, normal wouldn;t be normal. very few riders need custom frames for real fit reasons. Most of us want them cuz we want them. And there's nothing wrong with that.

*Remember: a 54 Trek does not equal a 54 Colnago which does not equal a 54 Cervelo. The numbers that matter: setback, frame reach (cervelo defines this the best; basically, draw an imaginary line vertically through the BB then measure from that line forward to the headtube -- kind of the opposite of setback), seat tube angle. With these figures, you can directly compare frames irregardless of their sizing nomenclature.

---

*****
"In case of flood climb to safety"

Iwent trough the same ended up on a 56 scott same size as you 5-11 32 in seam now ride a 52 Kestrel Talon SL top tube 53.3 seat tube 52 it feels perfect and my performance has improved.