Litespeed Tuscany size

they are both fine. visit competitive cyclist and measure to see which top tube length to get. if you are going to use it more for tris with clip ons, then i say go for 57. i am a tad bit taller than you but with a shorter inseam than you, and i fit the 61. but i have longer reach than u probably. u will need shorter top tube anyways if u want to tuck comfortably for your tt position.

regards,
sean

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by ocross
Hi,

I'm 183cm with aprox 86.5cm inside leg. What size Tuscany should I look at getting: 59 or 57? It's my first road bike and I'll use it for triathlon. If anyone out there is my size I'd appreciate feedback. No sells them off the shop floor in Oz so I'll get one mail order from the U.S.

I sat on a 57cm Le'mond (57.5cm effective top tupe) and thought it was a bit big but was told that it was the right size for me - I don't know 'cause I ride a MTB

Cheers
Ollie

Asking someone else is the yellow brick road to an expensive mistake. Find a good fitter,and that does not mean online fit sites.They are only guidelines. On the other hand, you could try and digest the babble in the Exact Fitting Myths thread and, sign the check and hope it works out.

If you haven't already it's worth checking out the Litespeed website. Here's the link for the Tuscany.
http://www.litespeed.com/bikes/tuscany.aspx
There is good information in the "How we size our frames" section.

Sea

I am almost your exact size (height and inseem) and I have been looking at the exact same bike, for the exact same purpose. Fortunately I have had the chance to test ride the bike in a 57 and sit on one in a 59. I would definitely recommend the 57. Its a great fit and with aero bars, you would be more comfortable on the stock setup. Note: in the 59, you could get a shorter stem to be comfortable on the aero bars.

Hope that helps.

I'm getting a Litespeed. They only come in odd sizings. I fit between a 57 and a 59. I was fitted for the bike at a bike shop/ They told me to go with a 59. Larger bikes can be adjusted to your fit more easily than a smaller bike. If you buy a frame to small then it's too small and there's not much you can do about it. Going with a 59 gives me more options for getting the best fit.

I've had cycling buddies tell me this in the past but I didn't know if it was true. Now I know. I recommend you go with the 59.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by blowin mud
I'm getting a Litespeed. They only come in odd sizings. I fit between a 57 and a 59. I was fitted for the bike at a bike shop/ They told me to go with a 59. Larger bikes can be adjusted to your fit more easily than a smaller bike. If you buy a frame to small then it's too small and there's not much you can do about it. Going with a 59 gives me more options for getting the best fit.

I've had cycling buddies tell me this in the past but I didn't know if it was true. Now I know. I recommend you go with the 59.

Actually you don't know,but have just had some hooey blown in you. Alot of it is personl preference in additiion to some other factors. Some do better on bigger,others on smaller,within reason. I see it just the opposite, and prefer smaller.I've ridden too small and too big and too big just feels awkward, and terer is nothing you can co about it. A bit small can cause problems getting the bars high enough if you have flexibility problems. So, just remember, everyone is different.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by boudreaux
Actually you don't know,but have just had some hooey blown in you. Alot of it is personl preference in additiion to some other factors. Some do better on bigger,others on smaller,within reason. I see it just the opposite, and prefer smaller.I've ridden too small and too big and too big just feels awkward, and terer is nothing you can co about it. A bit small can cause problems getting the bars high enough if you have flexibility problems. So, just remember, everyone is different.

Well, I don't know your credentials, but the guy who fit me builds custom bike frames and has been fitting for over 25 years. My fitting took 90 minutes and I really learned a lot from him. Maybe he meant for me going bigger is better. I'll ask him next time I'm in the shop.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by blowin mud
Well, I don't know your credentials, but the guy who fit me builds custom bike frames and has been fitting for over 25 years. My fitting took 90 minutes and I really learned a lot from him. Maybe he meant for me going bigger is better. I'll ask him next time I'm in the shop.

Maybe he is right in YOUR case. Grant Perersen(Rivendell) has a similar spin. Does not apply to everyone. My credentials are actually having done it all, and NO ONE is sticking me on a too big one.

No message

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by boudreaux
Actually you don't know,but have just had some hooey blown in you. Alot of it is personl preference in additiion to some other factors. Some do better on bigger,others on smaller,within reason. I see it just the opposite, and prefer smaller.I've ridden too small and too big and too big just feels awkward, and terer is nothing you can co about it. A bit small can cause problems getting the bars high enough if you have flexibility problems. So, just remember, everyone is different.

I agree that it depends on the rider's build and preferences. I am 6'3" with a long torso, and reach, and a relatively short inseam. Looking at just my inseam, I'd probably be fit on a 57cm bike. But, even with the 57.5cm toptube on my 59cm litespeed, I still need a 130mm stem to get the proper reach! If I had a 57cm frame, I could never get the proper reach.

Get a good bike fit. Figure out what you need in terms of a toptube/stem combination. Then, work backwards from stem length. In other words, assuming a stem lenght in the 110-120mm range, figure out what length toptube you can use to give yourself the proper reach. I recommend initially using a 110 or 120, if possible, because then you can go longer if you decide later that you prefer a more stretched out riding position, or shorter if you prefer a more compact position. This may not, however, be possible, and there is nothing wrong with using a 130mm stem, especially on a 57/59cm bike if it is necessary.

Lastly, while all the rage is to ride compact frames, I personally think it stupid, especially for larger riders. While you may gain some stiffness in the frame itself, any incremental gains are offset by flexing in the seatpost. Moreover, the drop from the handlebars to the stem tends to be too drastic for most riders. As a rule, I wouldn't ride any bike that had more than 5" (12.5cm) of seatpost exposed.

just my 2 cents!

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by brim
I am almost your exact size (height and inseem) and I have been looking at the exact same bike, for the exact same purpose. Fortunately I have had the chance to test ride the bike in a 57 and sit on one in a 59. I would definitely recommend the 57. Its a great fit and with aero bars, you would be more comfortable on the stock setup. Note: in the 59, you could get a shorter stem to be comfortable on the aero bars.

Hope that helps.

Hi brim,

Let me know how you go when you get the beast. When I put all my numbers in a bike fit program it says a 56.5 cm top tube for tri's or 57.5 for road work. But like a said, I had a sit on bike with a 57.5 top tube and it felt a bit big for me.