Road bike fitting

trav1345 said:

Today I went into a bike shop so I could get fitted for my first road bike. I tried out two different brands, a Trek and a Scott. The dealer said that the best way to figure it out would be to ride it, so I took a Trek 54cm and Scott 56cm for test rides. The Trek felt fairly cramped and I felt pretty stretched out on the Scott. Anyway, they didn't any Trek's in 56cm but told me that they tend to be more "cramped"(couldn't think of the word) than the Scotts. My question is, is this true? Thanks for the help!

That dealer was giving you a load of BS and likely had no clue as to how fit works.

alienator said:

That dealer was giving you a load of BS and likely had no clue as to how fit works.

+1. There is a lot more to a fit than trying a bike to see how it feels.

kdelong said:

There is a lot more to a fit than trying a bike to see how it feels.

I thought that it was pretty weird, he didn't measure me or anything. I will be going to a different shop soon anyway, one that doesn't just try to shove me on a bike.

Sounds like that bike dealer was just trying to sell you what bikes he has in stock.....

I think you'll have better luck at another shop.

64Paramount said:

Sounds like that bike dealer was just trying to sell you what bikes he has in stock.....

I think you'll have better luck at another shop.

Yeah, I was just visiting the area for the day and decided to look around since my LBS is very small and has to order bikes as they are asked for. They had a greater selection but didn't seem as knowledgeable. The main reason I was there was to check out their cycling shoes, as my LBS doesn't carry any. So now at least I know my size and won't have to travel 100 miles to get them.

trav1345 said:

Today I went into a bike shop so I could get fitted for my first road bike. I tried out two different brands, a Trek and a Scott. The dealer said that the best way to figure it out would be to ride it, so I took a Trek 54cm and Scott 56cm for test rides. The Trek felt fairly cramped and I felt pretty stretched out on the Scott. Anyway, they didn't any Trek's in 56cm but told me that they tend to be more "cramped"(couldn't think of the word) than the Scotts. My question is, is this true? Thanks for the help!

When buying my Scott from my lbs I was told that the geometry on the trek runs smaller than Scott. So where i was more comfortable on a 58cm Scott, i liked the 60cm over the 58cm in the trek.

Trek published frame sizes are measured center-to-top, rather than the traditional center-to-center for the seat tube. That equals about 2cm of difference - so a "54" Trek is more like a "52" ctc measured frame.

IMO top tube length is more important, but fit really is an issue of torso/ appendage measurements and flexibility. Also intended use.

trav1345 said:

Yeah, I was just visiting the area for the day and decided to look around since my LBS is very small and has to order bikes as they are asked for. They had a greater selection but didn't seem as knowledgeable. The main reason I was there was to check out their cycling shoes, as my LBS doesn't carry any. So now at least I know my size and won't have to travel 100 miles to get them.

Thank God for local bike shops 100 miles away. You can stop in try on some shoes test ride a few bikes and complain all while taking your business elsewhere. Sounds to me that you wasted their time and were not honest about your intentions.😕

DocInfinity said:

When buying my Scott from my lbs I was told that the geometry on the trek runs smaller than Scott. So where i was more comfortable on a 58cm Scott, i liked the 60cm over the 58cm in the trek.

I sell Trek and Scott, and I've found that in the 52-58 cm sizes the virtual top tube and head tube lengths are very similar. On the other hand, Scotts (CR1s and Speedsters) fit a little larger than the Treks because Scott equips the bikes with longer stems, and Scott's standover is a bit higher because of less bottom bracket drop and steeper seat tube angles. Because of the steeper seat tubes, I tend to size customers on Scotts with the saddle set back a little farther, which has the effect of creating and even longer stretch to the handlebar.

My bike sizing (not final fitting) rule of thumb is (1) comfortable standover, (2) saddle setback so rider's weight is over the feet, (3) handlebar height relative to saddle height is suitable for the rider, and (4) rider's upper forms a 90-95 degree angle with upper body when hands are covering the brake hoods.

trav1345 said:

Today I went into a bike shop so I could get fitted for my first road bike. I tried out two different brands, a Trek and a Scott. The dealer said that the best way to figure it out would be to ride it, so I took a Trek 54cm and Scott 56cm for test rides. The Trek felt fairly cramped and I felt pretty stretched out on the Scott. Anyway, they didn't any Trek's in 56cm but told me that they tend to be more "cramped"(couldn't think of the word) than the Scotts. My question is, is this true? Thanks for the help!

How tall are you?

IMO, a component of frame fitting is your aesthetic sensibilities + your personal preferences with regard to your riding position (I know a guy who is about 6'1" who intentionally rides a SMALL (!?!) Giant Road frame -- THAT's an extreme fitting ... he prefers a very low handlebar relative to his saddle).

Regardless of the NOMINAL frame size, I think most people would benefit from bringing-and-using a tape measure (or, equivalent) with them when they look at a bike at a bike shop, garage sale, wherever -- trust, but verify.

alfeng said:

Regardless of the NOMINAL frame size, I think most people would benefit from bringing-and-using a tape measure (or, equivalent) with them when they look at a bike at a bike shop, garage sale, wherever -- trust, but verify.

A good bike salesman will have a tape measure handy. And nominal frame size means different things to different brands. Two with different interpretations of nominal are LeMond and Fuji. Scott's is the actual seat tube length and Trek's is the intersection of a the horizontal from the top center of the head tube with the seat post. You can measure a Scott the same way, since the head tube lengths are very close.

But, yeah, verify.