Builder's Spotlight The Paceline Forum Builder's Spotlight


Go Back   The Paceline Forum > Bike Fit

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-28-2017, 08:26 PM
TunaAndBikes TunaAndBikes is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Quebec, Canada
Posts: 219
Will it fit? - Fit comments welcome!

I'm really tempted by this landshark on eBay that's 56 square with a 17cm headtube.

Although I would've sworn 56 was my size 2 years ago, I've taken a liking to my current setup on my bike, which has a 58.5 toptube with a 110mm stem and 80mm handlebar reach.
Although I've liked the handling and such, perhaps i'm not optimally fitted with this setup...

Does this bike have any chance to fit me or would I buy a frameset for someone else?

Thanks for the feedback!

EDIT:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kontact View Post
Since your only 4'6" tall and have a 42" inseam, the 56 won't fit.
My inseam is 92 cm and i'm about 183 cm tall.
Currently have around 9.5 cm saddle to bar drop with a about 82 cm saddle height (with 175mm crankset).
The reach on the bike is 403 mm, with 591mm stack. I have about 2 cm of spacers under the stem over the 17mm headtube, currently run with 110x6deg stem.

Last edited by TunaAndBikes; 11-28-2017 at 09:29 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 11-28-2017, 08:51 PM
ultraman6970 ultraman6970 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 19,009
The 1st thing you have to do is to post your bike, and if you can would be more helpfull you over the bike aswell.

Some guys use the weirdest fits sometimes. Thats the reason of posting pictures.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-28-2017, 08:56 PM
Kontact Kontact is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Sunny Seattle
Posts: 2,749
Quote:
Originally Posted by TunaAndBikes View Post
I'm really tempted by this landshark on eBay that's 56 square with a 17cm headtube.

Although I would've sworn 56 was my size 2 years ago, I've taken a liking to my current setup on my bike, which has a 58.5 toptube with a 110mm stem and 80mm handlebar reach.
Although I've liked the handling and such, perhaps i'm not optimally fitted with this setup...

Does this bike have any chance to fit me or would I buy a frameset for someone else?

Thanks for the feedback!
Since your only 4'6" tall and have a 42" inseam, the 56 won't fit.
__________________
Get off your junk: www.kontactbike.com
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 11-28-2017, 09:32 PM
TunaAndBikes TunaAndBikes is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Quebec, Canada
Posts: 219
Fit info added in 1st post!
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11-29-2017, 09:33 AM
ultraman6970 ultraman6970 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 19,009
In my books you are too tall for a 56 squared frame, for that frame in specific.

If we are talking a 56 like specialized or trek carbon that pretty much are like a 59 or 60 cm, then the situation changes.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 11-29-2017, 12:50 PM
TunaAndBikes TunaAndBikes is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Quebec, Canada
Posts: 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by ultraman6970 View Post
In my books you are too tall for a 56 squared frame, for that frame in specific.

If we are talking a 56 like specialized or trek carbon that pretty much are like a 59 or 60 cm, then the situation changes.
Thanks, this alleviates (some of) the anxiety of me not buying the frame.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 12-02-2017, 09:52 PM
RobJ RobJ is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: NoVA
Posts: 1,528
I would disagree slightly. I don't think all the info is there to decide. Both bikes have the same HT length. You don't menion the ST on your current but the Shark is 56 (56 square). If it's the same as your current or more/less it's just more/less post exposed to hit your saddle height. Longer stem handles the difference in TT. And as you say if you're not perfectly fit to your current bike then maybe it's actually too big?
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 12-05-2017, 10:39 AM
TunaAndBikes TunaAndBikes is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Quebec, Canada
Posts: 219
a few pics to show my fit RN

Le me know how my fit is and if I should change anything
Attached Images
File Type: jpg WIN_20171205_11_09_00_Pro.jpg (69.1 KB, 176 views)
File Type: jpg WIN_20171205_11_10_02_Pro.jpg (73.3 KB, 177 views)
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 12-05-2017, 11:11 AM
Kontact Kontact is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Sunny Seattle
Posts: 2,749
Maybe it's just the photo, but to my eye you look like the handlebars are too close to you. But that's just what the picture looks like, and you shouldn't fit a bike via 1 or 2 pictures. Maybe that's what all people your size look like when sitting upright. Dunno.

Given your height and inseam, a standard 58cm C-T would be an appropriate frame size. 56 with a 56 top tube seems too small.
__________________
Get off your junk: www.kontactbike.com
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 12-05-2017, 11:45 AM
TunaAndBikes TunaAndBikes is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Quebec, Canada
Posts: 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kontact View Post
Maybe it's just the photo, but to my eye you look like the handlebars are too close to you. But that's just what the picture looks like, and you shouldn't fit a bike via 1 or 2 pictures. Maybe that's what all people your size look like when sitting upright. Dunno.

Given your height and inseam, a standard 58cm C-T would be an appropriate frame size. 56 with a 56 top tube seems too small.
First time seeing my fit, and it seems rather painfully obvious now that a 56 wouldn't fit.
I also do agree that i might look cramped, I might have to experiment with 120 stems during winter season
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 12-05-2017, 10:01 PM
ultraman6970 ultraman6970 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 19,009
I would seat you further back but thats just me... if you feel ok as it is i do not see why you should change something, your fit looks fairly even, not too low, not to high. Maybe a 12 cm stem?

Can you ride no hands? the bike just wavy a lot? if not then you are ok in my books.

And yes, 56 squared, big no no.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 12-06-2017, 09:49 AM
TunaAndBikes TunaAndBikes is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Quebec, Canada
Posts: 219
Good!

Quote:
Originally Posted by ultraman6970 View Post
I would seat you further back but thats just me... if you feel ok as it is i do not see why you should change something, your fit looks fairly even, not too low, not to high. Maybe a 12 cm stem?

Can you ride no hands? the bike just wavy a lot? if not then you are ok in my books.

And yes, 56 squared, big no no.
I feel fine as is, and even then, my seatpost/saddle are already maxed out and i'm not willing to get a pro setback.
I haven't had the confidence to ride my bike with no hands since i crashed hard while doing so on my commuter.
But if it were to be wavy, what would you do?

Last edited by TunaAndBikes; 12-06-2017 at 09:54 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 12-06-2017, 10:10 AM
Kontact Kontact is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Sunny Seattle
Posts: 2,749
Your setback looks fine. If I had to guess from the picture, you're behind KOPS already.
__________________
Get off your junk: www.kontactbike.com
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 12-18-2017, 08:49 AM
cmg's Avatar
cmg cmg is offline
cmg
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: san antonio, texas
Posts: 3,748
On the setup in the photo put the front wheel at an even height as the rear. the bike should be level. after about a 10 minute warmup put the chain in the middle of the cassette. While peddling on the trainer let go of the bars, do you fall forward, can you hold your hands just above the bars with no problem? If you fall forward the saddle is too close and there's too much weight on the hands. you should be able to balance yourself hands free. Just one on many starting points on finding the fore and aft position of the saddle.
__________________
Cuando era joven
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 01-08-2018, 11:06 AM
audiojan audiojan is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Greater Pittsburgh
Posts: 84
Height is a REALLY poor indicator of fit... then sizing numbers (i.e. 56) means NOTHING as there's no standard how they are measured or even what the measurement actually means (i.e. measured from different points... center-center vs. center-top vs. center-virtual point, or my favorite virtual point-virtual point).

Looking at the pics, you look very upright... is there any reason why you have been fitted so short? Prior injuries/issues?

With "normal" (another word I hate...) flexibility and core strength, you should have longer reach and potentially more drop (although that's a really tough one to determine from the pics...)
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:17 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.