Recommended size?

Discussion in 'Bikes and Buying Advice - What Bike?' started by Jandn1, 6 Mar 2018.

  1. Jandn1

    Jandn1 Member

    Hi
    Looking at a 2010 Boardman team carbon which the owner says has a 54cm ST would this be a large or medium does anybody know, struggling to find any info on that years sizing. What I have found suggests it should possible be 53cm M or 55.5cm L but not sure if that's for that year? I am 5'8" with a 30" inside leg. Cheers
     
  2. vickster

    vickster Legendary Member

    Ask him for the TT measurement, if it's a large it'll be too big. Go ride it, take a tape measure. What does it say on the owners receipt?

    @cyberknight has a more recent model and he's around your height
     
    Jandn1 likes this.
  3. Cycleops

    Cycleops Guru

    Location:
    Accra, Ghana
    Sounds about right for you, only real way is to try it. 54 would be regarded as medium.

    It’s eight years old so check it over very thoroughly. Look for any signs of accident damage. Hope it’s a good price.
     
    Racing roadkill and Jandn1 like this.
  4. OP
    OP
    Jandn1

    Jandn1 Member

    Yep was going to take a measure and set my seat height and see how reach etc was. Also have a second option, The Boardman team carbon is £340 I also have an offer of a planet x pro carbon sram for £400???
     
  5. vickster

    vickster Legendary Member

    I assume all of these sellers have proof of purchase / ownership
     
  6. 54 is Medium, unless you are an Orangutan, it should be fine.
     
  7. cyberknight

    cyberknight Bullied off cc

    IMG_20170606_151701846.jpg 54 seat tube sounds like it would be the medium 55.5 top tube afaik
    I ride a small 51,5 with a 54 top tube ctc to ctr , im 5 foot 7 " with a similar inside leg , here is the geometry chart and this is my set up
    boardman geometry.jpg
     
    Jandn1 likes this.
  8. OP
    OP
    Jandn1

    Jandn1 Member

    Both claim to have proof of purchase / ownership but not seen either yet.
     
  9. vickster

    vickster Legendary Member

    Good, make sure you do
     
  10. OP
    OP
    Jandn1

    Jandn1 Member

    Many thanks for that, what is the measurement you have from the top of the actual seat to crank centre.
     
  11. cyberknight

    cyberknight Bullied off cc

    69 cm
     
    Jandn1 likes this.
  12. 1F6160BA-C0CC-4D61-AF82-4B898FCE8826.jpeg

    That’s my 2014 Pro Carbon. It’s a 57 cm frame, or size Large. I’m about 5ft 10 and it’s fine for me, the 54 is a better size, but they didn’t have a 54 when I bought mine, but I know the 54 ( medium) is an even better fit.
     
    Jandn1 likes this.
  13. Paul_Smith SRCC

    Paul_Smith SRCC Veteran

    Location:
    Surrey
    I got the same geometry chart as cyberknight when I Googled "2010 boardman team carbon geometry"; doesn't link to a Boardman page mind you but a 2013 review, so note it may well be wrong! But until we know for sure for this post we will assume it is; using the 'Medium' size and cyberknight's 69cm saddle height:

    boardman-geometry-jpg.jpg

    Although I'd like frame 'stack and reach' as well handle bar 'reach and drop' for accuracy, which sadly they don't list, I can at least compose a BikeCAD drawing using what they have listed, then filling in the gaps with a guesstimate.

    2015 Boardman Team Carbon Medium.jpg
    'Jandn1' mentioned an inside leg (I am assuming crutch to floor) of 30"=762mm, using the traditional 88.3% of inseam formula as starting point that equates to a saddle height of 672mm; that would start to be a bit low for this 53cm seat tube bike; it will be even worse on a 54cm that the seller has listed. But, the 88.3% as a starting point is all it is though. What you normally focus on is a leg angle; the shoe size, ankling and pedaling action all play a part in influencing leg angle and the required saddle height needed to achieve that. It would be normal for someone with an identical 762mm inseam with large calves and size 10 shoes to have a different saddle height to someone who has slim calves and size 7 shoes. This is because the foot pedal interface would differ between sizes and each rider would intuitively maximise their unique muscle groups; the rider with larger calves will often 'ankle' slightly higher than a rider who was more 'quad' focused for example; there is more to it than just inseam x 88.3%.

    There is always value basing a new bike on the 'bike fit' of your current bike, providing your current 'bike fit' is correct of course. You may be surprised how many actually end up requiring a different size bike to what they thought they needed after they have got their position sorted. In this instance we don't know for sure the exact geometry of what is being considered of course, hopefully the seller will be able to clarify, especially as the above chart does not actually have a 54cm seat tube, although if it is one of those on that chart potentially they had measured the seat tube to the seatclamp and not including.
     
    Last edited: 8 Mar 2018
    Jandn1 and cyberknight like this.
  14. cyberknight

    cyberknight Bullied off cc

    Wow !
    Interesting, confirms (?) what i thought as i feel my small tbh is on the upper comfortable size for me , in fact the boardman site say really an XS would probably be a better fit but you cant get them on C2W which is my only option for buying .
    With regards the reach of the bars is another factor as the above bike has a really compact bar so i needed a longer stem compared to my old team comp with the same geometry which has a longer reach bar so a shorter stem to give me the same fit.
    Obviously thelemond method is based on 175 mm cranks so you need to adjust your saddle height around that, my lemond formula gives me 68.5 .... so i added 5 mm which sits nicely with heel on pedal .MTB has 175 mm cranks and is set at 68.5 to BB.

    To be fair i always felt i could do with a proper bike fit , just to confirm if i am even right on my set up.
     
  15. Paul_Smith SRCC

    Paul_Smith SRCC Veteran

    Location:
    Surrey
    It doesn't help that geometry charts can be a bit misleading, a manufacture may list the bike size referencing different measurements, which could include seat tube to center to center, top, or virtual top, the 505,540, 557 below, effective top tube, 558mm, or just reference XS through to XXL which often doesn't equate to any of them! The result can often be one manufacturers listed 56cm may be larger than anothers 58cm; no wonder many get confused and sadly end up with completely the wrong size.
    Van_Nicholas_Boreas_56cm.jpg
    Manufacturers are aware of this these days and list stack and reach, the 568 and 384mm I've shown, in a bid to illustrate where the bar height and reach can be. They can't really list the latter due to the variety of stem lengths, bar reach and drop as well as headset spacers that should allow a multitude of positions, so they understandably reference the frame instead.

    Stack and Reach have only been listed in the last few years, Boardman included, but back on the topic of this thread this appears to be before they introduced that data on the geo' chart we have used here.
     
    Last edited: 9 Mar 2018
    Jandn1 likes this.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice