You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
My brothers just purchased a new cyclocross bike in size 52. He tried the bike in store on the cycle trainer and both members of staff with him said the size seemed a good fit.
My brother having a limited knowledge of road bikes relied on the staff members experience and purchased the bike. He has just realised that he has been sold the smallest size of the range available and should have purchased a size 56 at least.
He is 5'10, maybe slightly taller so should never have been sold a 52.
The store in question is very good and I have purchased bikes from them in the past, always very helpful and know what they're talking about.
What are peoples thoughts on this, quick / easy sale maybe or is that unfair?
Has he ridden it yet? If not, just take it back, explain the situation and let the shop take care of it.
I'm over 6' and have a 52cm Ridley crossbow. All my measurements taken, and that's what Ridley themselves came up with, and I've been riding it for four years now.
All bike sizes are not the same.
Seems strange. Maybe a silly question but does the bike actually fit him ? Comfortable, seat hight reach all that stuff.
Just take it back if he is not happy. Did he not test ride it?
I'm 5'7" and ride a 52cm Croix De Fer.
HTH.
Other than a small loop around the car park and straight into the van home, no.
He'll be taking it back in the morning.
It would be the same as me buying a 14'" MTB frame when I know I'm a 17"/18" or Medium.
Out of interest, what bike?
For starters, people usually size down for a cross bike and at 5'10 he'd be looking at a 54-56 in a road frame but more likely a 54. I'm a shade under 5'10 and have always had 54cm road bikes.
I tried a 52 and 54 cross bike and preferred a 54 but that's on a Boardman which has similar geometry to a road frame. How are you so certain that the shop is wrong?
+1 Take it back and explain and try out a bigger size.
If he knows nothing about road bikes how does he now know it's too small when he didn't in the shop or car park?
I'm 5ft 9in and got the smallest size Boardman CX bike in the range and changed to a shorter stem and non layback seat post.The comparison to MTBs is not really relevant IMHO.
What's the bike? The rest of us may be able to advise if we know what it is.
We're pretty much the same height, he's maybe a shade taller but with a longer inside leg.
I'd go for at least a 54, possibly the 56. 52 is generally recommended for 5'5" - 5'7".
I'm quite confident they've sold him the wrong size.
I'm quite confident [s]they've sold him[/s] [b]he bought[/b] the wrong size.
Do tell him not ride it tomorrow and take it back
It's an Orange RX9.
Sold / bought? What difference does it make? It's not the right size....
It's an Orange RX9
Even if it's not too small, he want's to take it back [url= http://road.cc/content/review/111724-orange-rx9 ]cuz itz crap, apparently.[/url]
...incidentally, in that test linked, the rider is 5'11" riding a 56cm.
Edit: £1.1k for Tiagra shifters and BB5s? Ooof!
Where was it from?
Is it to be used as a road bike or as an off-road bike? As others above, I'm 6ft and ride a 54 CX bike off road. But, I have another CX bike as a light-tourer which is a 57cm. Both fit me (for the purposes they're used for).
That's why I haven't mentioned the bike. The topic goes off subject as soon as Orange is mentioned.
It's a lovely bike, I'd have one.
To muddy the puddle my 49cm Jake The Snake has a 53cm top tube.
Did he try other sizes? i.e. was the '54' too stretched?
depends also what he's going to be using it for, road bike, cyclocross, tourer..
Tbh ..I'm 5'10 and normally ride a 54 road bike ...but if it was a cross bike I would go a size smaller
Reply from Orange. They recommend either a 54 or 56.
Not all bikes are measured in the same way , but just go back and have a chat.
What does the top tube measure on a 52 orange
How long are his legs and his arms and his torso, how does he look on the bike? To make a call from 2 numbers is ambitious.
Going to be one of those days in the shop...
That bike I bought yesterday that we fitted up in the shop.
Yeah
I'm bringing it back cause my brother who hasn't seen me on it reckons it's too small
OK then...
I'm quite confident they've sold him he bought the wrong size.
Nope. Shops fault. I've actually done it myself. Spent ages discussing hybrids with this old boy and comparing sizes with his old Raleigh. It was 50/50 with the sizes. He went away with a bike and came back the next day and asked for a s smaller one. My fault IMO, so we swapped it for him. Any decent shop should do exactly the same if it's undamaged.
Not all bikes are measured in the same way , but just go back and have a chat.What does the top tube measure on a 52 orange
TT = 525
ETT = 540
Just take it back.
...oh, and tell the shop I will have the the 52cm off them for £500...second hand and all that 😉
I'd say looking at that spec £500 new would've been closer to the money..
It might fit, I'm 6"1 and can't get anything bigger than a 54 to fit. Tell the shop you think it's too small and get them to do a proper fit foc.
Cross bike sizing can be all over the place. I ride a 56cm road bike, previously had a 54cm guerciotti cross bike for racing and now ride a 52cm cross check. It's all about the top tube length. If it fits right, don't get hung up on the numbers.
Cross bike sizing can be all over the place. I ride a 56cm road bike, previously had a 54cm guerciotti cross bike for racing and now ride a 52cm cross check. It's all about the top tube length. If it fits right, don't get hung up on the numbers.
This.
now ride a 52cm cross check.
Interesting. How tall are you? I was looking at the [url= http://surlybikes.com/bikes/straggler/geometry ]Straggler[/url] frames, and figured I would be after a 50cm. Might be a 46cm if they size down like that.
i'm 5'10" (ish) but with short legs and a long back. Be sure to check the top tube lengths as the surlys seemed to have a longer top tube than seat tube measurement - something to do with how they measure them. I think the 52 cross check has a 54cm top tube, whereas a traditional 54 cross bike has a 54 tt.
FWIW, i really like my cross check, even though it weighs a ton.
but with short legs and a long back.
Looking at the geo, the 50cm will probably be reet, as my CDF is 538 tt.
The weight doesn't really put me off, but the silly short headtubes do. I think they must have shares in the companies that make spacers.
That bike I bought yesterday that we fitted up in the shop.
Yeah
I'm bringing it back cause my brother who hasn't seen me on it and knows nothing about rebadged heavy cross bikes straight out of a Taiwanese builders catalogue with a hefty mark-up for the doe-eyed MTB market reckons it's too small
OK then...
FTFY.
Mr Smith, nail on the head.
Probably wont help but.... I'm 6foot and have a cannondale synapse in a 56, cannondale caadx in a 54. The 56 was far too big in the caadx but next to the synapse is almost identically sized....
watching the E3 harelbeke belgian cobbly road race yesterday the commentators mentioned that someone was on a CX style (in fit at least i think) bike - smaller with a massive seatpin - i wasn't particularly paying attention, but what's the reasoning behind it? just more maneuverable?
It seems from the various answers, that the bike may or may not be too small.
Some people who are taller than the O/P's brother are riding that size frame.
It's not difficult to work out the correct size bike if you know what you are doing, so if the shop is a good one, why would they sell him a bike that was too small?
I would call the shop and voice my concerns. They will most likely tell you how they came to fit him on the 52.
Then you can discuss their decision.
But the guy might want to ride the bike further than round the car park before rejecting it for a larger size. See if the shop will allow this, and still replace it if required.
This is of absolutely no help at all, but I ride 565 tt road bikes and 550 tt cx bikes and I'm 5'8".
Both of those include frames built specifically for me as well.
and i'm 5-10andabit and ride 54.5ish ETT road and cx - but as noted the surly sizing differs in that they quote seat tube not tt ( not that this is related to the OP )
I [i]think[/i] it's that there's more flex in a seatpost than frame, longer seatpost more bump absorption.smaller with a massive seatpin - i wasn't particularly paying attention, but what's the reasoning behind it? just more maneuverable?
I note the comments section exploded into a pedantry furore instead of an Orange flaming session. Lazy, if it was an STW review it would be both godsdammit.Even if it's not too small, he want's to take it back cuz itz crap, apparently.
@JEFFCAPESHOP - I watched E3 too and noticed that bit. I think he was implying that he had the smaller frame to have more bike control through shifting his weight and the shorter wheelbase etc.
I'm 5' 11" and, looking at the numbers, I'd probably pick a 52 Orange - it's got a 54cm ETT, half a centimetre longer than the one on my 54cm Scott CX frame.
Have you tried switching it off and on again?
fwiw I am 5'11" and ride a 56 road bike (albeit with a 90mm stem), and a 54 cyclocross.
Looking at the geometry for that bike, (and noticing the sloping top tube and difference between seat tube, top tube and effective top tube measurments) I would be umming and ah-ing between 52 and 54cm frames. I wonder what size stem they supply on what size? If it handled OK with a 100-110mm stem I would be trying the smallest one first even though I am not exactly short!
Their effective top tube number gets closer to the seat tube length the bigger you go, they are both 60cm on the biggest size) but it is curious that their smallest size seems the same as some manufacturer's third smallest/medium ones. For example there are three sizes of the 2014 cannondale caadx (also an alloy disc cx bike) that are smaller than the smallest RX9. 😯
I've got a Trek Alpha somethingorother in 52, and Specialized Langster in 54, there's less than 2mm difference in top tube length on them.
It depends how he is proportioned, and flexibility, and personal preference too, so go by the actual fit, not the numbers.
I'm 5'8 FWIW and have shortish legs but a longer torso, I have barely any seatpost sticking out on either frame, to look a them you;d think I need a 50 but I had to go bigger for the TT length.
I'm 5' 11" and, looking at the numbers, I'd probably pick a 52 Orange - it's got a 54cm ETT,
I ride 565 tt road bikes and 550 tt cx bikes and I'm 5'8"
You're not wrong, this is just to point out how personal sizing is - I'm 6ft, typically ride bikes that suit an average 5'11-6' rider and I couldn't ride anything as short as 540mm for long, and prefer a road or CX type bike with approx 565-570mm TT, similar to someone 5'8" here. I'd look for around 390-395mm reach to start with, not a TT number (since reach can vary +/- 10mm between bikes with the same TT due to front end height and seat angle variations etc). Then there's stem length, saddle position etc. A shorter / smaller CX bike wouldn't let me use a shorter-than-road spec stem and may have toe overlap.
So in summary trying to size a bike by height alone is a bit ambitious.
I'm currently looking at buying a Kinesis Aithein frameset. Based on effective 55cm TT length and 14cm stack I've worked out I need buy a 53cm. I'm 6'1" and Kinesis recommend this size for riders who are between 5'5" and 5'9". But if my calculations are correct (and of course I've double checked them) this will give me, when coupled with a 13cm stem, an 8cm saddle-to-handlebar drop and perfect reach. But then I do have diddy little 31.5" legs.
And nearly forgot to mention - I have a 25mm lay back on the saddle - which adds an extra 25mm to my reach.
Facts: Bike fit dependant on many things, not just height.
long torso, short legs bigger frame.
short torso, long legs smaller frame.
That bike though it says 52 on it should fit like a 54.
trust the shop, they probably know what they're talking about.
Numbers are pointless. Try it on and if it feels right buy it.
The other issue which nobody seems to have picked up on is that the OP suggests his brother has limited knowledge of road bikes. Now I don't know what experience he has of other bikes, but I'd reckon to be selling a smaller size to a lot of mountain bike riders compared to road riders of exactly the same size. Possibly smaller again if he has little experience of riding. This is on the basis that the only important dimension is top tube length, and somebody inexperienced and not used to riding with a flat back and a lot of hip angle is likely to want a significantly shorter reach.
Personally I'm 5'9" and ride bikes with exactly the same dimensions as aP up there, and also 120/110 stems on the roadie/CX, but would be extremely surprised if somebody inexperienced of my height was comfortable on my bikes (I also run plenty of saddle/bar drop - slammed stem on my roadie 8) ).
Numbers are pointless. Try it on and if it feels right buy it.
Not necessarily, if your not used to riding bikes what feels right for you in a car park test or sit on in the shop may be uncomfortable for anything over 15 miles.
Saying someone is 5'10" so they must ride a 54 is pointless.
Don't forget ridley size their seat tube c-c whereas most size c-t
So a 52 ridley x fire (cross bike) is in fact a 56
[img] 
[/img]
http://www.ridley-bikes.com/be/en/bikes/4/148/46/cyclocross/x-fire-10-1403a
54cm effective top tube looks about right for a CX bike at 5'9" - 5'10". Recommendatins are 1 - 3cm shorter top tube for cross - stops the front end washing out.
However, if he's going to use it just for road riding/commuting may go up a size to 55.5cm top tube - wouldn't go any longer!
Of course all the people saying what height they are and what size bike they are riding may not be on the right size frame themselves .
LenBuch - Member
54cm effective top tube looks about right for a CX bike at 5'9" - 5'10". Recommendatins are 1 - 3cm shorter top tube for cross - stops the front end washing out.
Does that assume uniform arm/torso/leg length?
When I bought my Cannondale CX, the shop guy said I should go for the 54cm, I took it for a ride and it felt ok. I said can I try the next size up, just to compare.. Rode it, wasn't as comfortable as the 54, so I bought the 54. I'm dead clever, me.
[quote=Ramsey Neil ]Of course all the people saying what height they are and what size bike they are riding may not be on the right size frame themselves .
Of course not, but fit being such a personal thing, some of us know we get on with the size we have - a proper fitting is unlikely to make a different size righter. On the flipside, for the same reason (and also the reasons I mentioned above) what fits one person won't necessarily fit another even if they have the same proportions, so the examples being given just indicate a range.
mikewsmith - Member
So in summary trying to size a bike by height alone is a bit ambitious.
Definitely. What would probably be easier would be to go into a shop, ride the bike for a bit on a turbo and perhaps a bit outside, and make use of the shop staff who do this day in/day out to make a recommendation.
Oh wait...
OP in not coming back to thread shocker?