Hi guys! I am interested in a GT Grade bike. As I have nowhere to try one before buying, I would appreciate any input regarding which size to get. I am 6'2.5 (189 cm) tall, with a 34.5' (88 cm inseam). So I guess it's between the size 56 (L) and 58 (XL).
Looking at the specs, I feel the 58 will be awfully long, with at total length of 710 mm (580 mm top tube plus 130 mm stem). The 56, measuring 685 mm (565+120) is closer to my current road bike. Would you agree that the 56 would be the best fit for me, or would I be more comfortable on the 58?
I will be using the bike mostly on paved roads, as a back up for my other road bike on rainy days, etc. So I will probably not be riding on any heavy terrain, maybe some light gravel roads now and then.
I'm 6'2" with a 32" inseam and my Renegade size 58 has a TT length of 586mm and it fits me well. I did have to shorten the stem from 120mm to 100mm and I had to get rid of the 15 degree setback seatpost and replace with a 0 degree....but the actual frame fits me great.
I'm 6'5" and have an XXL Grade that fits well. The stem was a little long for me, which was odd since I'm a swimmer with long arms. So I put on a shorter stem.
Love this bike by the way. You won't be dissapointed unless you plan to a. Use it for CX or B. put anything larger than a 35 tire on it.
I'm 6'7" and I'm on the XXL -- and the stem is too long. Additionally, the stock seatpost is a 25mm setback, so you'll probably have to explore other options there, too. These bikes run huge, so I'd go smaller.
Girona wrote:Hi guys! I am interested in a GT Grade bike. As I have nowhere to try one before buying, I would appreciate any input regarding which size to get. I am 6'2.5 (189 cm) tall, with a 34.5' (88 cm inseam). So I guess it's between the size 56 (L) and 58 (XL).
\n
\nI'm 6' with a 35 3/4" inseam (shorter torso/longer legs than the usual proportions). Given your height and inseam, your torso and arms are surely longer than mine! I have the XL Grade, & I would be cramped on the L. As another post suggests, I subbed a 0 deg setback seatpost & a 100mm stem on mine.
\n
\nBear in mind that these bikes have shorter top tubes (relative to size/seat tube length) than a traditional road bike. Also, never size a frame by including whatever stem the maker happens to specify! You can always change out a stem (and who uses 120/130mm stems any more, besides pros who typically ride proportionally smaller frames).
\n
\nYou might look at the stack & reach dimensions on your current bike (if it fits you well) and compare those with the Grade (these are in the Grade sizing specs online). These 2 dimensions give a better indication of frame fit than just seat tube or top tube.
kgreene2 wrote: I'm 6' with a 35 3/4" inseam (shorter torso/longer legs than the usual proportions). Given your height and inseam, your torso and arms are surely longer than mine! I have the XL Grade, & I would be cramped on the L. As another post suggests, I subbed a 0 deg setback seatpost & a 100mm stem on mine. Bear in mind that these bikes have shorter top tubes (relative to size/seat tube length) than a traditional road bike. Also, never size a frame by including whatever stem the maker happens to specify! You can always change out a stem (and who uses 120/130mm stems any more, besides pros who typically ride proportionally smaller frames). You might look at the stack & reach dimensions on your current bike (if it fits you well) and compare those with the Grade (these are in the Grade sizing specs online). These 2 dimensions give a better indication of frame fit than just seat tube or top tube.
I totally agree with you that stack & reach are the most important dimensions. The thing about the GT Grade, however, is that size L and XL have almost identical reach (381 vs 382 mm). The big difference is the stack heights (601 vs 627). So how is it that you feel cramped on the L, but not on the XL, when the latter has only 1 mm longer reach?
Get an L.
\nThey are bigger than most bikes I tried, eg diverge/ synapse. Im 6' and got a 55 as I felt the 56 was a tad too big.
\nAwesome bike though.
I'm 6'2 and 34 inseam (trouser)
\n
\nI test rode a 56 as it was the only one in stock at performance bike. Felt great very responsive and balanced
\n
\nI bought a 58 as overall it looked more similar to my other bikes, at the same time the long wheel base was attractive as it would be notably different from them. In practice I found the 58 very well behaved on gravel which is the bottom line
I am 6' and have a scott road bike in 56 (L) that fits perfect. I bought the grade in 56 and it feels a tad bigger and sits higher. I Have not measured the standover height difference but it is obvious to my balls. The bike is a blast tho and I wouldn't change anything
I'm 5'11" and went with the 55cm even though I normally ride a 56-57 road bike. They do run a tad large but I can't imagine a guy your size on a 56. The wheelbase was intended to be longer than a road frame to smooth out the ride on rough gravel. This is my 3rd carbon gravel grinder over the last 3 years and this bike is sick on the rough gravel here in Western NC! A little slower than a road bike on the paved climbs but awesome handling on the paved descents. Evans Cycles in the UK has incredible deals on these right now also.
I am 6' and have 56 Grade. As others have said, they feel "big", but it's worth know that comes mostly due to the stack height, more so than the reach. The geometry shows very little difference between the reach in the 55,56 and 58s, but the stack increases a lot on each. To get my preferred position (a not very aggressive 6cm saddle-bar drop with 75cm saddle height) I have to use a 120mm -17 degree stem. The bike is a blast to ride but if I did it again if get the 55 just to have a better fitting stack height. Reach is easier to adjust via stem length but if the stack is too high you're screwed.
\n
\nIn short, if you're a roadie, I'd suggest the 56.
