Results 1 to 14 of 14
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    17

    New question here. Specialized Epic S-Works 2006 Correct Sizing ?

    I'm now choosing my first FS frame, I was looking at Specialized Epic S-Works M5 2006. I don't know what size should I look for... My height is 178 cm, my legs are 82 cm. Sorry for metric, I don't know how to convert this to american system. I think "L" would be better than "M". What do you think? And what seatpost should I get? Layback or straight?

    If it might help, my current bike is Gary Fisher HKEK 2006 17.5". I like its sporty, longer geometry. But now I think its 17.5" is a little bit short for me.

    Any comments will be appreciated... Thanks!

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    21
    When I first started biking a couple of years ago, I went an LBS, and pretty much told them I had no clue as to size. I'm 177cm in height, and my inseam is 81cm (if my calculations are correct). I test rode both a large and a medium, and while both felt ok, the large felt roomier. The salesguy told me to go with what felt right, so I went with a large Eic. Fast forward two years later, and I test out a medium Stumpjumper. The difference was incredible. I could jump things so much easier, and turning was so much tighter. The large made things a lot more work than they needed to be.

    I learned two things: not to buy from that LBS, and medium for my size was perfect. It did feel a bit small (definitely compared to a large), but it'll allow you to do things that the large frame won't.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Student Driver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,245
    Wow, and I was going to write "get as much top tube length as possible" since that's what worked for me.

    2.54cm = 1 inch
    12 inches = 1 foot

    I am 6'1" (185.4 cm) with a 31" (78.7) inseam (long torso for my height). I have ridden medium frames because of standover issues, but always thought they were a little small. When I ordered my Stumpy FSR, I knew I wanted a large from sitting on other larges and mediums. When it came in, it fit perfectly. Granted, the wheelbase makes switchbacks more of a challenge until I get used to it, but overall it's a huge improvement in comfort.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    31
    I haveridden a couple of S-works carbons and I have to say if you are riding a 17.5 frame you should go with the Medium frame. I used to ride a 19.5 Homegrown frame which i belive was the medium. The S-works frame seemed larger to me due to the standover hieght. When i get mine in a month or two i'm going with the Medium. IF i were you i would go to a dealer near you and see one at the store.

  5. #5
    c'est la vie
    Reputation: Maluco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    131
    I have the same measurements as you and have found the “large” Epic to work best. I demoed a medium frame and felt it too small and a little bit cramped. If you can get some demo time on either this would resolve your sizing question.

    Regarding the seat post, laid back of not is determined by the size of your femur. A real long femur and your knee is too far forward over the pedal (thus requiring the seat to be moved back). I’ll be surprised if you need a laidback seat post but certainly have a good shop set you up properly.

  6. #6
    CDB
    CDB is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    253
    Sounds like you're about 5'-10" tall and have a 32" inseam. So, that means your legs are on the average-to-longish size. I think you'd be fine w/ a Medium frame. If you have super long arms, maybe size up, but you won't be terribly oversized on a M in my opinion.

    Just to be on the safe side, you should just go get fitted and test ride w/ a properly set up bike to your preferences. I mean saddle height from BB, as well as setback of saddle behind vertical center of BB. Once you get the M and L bikes set up that way, you can get a better feel for which is more comfy directly related to the top tube length and easily ignore other distracting variables that could throw off your perceptions.

    Good Luck.
    cdb

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: madskatingcow's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    876
    I'm also 1m77 and am riding the medium S-Works Epic 2007 frame in combination with a 90 mm stem. My first Epic was size large, which was way too big. A friend of mine is 1m86, he rides the 2007 S-Works Epic large with a 100mm stem.

    Both of us got ourselves measured at meetcentrum Bullen near Bree, Belgium - both of us got the mentioned sizes recommended by him. He's the guy that fits Eric Zabels' bikes, so he really nows what's up. It's well worth your time & money.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    17
    Quote Originally Posted by madskatingcow
    I'm also 1m77 and am riding the medium S-Works Epic 2007 frame in combination with a 90 mm stem.
    Hmm.. That's strange, as my current bike's top tube length is 23.9", and Epic's M is only 23.19". I also use 90mm stem now (7 deg rise) and this setup is a bit short for me... So I doubt M will be fine for me, since it's even shorter than my 17.5" HKEK.

    Don't you think so?

    On the other hand, Epic's L is 24.21", which is a only bit longer than my current HKEK. Maybe that's just what I was looking for?

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Student Driver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,245
    If you even have a shadow of a doubt, go with the longer toptube. I got a large FSR, and its 24.5" length is fantastic for me.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: madskatingcow's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    876
    A common mistake is buying too big. Especially people coming from racing bicycles tend to do so and so did I. My back was always hurting due to the frame being too big. You can compensate by changing the stem length, but only to a certain level.

    My official measurements in millimeter by the 'meetcentrum' :

    Body length : 1762
    Foot Left : 281
    Foot Right :279
    Legs : 840
    Torso : 611
    Arm Left : 690
    Arm Right : 690
    Shoulder Width : 452

    Recommendations :

    Stem : 90 mm
    Handlebar width : 560 mm (if you have bar- ends : 580)
    Stem height : 130 (measured in front, imaginary line through middle of top tube)
    Seatpost height : 746 (measured from center of BB, following diagonally the seatpost tube)
    Saddle length : 219 (measured from an imaginary vertical line straight through the BB to tthe middle of seatpost)

    The bike fits like a glove for me - hope this helps -

  11. #11
    c'est la vie
    Reputation: Maluco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    131
    A word of caution when comparing Gary Fisher to Specialized; GF uses what they term as Genesis geometry which basic means long top tube/short stem combination. GF geometry is marketed as unique. Unfortunately, there are no standards in the bicycling industry to what size a small, med, and large is; often it is an apple to orange comparison.


    From GF website:TT effective top tube:
    The horizontal measure from the center of the headset to the center of the seatpost. The most important measurement when buying a bike, because it cannot be changed.

    The GF mentioned has a 23.9 inch (607mm) top tube.
    The Specialized Epic “Large” has a 23.5 inch (597mm) top tube when measured with a straight seat post. This is the same measurement Specialized has on their website for the TT but unfortunately confuses the matter by offering two TT lengths; one length as GF describes above and another for the length of the actual TT.

    I am speculating but I believe Specialized measures the TT with the setback Thomson seatpost (16mm offset) which gives them the 615mm listed on their website for the TT. Maybe someone could confirm this; I know this 615mm measurement leaves me confused.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Student Driver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,245
    You are right, that was speculation. The use of "effective top tube" is because of the greatly different shapes the frame designers are coming up with. Since people are still used to the classic shape of a frame with a straight top tube, we still use this measurement (plus it's consistent across all platforms). I know my Stumpy FSR Elite is listed as 620mm, which works out to 24.41" for an ETT. I just measured it, and it's almost 24.5" using a normal measuring tape. The 597mm measurement is from the headtube straight to the seat collar, as if you were using a classic frame design and deriving the top tube length. Then the effective top tube length is derived from the bike being level at its intended height, and drawing a horizontal line from the middle of the headtube to the middle of the seat post at that height. This measurement is the 615mm that was addressed. Since the Epic Expert with a straight seat post and the Epic Carbon with the set back Thomson post both have the same ETT length, I would imagine that the horizontal line was drawn without the set back post effecting it.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    46
    your size is the M , i have your same measures , and ride the M , with a stem of 110 . I like to be very racing.

  14. #14
    c'est la vie
    Reputation: Maluco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    131
    Out of curiosity, I measured the effective top tube of a 2006 Aluminum Epic and found it to be 23.5 inches (597mm). To assure Specialized is not offering different geometry, I also had this measurement independently confirmed on a Epic Carbon large frame. Both the large Carbon and Al versions have the same effective TT of 597mm.

    Just to be clear, we are measuring horizontal from the center of the headset to the center of the seatpost. For my measurement, I used a measuring level to assure a near perfect horizontal line.

    This would lead me to believe Specialized website and marketing brochure are incorrect when stating 615mm is the effective TT on a Large Epic Frame. I wonder if the other sizes may be incorrect also. If true, the medium Epic frame has only a 22.5 (572mm) ETT which would make it a little short for some with the expectation it has 589mm as advertised.

    It certainly would make me feel better if someone could confirm these Effective TT measurements before presenting this information to Specialized.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •