Is this frame too big?

Bellypopper

Hi All

I have just purchased a lovely Orbea Bronze frame. It was purchased unsighted so I was unable to check the fit. Its a 53cm. I have set the seat height correctly (as per bike fit), but I am concerned that the seat is very near the bottom, with very little post showing. According to my bike fit, I have short legs and a long torso, so I tend to go for the a bigger frame to get a longer top tube.

I have enclosed a link to a picture, and was hoping for any advice as to whether I should go for a smaller frame.

https://www.dropbox.com/sc/5714qdsxqkmw ... V2gv27GAba

Ta in advance

Russ

smoggysteve

If that is the height you need the saddle I would suggest coming down a size or two

Mark_P

A bike fit is only specific to a given frame, unless this is a new frame with identical geometry to the frame the bike fit was carried out on. I'd be concerned that you'd be positioned too far back relative to the bottom bracket, which wouldn't result in a very effective power transfer, and is likely to cause pains in the knee.

Grill

Certainly looks as though it's too big if that saddle height is correct. Do you have the specifics of your bike fit?

dowtcha

Mark_P wrote:

A bike fit is only specific to a given frame, unless this is a new frame with identical geometry to the frame the bike fit was carried out on. I'd be concerned that you'd be positioned too far back relative to the bottom bracket, which wouldn't result in a very effective power transfer, and is likely to cause pains in the knee.

?
Once you have a proper bike fit you can use that data to set up another bike. The bike may change but your dimensions do not. Some bike fitters will use a jig for a bike fit. Yes the saddle looks very low but it all depends on how short your legs are and how long your torso is. What make/size was your last bike and a photo with you on the bike would be more helpful. How tall are you and inseam leg.

Jules Winnfield

I think it's always best to go for a smaller frame, if you want a longer top tube, just fit a longer stem. I'm like you though, I have smaller legs and longer torso relative to my height.

Bellypopper

thanks for all of your replies. I will dig out my bikefit measurements tomorrow.

imposter2.0

Mark_P wrote:

A bike fit is only specific to a given frame, unless this is a new frame with identical geometry to the frame the bike fit was carried out on. I'd be concerned that you'd be positioned too far back relative to the bottom bracket, which wouldn't result in a very effective power transfer, and is likely to cause pains in the knee.

No that's not correct at all. A bike fit establishes your optimum position in relation to a bike's (any bike's) contact points. As someone else has already pointed out, the data is portable and the specific frame is largely irrelevant. Granted that certain frame geometries may prevent you from somehow achieving your ideal fit, but those are going to be rare..

StillGoing

Imposter wrote:

Mark_P wrote:

A bike fit is only specific to a given frame, unless this is a new frame with identical geometry to the frame the bike fit was carried out on. I'd be concerned that you'd be positioned too far back relative to the bottom bracket, which wouldn't result in a very effective power transfer, and is likely to cause pains in the knee.

No that's not correct at all. A bike fit establishes your optimum position in relation to a bike's (any bike's) contact points. As someone else has already pointed out, the data is portable and the specific frame is largely irrelevant. Granted that certain frame geometries may prevent you from somehow achieving your ideal fit, but those are going to be rare..

Absolutely. It'd be an expensive game if you had to have a bike fit for each individual bike when all you need to do is transfer the data.

OP, that frame is too big. I'd go smaller frame with a longer stem.

rafletcher

OP, it's too big by todays yardsticks - which are to have lots of seatpost showing and bars a long way below saddle a la pro racer.

Look back to photos of say 1970's pro racers, and you'll see them with very little seatpost showing (have a look at the photo of Robert Millar , TdF KOM winner from the past). For comparison, 30 years ago my bike was a 60cm frame with 12cm stem. Today a bike fit has me on a 56cm frame and a 10cm stem (and only part of that is due to age!)

https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8374/8373 ... 0068_z.jpg

And if you have short legs and a long torso you'll have less seatpost showing for a given frame size (or you go smaller frame and longer stem as noted in other posts) but it's cosmetic to an extent. Some fames (notably some Ribbles) have a longer TT to ST dimension.

earthvspace4XTuUWcX

Although you have had a bike fit I would also calculate what your saddle height should be yourself. I find the Lemond method seems to suit me, see link below, it is straightforward to do and just takes a few minutes. If your saddle height as shown in the photograph is correct for you , then yes the frame is probably on the large side.
http://myworldfromabicycle.blogspot.co. ... chart.html

giant_man

Imposter wrote:

Mark_P wrote:

A bike fit is only specific to a given frame, unless this is a new frame with identical geometry to the frame the bike fit was carried out on. I'd be concerned that you'd be positioned too far back relative to the bottom bracket, which wouldn't result in a very effective power transfer, and is likely to cause pains in the knee.

No that's not correct at all. A bike fit establishes your optimum position in relation to a bike's (any bike's) contact points. As someone else has already pointed out, the data is portable and the specific frame is largely irrelevant. Granted that certain frame geometries may prevent you from somehow achieving your ideal fit, but those are going to be rare..

+1- Thats it. Got it in one. As far as the OP's position, I would say looking at the seatpost, that it the wrong size, especially with a compact frame.

Bellypopper

Thanks very much for all of the replies. It would appear that most responses agree the frame is too big

As a side note, the top tube is the same length as my current road bike, so that just leaves the lack of seatpost showing. Being that I am 50 years old, and not as flexible as I once was, does it really matter that the saddle is not a lot higher than the bars? - or am I missing something else?

Thanks again
Russ

StillGoing

Bellypopper wrote:

Thanks very much for all of the replies. It would appear that most responses agree the frame is too big

As a side note, the top tube is the same length as my current road bike, so that just leaves the lack of seatpost showing. Being that I am 50 years old, and not as flexible as I once was, does it really matter that the saddle is not a lot higher than the bars? - or am I missing something else?

Thanks again
Russ

Ok, I'm mid 50's with numerous muscular skeletal injuries and started riding four years ago. I now ride with a slammed front end and around 10cm of drop so age is not a barrier to flexibility.

Your top tube length is measured as a virtual top tube i.e. as a horizontal straight line from the centre of the head tube/steerer to the centre of the seat tube/post. This is longer than the actual top tube length in a road bike frame unless for some reason the seat tube is particularly upright/vertical. If you've taken the length of the actual top tube instead of the virtual top tube, this might be why the frame is bigger than your previous ride. As an example, I ride a 48 sloping frame set which is the equivalent of a 52.5cm virtual top tube. If I'd bought the frame as a 50 or even 52, which is what my height requires, instead of the 48 sloping, the virtual top tube length would have been far too big for me.

On a side note; if that is your old bike in the background, I'd say that was slightly too big for you too judging by the seat post on show.

Bellypopper

On a side note; if that is your old bike in the background, I'd say that was slightly too big for you too judging by the seat post on show.

Why do I need lots of seatpost on show?

The trouble is that if I get a smaller frame to have more seatpost showing, then the top tube is too short. The bike you see in the background is fitted with a 130mm stem already, so a smaller frame would not work for me.

Thanks
Russ

StillGoing

If you're happy not to have a lot of seat post on show and have the bike look more like an Audax ride, then stick with the frame you've bought. From your original post, it seemed the lack of seat post showing was making you believe the frame was too big? Stem length can vary from person to person and lengths of 160mm aren't that unusual. For most people, the preference would be a smaller frame and longer stem to adjust for reach other than a larger frame and shorter stem.

With the lay back of the seat post, you also have to be careful with where your knee sits in relation to the pedal spindle. If your legs are short, you could find yourself having to be flexible just to sit correctly on the saddle of a too big frame and reach the bars.

kajjal

Once you have the saddle height and saddle fore/ aft position sorted, reach and drop are up to your preferences. The frame does look too big and if it gives you a lack of stand over height it could be painful.

mamba80

160mm stems not unusual ?

tbh if seat post bothers you, but the reach & stack ht is good for you, rather than a smaller frame, you need to go for a frame that has a greater TT slope.

if you it bought 2nd hand, then just ride it as it is, you like the bike and it fits you, if it turns out its not for you, sell it, so whats to dislike?

Grill

The more I look at the bike, the less sense the fit makes. What are the stack, reach, saddle height and saddle offset measurements of your fit? Also, how tall are you and what's your inseam?

DKay

The Orbea Orca frame doesn't have a short TT length. Unless you have crazy short legs/crazy long torso for your height (how tall are you?), then the frame looks two sizes too large. Do you have any crotch clearance when standing over the bike? Also, as already said, details of your other bike and your fit measurements will help.

Bellypopper

Hi All

My other bike is a Ridley Orion size small which is 483 C-C seat tube. According to my bike fit, my saddle height should be 662mm from BB center to top of saddle. I have used that measurement on the Orbea frame that can be seen in the picture. I have a 120mm stem on the Ridley, which gives a reach of 723mm from saddle center. According to my bike fit, that length should be a little longer to achive the correct position for a sportitive setup. With the standard Orbea stem which is 115mm, the reach from saddle center is pretty much identical to the Orion. The ony real difference between the Orion and Orbea is that the top tube has less slope on the Orbea, meaning less seatpost is showing. The bar to saddle relationship is around the same between the two bikes, as I have less spacers under the stem on the Orbea. I do need to check the saddle setback which needs to be 187mm from BB center to saddle center.

I am 1726mm tall, with an inseam of 772mm and torso of 656mm. According to the bike fit, the average inseam for someone of my height is 838mm and the average torso is 572mm. So you see I am reasonably short, with short legs and a big body!

Cheers
Russ

HebdenBiker

If it is a powerful and comfortable position for you, then it fits. If it isn't, then it doesn't, and your bike fit is wrong!

DKay

Bellypopper wrote:

Hi All

My other bike is a Ridley Orion size small which is 483 C-C seat tube. According to my bike fit, my saddle height should be 662mm from BB center to top of saddle. I have used that measurement on the Orbea frame that can be seen in the picture. I have a 120mm stem on the Ridley, which gives a reach of 723mm from saddle center. According to my bike fit, that length should be a little longer to achive the correct position for a sportitive setup. With the standard Orbea stem which is 115mm, the reach from saddle center is pretty much identical to the Orion. The ony real difference between the Orion and Orbea is that the top tube has less slope on the Orbea, meaning less seatpost is showing. The bar to saddle relationship is around the same between the two bikes, as I have less spacers under the stem on the Orbea. I do need to check the saddle setback which needs to be 187mm from BB center to saddle center.

I am 1726mm tall, with an inseam of 772mm and torso of 656mm. According to the bike fit, the average inseam for someone of my height is 838mm and the average torso is 572mm. So you see I am reasonably short, with short legs and a big body!

Cheers
Russ

Thanks for the info.

The TT length of your small Ridley Orion is 530mm and on the (medium) 53cm Orbea Orca the same measurement is 545mm, which a whole size difference. For comparison, the TT length of a 51cm Orca is 535mm, which is obviously still longer than your Orion. I don't think your inseam and torso lengths are anything abnormal and I would imagine that 'average' body measurements will vary according to your genetic ethnicity.

If it were me, I'd sell-on the Orca frame instead of wasting time, effort and money building it up. It's horrible riding a frame which is too large for you and not to mention that have next to no crotch clearance. The latter will start to annoy you very quickly and could/will end up being very painful :shock: . Feel free to ignore my advice though!

Bellypopper

Thanks for your reply, it was very helpful. I guess I need to be looking for a 51cm Orca frame or something similar

DKay

No worries dude. It's a shame, but I'm sure you'll have no issues selling the frame on.