I in the market for a gravel bike. Riding a Cannondale supersix in 56. I am 181cm (5 11") with 85,5cm inseam (33.6"). I am between 54 and 56 on various bikes. If I go 56, I have almost the same reach as with the cannonade (but with a slightly shorter stem), and more stack (around 25mm); with 54, stack is a bit lower compared to S6, but reach is shorter.
I thought more reach means more stretched out = sporty. I get, that lower stack makes it “also” sporty. But I have trouble deciding for a gravel bike - I have the fast bike, the super six. I would like to have a second bike on which I can do fast gravel rides, but also occasional easy riding or longer riding, e.g. bikepacking for a couple of days.
Any thoughts? Gravel bike favorite would be Scott addict gravel, but there are others and the issue stays the same.
Shorter stem is going to mean the wheel is more “jerky”. I’m not sure when you mean by the word “tack”, but I’m thinking you mean longer? If so, I’m confused by your saying it has a shorter stem but longer turning radius.
You need to look at total reach (frame, stem, bar). Many gravel bikes have a longer front center, slacker head angle, shorter stem, all by design to make them more stable on rough terrain. Also long wheelbase and chainstays.
That said, based on what you said, the 56 sounds correct, assuming the shorter stem is by design. But it’s hard to say from across the internet. In person trial is the best bet.
Yeah, thanks.
The stem is 100mm stock. Which make the „overall reach“ the same as the supersix, but with 25mm more stack (even more actually if stock, since I removed 1.5cm spacer at the supersix)
I agree it is more stable. I might hit a single trail from time to time since I know them in my area coming from Mountainbikikg. That being said, I do not look for a Mountainbike replacement, it will actually see a lot of „gravel“.
If you want to go bike packing and do some MTB trails, you will benefit from the smaller frame allowing you to get your weight farther back for downhill sections and rougher sections. The smaller frame is easier to move around beneath you.
It will also make a more upright position more comfortable because you have more bend in your arms.
Overall, for a gravel bike it’s better to size down than up if you really are between sizes.
Spacers don’t factor into a stack measurement. It is based on the frame’s dimensions only.
That said, if you are on a 56 road frame, and based on your measurements you posted, I can’t imagine a scenario where a 54 is the right frame for you. If you went down a size, you will almost certainly be looking to get a longer stem at some point, which then goes against the design philosophy of the frame.
Yeah, I get that - but effective bar hight with spacers is much lower on the supersix.
After test riding the 56 again for 20 minutes, back to back with the supersix, I agree with 56 is the right one.
I do not feel stretched out, my shoulders are neutral and I am comfortable in the drops. With the 54, I have much more bend in my hips - which is ok, if you are able to ride aero all the time. But this isn’t even my intention. Also had more issues with toe overlap, especially with mud guards.
I have also the possibility to go a lot lower with the bar due to the spacers. For the 54, I wouldn’t feel comfortable with less. And if I have the impression, it is too long, a 90mm stem wouldn’t hurt too much, as well as a bar with less reach (the stock one is on the longer side).
Thanks everyone for participating in the discussion
I’m going to resurrect this thread, and ask for some opinions. It looks like I’m very similar to the OP here. Here’s the TLDR: Looking for advice on Enve MOG sizing, when I have a Factor Ostro VAM 56 and Orbea Oiz size Large.
5’11", 33.5" inseam. My road bike is a Factor Ostro VAM 56, with a 110 mm stem, And, have an Orbea Oiz XC MTB (Large). I’m trying to pick gravel bike sizing, specifically looking at the Enve MOG. This will be my dedicated “All Gravel Riding and Racing Rig”, and potentially easier longer road touring. I’ll be racing Unbound in 2025. I would like to be comfortable for distance events like that, and will in some cases want the options for aero bars. I don’t need this to overlap as a road or an XC bike.
I took my measurements from my Factor and the two Enve recommendations based on those measurements from the Enve Best Fit tool (I think replicating the Factor Measurements) are a 56 cm frame, 100mm stem, 5mm Stem Spacers or 54 cm frame, 120mm stem, 25mm Stem Spacers. Notably, Enve offers down to an 80mm Stem
Here’s the thing. On my Ostro, I have no issues with my fit, can go out and do a century + with no pain or issues. But, I am almost 100% riding on the hoods and rarely in the drops. Just not something I’ve focused on. And, the Factor is an Aero Road / Race Bike so I’m not convinced I should be basing the measurements exactly. Subjectively I’m wondering if a higher real-world stack and a little less reach would be better and less aggressive, and I would like to be able to run aero bars.
Any comments on 54 vs 56? Seems the 54 gives me a wider range of potential stem lengths, where I can only drop ~20mm on the 56. But at the same time, the 56 has more stack built in and I could drop down to an 80mm stem, but not lower.
My quick gut reaction is to stay on a 56 but run a shorter stem. 110 is on the long end for gravel anyway.
Once a frame is too small, it stays too small unless you have a rudder for a stem. A frame that is too large is easier to size down and keep similar handling characteristics (unless you are going Uber-short, sub-90mm).
You’re about to invest a significant chunk of money in a bike. Don’t risk it, go to a fitter and get it dialed. I don’t know of anyone in our neck of the woods who stocks Enve frames, but you could call around—I knew of a few shops that are good fitters and carry their wheels, so it shouldn’t be an issue to get frame. How married are you to the MOG?
(also happy to take the discussion about Boston-area fitters offline)
I’m about 6’ and can generally ride a 56 or 58 for most frames. On a road bike, I always lean toward the smaller size (mostly due to stack limitations). I used a similar mindset on my first gravel race bike (thinking I needed an aggressive road position) and instantly regretted it after racing some chunky/technical courses. A longer bike is more stable and I found that an aggressive/low position is far from ideal on technical sections. I’ve since switched to a 58 checkpoint (which is crazy long and pretty tall) and it’s been perfect. 1 spot off the podium at unbound last year (5 spot podium) , trying again this year. Bike doesn’t have to have a race-y geometry or position to be fast. Comfort and stability is critical in these long races.
Ok, sounds like 56 is the right choice, unless I decide to do a fit locally that changes that, although in this case I don’t think it would.
In this case stack of the MOG is +22mm, reach is +5mm. Would anyone think dropping stem length by 20mm to start would be a bad starting point?
@The_Conductor - I’m not necessarily wedded to the MOG, although I am a bit smitten. I will be running SRAM Transmission 1X (UDH), like the (up to) 50 mm tire clearance, like the hidden frame storage and (gasp) internal routing… If you hear of a good local fitter, it’d probably be worth it, even just to sanity check. I’ve had great luck with my current bikes and MyVeloFit, but that only works once you have the bike and it’s the right frame, and the only fit I had was years ago.
I agree with the larger size. I would also probably get a 54 road bike, but the 56 gravel feels alright. Talked to various Scott dealers. It is on purpose a long bike. The sizing chart puts my hight more or less at the beginning of 56.
Reason is as mentioned above stability. It is much closer to a Mountainbike. Modern Mountainbike geometry works well for me, so I gave it a shot with the rather large 56 Addict gravel.
Seat post shows only a bit and with all spacers there is not much difference between seat and bar, but feels good. I only wonder why the stem is 100mm. I really think a shorter stem would make more sense for handling such a bike and geometry.
A shorter stem is going to be more responsive while a longer stem will be more stable. The reason gravel bikes have longer wheelbases is for the stability. Sticking with the MTB example, the smaller bike and a shorter stem makes the bike more “flickable” or, in road bike parlance, “twitchy”.
