Bike size 54 or 56

newcycle

Hello Everyone,

First Post !! I always read this fantastic forum.

My question is, I am 5'11'' and 33.5'' inseam. All places I looked and asked told me I should ride a 56 frame. That is 56.5 top tube, BUT three guys at 3 different shops told to go down to 54 ( 54.8 top tube ) !! They say the handling is better, that you should always go down a size, and that when you don't know the exact size you should go down a size.

I have a small hernia in my cervical spine at the neck, a problem I have from many years in JUDO.

So I ask the experts, 54 or 56 ???

Specialized says from my size I should be 56 for the TARMAC.

Thanks in advance to all you guys !!!

markhewitt1978

Firstly you have to remember that all bike sizes aren't equal. What is a 52 in one manufacturer can be a 48 in another! But effective top tube is a reasonable guide at least.

In general the guys at the shop are right in so much that if you find yourself inbetween sizes then going smaller is usually the best bet, you can fix a slightly small frame by having a longer seat post, a longer stem etc, but you can't do the same to make a bigger frame less big!

But you have to take into account that smaller frames will generally have a smaller stack height, i.e. the front of the bike and hence the handlebars will be lower, so it can depend on your flexibility too. e.g. Pro riders tend to ride a frame one or two sizes smaller than 'ordinary' people as they want to get really really low.

giropaul

Especially with a pre-existing problem with your neck, I would suggest starting with a bike fit with a fitter with a really good reputation and, ideally, some physiology background, and then find a bike that can be set up with your dimensions.

jrich

I'm 5'10.5" and I think my inseam was just under 34". I ride a 54cm Spec Tarmac (but this is an older SL3 S works) and a 56cm Genesis Equilibrium.

The position on the Specialised is pretty aggressive and it's not something you would just want to jump straight onto if you're new to the sport - or have flexibility/medical issues to contend with. I've worked my way up to it over years of cycling.

The only way to answer the question is to spend some time riding both the sizes to see how you like the different positions. You may find that you just cannot get the bars on the 54 high enough to be comfortable. But then again you may be fine, and if you are I would go for the 54 over the 56.

newcycle

Thanks alot guys !! thanks for all the answers

newcycle

jrich wrote:

I'm 5'10.5" and I think my inseam was just under 34". I ride a 54cm Spec Tarmac (but this is an older SL3 S works) and a 56cm Genesis Equilibrium.

The position on the Specialised is pretty aggressive and it's not something you would just want to jump straight onto if you're new to the sport - or have flexibility/medical issues to contend with. I've worked my way up to it over years of cycling.

The only way to answer the question is to spend some time riding both the sizes to see how you like the different positions. You may find that you just cannot get the bars on the 54 high enough to be comfortable. But then again you may be fine, and if you are I would go for the 54 over the 56.

Let me ask you a question... I ride speed bikes for 1 year only. I have currently a Specialized Roubaix size 56. I'm going to the Tarmac now, as I want something more aggressive. In your opinion, you think the 56 is OK ?? I don't have YOUR YEARS ridding yet, so probable the 54 would be too much right ??

thanks

jrich

Out of interest - why have you capitalised 'YOUR YEARS' ?

Allow me to capitalise a few words for you in order to answer you question:

The ONLY way to answer the question is to spend some time RIDING both the sizes to see how YOU like the different positions. YOU may find that you just cannot get the bars on the 54 high enough to BE COMFORTABLE. But then again you MAY be fine, and IF you are I would go for the 54 over the 56.

In other words I cannot answer your question over the internet for you because there are too many variables :-) go and ride the bikes. Buying a bike that does not fit is the mother of all pains in the arse so make sure you get the right one.

newcycle

jrich wrote:

Out of interest - why have you capitalised 'YOUR YEARS' ?

Allow me to capitalise a few words for you in order to answer you question:

The ONLY way to answer the question is to spend some time RIDING both the sizes to see how YOU like the different positions. YOU may find that you just cannot get the bars on the 54 high enough to BE COMFORTABLE. But then again you MAY be fine, and IF you are I would go for the 54 over the 56.

In other words I cannot answer your question over the internet for you because there are too many variables :-) go and ride the bikes. Buying a bike that does not fit is the mother of all pains in the ars* so make sure you get the right one.

I'm sorry for the YOUR YEARS, I was meaning that i ride for 1 year and guys are real ciclists. I have friends that ride for 5, 10, 15 years so I imagine you guys here in the FORUM are like that. I know NOTHING of cycling, almost zero experience, thats all.

What they told me is that the 56 would be more comfortable and the 54 I could get more performance out of the bike. But then again what diference in performance ?? 5% ? 10% better ???? understand, may be too little of a gain for too much discomfort in the 54.

thanks alot for the answers and the attention.

regards,

jrich

Hmmmm... well that's a slightly bizarre view to take if you don't mind me saying, but each to their own.

I would say a 'real cyclist' is someone who enjoys riding their bike, irrespective of how long they have been riding for. Many people here are beginners and also 'real cyclists' - I myself have only been cycling continuously on the road bike for just over the last year (although I dabbled a bit before), so I am not massively more experienced than you; but I am of similar proportions so thought my opinion might be helpful...

Performance doesn't come from the bike, it comes from the rider. If you are not comfortable then you will not perform well and you will not enjoy what you are doing so you will not do it. In not doing it your abilities will not improve and so your performance will further deteriorate. Ergo, get a bike that fits (i.e. is comfortable) and train hard and you will perform well and everyone will live happily ever after.

daniel_b

Interesting post!

I am 5ft 10, but with a 34" inseam, so by my reckoning your torso is 1.5" or nearly 4cm longer than mine, a decent difference.

I started my road cycling escapade (If we ignore an Apollo bike from Halfords in 1990 ahem) with an ebay 56 Felt, as reading up online going by my stats it seemed to make sense, and my bro who has shorter legs than me rides a 54.

However the top tube on that, combined with a 100mm stem and setback seatpost was too much.
I still use it on the turbo, but with a 50mm stem, and inline seatpost.

It became apparent to me that for me personally, reach was an issue, so I went for a 54, with a 545 top tube, 90mm stem, and compact bars - initially I went with an inline seatpost, but have just recently swapped to a setback jobbie, as the amount I rode last year, means my flexibility has improved a lot, and I can get down better than I could do originally.
There is also quite a lot of drop from saddle to bars, but I seem able to deal with that.

Going by your, in theory, longer reach than me, I would have thought a 56 with a 560 or 565 top tube, 100mm stem, should be about spot on, by my diy geometry maths, if you went for a 54 with a 540 top tube, you would likely need something like a 120 or even 130mm stem - not unheard of of course, but in my opinion a 100 is more around the 'standard' you would expect, and the drop will be less dramatic.
If in time you found the 56cm too high, as long as there were spacers to sacrifice\juggle on top underneath, you could still get a lowish position - headtube height allowing of course.

But anyway, that's a load of waffle - can you borrow a bike to take it for an extended ride?

It's very difficult to tell when you are just sat on one, and it's easy to have your sensible head clouded by a nice shiny bike, and other people telling you it fits.

newcycle

Daniel B wrote:

Interesting post!

I am 5ft 10, but with a 34" inseam, so by my reckoning your torso is 1.5" or nearly 4cm longer than mine, a decent difference.

I started my road cycling escapade (If we ignore an Apollo bike from Halfords in 1990 ahem) with an ebay 56 Felt, as reading up online going by my stats it seemed to make sense, and my bro who has shorter legs than me rides a 54.

However the top tube on that, combined with a 100mm stem and setback seatpost was too much.
I still use it on the turbo, but with a 50mm stem, and inline seatpost.

It became apparent to me that for me personally, reach was an issue, so I went for a 54, with a 545 top tube, 90mm stem, and compact bars - initially I went with an inline seatpost, but have just recently swapped to a setback jobbie, as the amount I rode last year, means my flexibility has improved a lot, and I can get down better than I could do originally.
There is also quite a lot of drop from saddle to bars, but I seem able to deal with that.

Going by your, in theory, longer reach than me, I would have thought a 56 with a 560 or 565 top tube, 100mm stem, should be about spot on, by my diy geometry maths, if you went for a 54 with a 540 top tube, you would likely need something like a 120 or even 130mm stem - not unheard of of course, but in my opinion a 100 is more around the 'standard' you would expect, and the drop will be less dramatic.
If in time you found the 56cm too high, as long as there were spacers to sacrifice\juggle on top underneath, you could still get a lowish position - headtube height allowing of course.

But anyway, that's a load of waffle - can you borrow a bike to take it for an extended ride?

It's very difficult to tell when you are just sat on one, and it's easy to have your sensible head clouded by a nice shiny bike, and other people telling you it fits.

Actually, after reading everybodies answer I get that at the end the most important thing will be the STACK height. That in the 54 can actually make my life miserable riding and uncomfortable. So I'm pretty much thinking i'm going with a 56.
Because of STACK HEIGHT !! The 54 is 2cm lower in stack and that is a lot !!

regards,

simon_masterson

The first thing you need to do is use a sizing guide that gives you an indication of the frame dimensions you might be looking for, based on your own body dimensions. Once you've done this, look into frames with an appropriate top tube length first. You probably want to look at bikes that are deliberately designed around a higher front end - often referred to these days as 'sportive' geometry. DO NOT go for a frame that is too big just because it's taller. A typical stem length on a road bike is 110-130mm - 100mm is rather short.

For what it's worth, at a guess I would expect someone your height to be comfortable on a 53-54.5cm top tube - not a great deal longer.

newcycle

Simon Masterson wrote:

The first thing you need to do is use a sizing guide that gives you an indication of the frame dimensions you might be looking for, based on your own body dimensions. Once you've done this, look into frames with an appropriate top tube length first. You probably want to look at bikes that are deliberately designed around a higher front end - often referred to these days as 'sportive' geometry. DO NOT go for a frame that is too big just because it's taller. A typical stem length on a road bike is 110-130mm - 100mm is rather short.

For what it's worth, at a guess I would expect someone your height to be comfortable on a 53-54.5cm top tube - not a great deal longer.

Can I post my measurements here ?? Could you help me ??

regards,

852Kompol

I am about 5'11" and with a 33" inseam so that's pretty close, but there's still loads can differ between the positions(i.e. I have long arms)

I am usually with the downsize bunch. I previously even rode a 52 frame(mind you, as said above, some brands idea of 52 is not really a "52") with massive drop and all crunched-up, very responsive and lively for what it was(a Cyclocross frame) but I struggle to do any ride more than 4 hours on that.

My current bike(yes, I only have one) is a Wittson Custom Ti in 54cm.
The builder did suggest the build to be a 56cm frame with a 18cm Headtube. we did ended up on a 54cm frame with a 15cm headtube. Part of me was a bit of a weight weenie and would like use the Stem/spacers to achieve the same position without the weight penalty of more material on the frame. The rest is just screaming : HAAAANNNNSSSEEEEENNNN FITTTTT! :

I am running about 2-3cm of spacers with a massive 130mm stem on the bike. I also have a relatively aggressive drop of like 12 cm(saddle to top of bars, I am still working with the position, hopefully not going all Hansen :twisted: )

Plain chatter on the internet is not going to do much good for you I am afraid, how about go and get a bike fit? some of the Bike fit system(GURU) can alter the ride characteristics of the machine and you can see if which is best for your riding

newcycle

852Kompol wrote:

I am about 5'11" and with a 33" inseam so that's pretty close, but there's still loads can differ between the positions(i.e. I have long arms)

I am usually with the downsize bunch. I previously even rode a 52 frame(mind you, as said above, some brands idea of 52 is not really a "52") with massive drop and all crunched-up, very responsive and lively for what it was(a Cyclocross frame) but I struggle to do any ride more than 4 hours on that.

My current bike(yes, I only have one) is a Wittson Custom Ti in 54cm.
The builder did suggest the build to be a 56cm frame with a 18cm Headtube. we did ended up on a 54cm frame with a 15cm headtube. Part of me was a bit of a weight weenie and would like use the Stem/spacers to achieve the same position without the weight penalty of more material on the frame. The rest is just screaming : HAAAANNNNSSSEEEEENNNN FITTTTT! :

I am running about 2-3cm of spacers with a massive 130mm stem on the bike. I also have a relatively aggressive drop of like 12 cm(saddle to top of bars, I am still working with the position, hopefully not going all Hansen :twisted: )

Plain chatter on the internet is not going to do much good for you I am afraid, how about go and get a bike fit? some of the Bike fit system(GURU) can alter the ride characteristics of the machine and you can see if which is best for your riding

Hey my friend, thanks for the response !!
Look my conclusions are these, correct me if I'm wrong:
-both frames fit me, 54 and 56, it is a matter of comfort
-on the 54 frame, as I have a chronic neck strain...maybe the bars would be to low, and for that I will have to put the stem pointing upward and or too many spacers and it would look VERY strange with such a long steerer tube upwards.
Maybe opting for the 56.

what do you think ??

markhewitt1978

Can't fault your logic there, if the 56 really does fit you ok, *and* it allows you to have the bars higher, then good.

The only thing being that if you want to get lower later on it won't give you that option.

newcycle

markhewitt1978 wrote:

Can't fault your logic there, if the 56 really does fit you ok, *and* it allows you to have the bars higher, then good.

The only thing being that if you want to get lower later on it won't give you that option.

Actually my bike fit says 55 top tube.
I'm going from a Roubaix 56 to probably a Tarmac 56. The Tarmac is already 3.5 cm lower in stack height compared to the Roubaix, so I think it already is a significant drop. What do you think ??

Another option I have besides the Tarmac 56 is a BMC SLR01 54 ( top tube 55 ), and a Scott Addict 56 ( top tube 56.5 )

what do you think about these bikes ?? Tarmac, SLR01, Addict ??

thanks !!!!! I need help as you can see !!

daniel_b

markhewitt1978 wrote:

The only thing being that if you want to get lower later on it won't give you that option.

Not ideal I grant you, but there is always the option of a more extreme angled stem, and then simply flip it downwards if required.

852Kompol

newcycle wrote:

852Kompol wrote:

I am about 5'11" and with a 33" inseam so that's pretty close, but there's still loads can differ between the positions(i.e. I have long arms)

I am usually with the downsize bunch. I previously even rode a 52 frame(mind you, as said above, some brands idea of 52 is not really a "52") with massive drop and all crunched-up, very responsive and lively for what it was(a Cyclocross frame) but I struggle to do any ride more than 4 hours on that.

My current bike(yes, I only have one) is a Wittson Custom Ti in 54cm.
The builder did suggest the build to be a 56cm frame with a 18cm Headtube. we did ended up on a 54cm frame with a 15cm headtube. Part of me was a bit of a weight weenie and would like use the Stem/spacers to achieve the same position without the weight penalty of more material on the frame. The rest is just screaming : HAAAANNNNSSSEEEEENNNN FITTTTT! :

I am running about 2-3cm of spacers with a massive 130mm stem on the bike. I also have a relatively aggressive drop of like 12 cm(saddle to top of bars, I am still working with the position, hopefully not going all Hansen :twisted: )

Plain chatter on the internet is not going to do much good for you I am afraid, how about go and get a bike fit? some of the Bike fit system(GURU) can alter the ride characteristics of the machine and you can see if which is best for your riding

Hey my friend, thanks for the response !!
Look my conclusions are these, correct me if I'm wrong:
-both frames fit me, 54 and 56, it is a matter of comfort
-on the 54 frame, as I have a chronic neck strain...maybe the bars would be to low, and for that I will have to put the stem pointing upward and or too many spacers and it would look VERY strange with such a long steerer tube upwards.
Maybe opting for the 56.

what do you think ??

Given what previous injury you had. The frames you go for are quite aggressive I would admit.
This could mean either quite some spacers or some awkward tilt on the bars or sti.
But given the fact we all want to look like Fabian Canellara or Wiggins I would suggest some of the less aggressive frames of the lot, perhaps some frames that may allow you to have a more relaxed shoulders and above. Some manufacturer offer frames in different Geometry(e.g.Trek) or add-on kits that make it less aggressive(e.g.Basso)

This should be much more appealing than some "sportive" frames to some.

newcycle

852Kompol wrote:

newcycle wrote:

852Kompol wrote:

I am about 5'11" and with a 33" inseam so that's pretty close, but there's still loads can differ between the positions(i.e. I have long arms)

I am usually with the downsize bunch. I previously even rode a 52 frame(mind you, as said above, some brands idea of 52 is not really a "52") with massive drop and all crunched-up, very responsive and lively for what it was(a Cyclocross frame) but I struggle to do any ride more than 4 hours on that.

My current bike(yes, I only have one) is a Wittson Custom Ti in 54cm.
The builder did suggest the build to be a 56cm frame with a 18cm Headtube. we did ended up on a 54cm frame with a 15cm headtube. Part of me was a bit of a weight weenie and would like use the Stem/spacers to achieve the same position without the weight penalty of more material on the frame. The rest is just screaming : HAAAANNNNSSSEEEEENNNN FITTTTT! :

I am running about 2-3cm of spacers with a massive 130mm stem on the bike. I also have a relatively aggressive drop of like 12 cm(saddle to top of bars, I am still working with the position, hopefully not going all Hansen :twisted: )

Plain chatter on the internet is not going to do much good for you I am afraid, how about go and get a bike fit? some of the Bike fit system(GURU) can alter the ride characteristics of the machine and you can see if which is best for your riding

Hey my friend, thanks for the response !!
Look my conclusions are these, correct me if I'm wrong:
-both frames fit me, 54 and 56, it is a matter of comfort
-on the 54 frame, as I have a chronic neck strain...maybe the bars would be to low, and for that I will have to put the stem pointing upward and or too many spacers and it would look VERY strange with such a long steerer tube upwards.
Maybe opting for the 56.

what do you think ??

Given what previous injury you had. The frames you go for are quite aggressive I would admit.
This could mean either quite some spacers or some awkward tilt on the bars or sti.
But given the fact we all want to look like Fabian Canellara or Wiggins I would suggest some of the less aggressive frames of the lot, perhaps some frames that may allow you to have a more relaxed shoulders and above. Some manufacturer offer frames in different Geometry(e.g.Trek) or add-on kits that make it less aggressive(e.g.Basso)

This should be much more appealing than some "sportive" frames to some.

thankss

flasher

852Kompol wrote:

My current bike(yes, I only have one) is a Wittson Custom Ti in 54cm.
The builder did suggest the build to be a 56cm frame with a 18cm Headtube. we did ended up on a 54cm frame with a 15cm headtube. Part of me was a bit of a weight weenie and would like use the Stem/spacers to achieve the same position without the weight penalty of more material on the frame. The rest is just screaming : HAAAANNNNSSSEEEEENNNN FITTTTT! :

I am running about 2-3cm of spacers with a massive 130mm stem on the bike. I also have a relatively aggressive drop of like 12 cm(saddle to top of bars, I am still working with the position, hopefully not going all Hansen :twisted: )

If it was a custom build why didn't you go for a 54 with 18cm head tube, then you wouldn't need the 2-3cm of spacers, is this not the point of a custom frame?

852Kompol

Flasher wrote:

If it was a custom build why didn't you go for a 54 with 18cm head tube, then you wouldn't need the 2-3cm of spacers, is this not the point of a custom frame?

I am still getting use to the new lower position(I only have this frame for about 6 months, previously on a 110mm stem as well.) will be getting lower later on till I reach that position....if I manage to.

on-yer-bike

Im 5.10 33.5 leg and ride an old Cervelo 56 with a 565 TT, and 110 stem. I have 20 mm of spacers and a 15mm headset top, a 54 would have needed 40 mm of spacers. According to some of the comments here this bike would be much too big for me but it isnt. With a new Cervelo I would proably have a 54 because the head tubes are taller now.

redvision

on-yer-bike wrote:

Im 5.10 33.5 leg and ride an old Cervelo 56 with a 565 TT, and 110 stem. I have 20 mm of spacers and a 15mm headset top, a 54 would have needed 40 mm of spacers. According to some of the comments here this bike would be much too big for me but it isnt. With a new Cervelo I would proably have a 54 because the head tubes are taller now.

I'm very similar. I am 5ft 10", 32 leg and ride a 56cm with a 110 stem.
I used to ride a 100mm stem until i had a Retul fit and they raised the saddle (quite a bit) and switched the stem for a 110.
Since then my back trouble disappeared, and i found every ride far more comfortable.

jrich

redvision wrote:

on-yer-bike wrote:

Im 5.10 33.5 leg and ride an old Cervelo 56 with a 565 TT, and 110 stem. I have 20 mm of spacers and a 15mm headset top, a 54 would have needed 40 mm of spacers. According to some of the comments here this bike would be much too big for me but it isnt. With a new Cervelo I would proably have a 54 because the head tubes are taller now.

I'm very similar. I am 5ft 10", 32 leg and ride a 56cm with a 110 stem.
I used to ride a 100mm stem until i had a Retul fit and they raised the saddle (quite a bit) and switched the stem for a 110.
Since then my back trouble disappeared, and i found every ride far more comfortable.

That's interesting because that would stretch you out quite a lot more. Maybe your body weight is now more evenly distributed as you ride with more weight through your hands?

N0bodyOfTheGoat

5'10" with ~31-31.5" legs here.

Before my back went big time stylee, my 54cm Felt with the default ~7 degree (100mm?) stem upwards was fine, but in recent years my back could only cope if I fitted my 35 degrees(?) On One 80mm stem.

My 56cm Tricross, bought since my original back issue, was pretty comfy using default spec (again a 100mm stem; albeit used in one of the high angle options, ~17 degrees upwards IIRC)... Until that fateful morning ~26 months ago!

redvision

jrich wrote:

redvision wrote:

I'm very similar. I am 5ft 10", 32 leg and ride a 56cm with a 110 stem.
I used to ride a 100mm stem until i had a Retul fit and they raised the saddle (quite a bit) and switched the stem for a 110.
Since then my back trouble disappeared, and i found every ride far more comfortable.

That's interesting because that would stretch you out quite a lot more. Maybe your body weight is now more evenly distributed as you ride with more weight through your hands?

Well, tbh I don't feel more stretched out but it's definitely made a difference - much more comfortable and no more back ache.

markhewitt1978

redvision wrote:

jrich wrote:

redvision wrote:

I'm very similar. I am 5ft 10", 32 leg and ride a 56cm with a 110 stem.
I used to ride a 100mm stem until i had a Retul fit and they raised the saddle (quite a bit) and switched the stem for a 110.
Since then my back trouble disappeared, and i found every ride far more comfortable.

That's interesting because that would stretch you out quite a lot more. Maybe your body weight is now more evenly distributed as you ride with more weight through your hands?

Well, tbh I don't feel more stretched out but it's definitely made a difference - much more comfortable and no more back ache.

Interesting, no back ache on rides would be awesome! Never mind knee ache. In fact just being able to ride as long / hard as I like without aches and pains would be great. Fitness is another matter.

Magem

I'm exactly the same height as you. On paper I should ride a 56, I've owned two 56's before and now on my umpteenth 54. I much prefer 54. Comfort wise there's not much in it but I feel like my performance on a 54 is stronger and faster.