So I am in between bike sizes. Is it better to go up a size (less spacers, shorter stem, less seatpost) or smaller size (spacers, longer stem, tad bit more seat post)?
Thats a really hard question. I think most people will say it depends on the type of bike but from my experience(2 bikes a little big and one a little small) I would say the smaller size is better. I always felt stretched out and awkward on my larger bikes but my smaller one is a pure dream!
Im 5’5" and had a Trek 2200 that was a 54cm and was just wayyy to big. Moved down to a 52cm Special ed Allez comp and that was a lot better but was still just not right. Lastly I got a XS (roughly 48cm) Softride lite and all though its at many of its limits fits me a lot better and I feel really good on it.
Hope this help!
There’s an old cycling adage that says, “it’s easier to make a small bike ride large than to make a large bike ride small.”
If you’re talking about a tt/tri bike, I’d be inclined to opt for the smaller frame. It will weigh a wee bit less. It will be a bit stiffer. If you’re so inclined, you’ll be able to get lower on it, etc. If you look at some of the top time trialists like, for example, Fabian Cancellara, you’ll see they often ride TT frames that are a size or two smaller than their road frames.
This all begs the question … how are you determining the frame size? Hopefully it’s by reach and/or top tube length, not just the general frame size stamped on the frame and not by stand-over height.
.
There used to be an axiom that you should be on the smallest possible frame size tha you could get the correct position on. That thinking can be directly traced back to a number of sources, including a chapter in the book “Greg LeMond’s Complete Book of Cycling” by Greg LeMond and Kent Gordis. This was one of the very first English language resources for performance bike fitting and accompanied the rise in popularity of road cycling surrounding the 1989 LeMond comeback.
That information was good then, but is dated now. Frame materials and frame designs have changed. As a result, frame sizes are named differently and fit a little differently too.
Since there are so many molded carbon fiber bikes now, and since the tooling to make them is so costly, companies have had to engineer in ways to make a limited number of frame size fit a large number of body dimensions and porportions. Some work very well, others are obviously an afterthought.
The bottom line is one frame will fit better than the other options. Selecting the right frame geometry and then attendant frame size is relatively easy. It’s the first part of getting a good position. Positioning the rider is more involoved as you are working with a lot of variables: Crank length, stem length and rise, aerobar length, base bar bend and width, saddle selection, pedal configuration, etc.
Getting the to the right frame size and geometry aren’t too difficult. It is a relatively sophisticated process of elimination. A good fitter can help easily given some fairly basic dimensions.
Being stretched out could be fixed with a shorter stem but then I lose some control. Sure on the smaller size I would have more spacers, a slowtwitch no no, but I could use a longer stem and have more control.
in general, with tri bikes, size up, not down.
That is what my fitter told me. He said at the last cervelo brain bike he attended they told him they shifted their belief, so if you are between sizes choose the larger one.
So for TT guys, or those who have a bike to run double Tri/TT duties and don’t race beyond olympics, would you still suggest sizing up? I’m on a 55 P2K and 57 Talon (road), and there’s no way I would be able to get enough drop on a bigger frame. Or is this more an individual thing depending on one’s body (torso height, arm length, etc.)?