54 or 56 bmc team machine

Sorry to break this to you,
Sorry to break this to you, but the way your fitter measures reach is different than how BMC does it in their geometry (many brands do their measurements differently using different endpoints so it can be frustrating to say the least) as you can see on the geometry link for the TeamMachine http://www.bmc-racing.com/int-en/bikes/road/platform/altitude/teammachine/slr01/dura_ace_di2_/

It might be easier to go by how the ride feels on the different bikes although you could also re-do your fit measurements based on how Bianchi and BMC do their geometry to see if the numbers come close but nothing trumps personal feel and handling IMO. Out of curiosity, why the Infinito instead of the Oltre or a different Bianchi model? Was it based on how it felt, how it handled, or …?

The important starting point
The important starting point is to get the relative positions of the saddle & bottom bracket right. Otherwise you will knacker your knees (and nobody wants knackered knees, do they?). All the other variables can be taken from there. If you are 6ft & 10 stone, you ideal position on the bike will be different from that required if you are 6ft & 14 stone.

Good rule of thumb on saddle height/bottom bracket position:
111% of inside leg measurement = overall distance from pedal to saddle (ie. crank length + seat tube length + seat post). Then ensure that the pedal axle is never in front of the knee joint pivot point.

BTW beware of BS!!

When I first started road
When I first started road cycling I bought a bike on the internet and made a guess at size. I probably wouldn’t recommend that strategy to anyone else. After lots of humming and hawing and a few years clycling I finally went for a proper bike fit (it used the Retul system that Sam Shaw reviewed on this site, same place actually). It also involved a flexibility test – I am apparently average.

The good news, my existing bike was OK for size, but I did have a few changes that have improved my comfort. You just don’t know what you don’t know.

One of the most interesting features was getting a view on my optimal stack (560) and reach (395). When I next buy a bike I can see what is likely to work for me and this will help to narrow the search. It turns out that I have a proportionately slightly longer torso and shorter legs. I had assumed that as a plus 40 year old rider, who does the odd sportive, that the ever expanding range of endurance bikes might be a good option for me. After the fit I can see they don’t.

Tony, in the real world you will be faster and happier with the geometry that suits you rather than a racier bike that doesn’t

Good luck with the search.

I’d suggest the
I’d suggest the following:

Continue to refine your current position, messing with spacers, tape measure etc until you are confident you have the correct position.

Measure the stack and reach, see here if you’re not familiar with the concept:
http://www.cervelo.com/en/engineering/thinking-and-processes/geometry-and-fit.html
(Make sure to also measure your ‘effective’ stack by taking into account the distance from the top of the head tube to the stem clamp.)

Once you know the stack and reach that are ideal for you, start looking at the geometries of different frames to find which models suit you. Not all manufacturers state stack and reach, in which case you can either Google it to see if anyone else such as a magazine has bothered to measure that particular model, employ some trigonometry skills, or just see the head tube length to get a rough idea.

Don’t worry about ending up with some sit-up-and-beg thing, I need a tall head tube as well, and was looking at the Cervelo R-series (which I would have bought if the R3 wasn’t as rare as hens teeth at the time) and the Trek Madone. There are plenty of others which are also quick and agile. In fact, have a read of this which I wrote at the time:

http://road.cc/content/forum/89467-new-bike-purchased

I ended up using a geometry diagram in Microsoft Visio and overlaying the positions of different frames to help me see the differences (just use the stack and reach as xy co-ords from a constant bottom bracket point) – slightly geeky, but works really well.

Don’t worry about missing out on the BMC, have fun finding something that you will really get on with.

Tony, get yourself a bike
Tony, get yourself a bike fit! Then you’ll know what size bike you’ll be best on and won’t be stabbing in the dark at different brand frame sizes

tonyhogg wrote:My bike fit

tonyhogg wrote:

My bike fit session showed I wasn’t very flexible, couldn’t touch my toes etc, so I would struggle with a large saddle to bar drop. Totally ruled out the bmc team machine it felt horrible in both a 54 and 56. Was told I’m more suited to a sportive type with a tall headtube bike not a race bike … the team machine just felt way too stretched out in 56 and really uncomfortable in 54 due to large saddle to bar drop

Wow. I’ve got to say that I’ve never heard of that before. My husband is about as flexible as a 2×4 and I’m did competitive gymnastics for 14 years so I’m essentially a human pretzel and he’s actually more comfortable on long rides than I am. My brother-in-law races competitively (he’s Cat 2 or 3) and I know he can’t touch his toes. Actually, I’ve never heard of anyone doing a flexibility test (touching your toes) as part of a bike fit. I’m only 5′ 4″ but my inseam is 31 1/2″ so for me, the most important dimension on bike geometry is the TT and reach (long limbs but short torso) and I think that’s fairly universal for most riders regardless of body type. You need to be able to comfortably reach the hoods and drops so as long as your legs aren’t one foot long, the rest of the bike geometry is pretty standard and easily adjustable. TT length is pretty much set (unless you customize and cut your carbon TT tube down which can be done but voids your warranty) and reach can be adjusted by adding spacers to your stem, tilting your bars back or even switching out your bars (I switched my stock bars to 3T Ergonova which had a shorter reach and drop making me feel less stretched out on descents in the drops). Just a half centimeter here and there really makes a huge difference in terms of comfort.

That being said, I wonder if you might be more comfortable in either a bike with slightly less aggressive geometry like the Pinarello ROKH (based on the Dogma but slightly more upright and made for classics) or a smaller frame 52 with some spacers to push the stem forward so you don’t feel scrunched but can benefit from a slightly shorter reach and TT or the 54 with a shorter stem which would make your seat to drops angle less acute? I guess what I’m saying is, don’t cross the “classic” road bike off your list yet. It can take a lot of different test rides before you find the bike that fits your body and riding style but once you do it’s a joy and even a bike that fits well initially can still benefit from some tweaks down the line as your riding style and needs change. The different companies have similar geometry but it’s different enough for one man’s Wilier to be another one’s Masi. It might not hurt to talk to another bike fitter (hopefully someone on road.cc in the UK can steer you to someone they’ve had a good experience with) and chat with them about your fitting experience and what it felt like on the different frames to see if they can help steer you towards a bike you’ll want to ride that’s comfortable. They may even tell you the BMC is still in the running but needs a different frame size/tweaks or that your original fitting was just plain weird. No offense but from what you’ve said, it just sounds like the strangest fitting I’ve ever heard of. Thanks for following up. I always wonder what people end up doing when they post questions and weigh all the advice with personal experience.