is a smaller size ok?

I think you answered your own question in the fact that you mentioned you were very comfortable on the 48. Comfort is the most important issue, if you liked the way it fit you then go with that one. Sure you could probably go with the smaller frame and make all the adjustments but what happens if you can't get as comfortable as you did with the 48? Now not only have you spend big bucks on a bike but more money on parts to make it comfortable and it still fell short. Not saying that you're not going to find the same degree of comfort on the 46 as you did with the 48 but there is a risk element there that you may not.

I would try riding your friends 48 again, and ride for about 40 miles or more, if they'll let you, and see how it feels. If after 40 miles or more and you feel great then I would just get the 48 and not take the risk of a 46 and take the chance of not having it ever get the comfort you had on the 48.

Just a thought, there will be others.

Thanks for the comment, but the thing is the store is out of size 48s, i come from a small place and not that many products arrive here and if they do, it takes quite a while, thats why im planning to go to the next best thing

That's up to you, but sometimes settling for the next best thing could be compromising what you expected.

If they have the 46 in stock then ride it, but not in the parking lot, ride it for at least 5 miles and see if the comfort is comparable to the 48.

How long would it take for them to order the 48?

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by Magzinator [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

My question is, if i buy as size 46 frame, put in a longer stem and a seat post with a set back, would it still be a good fit for me? they have the same top tube length and i could always just lengthen the seatpost. i would think that a smaller frame would mean less weight and the handle bars would be a little lower thus would be more aerodynamic when i go on the drops... hope you guys can help, thanks

I would check the head tube length of the different sizes, the difference is the number of additional spacers you will need to feel the same height on the bars. If it's an alloy steerer tube no problem, if it's CF steerer there is a limit on how long one can safely run. 30mm should be the limit on a 1-1/8 CF steerer.

And although not true on a steel frame, a smaller CF frame may mean a longer stem, if alloy the bike may possibly end up being heavier as the weight of the CF could be negligible. Aerodynamic is good, if you can comfortably hold the position.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by Magzinator [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

hi guys, im a newbie planning to buy my first road bike frame... im planning to buy a ridley icarus frame and was able to test it on my friends bike... it was a size 48 frame which makes it an xs frame, i felt very comfortable and felt like it fit me well. now according to ridleys website, that's good for someone thats 169 cm in height, im about 171cm(5"7'😉.. the problem is, the bike shop is out of size 48 frames, they do have a size 46 frame. My question is, if i buy as size 46 frame, put in a longer stem and a seat post with a set back, would it still be a good fit for me? they have the same top tube length and i could always just lengthen the seatpost. i would think that a smaller frame would mean less weight and the handle bars would be a little lower thus would be more aerodynamic when i go on the drops... hope you guys can help, thanks

Nice bike choice ...

How are those frames being measured?

• c-c?
  
• c-t?
  

Regardless, the two frame sizes have different geometries ... perhaps, something to consider.

BTW. Different "fitters" will often size frames according to their personal biases ...

Based on your height (169cm) & my height (175.25cm) as a reference point AND my flexibility level (or, lack of!?!) AND my preference for a frame with a 54.5cm top tube with a 120mm stem, if I were you, I would probably aim for the frame which has as close to a 53cm (virtual) top tube as possible ... that would apparently be the XS frame:

[CENTER] [IMG]cyclingforums.com364Open ↗[/IMG][/CENTER]

So, if the XS frame is the same as the 46cm frame which you are referring to, then that is probably the one I would choose UNLESS you anticipate growing during the next few years ...

HOW TALL IS YOUR FRIEND?

• are the two of you the same height? is he an inch-or-two taller than you are?
  

[*] if you are under 20 years old & you have a taller older brother (and, neither of you were adopted), then you may grow another inch-or-so

If your friend is also 169cm, then you should probably ask your LBS to "order" the frame size you think that you want ...

• OR, choose another frame which has the same Top Tube length (i.e., 53cm)
  
• OR, go to another shop
  
• OR, order the bike from an on-line retailer
  

BUT, if your friend is an inch-or-two taller, then (IMO) you should probably opt for the "46cm" (¿XS?) frame.

Consider that a 46 cm frame is usually designated double-extra-small, which means they're intended for riders shorter than 5'3". This means super steep seat tube angles, to shorten the top tube and reduce the stretch to the cranks for really petite riders, and rather slack head tubes, to further reduce top tube length and reduce toe overlap with the front wheel. In other words, when you buy this size you're getting adaptations to allow a truly small person ride a bike with standard size wheels. These adaptations diminish the handling and balance for a male rider whose stature is actually just on the short side of average.

I know nothing about your body proportions or the proportions of the bike you're considering, but if you walked into the shop where I work and didn't have an unusually stumpy or lanky build, the first bike I'd pull down for you would be a 52 cm Trek or Scott.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by alfeng [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

Nice bike choice ...

How are those frames being measured?

• c-c?
  
• c-t?
  

Regardless, the two frame sizes have different geometries ... perhaps, something to consider.

BTW. Different "fitters" will often size frames according to their personal biases ...

Based on your height (169cm) & my height (175.25cm) as a reference point AND my flexibility level (or, lack of!?!) AND my preference for a frame with a 54.5cm top tube with a 120mm stem, if I were you, I would probably aim for the frame which has as close to a 53cm (virtual) top tube as possible ... that would apparently be the XS frame:

[CENTER] [IMG]cyclingforums.com364Open ↗[/IMG][/CENTER]

So, if the XS frame is the same as the 46cm frame which you are referring to, then that is probably the one I would choose UNLESS you anticipate growing during the next few years ...

HOW TALL IS YOUR FRIEND?

• are the two of you the same height? is he an inch-or-two taller than you are?
  

[*] if you are under 20 years old & you have a taller older brother (and, neither of you were adopted), then you may grow another inch-or-so

If your friend is also 169cm, then you should probably ask your LBS to "order" the frame size you think that you want ...

• OR, choose another frame which has the same Top Tube length (i.e., 53cm)
  
• OR, go to another shop
  
• OR, order the bike from an on-line retailer
  

BUT, if your friend is an inch-or-two taller, then (IMO) you should probably opt for the "46cm" (¿XS?) frame.

thanks for the time and effort in replying

Im not sure how its measured but i think its c-c

according to the seller the top tube is 51cm

actually my friend is around 2 inches shorter than me.. his seatpost is all the way forward ( no more space at the back of the rails) he uses a short stem, not sure of the length but it was definitely shorter than 90mm. when i tested his bike, i just moved the saddle all the way back. I tested it for around 10k uphill and 10k downhill.. he uses his bike for triathlons.

i got the sizing for the icarus from the ridley website data.ridley-bikes.comsizes2011 en.pdfOpen ↗

and i dont think ill be growing anymore since ill turn 27 this year...

thanks again