Cervelo Sizing?

Dude, you lost me halfway through. I can tell you this. I 'fit' a 56 square. My Colnago is a 56 ctc, with 56.3 top tube (I think, from memory). My 56cm Soloist fits perfectly, and has maybe a .5cm longer reach when using the same stem.

Tasty? Well, I do dig it. One worthless but cool thing is the sound it makes. I guess it's the fat downtube. When cruising, you can hear a howl that is similar to what you hear from a set of carbon deep dish wheels. I love that. The BB is stiff, but I don't think it's stiffer than my Colnago's. Rides just fine, and makes me forget that aluminum is supposedly jarring. It IS rougher than the carbon Colnago, though. If you like compact geometry (I do), then it's fantastic -- there's something cool about all that standover. Plus, the front end is a little low, which gives all the room you'd ever want to put the bars low.

I am going to see if a 56 cm fits me, I am 188 or 6"2, it would seem small to me when thinking about it, but the shop thinks it should work. I'll have a go at it.

Thanx for that, sorry if my explanation was messy, but your answer gave me some valuable info. Cheers.

Claes said:

I am going to see if a 56 cm fits me, I am 188 or 6"2, it would seem small to me when thinking about it, but the shop thinks it should work. I'll have a go at it.

Thanx for that, sorry if my explanation was messy, but your answer gave me some valuable info. Cheers.

My guess... waaaay too small, even with a 130 stem. And you're going to be a mile above the top tube, which means you are going to need a ton of stem spacers and a stem with a steep upward angle. Why would you want that small size? Even a 58 will be on the small end of the scale.

Aztec said:

My guess... waaaay too small, even with a 130 stem. And you're going to be a mile above the top tube, which means you are going to need a ton of stem spacers and a stem with a steep upward angle. Why would you want that small size? Even a 58 will be on the small end of the scale.

Agree...if your inseam is at least 86 cm, you'll likely be better off with a bigger frame. Don't let the shop sell you a frame that's too small..even if they tell you it's cool to look like a TdF rider, with a mile of seatpost showing. That's just not comfortable for most of us.

I'm 6', and moved up from a 56 to a 58 with the semi-sloping top tube. The comfort and overall handling/security on the bike feels a lot better now that my nose isn't over the handlebars.

Well, what I am trying to say is that the frame more measures like a 58
with a 56.5 top tube, kind of normal italian fit. I have an italian De Vicini 58 cm at the moment, or rather it is on the other side of the world so I can not use it. I tried it on yesterday, the cervelo that is, it did not feel like a bad fit at all. The reason for the 56 is that is the only size left. So, I am trying to see if it could fit me. I know, I should not go for it unless it is right and all that 🙂
I came to the shop after they had closed, so there was no "real" fitting done per say, but i tried it on with a 110 stem, it did not feel bad at all. I should perhaps say that I think I have slightly unsual body, I think my neck is a few centimeters longer than most, I would have shorter legs than friends that are
188 cm as well, and slightly shorter body. So, my body and legs probably measure like a 6"0 to 6"1 or something like that. You see what I am saying?
I have two bikes back in sweden, a true 60 cm cc bike, Miyata 912 with old shimano 600 on it, winter hack, you see we have salt and [censored] on the road in Sweden wintertime so you do not want to take out something nice in the early spring and such. Oh, and the previously mentioned De Vicini. I must say the Miyata feels clumsy, the fit is ok, but just does not feel good. I think it is related to the size, but I have not ridden any other 60 cm frame. The De Vicini measures similar to this cervelo. I think cervelo are using one of the weirdest measurements I have seen, have you seen any bike, measured from center bottom bracket straight up, not along the seat tube, to a non sloping top tube? You see what I mean. Or have I lost my way here? Above in the thread I calculated the measurement along the seat post, and that is over 58 cm.

So, what do you guys feel is the problem with lots of seatpost showing? Problems with the a few spacers on, to get some height on the stem?
I am curious on any ideas you might have. Sorry for the long and winding description, but I am just trying to show from where I am coming so to speak.

Cheers guys.

I would also agree that 56cm might be too small. I'm 5'11" with an 87cm inseam, and I reckon I'll get a 58, although I'd like a shorter top tube.

In my opinion, the problem is that the head tube on the 56 is supposed to be only 14cm, where the 58 is supposed to be 16cm. I'd suggest measuring the head tube.

There's no problem with a long seat post, but with the small head tube, you might have problems being too low, or you could have handling problems with too many spacers.

On older, lugged steel frames, a 56 will have about a 155mm head tube, and aluminium frames, with their huge tubes, have a larger head tube. Without lugs, the new steel frames obviously can have smaller head tubes.

I assume you've checked out the Cervelo site?http://www.cervelo.com/ They've got geometry charts.

Another impressive point on the Cervelos is that their frames (I think all) pass the EFBe fatigue test (http://www.efbe.de/defbefrm.htm : click on "English version", then click on "Road frames New 06/2004"😉, a test which has its critics, but it's still impressive.

For some reason, I thought that shop was in Sydney 🙄

I dunno why they're off-loading their Cervelos, especially with all the rage with them at the moment -- with the Tour etc.

nutbag said:

I would also agree that 56cm might be too small. I'm 5'11" with an 87cm inseam, and I reckon I'll get a 58, although I'd like a shorter top tube.

In my opinion, the problem is that the head tube on the 56 is supposed to be only 14cm, where the 58 is supposed to be 16cm. I'd suggest measuring the head tube.

There's no problem with a long seat post, but with the small head tube, you might have problems being too low, or you could have handling problems with too many spacers.

On older, lugged steel frames, a 56 will have about a 155mm head tube, and aluminium frames, with their huge tubes, have a larger head tube. Without lugs, the new steel frames obviously can have smaller head tubes.

I was wrong!! 🙁 The 56cm Soloist has a 150mm head tube, and the 58 has a 170mm head tube.

Claes, you are either misreading or misinterpreting the information. I just measured both my Colnago C40 and Cervelo for you to compare. Note that the Colnago is called a 58cm, which is measured ctt, but when measured ctc, it's a 56.

1) Head tube -- Cervelo 150mm, Colnago 155mm
1a) Head tube, including headset (remember, the Cervelo is integrated) -- Cervelo 165mm, Colnago 185mm
2) Seat tube (using imaginary level top tube line for Cervelo), ctc -- Cervelo 56cm, Colnago 56cm
3) Top tube (using imaginary level line for Cervelo), ctc -- Cervelo 56.5cm, Colnago 56.3cm.

The 56 Soloist is indeed a 56 by all standard measures.

I understand your relative upper/lower/height lengths -- makes sense.

Thanks, intersting to see measurements from a real bike.
Have you checked the description of the geometry in the cervelo web site? It cleary, to mee anyway🙂, shows that the 56 cm is measured straight up, not along the seat tube. Bad of them to show erroneous information on something that important.
Thanx again.

Claes said:

Thanks, intersting to see measurements from a real bike.
Have you checked the description of the geometry in the cervelo web site? It cleary, to mee anyway🙂, shows that the 56 cm is measured straight up, not along the seat tube. Bad of them to show erroneous information on something that important.
Thanx again.

Yes, I was (and sometimes still am) frequently at their site. I just measured the stack on mine, and it's pretty close to their 56cm. Note... that's because it's to the top of the tube, not the center. Maybe that's what's confusing you? Either way, it's like a half-cm depending on the measurement, so it's clearly YOU that's confused here. :-)

Try emailing them -- they're helpful.

Aztec said:

Yes, I was (and sometimes still am) frequently at their site. I just measured the stack on mine, and it's pretty close to their 56cm. Note... that's because it's to the top of the tube, not the center. Maybe that's what's confusing you? Either way, it's like a half-cm depending on the measurement, so it's clearly YOU that's confused here. :-)

Try emailing them -- they're helpful.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ok, my calc shows that it should be 58-59 cm to the top of the top tube along the seat tube. So, you are sort of confirming what is on the website then?
Anyway thanx for that.

I have used some different sizing programs on the web and they seem to indicate that I "need" a 59.5 frame according to my inseam, but only a reach, top tube and stem together, of 68 cm. This is easily achievable with a 56 cm cervelo, but as you have previously identified, the height of the handle bar could be an issue, and that I would have to run with loads of spacers between stem and "fork". I'll check it out this weekend, and see how it all sits together.

Any specific issues with running say 40 mm of spacers? I would appreciate any comments.

http://www.competitivecyclist.com/za/CCY?PAGE=FIT_CALCULATOR&sex=M&units=cm

Have you tried this fit calculator?

nutbag said:

http://www.competitivecyclist.com/za/CCY?PAGE=FIT_CALCULATOR&sex=M&units=cm

Have you tried this fit calculator?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nope, interstingly it uses slightly different measurements than the others, so I'll give that a go tonight when I get home. Thank you.

Claes said:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Any specific issues with running say 40 mm of spacers? I would appreciate any comments.

40cm would be OK for a triathlon bike, but I'd be nervous on a road bike. I highly doubt anything would happen, but I've heard many reputable folks say that 2cm is fine, 3cm is pushing it, and anything more is a darn right bad idea.

The 58 would be a much better fit, even though you think the reach will be a little long. If you find yourself more toward the front of the saddle, as I do, then your reach can be longer anyway. If you sit way behind the BB and kinda mash, then it might not be quite as easy.

I should add that at 5-10, I have 29cm of seatpost showing, almost the end of the post, I think. At your height, no way.

Aztec said:

40cm would be OK for a triathlon bike, but I'd be nervous on a road bike. I highly doubt anything would happen, but I've heard many reputable folks say that 2cm is fine, 3cm is pushing it, and anything more is a darn right bad idea.

The 58 would be a much better fit, even though you think the reach will be a little long. If you find yourself more toward the front of the saddle, as I do, then your reach can be longer anyway. If you sit way behind the BB and kinda mash, then it might not be quite as easy.

I should add that at 5-10, I have 29cm of seatpost showing, almost the end of the post, I think. At your height, no way.

Hmm, interesting, the guys in shop have put the frame together into a bike for me to have a look at. He specifically said that they have longer seatposts so that should not be a prob. I should say I am running 180 cranks, which brings the foot down 5 mm, and I have an inseam of 88 cm.

Claes said:

Hmm, interesting, the guys in shop have put the frame together into a bike for me to have a look at. He specifically said that they have longer seatposts so that should not be a prob. I should say I am running 180 cranks, which brings the foot down 5 mm, and I have an inseam of 88 cm.

Sure they do. But you start to get toward being a MILE up there. I recall mine had only a few cms to go when I had a look at the thing once.

[quote="Aztec"]40cm would be OK for a triathlon bike, but I'd be nervous on a road bike. I highly doubt anything would happen, but I've heard many reputable folks say that 2cm is fine, 3cm is pushing it, and anything more is a darn right bad idea.

What exactly is the problem with extra spacers. Bikes seem to come 'from the factory' with a couple of spacers...presumably because it is O.K. to have the bars up that high...or is it?
Is there a difference between using spacers and a using a riser stem? If one is trying to get the handlebars close to seat height (for comfort) leaving 2 spacers and using a riser stem of 14degrees is this a problem? I know what could get a frame with a higher head tube but if using the spacers and riser stem makes one's preferred bike comfortable, is there a problem?

[quote="fredf"]

Aztec said:

40cm would be OK for a triathlon bike, but I'd be nervous on a road bike. I highly doubt anything would happen, but I've heard many reputable folks say that 2cm is fine, 3cm is pushing it, and anything more is a darn right bad idea.

What exactly is the problem with extra spacers. Bikes seem to come 'from the factory' with a couple of spacers...presumably because it is O.K. to have the bars up that high...or is it?
Is there a difference between using spacers and a using a riser stem? If one is trying to get the handlebars close to seat height (for comfort) leaving 2 spacers and using a riser stem of 14degrees is this a problem? I know what could get a frame with a higher head tube but if using the spacers and riser stem makes one's preferred bike comfortable, is there a problem?