Best Bike For Beginner?

[Cycling_Man]

I’m the same height as Cycling Man with a similar inside leg. I have previously owned a Trek Domane and mine was size 58. I did have to fit a longer stem on it, as it only came with a fairly short stem (100mm) from memory. I fitted a 130mm stem.

The problem is that different manufacturers size bikes differently. Cannondales are big for their stated size. I’m currently riding a 54cm Cannondale Caad8, which is a little on the small side (it’s borrowed from my son in law) but a 56cm would be perfect for me.

My winter bike is an XL Triban 520, but I think it’s a little big for me and a Large would have been better. It also depends on how high you want the handlebars. If you prefer a more upright position, then a bigger frame might be better, but you might also be too stretched out. Try before you buy really is the only way, which is very difficult at the moment as shops don’t have much stock.

Yeah I know. It's really confusing for me that every single manufacturer seems to have their own sizing guide and very different sizes. Makes bike buying for someone new like me a little confusing.

I think I am understanding a little more by looking more into the geometry of the bikes. For example for the Trek Domane they say I should ride a 61 and for the Specialized they say I should ride a 58. Looking at the effective top tubes for the Trek it is 58.6cm and the Specialized has a 57.9cm. They seem quite close in top tubes so I'm guessing that the Specialized 58 is basically a 61 in Treks standards. Correct me if I am wrong though please.

With the Trek Domane do you think I should go with the 61. Their size guide suggests a 61 for me and you said you are the same measurements as me and got the 58 which was too short for you. The Giant Bike I tried had a top tube of 59.5 and I feel I may have been a little stretched but I don't actually know as I only got around 30 seconds on the bike. It might just be that I am not used to those bikes haha but going by Giant's guide it would be too big.

Also when you say "if you prefer a more upright position, then a bigger frame might be better" why is that? Another user on here stated that if I wanted a more upright position then a smaller frame would be better because I wouldn't be as stretched out and that seems to check out in my non-cycling mind but like I say, I am not a cyclist so probably wrong haha.

Also the try before you buy is the best I know and like you say, I can't do that at the moment which is a little annoying haha and yeah, everywhere is sold out.

[Cycling_Man]

Further to foxyrider's post, I remember 531colin posting photos of two or maybe three different sizes all set up for the same fit, so whichever of the three bikes/sizes you've listed you decide on should be workable and adjustable, hopefully, within reason, and to some extent your body will adapt to whatever differences there are. (*whispers*: think in terms of the one that appeals to you... )

Of the three bikes/sizes, as far as I can tell the '61' size Trek has the highest stack, by some way, and a slightly shorter reach than the 'L' size Giant or the 58cm Allez, so what that means is it will give you the most upright, 'shortest' and arguably less tiring (if also less 'aero', (as) if that matters!) position - AIUI, the higher the stack, the less saddle to bar drop, which will help your back and neck, effectively.

61 Trek: 646mm Stack, 385mm Reach
'L' Giant: 605mm Stack, 390mm Reach
('XL' Giant: 624cm Stack, 398mm Reach)
58cm Allez: 627mm Stack, 390mm Reach
(61cm Allez: 649mm Stack, 396mm Reach)

The Trek's sizing is a little odd in the sense that the '61cm' frame has a 58.6cm effective top tube (ETT) - the horizontal, not actual, top tube length - most often these days sizes are quoted as something around the ETT length, so it would more normally be sized as a 58. The reason the ETT is relatively short for that size of frame, though, is because the head tube is so long, which since it's angled backwards, effectively 'brings back', i.e. shortens, the top tube (you have to visualise it).

The Domane generally has relatively odd sizing for a road bike because it's an 'endurance' as opposed to 'race' style frame, with a long head tube relative to top tube for a more upright, less stretched out position - the head tube on the '61cm' frame is 235mm, which is a lot, but your body will thank you on a long ride. As a comparison, my humble Carrera TdF has a 58cm ETT but a 160mm head tube (I'm 5' 10"), which is normal 'racey-ish' fit, but not as extremely low and long as an aero frame.

I would reckon the 'L' size Giant and the 58cm Allez would be ok for you, just not as 'short-ish and upright' as the Trek, although they both have relatively long head tubes and therefore 'endurance' geometry. Bear in mind, btw, that if you're concerned about looks, a long, long head tube such as on the Trek can look a bit gawky (but you can't really see the head tube length from the saddle, which is where it matters!).

As others have said, it would be best for you to try them, and it's a shame if you can't, but bear in mind that how you feel will depend a lot on what you're already used to - to begin with when I rode the Carrera it felt far too long and low on the hoods or the drops but it was my first road bike and I was used to flat bar (20 inch) hybrids. I shortened the stem from 110mm to 100mm but it now feels fine - I've even taken a couple of spacers away from under the stem - and my body wonders why it felt the way it felt before!). It'll take time for you to adapt.

P.S.

The Competitive Cyclist website in the States used to have a fit guide that did the rounds for a while but is no longer there, but they talked about the 'Competitive Fit', the 'Eddy Fit' and the 'French Fit', the point being that someone of the same height could ride any of the three. However...

The Competitive Fit was like a 'race fit' - don't got there, it's too extreme unless you're racing and none of these three bikes 'fit' that style of fit anyway, if you see what I mean. The Eddy Fit was the way Eddy Merckx looked on his bike - 'just right', at least for a pro racing cyclist, compared to the scrunched up 'two sizes too small with a long stem to compensate' look of pro cyclists in more recent times, although I think they might have moved back from that a little now. Whereas the French Fit was the way French endurance cyclists - 'Randonneurs', or Audax riders as we would call them - looked on their bikes. The 61cm Trek would be closest to the French Fit, while the 58cm Giant and Specialized are closer to French Fit than Eddy Fit and, having endurance geometry, still a long, long way away from Competitive Fit.

Thank you for your information it was very helpful. I too noticed that the 61 Trek and the 58 Specialized looked very similar. That is what is super confusing. The fact that a Trek 61 is a Specialized Allez 58 haha. Also compared to the fits I'm not too sure what fit I am wanting. However fit isn't my main concern it's price. Do you happen to know of any decent priced "racey-ish fit" bikes as you put it.

Also I'm not sure what you mean by the Trek looking more "gawky". Like I know what it means but the Trek and the Allez look the same to me in terms of the frame. If you mean that it looks gawky because of the longer headtube then I'm a little confused because to me it looks like the Allez has a longer head tube in the pictures haha. I didn't expect buying a bike to be so complicated haha.

Thanks for your friendly reply and for the information you provided. It was very helpful.

[Cycling_Man]

OP wrote: " inside leg measurement of around 88-90cm. I found it quite hard to accurately measure this but believe it's around those numbers."


The way I measured my inside leg, or stand over 'height' came from (I think) the Surly website.

Get a flat book or something similar. Stand with back against a wall, in cycling shoes. Slide book as far up into your crutch as possible with top of book horizontal and square to wall. The top of the book is the height - you can mark, or slide away and then mark or whatever is easiest.

Hope this helps.

When I was buying my LHT, I had lots of fun sliding the book............

This is going to sound really dumb but how far up should the book be into my you know what. Should I do it where it just touches the groin or should I put presser on it a bit (pushing it up a bit into the groin) as when you sit on a saddle you are pressed into it haha.

[Cycling_Man]

The "size" doesn't mean anything. Nothing at all. Different manufacturers measure differently, and even the same manufacturer will make different bikes, different shapes. Somebody already said, you would probably be better looking at "endurance/road" bikes than out and out race bikes, because the riding position is less challenging.
Now, you rode a Giant Contend SL1 sizeXL, and you felt the bars were a long reach...
Get on giant website and find stack and reach for that bike, write them down!
you want a bike with LESS reach than that.
(or you can fit a shorter stem...on the Giant Contend 2 one size different makes a MAXIMUM difference of 1cm reach....stems come in 1cm increments, so you can easily shorten it more than the difference between 2 sizes.
how about the height of the bars on that bike you rode? On the Contend 2 if you go down one size, the bars drop by 20mm. Thats not absolutely the end of the world, those types of bikes are generally assembled in the factory so that if you flip the stem, you can get the bars higher (all this assumes the bike you rode is in "factory spec.) Or you can get a High rise stem, but they look a bit weird on a road bike.

On Giant's website it suggest I need a large and I kind of feel that might be true. Saying that though I might just not be used to the position but in my head I was kind of thinking that I am reaching a bit. if I was to get a Giant bike I think I would go with the Large as I feel like I would prefer that, not sure haha.

In terms of the height I am not sure. I didn't feel too bad but like I say. I have never ridden a road bike but I just don't really know since I had so little time on the bike sadly and wasn't really sure what I was looking for.

[simonhill]

OP wrote: " inside leg measurement of around 88-90cm. I found it quite hard to accurately measure this but believe it's around those numbers."


The way I measured my inside leg, or stand over 'height' came from (I think) the Surly website.

Get a flat book or something similar. Stand with back against a wall, in cycling shoes. Slide book as far up into your crutch as possible with top of book horizontal and square to wall. The top of the book is the height - you can mark, or slide away and then mark or whatever is easiest.

Hope this helps.

When I was buying my LHT, I had lots of fun sliding the book............

This is going to sound really dumb but how far up should the book be into my you know what. Should I do it where it just touches the groin or should I put presser on it a bit (pushing it up a bit into the groin) as when you sit on a saddle you are pressed into it haha.

Firmly, young man. Till it reaches the hard part not the wobbly bits.

Incidentally, I was mid way between a 54 and a 56. That was when you need to decide do you like it slightly bigger or slightly smaller, it's a sort of general preference thing.

I have always preferred to go small. That is the personal decision bit - but maybe I'm muddying the waters now.

[531colin]

The "size" doesn't mean anything. Nothing at all. Different manufacturers measure differently, and even the same manufacturer will make different bikes, different shapes. Somebody already said, you would probably be better looking at "endurance/road" bikes than out and out race bikes, because the riding position is less challenging.
Now, you rode a Giant Contend SL1 sizeXL, and you felt the bars were a long reach...
Get on giant website and find stack and reach for that bike, write them down!
you want a bike with LESS reach than that.
(or you can fit a shorter stem...on the Giant Contend 2 one size different makes a MAXIMUM difference of 1cm reach....stems come in 1cm increments, so you can easily shorten it more than the difference between 2 sizes.
how about the height of the bars on that bike you rode? On the Contend 2 if you go down one size, the bars drop by 20mm. Thats not absolutely the end of the world, those types of bikes are generally assembled in the factory so that if you flip the stem, you can get the bars higher (all this assumes the bike you rode is in "factory spec.) Or you can get a High rise stem, but they look a bit weird on a road bike.

On Giant's website it suggest I need a large and I kind of feel that might be true. Saying that though I might just not be used to the position but in my head I was kind of thinking that I am reaching a bit. if I was to get a Giant bike I think I would go with the Large as I feel like I would prefer that, not sure haha.

In terms of the height I am not sure. I didn't feel too bad but like I say. I have never ridden a road bike but I just don't really know since I had so little time on the bike sadly and wasn't really sure what I was looking for.

You have to decide....in a way its a bit of a shot in the dark.....or you could look at bikes a bit cheaper.....a grand is quite a bit to spend as this is like your "first bike" ....but if you go too cheap, they are pretty rough!
If you go with a "large" giant, the bars are likely to be about 2cm lower than the bike you tried briefly. As above, you can flip the stem or get a different one.

[531colin]

OP wrote: " inside leg measurement of around 88-90cm. I found it quite hard to accurately measure this but believe it's around those numbers."


The way I measured my inside leg, or stand over 'height' came from (I think) the Surly website.

Get a flat book or something similar. Stand with back against a wall, in cycling shoes. Slide book as far up into your crutch as possible with top of book horizontal and square to wall. The top of the book is the height - you can mark, or slide away and then mark or whatever is easiest.

Hope this helps.

When I was buying my LHT, I had lots of fun sliding the book............

This is going to sound really dumb but how far up should the book be into my you know what. Should I do it where it just touches the groin or should I put presser on it a bit (pushing it up a bit into the groin) as when you sit on a saddle you are pressed into it haha.

Firmly, young man. Till it reaches the hard part not the wobbly bits.

Incidentally, I was mid way between a 54 and a 56. That was when you need to decide do you like it slightly bigger or slightly smaller, it's a sort of general preference thing.

I have always preferred to go small. That is the personal decision bit - but maybe I'm muddying the waters now.

Yeah, firm pressure, thats what they say. But the problem with the "book up your crotch" is that you are pressing your book against the pubic symphysis, but you sit on the ischiac rami. (google it)

[Cycling_Man]

Why don't Giant have a size in numbers. Like I asked this question a minute ago replying to you guys but I don't get what a 52, 53, 56, 58, etc, etc bike is. Why is a 58 a 58, what is it measuring because from the geometry I can't see anything measuring 58cm on the bikes so why is it a 58 frame?

The reason is because the number is a bit meaningless. As explained elsewhere it harks back to the time when bike frames had a horizontal top tube and frame size was measured as the length on the seat tube measured from the centre of the bottom bracket (even then different manufacturers measured differently, some to the centre of the intersection of the top tube an others to the top of the seat tube). This why I say the best way to compare frame sizes it to compare effective top tube length which is a horizontal measurement from the centre of the head tube where the top tube intersects to the centre of the seat post. This will determine the reach of the frame. Personally I like the way Giant do it as it gives a reasonable point of reference. Eg you are tall so you would expect to be looking at a Large or possibly Extra Large bike. I see that Giant in their size guide would put you squarely on a L which seems right to me. For me at 6'1" it would be a toss up between a M/L and an L but as I would want the higher front end an L works for me. But that is based on my experience.

I see. That's clears up the issue on why the sizes (54, 56, 58, 60, etc, etc) seem to differ on sites and bikes. What should I be looking for mainly when looking for a bike then if frame size is not it since they don't mean anything. Many sites and others on here have suggest effective top tube length but others have also said stack and reach. However I don't know if there is a why to determine a persons stack and reach without actually getting on a bike. Correct if I am wrong though please.

I am confused on one thing though:

I went to see a Giant Contend SL 1 XL and I felt I was reaching a bit, not too sure though as it might have been the fact that I am not used to road bikes. Anyway, Giant suggests that that bike is too big and a large would be best for me however, according to bike radar a person of my height needs an effective top tube length of 58-60cm and the bike I tried had an effective top tube length of 59.5 so I am a little unsure because now I don't know if I did feel stretched out or if I wasn't because it is in the threshold of 58-60. I'm also confused because Giant suggest a Large (57.5cm effective top tube), Trek suggests 61 (58.6cm effective top tube) and Specialized suggests 58 (57.9cm effective top tube) which leads me to believe maybe bike radar is wrong on this one, what do you think.

Thanks for your kind reply and for helping me in my bike sizing queries.

[Cycling_Man]

OP wrote: " inside leg measurement of around 88-90cm. I found it quite hard to accurately measure this but believe it's around those numbers."


The way I measured my inside leg, or stand over 'height' came from (I think) the Surly website.

Get a flat book or something similar. Stand with back against a wall, in cycling shoes. Slide book as far up into your crutch as possible with top of book horizontal and square to wall. The top of the book is the height - you can mark, or slide away and then mark or whatever is easiest.

Hope this helps.

When I was buying my LHT, I had lots of fun sliding the book............

This is going to sound really dumb but how far up should the book be into my you know what. Should I do it where it just touches the groin or should I put presser on it a bit (pushing it up a bit into the groin) as when you sit on a saddle you are pressed into it haha.

Firmly, young man. Till it reaches the hard part not the wobbly bits.

Incidentally, I was mid way between a 54 and a 56. That was when you need to decide do you like it slightly bigger or slightly smaller, it's a sort of general preference thing.

I have always preferred to go small. That is the personal decision bit - but maybe I'm muddying the waters now.

I see. This is what I did at first. I did this again pressing "firmly" and it was 90cm I believe.

Also I think going a bit smaller is better if you are between sizes is what I heard anyway. Thanks for the help btw.

[Cycling_Man]

This is going to sound really dumb but how far up should the book be into my you know what. Should I do it where it just touches the groin or should I put presser on it a bit (pushing it up a bit into the groin) as when you sit on a saddle you are pressed into it haha.

Firmly, young man. Till it reaches the hard part not the wobbly bits.

Incidentally, I was mid way between a 54 and a 56. That was when you need to decide do you like it slightly bigger or slightly smaller, it's a sort of general preference thing.

I have always preferred to go small. That is the personal decision bit - but maybe I'm muddying the waters now.

Yeah, firm pressure, thats what they say. But the problem with the "book up your crotch" is that you are pressing your book against the pubic symphysis, but you sit on the ischiac rami. (google it)

I do own a bike. It's a mountain bike that is too small for me so I have the seat cranked all the way up haha so would it be helpful to measure the saddle to the pedal to see what distance that is or is that not helpful?

[531colin]

Firmly, young man. Till it reaches the hard part not the wobbly bits.

Incidentally, I was mid way between a 54 and a 56. That was when you need to decide do you like it slightly bigger or slightly smaller, it's a sort of general preference thing.

I have always preferred to go small. That is the personal decision bit - but maybe I'm muddying the waters now.

Yeah, firm pressure, thats what they say. But the problem with the "book up your crotch" is that you are pressing your book against the pubic symphysis, but you sit on the ischiac rami. (google it)

I do own a bike. It's a mountain bike that is too small for me so I have the seat cranked all the way up haha so would it be helpful to measure the saddle to the pedal to see what distance that is or is that not helpful?

Saddle height won't be a problem.

[Cycling_Man]

The "size" doesn't mean anything. Nothing at all. Different manufacturers measure differently, and even the same manufacturer will make different bikes, different shapes. Somebody already said, you would probably be better looking at "endurance/road" bikes than out and out race bikes, because the riding position is less challenging.
Now, you rode a Giant Contend SL1 sizeXL, and you felt the bars were a long reach...
Get on giant website and find stack and reach for that bike, write them down!
you want a bike with LESS reach than that.
(or you can fit a shorter stem...on the Giant Contend 2 one size different makes a MAXIMUM difference of 1cm reach....stems come in 1cm increments, so you can easily shorten it more than the difference between 2 sizes.
how about the height of the bars on that bike you rode? On the Contend 2 if you go down one size, the bars drop by 20mm. Thats not absolutely the end of the world, those types of bikes are generally assembled in the factory so that if you flip the stem, you can get the bars higher (all this assumes the bike you rode is in "factory spec.) Or you can get a High rise stem, but they look a bit weird on a road bike.

On Giant's website it suggest I need a large and I kind of feel that might be true. Saying that though I might just not be used to the position but in my head I was kind of thinking that I am reaching a bit. if I was to get a Giant bike I think I would go with the Large as I feel like I would prefer that, not sure haha.

In terms of the height I am not sure. I didn't feel too bad but like I say. I have never ridden a road bike but I just don't really know since I had so little time on the bike sadly and wasn't really sure what I was looking for.

You have to decide....in a way its a bit of a shot in the dark.....or you could look at bikes a bit cheaper.....a grand is quite a bit to spend as this is like your "first bike" ....but if you go too cheap, they are pretty rough!
If you go with a "large" giant, the bars are likely to be about 2cm lower than the bike you tried briefly. As above, you can flip the stem or get a different one.

I know I have to decide on one but I want to try to get one that is the right size, especially if I want to get a fairly nice bike.

Also I am mainly using these bikes as size references and if I was to buy them it would be second hand and not new as like you say they are pretty expensive. The max price I want to pay for my first road bike is around £500 which is why I chose bikes / models like this as they can sometimes be found online for a decent price. Again, these bikes were mainly chosen because they had different sizing and I wanted to try to understand why they were different and what size would be best for me. The bikes are nice abut if I was to buy them it would be second hand most likely.

This is also one of the reasons I don't want to get an expensive bike as my first bike, just in case it isn't the right fit.

[Cycling_Man]

Yeah, firm pressure, thats what they say. But the problem with the "book up your crotch" is that you are pressing your book against the pubic symphysis, but you sit on the ischiac rami. (google it)

I do own a bike. It's a mountain bike that is too small for me so I have the seat cranked all the way up haha so would it be helpful to measure the saddle to the pedal to see what distance that is or is that not helpful?

Saddle height won't be a problem.

Ok

[Cycling_Man]

As a comparison, my humble Carrera TdF

I just wanted to ask how you find your bike. They seem to pop up second hand a bit more than other bikes and tend to be cheaper bikes so if they are alright they might be a good buy maybe.

[TrevA]

I would say the 58cm Trek would fit you, as it did me. Ok, I had to put a longer stem on, but in every other aspect the bike fitted perfectly. I liked that it had a relaxed geometry with a fairly high front end, so was very comfortable on long rides. It’s rare to get a stock bike, even in the right size, and find that it fits you fine straight out of the box. You may have to change stem, saddle, or raise or lower the handlebars a bit.

You have to be careful that you don’t get a race focussed bike with aggressive geometry, which puts you in an aero position that may not be comfortable on a long ride. That’s why it’s important to see a bike “in the flesh” and take it for a test ride if possible. If you can’t, then do your research thoroughly, taking into account all of the frame dimensions. It might even be worth spending a couple of hundred pounds on a bike fit, especially if you are going to spend a couple of thousand or more on a bike. I’ve known people spend £4000 on a bike and sell it at a huge loss after a few months because it didn’t fit properly.

A good starting point would be 531Colin’s advice on bike fitting in the link contained in his signature.