LBS and fit question?

Ray said:

I'm in the market for a Bianchi Axis and went to a lbs that sells them. He
has a 57cm bike that he'd give me a pretty good price on and told me not to
worry about the fit, he could get it to fit with some adjustments and parts
replacements at the handle bars etc. I'm 5'9 3/4" with a 32" inseam.
Everything I've been reading has suggested that I should have a 55cm bike or
less in the Bianchi Axis. Do you think this guy is just trying to sell this
57 that he already has in stock? Should I be leary of this shop or can he do
what he says he can? I won't be racing it, I just need a good all around
bike and if I'm going to spend this many bucks, I want to at least have it
fit right. I'll take all the opinions and advice that I can get. I'm not
experienced at this.
Ray

It's all in how you feel riding the bike. Of course do the standard
measurement. Stand over the top tube in your cycling shoes and see if you
have any space between your groin and the tube. (This will vary if the top
tube is slanted, vs straight, btw. The picture seems to show yours is a
straight top tube design.)

I'm about 3/4" shorter than you and have an inseam of 30.5", and I ride a
56 and feel I could ride a larger bike. The trend has been towards riding
too small a bike, imo. A 57cm bike shouldn't really be too big for you,
imo.

Having said that, it causes me concern that the guy would say 'don't worry
about the fit...' This makes me believe he's more interested in selling
the bike on hand than in fitting you correctly. Not a good sign.

Make him a deal - tell him you'll let him fit you to this bike, but get him
to promise in writing that, if, after a week of riding you don't like the
fit he'll order you a 56cm bike and let you return the 57cm bike..

In fact, since he'd have to re-stock anyway, if you're sure you're buying a
bike, have him order a 56 and test ride both of them. Or...go to another
bike shop that does have a 56 and ride both of them. Make sure you get out
of the saddle and pedal standing and stuff. This can be important. One bike
I tried that seemed to fit me didn't work standing, the saddle was hitting
me in the butt - it was fine on the bike I bought. (the LemondSL vs the
Trek 1000).

I see this is listed on epinions.com as a 'cyclocross bike'. I don't know
how the geometry compares and if that '57cm' would be the same measurement
on that you'd get on a standard Trek 1000. Usually the cyclocross, iirc,
means there more clearance between the ground and bottom bracket. Note that
different bikes are fitted differently - a Lemond Big Sky SL, while made by
Trek might be a totally different fit in the same size as a Trek 1200/1500.

HTH,

jj

Ray said:

I'm in the market for a Bianchi Axis and went to a lbs that sells them. He
has a 57cm bike that he'd give me a pretty good price on and told me not
to worry about the fit,

I would start to get skeptical at that point.

Quoted message said:

he could get it to fit with some adjustments and parts replacements at the
handle bars etc.

That might be ok if you already owned the bike for a few years and were
coming in for a fit. By why start off with a bike that has to be tinkered
with to fit?

Quoted message said:

I'm 5'9 3/4" with a 32" inseam. Everything I've been reading has suggested
that I should have a 55cm bike or less in the Bianchi Axis.

Here's where it gets tricky. A "55cm" in Brand X may be different than a
"55cm" in Brand Y. And seat tube length isn't even the most important
criteria. Read Sheldon's article about frame sizing:

http://sheldonbrown.com/frame-sizing.html

Experienced riders have different preferences as to frame size. I happen to
like a frame on the large size. That's also the Rivendell philosophy. Racers
usually like a small frame to get a low, aero position.

Here's the Rivendell pitch:
http://www.rivendellbicycles.com/html/rr_comfposition.html

Top tube length and seat tube angle are probably the most important factors.
Seat tube length tends to take care of itself. But check to see you've got
_some_ standover clearance.

Other important factors (not directly related to fit) include: wheelbase,
steering geometry, tire clearance, etc.

Quoted message said:

Do you think this guy is just trying to sell this 57 that he already has
in stock?

Maybe. Modern bikes tend to have "proportional" but longish top tubes. The
57cm frame may have you stretched out to much. A shorter stem extension can
mitigate that up to a point. If you like a more upright riding position, the
large frame will make it easier to get the bars up higher. So there are good
and bad points about a larger frame. I personally think most people are
riding frames that are too small (emulating the racer image).

Quoted message said:

Should I be leary of this shop or can he do what he says he can? I won't
be racing it, I just need a good all around bike and if I'm going to spend
this many bucks, I want to at least have it fit right.

You should keep an open mind. If you'd really prefer the 55cm, have them
order it.

How is the bike as far as tire clearance, gearing, and overall suitablity to
the kind of riding you plan to do?

Art Harris

"jj" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Ray said:

I'm in the market for a Bianchi Axis and went to a lbs that sells them. He
has a 57cm bike that he'd give me a pretty good price on and told me not
to
worry about the fit, he could get it to fit with some adjustments and
parts
replacements at the handle bars etc. I'm 5'9 3/4" with a 32" inseam.
Everything I've been reading has suggested that I should have a 55cm bike
or
less in the Bianchi Axis. Do you think this guy is just trying to sell
this
57 that he already has in stock? Should I be leary of this shop or can he
do
what he says he can? I won't be racing it, I just need a good all around
bike and if I'm going to spend this many bucks, I want to at least have it
fit right. I'll take all the opinions and advice that I can get. I'm not
experienced at this.
Ray

It's all in how you feel riding the bike. Of course do the standard
measurement. Stand over the top tube in your cycling shoes and see if you
have any space between your groin and the tube. (This will vary if the top
tube is slanted, vs straight, btw. The picture seems to show yours is a
straight top tube design.)

I'm about 3/4" shorter than you and have an inseam of 30.5", and I ride a
56 and feel I could ride a larger bike. The trend has been towards riding
too small a bike, imo. A 57cm bike shouldn't really be too big for you,
imo.

Having said that, it causes me concern that the guy would say 'don't worry
about the fit...' This makes me believe he's more interested in selling
the bike on hand than in fitting you correctly. Not a good sign.

Make him a deal - tell him you'll let him fit you to this bike, but get
him
to promise in writing that, if, after a week of riding you don't like the
fit he'll order you a 56cm bike and let you return the 57cm bike..

In fact, since he'd have to re-stock anyway, if you're sure you're buying
a
bike, have him order a 56 and test ride both of them. Or...go to another
bike shop that does have a 56 and ride both of them. Make sure you get out
of the saddle and pedal standing and stuff. This can be important. One
bike
I tried that seemed to fit me didn't work standing, the saddle was hitting
me in the butt - it was fine on the bike I bought. (the LemondSL vs the
Trek 1000).

I see this is listed on epinions.com as a 'cyclocross bike'. I don't know
how the geometry compares and if that '57cm' would be the same measurement
on that you'd get on a standard Trek 1000. Usually the cyclocross, iirc,
means there more clearance between the ground and bottom bracket. Note
that
different bikes are fitted differently - a Lemond Big Sky SL, while made
by
Trek might be a totally different fit in the same size as a Trek
1200/1500.

HTH,

It did. I'm going in Tuesday to try it out (he has to assemble it) and I'm
using your suggestions along with any others I get to make sure it's right.
I called and told him that I'd take it on the condition that it fits right
so we'll see if he gives me the same deal on one that he has to order me in.
Thanks
Ray

Quoted message said:

jj

"Arthur Harris" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Ray said:

I'm in the market for a Bianchi Axis and went to a lbs that sells them.
He has a 57cm bike that he'd give me a pretty good price on and told me
not to worry about the fit,

I would start to get skeptical at that point.

I did, although still hoping that the guy just knows that bike so well that
he just knows what he's talking about.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

he could get it to fit with some adjustments and parts replacements at
the handle bars etc.

That might be ok if you already owned the bike for a few years and were
coming in for a fit. By why start off with a bike that has to be tinkered
with to fit?

Good, then at least I'm not being overly parnoid, which can happen when you
lack some experience. That's why I thought I'd check in here.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I'm 5'9 3/4" with a 32" inseam. Everything I've been reading has
suggested that I should have a 55cm bike or less in the Bianchi Axis.

Here's where it gets tricky. A "55cm" in Brand X may be different than a
"55cm" in Brand Y. And seat tube length isn't even the most important
criteria. Read Sheldon's article about frame sizing:

Excellent info. Added it to my favorite list to refer to.

Quoted message said:

http://sheldonbrown.com/frame-sizing.html

Quoted message said:

Experienced riders have different preferences as to frame size. I happen
to like a frame on the large size. That's also the Rivendell philosophy.
Racers usually like a small frame to get a low, aero position.

Here's the Rivendell pitch:
http://www.rivendellbicycles.com/html/rr_comfposition.html

Same here, excellent info. The lbs had a 58cm assembled when I was there and
I was able to straddle it although there was no room for error if you know
what I mean. Seeing the part about that in this link makes me think the 57
just might be ok but I have to try it with the right shoes on. I think I
would like the frame more on the large size as well as long as I can get a
good fit overall. I intend to put on some miles and I'm not quite the
athlete that I used to be.

I was a runner but as I'm getting older, my knees just can't seem to take
the pounding like they used to. I have an old Schwinn World Sport that I
used last summer and did pretty well with it, progressing to doing some
pretty serious hills. I liked the workout that you get. The World sport gave
me some moments though when I hit some gravel spots, hence the cyclocross.

Quoted message said:

Top tube length and seat tube angle are probably the most important
factors. Seat tube length tends to take care of itself. But check to see
you've got _some_ standover clearance.

And that's where supposedly he can make it fit me. We'll see. The advice
from those links and from the other posters will be invaluable on Tues. when
I go check it out.

Quoted message said:

Other important factors (not directly related to fit) include: wheelbase,
steering geometry, tire clearance, etc.

I'll have to do more reading on that stuff but from all the info I could
get, the cyclocross seems to be the best bet and the axis along with some
others seem to be the best choices for the mix of riding that I'll be doing
around here, dirt road, paved road, some gravel, some trails. Probably
mostly paved with gravel patches along the road but a substancial amount of
dirt road, all with hills.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Do you think this guy is just trying to sell this 57 that he already has
in stock?

That's what I was thinking, he wanted to move that one out although it is a
2005 so he probably hasn't had it laying around that long. I just don't know
for sure, the thing that bothers me is changing out parts to make it fit me
plus he mentioned it right off after he looked in the back room. The 58cm I
was looking at was a 2004 holdover and he thought he had a 55 in the back.
Turns out that one was a 2005 and it was the 57cm instead, so he offered me
a decent price on that one since he said he already had it in stock and he
then said don't worry about the fit, I can make it fit you.. The whole thing
seems kind of weird to me. I think I would know what I had in stock on the
higher priced bikes. Again though, it could just be my rookie paranoia.
That's why I'm posting here for the expert advice.

Quoted message said:

Maybe. Modern bikes tend to have "proportional" but longish top tubes.
The 57cm frame may have you stretched out to much. A shorter stem
extension can mitigate that up to a point. If you like a more upright
riding position, the large frame will make it easier to get the bars up
higher. So there are good and bad points about a larger frame. I
personally think most people are riding frames that are too small
(emulating the racer image).

Quoted message said:

Should I be leary of this shop or can he do what he says he can? I won't
be racing it, I just need a good all around bike and if I'm going to
spend this many bucks, I want to at least have it fit right.

You should keep an open mind. If you'd really prefer the 55cm, have them
order it.

Yes.

Quoted message said:

How is the bike as far as tire clearance, gearing, and overall suitablity
to the kind of riding you plan to do?

I read that the gearing is good for what I want to do, sometimes not for
those who race but for me, with the hills and the roads that I have around
me in the northeastern mountains of Pa., it seems like just what I need. I
can do some pretty decent milage on a combination of paved, dirt road,
trail, etc. It took me a month just to get to this decision, incidently
which I used the help of this group to decide. Thanks for the help. It's a
big deal for us rookies. It's tough enough spending this much money on one,
all the while fighting spouses, friends, and relatives who think Walmart has
a better deal 🙂. Appreciate it.
Ray

Quoted message said:

Art Harris

Ray said:

I'm in the market for a Bianchi Axis and went to a lbs that sells them. He
has a 57cm bike that he'd give me a pretty good price on and told me not to
worry about the fit, he could get it to fit with some adjustments and parts
replacements at the handle bars etc. I'm 5'9 3/4" with a 32" inseam.
Everything I've been reading has suggested that I should have a 55cm bike or
less in the Bianchi Axis. Do you think this guy is just trying to sell this
57 that he already has in stock? Should I be leary of this shop or can he do
what he says he can? I won't be racing it, I just need a good all around
bike and if I'm going to spend this many bucks, I want to at least have it
fit right. I'll take all the opinions and advice that I can get. I'm not
experienced at this.

For years riders wanted as large a frame as they could straddle without racking
themselves. Then everybody had to have the smallest possible frame they could
fit and ended up with two foot long seat posts and stems that looked like a
U-Boat was approaching.

The taller the frame, the more the bars are going to cume up into your hands.
The longer it is the more the tendency to stretch you out.

For your size as described 57 sounds reasonable.
Ron

Ray said:

"Arthur Harris" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Ray said:

I'm in the market for a Bianchi Axis and went to a lbs that sells them.
He has a 57cm bike that he'd give me a pretty good price on and told me
not to worry about the fit,

I would start to get skeptical at that point.

I did, although still hoping that the guy just knows that bike so well that
he just knows what he's talking about.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

he could get it to fit with some adjustments and parts replacements at
the handle bars etc.

That might be ok if you already owned the bike for a few years and were
coming in for a fit. By why start off with a bike that has to be tinkered
with to fit?

Good, then at least I'm not being overly parnoid, which can happen when you
lack some experience. That's why I thought I'd check in here.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I'm 5'9 3/4" with a 32" inseam. Everything I've been reading has
suggested that I should have a 55cm bike or less in the Bianchi Axis.

Here's where it gets tricky. A "55cm" in Brand X may be different than a
"55cm" in Brand Y. And seat tube length isn't even the most important
criteria. Read Sheldon's article about frame sizing:

Excellent info. Added it to my favorite list to refer to.

Quoted message said:

http://sheldonbrown.com/frame-sizing.html

Quoted message said:

Experienced riders have different preferences as to frame size. I happen
to like a frame on the large size. That's also the Rivendell philosophy.
Racers usually like a small frame to get a low, aero position.

Here's the Rivendell pitch:
http://www.rivendellbicycles.com/html/rr_comfposition.html

Same here, excellent info. The lbs had a 58cm assembled when I was there and
I was able to straddle it although there was no room for error if you know
what I mean. Seeing the part about that in this link makes me think the 57
just might be ok but I have to try it with the right shoes on. I think I
would like the frame more on the large size as well as long as I can get a
good fit overall. I intend to put on some miles and I'm not quite the
athlete that I used to be.

I was a runner but as I'm getting older, my knees just can't seem to take
the pounding like they used to. I have an old Schwinn World Sport that I
used last summer and did pretty well with it, progressing to doing some
pretty serious hills. I liked the workout that you get. The World sport gave
me some moments though when I hit some gravel spots, hence the cyclocross.

Quoted message said:

Top tube length and seat tube angle are probably the most important
factors. Seat tube length tends to take care of itself. But check to see
you've got _some_ standover clearance.

And that's where supposedly he can make it fit me. We'll see. The advice
from those links and from the other posters will be invaluable on Tues. when
I go check it out.

Quoted message said:

Other important factors (not directly related to fit) include: wheelbase,
steering geometry, tire clearance, etc.

I'll have to do more reading on that stuff but from all the info I could
get, the cyclocross seems to be the best bet and the axis along with some
others seem to be the best choices for the mix of riding that I'll be doing
around here, dirt road, paved road, some gravel, some trails. Probably
mostly paved with gravel patches along the road but a substancial amount of
dirt road, all with hills.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Do you think this guy is just trying to sell this 57 that he already has
in stock?

That's what I was thinking, he wanted to move that one out although it is a
2005 so he probably hasn't had it laying around that long. I just don't know
for sure, the thing that bothers me is changing out parts to make it fit me
plus he mentioned it right off after he looked in the back room. The 58cm I
was looking at was a 2004 holdover and he thought he had a 55 in the back.
Turns out that one was a 2005 and it was the 57cm instead, so he offered me
a decent price on that one since he said he already had it in stock and he
then said don't worry about the fit, I can make it fit you.. The whole thing
seems kind of weird to me. I think I would know what I had in stock on the
higher priced bikes. Again though, it could just be my rookie paranoia.
That's why I'm posting here for the expert advice.

Changing parts to get a bike to fit is pretty much standard procedure. Stems
just don't get longer or shorter on their own. I don't know this particular bike
and personal measurements and they wouldn't mean much if I did, but a 57 for a
guy your size seems pretty reasonable. Some will depend on the TT and your
arm/torso length, but usually the proportions work for ya.

It is March and if the nice weather hasn't hit your part of the country yet it
is a good time to go shopping.

Ron

Ray said:

I'm in the market for a Bianchi Axis and went to a lbs that sells them. He
has a 57cm bike that he'd give me a pretty good price on and told me not to
worry about the fit,

????

Quoted message said:

he could get it to fit with some adjustments and parts
replacements at the handle bars etc. I'm 5'9 3/4" with a 32" inseam.

In general, I'd say that a 57cm bike would be too large for you. A 55cm
is as big as I would consider for you, and probably smaller. I ride a
55cm and I am 2" taller than you.

Quoted message said:

Everything I've been reading has suggested that I should have a 55cm
bike or less in the Bianchi Axis. Do you think this guy is just trying
to sell this 57 that he already has in stock?

yeah

Quoted message said:

Should I be leary of this
shop or can he do what he says he can?

yeah

Quoted message said:

I won't be racing it, I just need
a good all around bike and if I'm going to spend this many bucks, I want
to at least have it fit right.

Absolutely.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | Arguing with an engineer is like mud wrestling with a pig... You
_`\(,_ | soon find out the pig likes it!
(_)/ (_) |

David L. Johnson said:

I ride a 55cm and I am 2" taller than you.

You're 6 ft tall and ride a 55cm? That sounds extremely small to me.
The OP says he's 5' 9-3/4"

Art Harris

Art Harris said:

David L. Johnson said:

I ride a 55cm and I am 2" taller than you.

You're 6 ft tall and ride a 55cm? That sounds extremely small to me.
The OP says he's 5' 9-3/4"

I'm not 6' tall, I'm 5' 11-3/4"... OK, 11-1/2. But my 55cm frame has
either a 110 or 100mm stem, a 57 would need probably a 90 or 80, which is
pretty short. My seatpost extension is well within normal limits, and the
stem is nearly all the way in, and my riding position is pretty standard.

I've used a 55cm frame for over 30 years. I don't really get the
Rivendell-type suggestion that you should ride as large a frame as you can
be adjusted to. But each person is different.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | Become MicroSoft-free forever. Ask me how.
_`\(,_ |
(_)/ (_) |

David L. Johnson said:

Art Harris said:

David L. Johnson said:

I ride a 55cm and I am 2" taller than you.

You're 6 ft tall and ride a 55cm? That sounds extremely small to me.
The OP says he's 5' 9-3/4"

I'm not 6' tall, I'm 5' 11-3/4"... OK, 11-1/2. But my 55cm frame has
either a 110 or 100mm stem, a 57 would need probably a 90 or 80, which is
pretty short. My seatpost extension is well within normal limits, and the
stem is nearly all the way in, and my riding position is pretty standard.

I've used a 55cm frame for over 30 years. I don't really get the
Rivendell-type suggestion that you should ride as large a frame as you can
be adjusted to. But each person is different.

For starters, the larger frame brings the bars up to you. Most stems have a
short quill and and can't be raised much, so if the seat is way above the top
tube you'll be hunting for a periscope stem to get the bars up.

Apparently you don't need or want that long of a top tube, so it's either a
custom frame or a smaller frame for you.

ROn

RonSonic said:

Quoted message said:

I've used a 55cm frame for over 30 years. I don't really get the
Rivendell-type suggestion that you should ride as large a frame as you can
be adjusted to. But each person is different.

For starters, the larger frame brings the bars up to you. Most stems have a
short quill and and can't be raised much, so if the seat is way above the top
tube you'll be hunting for a periscope stem to get the bars up.

Well, I don't think that my saddle is "way" above the top tube, and I
don't feel any need to bring the bars up. But I have been riding for a
long time, so maybe my back is permanently bent....

Really, I think my position is pretty standard, and that my bike fits
well. I wonder why some are recommending such a large frame as earlier on
this thread -- a 57cm or even larger frame for a person 5' 9" tall with
more or less average proportions.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | "It doesn't get any easier, you just go faster." --Greg LeMond
_`\(,_ |
(_)/ (_) |

In article <[email hidden]>, RonSonic

Quoted message said:

David L. Johnson said:

Art Harris said:

David L. Johnson wrote:

> I ride a 55cm and I am 2" taller than you.

You're 6 ft tall and ride a 55cm? That sounds extremely small to me.
The OP says he's 5' 9-3/4"

I'm not 6' tall, I'm 5' 11-3/4"... OK, 11-1/2. But my 55cm frame has
either a 110 or 100mm stem, a 57 would need probably a 90 or 80, which is
pretty short. My seatpost extension is well within normal limits, and the
stem is nearly all the way in, and my riding position is pretty standard.

I've used a 55cm frame for over 30 years. I don't really get the
Rivendell-type suggestion that you should ride as large a frame as you can
be adjusted to. But each person is different.

For starters, the larger frame brings the bars up to you. Most stems have a
short quill and and can't be raised much, so if the seat is way above the top
tube you'll be hunting for a periscope stem to get the bars up.

To me, that's an extreme case of over generalization, because triathlon
specific bikes have shorter top tubes but a head tube above the seat
tube, which brings the stem and aerobars placement up just right. In
fact, I know some people ride tri specific bikes -- Softride or Felt as
their long distance century bikes just because they feel comfortable.

I also disagree when people starts saying that long top tubes is the
key to all bike fitting answers. It's a maybe. The reason being, we
are not all built alike and neither do our riding styles. Like the
other poster said, riding a one or two size smaller frame isn't a bad
thing either as long as it is comfortable and it works.

David L. Johnson said:

Art Harris said:

David L. Johnson said:

I ride a 55cm and I am 2" taller than you.

You're 6 ft tall and ride a 55cm? That sounds extremely small to me.
The OP says he's 5' 9-3/4"

I'm not 6' tall, I'm 5' 11-3/4"... OK, 11-1/2. But my 55cm frame has
either a 110 or 100mm stem, a 57 would need probably a 90 or 80, which is
pretty short. My seatpost extension is well within normal limits, and the
stem is nearly all the way in, and my riding position is pretty standard.

I've used a 55cm frame for over 30 years.

I think the problem assumption you are making is that all 55 cm bicycles
will be the same size, and that a 57 cm bicycle is always bigger than that.
This isn't true, the size numbers that manufacturers come up with are
largely whimiscal.

I'm within a fraction of an inch of your height. I currently have
three bicycles, two 56 cm and a 58 cm, which, despite the different
numbers, have near-identical sized frames when measured with a ruler.
The difference is that the 56 cm bikes (Cannondale and Calfee) get
their size from the distance from the center of the bottom bracket to
where the top of the top tube intersects with the center of the seat
tube, while the 58 cm bike (Co-motion) measures the distance all the
way to the top of the seat binder clamp. What's more, I have taken test
rides on bikes of my preferred frame size which the manufacturer has
sized at 55 cm, that being the distance to the intersection of the
center of the seat tube and the *center* of the top tube. So my frame
size (which I measure with a ruler when buying a bike) can apparently
be called anything from 55 cm to 58 cm depending on who made the frame.

Now the frame size I like is at the comfortable-but-small end of my
"possible" range: I could see myself being okay on a frame 2 cm
larger, but a frame 2 cm smaller would have too much seat post showing.
Since you're a wee bit bigger than me, if anything, my bet would hence
be that we ride the same size frames, with the sole difference being that
your frames are measured c-c and mine aren't. More than this, judging
from their web pages Bianchi frames seem to be measured the same way
as my 58 cm frame, so (living even more dangerously) my guess would be
that the original poster is actually talking about a frame which is
1 cm smaller than the frames we ride.

Assuming all those guesses are true, this doesn't sound entirely
unreasonable. He's 4 cm shorter than me, with 2.5 cm less inseam,
and he's looking at a frame which is 1 cm smaller than I ride. If
his frame geometry is similar to those I ride then this seems like
it might be a fit at the big end of his "possible" range.

In fact, the only thing I find mysterious about this is how you managed
to go 30 years without finding a frame in the size you like being
called a number other than 55 cm by some manufacturer or other. When
I go looking at bikes I take a tape measure and a level with me to
find models that are my size; the numbers that various manufacturers
put on their bikes aren't all that informative.

Dennis Ferguson

Cyclocross bikes are sized differently. At your height you need a
54-56 cm bike. I'm 5'11" w a 32" inseam. My C'dale xr800 'cross is a
54cm . My Lemond is a 55cm (equal to a 57) and my old Panasonic 12
speed is a 56. The guy wants to unload that bike badly. That would be
appropriate for a 6'2" person. He will probably charge you to swap
stems etc. If you like the Axis (nice bike) find a 55. Run from this
shop.

Dennis Ferguson said:

I think the problem assumption you are making is that all 55 cm bicycles
will be the same size, and that a 57 cm bicycle is always bigger than that.
This isn't true, the size numbers that manufacturers come up with are
largely whimiscal.

Well, this is true, certainly. I am used to thinking of the measurement
as center-to-center, which IMO is more reasonable than any other.
Center-to-top of the seat tube can mean anything, as you point out, since
nowadays the seat tube often extends several cm up past the top tube.
Even the guy who sold me my frame (Mark Hickey) calls it a 56, using
center-to-top (of the top tube), but I, not considering, always convert
back. Heck, I used to think of my old bike as a 22" frame...

Since

Quoted message said:

you're a wee bit bigger than me, if anything, my bet would hence be that
we ride the same size frames,

apparently so.

Quoted message said:

In fact, the only thing I find mysterious about this is how you managed
to go 30 years without finding a frame in the size you like being called
a number other than 55 cm by some manufacturer or other.

I ignore what they call it... or, rather, translate.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all
_`\(,_ | mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so
(_)/ (_) | that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am
nothing. [1 Corinth. 13:2]