Sometimes bikes that are terrific in the medium sizes are much lesser at one or both size extremes.
What small (49cm +/-) road bikes should one consider for an aggressive/low position that is versatile (hills, cornering) and comfortable for long distances on chip seal roads?
Another wording: what road bike(s) would you recommend to your shorter but otherwise typically dimensioned non-pro friends who prefer to ride low and enjoy all forms of cycling?
I think a good litmus test for your size would be road bikes that are 650c, since if you are really trying to get the geometry right, reduce toe overlap etc, you would do 650c wheels.
Now, what road bikes these days still do that? any?
you’re talking about a road bike set up as a road bike, yes?
i know that you know that the stack and reach tables will largely answer this question. but the answer is not just on our stack and reach tables.
you also ought to be considering how these bikes are going to handle. if you are of average morphology - and as i recall you are pretty average, or, maybe slightly long-torsoed - you’ll want to make sure the reach of the bike is about right (and the problem in women’s sized bikes are reaches too long), and with a trail about right. if the bike is 700c and i assume it will be then the problem, usually, is front-center. other than (oddly) cannondale, which seems not much bothered by this, front/centers of 57.5cm are typically considered a cut-off point by most bike manufacturers who want to make sure they don’t fall afoul of the CPSC. this causes these companies to steepen seat angles in smaller sizes, which does nothing, and they slacken head angles, which does something. however, they don’t mate this with forks that have larger offsets, the bikes handle like trucks. correctly mating head angle and fork offset keeps the bike’s trail in a decent range, which keeps the bike a reasonably good handler.
what you SHOULD be looking for is a bike with an appropriate reach, a low stack, and a trail that ideally doesn’t exceed 60mm. maybe the candidate is cervelo’s R3 in size 48. low stack of 505mm, appropriate reach for that stack of 360mm, and a fork with a big offset, 53mm i think, that allows the trail to stick to a reasonable number.
Thanks, Dan.
Yes, a road bike set up as a road bike.
And I’m smack at the median for leg/torso ratio at my height based on the stats I’ve found. (Elite athletes likely aren’t … typical)
Yep, I can handle the stack/reach part of the equation. Just not sure about the rest.
Good to know the from/center cutoff point. I read Calfree’s article, don’t believe it mentioned the cutoff but it did say trail of 57 was ideal.
The bikes I’ve investigated thus far have a 43mm or so fork.
Seemed to me like maybe not much thought was put into the small sizes, but then I realized I know next to nothing so … this post.
And here you say 53mm fork and I’m back to … is much thought put into smaller sizes?
Ok.
Thank you.
“The bikes I’ve investigated thus far have a 43mm or so fork.”
you need 10mm more offset. just as an aside, a 70.5° head angle with a 53mm fork means a trail of just about 57mm. that’s an R-series bike in cervelo. if you make that a 43mm offset, then you add 10mm to the trail.
the other company that handles this pretty well is specialized, with the ruby. however, the ruby is slightly too tall for you, based on what you’re asking for. as another aside, this is why you shouldn’t pay ANY attention to the frame sizes attached by the bike companies to their models. here are two bikes, and the “smaller” sized bike is bigger than the “larger” sized bike:
model size stack reach
R3R5 - 48 505 360
Ruby - 44 518 370
Ah, yes, Cervelo isn’t on my prospect list. It is interesting, though, since you brought it up: how radically different the current R3 geometry is from that of the past.
I had heard they were to become more RS-like, and given I don’t particularly care for the ride of the Cervelo RS, well, not interested.
But in my size, the stack/reach changed little (502/361 to 505/360, compared to the RS 520/355) - what did change was a slacker HTA and increased rake.
So the front/center increased from 547 to 575 (with the RS at 555 despite its 650c wheels).
I’m just finding this geometry thing really interesting.
I did discover you have a road bike stack/reach/trail/fc web page - but Boardman bikes sadly aren’t on it yet.
Still, lots of good info now that I know more.
Thank you.
yeah, there are some bikes not yet on the stack/reach dbase. working on it.
Sometimes bikes that are terrific in the medium sizes are much lesser at one or both size extremes.
What small (49cm +/-) road bikes should one consider for an aggressive/low position that is versatile (hills, cornering) and comfortable for long distances on chip seal roads?
Another wording: what road bike(s) would you recommend to your shorter but otherwise typically dimensioned non-pro friends who prefer to ride low and enjoy all forms of cycling?
slam it
my height is 174cm, race weight usually 69kg ish. FTP of 305W, and i like to break away and ride in an aggressive position. I get 15.5-16cm from saddle to top of bar.
Scott and Specialized make the most aggressive frames out there, my size small (53.5 horizontal TT) has a 12cm HT with a 1.3cm headset stack
OTOH, maybe this is more of an excuse for me to show off the bike that i don’t deserve 
Sweet ride 
Some bikes just make you work that much harder to feel worthy…
thanks.
but seriously, if you want to get low, those are the companies that make the most aggressive frames. Cannondale is also quite similar. Basically, for a 53.5 effective top tube, you want a HT of 12cm.
if you are looking smaller, then Specialized is the most aggressive with a 51.8cm effective TT and 10cm HT; Scott is at 520mm 10.5mm; Cannondale at 520mm 11.5mm.
but truth be told, you could get “too aggressive” if the drop is too large and you end up constricting your airway
Specialized Roubaix.Ran into a similar situation with a good friend.She went with the Roubaix Pro SL3.Really nice bike with high end groupset but the lower tier versions are really nice as well.The Roubaix was a slightly better fit than the Ruby.
scott foil, felt f series, each around 500 stack, 370 reach. each would do what you want, fitwise. roubaix, no. too tall. almost 30mm taller than these other bikes.
look like you your hands almost touch tire in the drops!
it has since been moved up by 0.5 cm with the help of a spacer. apparently there’s a limit to how low you can go, and i hit that limit. My fitter basically said: your hip angle is really closing in on 40 degrees (in the position shown in the photo), and he recommended that i move the stem up. i was really hoping to race a UCI-illegal road bike, though not as if it’d matter as i’m still 17 points short of my cat-3 upgrade
scott foil, felt f series, each around 500 stack, 370 reach. each would do what you want, fitwise. roubaix, no. too tall. almost 30mm taller than these other bikes.
I have to vote for the F series Felt. It is very aggressive position wise, yet it is still comfortable to ride. The only other road bike I’d consider for myself is an R3, and it would have to be one hell of a bargain price for me to look at. Mine is a 51cm frame which isn’t quite the size you are looking for, but it should be comparable.
scott foil, felt f series, each around 500 stack, 370 reach. each would do what you want, fitwise. roubaix, no. too tall. almost 30mm taller than these other bikes.
I have to vote for the F series Felt. It is very aggressive position wise, yet it is still comfortable to ride. The only other road bike I’d consider for myself is an R3, and it would have to be one hell of a bargain price for me to look at. Mine is a 51cm frame which isn’t quite the size you are looking for, but it should be comparable.
I ride (and would recommend) either a Scott Foil or a Cannondale, e.g. the CAAD10. That said, if you’re after super-aggressive geometry take a look at this year’s Trek Madone with their H1 geometry.
“take a look at this year’s Trek Madone with their H1 geometry.”
for this particular rider, i would be careful of the madone in this size. now we’re talking about a very long reach, and that’s because the H1 is old style geometry, and this bike is not at all made with women in mind.
I was hesitant to respond since slowman and echappist gave some fantastic advice that is far beyond my knowledge of bike fitting, but I will offer a couple of comments since you said you wanted to get low and Cannondale has been mentioned. I just took delivery of a new Evo HiMod in a 52cm frame size. I am 5’ 8" with a 29" inseam and reasonably flexible for 56YO. On my previous road bike (Look 555), I was riding with essentially zero drop from a five year old fitting when I first started riding. I suppose I should have been refit after a year or two because my LBS just set me up on the Evo with about 1 1/2" of drop and I have already moved another spacer and increased the drop to 2". After my rides last weekend, I am going to increase it a bit more by moving another spacer above the bars. My back is clearly much flatter than on my previous bike and my position is so much lower that a couple of my riding buddies noticed it immediately when I pulled the new bike out of the garage. One of the reasons I have been able to get lower is I have 170 cranks on the new bike and I had the standard 172.5s on the old bike. Small change, but it seems to have helped some. You may want to try something in the 165 range.
Regarding handling and riding comfort, the Evo is a bit more twitchy than the Look. Turns in more quickly. I can ride the Look bike hands off with no problem, the Evo, not there yet, at least not comfortably. Not saying the Evo is hard to ride, just a little more racy and quick than the Look that is kind of a sled to me. I have to deal with some toe overlap, but I had that problem on the Look bike too. I have 700 wheels, so I don’t think you can avoid the overlap problem with these small frames.
FWIW,
Greg
Two data points for reference:
I’m 5’7, slightly long-legged, and quite happy on a 52cm Scott Addict, and I believe the Foil has the same geometry.
My wife is 5’4, average morphology, aggressive fit, LOVES her 47cm Masi Evo.
Good point re: the 165 mm crank. I’m relying on 165’s to get that 7.5 mm of drop.
Back when i was on my Lynskey with a 3.2 cm HS stack and 13cm HT, that was one of my last resorts of getting more drop. Eventually i ran a -25 degree to get lower