Take the 2-minute tour ×
Bicycles Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people who build and repair bicycles, people who train cycling, or commute on bicycles. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I'm planning to buy a Scott Speedster S30 (This is my first road bike) and I'm looking at the size chart. I'm around 177 cm tall, and this fits exactly in between the M and L section. Just wondering, in general, is it better to choose the bigger or smaller option?

share|improve this question
    
I have a Scott sporster at 180cm I'm on a L, I would go for a large if I was you. –  Dagon Sep 5 '12 at 20:16
2  
My first "real" bike was a hair too large, and I wish it had been smaller. –  Daniel R Hicks Sep 5 '12 at 22:28
1  
try them both out, I err smaller –  NimChimpsky Sep 6 '12 at 9:19
2  
Smaller, because you can increase the length of the stem to get the reach you need. –  OMG Ponies Sep 11 '12 at 0:00
add comment

12 Answers

If this is your first bike, go to your local bike store and have them fit you professionally. Then, ask if they have loaner bikes so that you can get a feel for the size of the bike before you invest. Some people prefer bikes on the smaller side and some prefer them a bit larger. You'll get a definite feel for this over time, but I wouldn't recommend learning this by purchasing an uncomfortable bike!

I, for example, generally ride a 56cm road bike. However, I once rode a 56cm Surly Long Haul Trucker that felt too large. Some of that feeling was the components (stem length, in particular), and some of it was the frame geometry. Road bikes are built with a variety of geometries catered to every style of riding. Each bike is as different as each respective cyclist, but riding an uncomfortable bike will ruin riding for you. Your LBS will be able to help a great deal in picking a size and adjusting everything to fit you correctly.

Lots of people ask for definite answers based on their exact leg/inseam/PBH/height-leg-ratio-distance-whatever...but most of it will come down to what fits comfortably.

share|improve this answer
    
Experience also plays a big part, many novices are uncomfortable on a larger frame as they feel (are?) less in control, and unstable. Riding location does as well. If you are always riding flat ground, a larger frame might be preferred over if you have a lot of windy hilly riding to do. Also if you have come from MTB, you are probably used to a smaller frame than is ideal on a roadie, and may initially go for the smaller (possibly wrong) size. Trying (for a longer ride, not 2 minutes around the car park) is the best thing. –  mattnz Sep 5 '12 at 21:28
    
@WTHarper, are you sure the feel of the long-haul trucker wasn't the rake of your fork? IIRC, the LHT fork is angled to smooth out small perturbations so that you can easily hold a curve, but they feel less responsive/twitchy when you do want to make small course corrections. –  Mike Samuel Sep 10 '12 at 21:58
    
@MikeSamuel it probably was that, combined with the longer wheelbase and 45mm tires that were on it. My go to bike has sport-tour geometry which is what I'm used to. The LHT felt big, slow, and graceless...but I've been told that it rides better with a load (which it didn't have). –  WTHarper Sep 11 '12 at 2:58
    
That being said, I do have much admiration for Surly. –  WTHarper Sep 11 '12 at 2:58
1  
@MikeSamuel: interestingly (rivbike.com/kb_results.asp?ID=34) –  WTHarper Sep 11 '12 at 15:29
show 3 more comments

Rivendell bikes argues that most road bikes sold are too small. They're probably in the minority opinion as far as bike shops go, but they have (collectively) a lot of experience in frame geometry and riding styles.

Their argument is based on their belief that most shops assume that road riders should emulate racers -- experts who are willing to put up with a lot of discomfort to gain small efficiencies -- and that this alienates a lot of casual riders, commuters, and tourists who would be better served by a bike that fits comfortably.

Most bikes are sold too small. We see it all the time: bars way below the saddle, the rider leaned over 35-degrees with arms straight out as his hands are on the brake hoods. If he took his hands off the bar he'd flop down and smack his nose on the stem. It's not comfortable or correct.

When you come to us for a bike, we'll ask what size you ride now, and invariably put you on a bike that's two to five centimeters bigger. You'll still have crotch clearance, but your bar will be higher, you'll lean over less, and you'll be a lot more comfortable.

and

Sizing

Most riders are most comfortable when the handlebar is a few centimeters higher than the saddle. Some like it four or five inches higher. Some like the look of the bar lower than the saddle, but few riders over 35 like a low bar once they've ridden a higher one.

To achieve that bar height, it helps to start with a bike that's the largest practical size you can ride. We suggest you get the size that allows you to put the handlebar at least 2cm higher than the saddle. That works great for most people. You can always lower the bar if you find it's too high, but it's rare when that happens.

and especially relevant when dealing with sales-people:

Sometimes a bike feels funny or uncomfortable, but the salesperson tells you that you're just not used to it, or you're using muscles you haven't used before, and it takes a few weeks to adapt.

Don't believe it. There's always some getting used to it, but right off the bat, sitting on a new bike that fits you and is set up right so that it gives you a good position should feel about as natural as sitting in a chair. Your hands on the bars should feel like hands on a table in front of you. There is something to be said for breaking in your bottom or whatever, but it should feel at least reasonable right off the bat. You shouldn't have to adapt to or tolerate discomfort even a little, not even when the bike is new.

share|improve this answer
    
I would agree that the typical bike on the showroom floor has the bars too low. I think this is because the low bar looks "meaner" on the showroom floor. –  Daniel R Hicks Sep 10 '12 at 23:28
    
@DanielRHicks, Grant Petersen is making a stronger claim: that bikes sold and fitted to customers tend to have frames that are too small and bars mounted too low. –  Mike Samuel Sep 10 '12 at 23:54
    
Yeah, I was just talking about what I see on the floor. With most bikes sold you would not be able to raise the bar up to reasonable height even if the bike fit, especially now that it requires a threadless extension. –  Daniel R Hicks Sep 11 '12 at 0:20
    
@DanielRHicks, Understood. –  Mike Samuel Sep 11 '12 at 0:24
add comment

On a road bike its probably a toss up. Seats can be raised or lowered. Stems can be brought in or out. As long as the standover is comfortable, you should be fine on the large.

share|improve this answer
6  
but the standover cannot be adjusted, whereas the stems, seatpost, etc can -- therefore I say it's a bit better to have a slightly too small bike than one that is too large. –  Jeff Atwood Sep 6 '12 at 0:49
5  
thats why i said: "As long as the standover is comfortable" –  Matt Adams Sep 6 '12 at 4:05
add comment

I just returned a bike that was slightly too large. The issue with stand over height is a safety concern for your personal parts and to avoid injury (don't just 'stand over' it, lower yourself a bit, see how far you have before you might touch if you had to dismount quickly in that fashion), but the more relevant measurement for me ended up being the 'effective top tube' length (yes, exactly what it sounds like, the horizontal distance parallel to the ground ignoring the actual angle of the top tube). I was reaching too far forward for the handle bars and this was causing strain on my back and pressure on my wrists. I just bought at the top of my budget so I didn't have cash for a new stem, etc.

Lowering the seat on the larger size helped but it was still too far to reach the bars. I stopped at the point where the pedaling would have become silly, so technically I could have lowered the seat more to have a shorter reach distance, but then the other issue appears. Indeed, I may end up getting a longer seat post, but that's not as important as avoiding back strain.

I went to several LBSs in the area and all of them paired me with the larger size, partly b/c I was just at the edge of height range for the size down, so they didn't want me to get something too small. But bodies are particular and I would suggest a comparison ride of about 20-30 minutes on each size (that's what it took me in the end, and this was a big 'first' for me too, so I don't have my 'correct feel' honed yet) to figure out what really works. The 'parking lot' test definitely failed me this time around, and will likely continue to do so for future purchases. You need time to settle-in to feel what really works, especially if you're new to purchasing (actually sport activity experience aside).

share|improve this answer
1  
Yeah, the seat should be adjusted to get proper leg extension, not to compensate for top tube length. Stand-over height as a criterion only works to the extent that your legs and torso are "typical" in proportion. –  Daniel R Hicks Sep 11 '12 at 16:00
    
Yeah, I'm slightly far enough outside typical it's a problem with most everything concerning the word 'size' (lol). –  NOTjust -- user4304 Sep 11 '12 at 16:04
1  
And, of course, the rational solution on a non-custom bike -- to take the next smaller size, then raise the seat and bar -- is made less practical by the way bars are done: It's very hard (ie, requires work and maybe extra parts on the part of the LSB) to raise a bar up very high, due to the marketing-driven prejudice towards a "low and mean" look (for non-"comfort" bikes). –  Daniel R Hicks Sep 11 '12 at 18:36
    
Try a bike with a "ladies frame" –  Ian Feb 17 at 22:15
add comment

As several have pointed out, it is best to get something that actually fits you but with that in mind, it is better to go a little smaller than a little larger of a frame. For example, look at George Hincapie. He is 191 CM or 6 foot 3 and rides a bike that is just a little bigger than my 56 CM and I am just 5' 10 or 155 CM. He rides a 57.5. Putting on a longer stem and setting the seat back as far as it can go and pulling out the seat tube is how he fits on a bike that is just a tad bigger than mine while having a lot longer legs and body than I do. If he got something more like a 61-63, his bike would be heavier and not as stiff.

It also depends on a few other factors. The length of the top tube, riding preferences, riding style. Keep in mind that on a typical bike, if you got one that is smaller and just added a longer stem and pulled out the seat post as far as you could go, handling will also be a bit different because your center of gravity would be different than what it was built for. It wouldn't be as easy to go downhill, steering would be a bit more squirmy.

All bikes are built different. I have been on 56 CM's that were too big and too small for me in the stock format and even though I have owned my own bike for years, I am always adjusting the fit according to where I am in the season or how I feel on the bike.

share|improve this answer
add comment

You can raise the saddle and handlebars on a medium to meet your needs, but lowering them on a large might be tricky, depending on the bike's design.

Also, there's standover to consider. There should be at least an inch between the top of the frame and your "gentleman area" when you're standing forward of the saddle with the bike between your legs and your feet flat to the ground (not standing on tip toes). If you can manage that okay on the large bike then it should be okay for you. If not, go for the medium.

Best bet is to actually try out the two different sizes for yourself if at all possible. Ideally you'd want to take them for a test drive, but failing that, at least do a standover test of both sizes in a bike shop.

share|improve this answer
add comment

A bike which is too small can be gnarly, a bike too large can be cumbersome and unwieldy. If you can, test ride both of them if possible! Or test ride a similar bike from the same manufacturer, in the size you want to compare. I test rode a 19" and 21" Orange Gringo mountain bike, it took two 5-10 minute rides on both to realise which one felt right. Don't be intimidated by shop assistants, it's your money and bike, faff and be 100% happy.

Also it depends on what use the bike will have, if your going to race the bike the fit is more important and a shorter bike might serve you better - as you'll be able to get out the seat easier.

share|improve this answer
1  
Could you define what you mean by "gnarly"? –  GordonM Sep 6 '12 at 9:42
    
Under speed I personally find smaller bikes a little over-sensitive. Gnarled(gnarly) definition = (of trees) full of or covered with gnarls; bent; twisted. So in effect with an ill fitting small bike you could find yourself up all twisted up. –  wonea Sep 6 '12 at 10:28
1  
But "That was gnarly, Dude!" would be saying that "that" was extra-good in some circles. –  Daniel R Hicks Sep 6 '12 at 11:26
    
@DanielRHicks Noted! I suppose you could say "That trail was gnarly!" for a a mountain bike trail that was tight, twisty, and mean. –  wonea Sep 6 '12 at 11:34
    
In a literary or poetic sense it could mean 'more difficult than preconceived,' as in 'the road to Valhalla was gnarly for the reluctant Valkyrie' or 'I had a gnarly time at the station'. In this way I just thought wonea meant 'tricky,' as in 'more difficult to ride than you think before getting on,' which easily translates to a personally difficult time with the spirit of the bicycle throwing you off in vengeful spite for straining its steel by being larger than it feels its rider should be… I thought it was totally obvious, and even if that's not what he meant, it's still 'right', teehee! –  NOTjust -- user4304 Sep 7 '13 at 15:02
add comment

It's all about personal preference. I bought slightly too small in a 29er mountain bike. It's slightly lighter than the larger one and more agile, though the seat was too low for me and I had to get an extra long seatpost. This I found out by buying before trying. I recommend trying first.

share|improve this answer
add comment

I wouldn't pay too much attention to sizing charts and the like. They are OK, but we are all different in how we balance. I'm just under 6 feet tall yet I ride an extra large Boardman. As someone said, with seat adjustments it works well and I like being up high. The critical thing is to get the right position regarding knee to peddle, to make sure the handle bars are the right height with the correct length stem to avoid back pain, and being able to comfortably get your toes on the ground whilst sitting on the bike. In other words, try them and see.

share|improve this answer
add comment

The most important thing is that you are comfortable ridding it. In my experience a slightly smaller offers the benefit of more agility & lighter weight. However where you will be ridding is a factor as well.

As most of my ridding is in city streets with traffic I find utility in a smaller fit for the above reasons, I tend to ride with my bars significantly below my seat height but not so far that I cannot grab the top of the handlebars & ride upright cruiser style. This gives me a reasonable balance between power transfer from the lower position to comfort when I have a load on my back in the upright position.

However, ridding like this out in the country can get old pretty quick. Mainly I think because in city ridding there is a lot of stop/go & opportunities to adjust where as country ridding tends to be more distance traveling.

The bottom line however is still: If you cannot find a 'perfect' fit, which feels more comfortable to your style

share|improve this answer
add comment

You can (almost) always make a small bike fit bigger, but you can only make a big bike fit so small. If you're a 'tweener you can typically go either direction. Take sizing charts with more than a grain of salt.

share|improve this answer
add comment

I have two bikes. An older (1980s) Nishiki, heavier bike chromoloy frame that my LSB claims is too big (probably equivalent to a 58cm), and a new light aluminum 56cm Cannondale that feels too small but that is my "exact" fit according to the sizing charts. (I'm 5'10" with a 30-inch inseam.) Anyway, the bigger bike is my preferred bike. It might have to do with a longer wheelbase (3-4 inches longer), but the bigger bike performs better. Fast going downhills (faster than the Cannondale and everyone else I have ever ridden with) and much more stable. Quick on starts too. Slower climbing and not as many gears. I know there are a lot variables here, but I think size (or wheelbase) is the most important one. And don't think sizing charts and LSB's have all the answers.

share|improve this answer
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.