Canyon has a sizing tool that gives you a specific size, and yet they have this plot with all these strange rectangles that indicate little ambiguity, and yet we know there is (I think? Do we? Where am I?)
u/mtcerio made an excellent post illustrating this discrepancy between the stupid rectangles and what Canyon’s robot will tell you.
I asked the robot what the sizing for every possible combination of height and inseam within reason. If you do not see a combination of height/inseam in this plot, it is because the robot literally said “WE DO NOT MAKE SIZES OF BIKES FOR SUCH ODDLY SHAPED WEIRDOS”. Also did it in freedom units I am very sorry good people of everywhere in the world
What are the takeaways here?
1. Canyon’s plot is not so good, they could make a plot that looks like this. Why don’t they? WHY
2. This plot actually also is not good. For some reason they have these step changes, when in reality the function should probably look like a series of diagonal lines
3. I can do this for other bikes, and I might if you ask nicely. You can also do it for other bikes, it took like like a few minutes and I’m pretty sure robots.txt says its ok
edit: OMG I am so sorry i did not put y and x axis labels. please forgive me. i will let you sort it out
Radiant-Success-Nene on
Hey. Thanks for the work and that’s nice chart to have. Just a question to everyone not only OP. When you are on the first spot for a specific size, would it be better to size down or keep the size recommended? I know bike fit and so on, I’m just asking a general rule of thumb.
Expert_Clerk_1775 on
Cool chart, but I can’t tell the difference in the colors. Maybe go with bolder and higher contrast colors to help us “colorblind” folks out
Tacosmoothie on
This is great! Put this everywhere!
I finally can see in black and white (err pink and yellow) I should NOT go 2XL, my legs are long but fit for an XL!
wwiinndddd on
Ambiguity is inevitable and reflects the reality better. There is no cut-and-dried best recommendation for sizing.
There are hard requirements to meet:
* Leg length > stand over height.
* Leg length > min saddle height+crank arm length.
* Arm and torso length needs to fit within the range for saddle-to-shifter length.
But then there style choices which are very personal and experience-based:
* You have to size down if you require a lower stack for an aggressive position (often need a longer stem)
* New riders may feel uncomfortable with a standard road bike position (bending over)
So why rectangle? What defines the borders?
– For the inner leg length axis, the borders are the min/max seat post range(or stand over height).
– For the height axis, it’s the saddle to cockpit length. Saddle can move, and stem length can vary so there is a range for adjustments.
The rectangle chart kinda shows the hard requirements but leave other choices vague.
Again there is no perfect recommendation, if you ask a bot and it has to give you one answer, it has to pick one for you.
The rider in the end makes the decision. And Canyon have an easy return process for you.
5 Comments
Canyon has a sizing tool that gives you a specific size, and yet they have this plot with all these strange rectangles that indicate little ambiguity, and yet we know there is (I think? Do we? Where am I?)
u/mtcerio made an excellent post illustrating this discrepancy between the stupid rectangles and what Canyon’s robot will tell you.
I asked the robot what the sizing for every possible combination of height and inseam within reason. If you do not see a combination of height/inseam in this plot, it is because the robot literally said “WE DO NOT MAKE SIZES OF BIKES FOR SUCH ODDLY SHAPED WEIRDOS”. Also did it in freedom units I am very sorry good people of everywhere in the world
What are the takeaways here?
1. Canyon’s plot is not so good, they could make a plot that looks like this. Why don’t they? WHY
2. This plot actually also is not good. For some reason they have these step changes, when in reality the function should probably look like a series of diagonal lines
3. I can do this for other bikes, and I might if you ask nicely. You can also do it for other bikes, it took like like a few minutes and I’m pretty sure robots.txt says its ok
edit: OMG I am so sorry i did not put y and x axis labels. please forgive me. i will let you sort it out
Hey. Thanks for the work and that’s nice chart to have. Just a question to everyone not only OP. When you are on the first spot for a specific size, would it be better to size down or keep the size recommended? I know bike fit and so on, I’m just asking a general rule of thumb.
Cool chart, but I can’t tell the difference in the colors. Maybe go with bolder and higher contrast colors to help us “colorblind” folks out
This is great! Put this everywhere!
I finally can see in black and white (err pink and yellow) I should NOT go 2XL, my legs are long but fit for an XL!
Ambiguity is inevitable and reflects the reality better. There is no cut-and-dried best recommendation for sizing.
There are hard requirements to meet:
* Leg length > stand over height.
* Leg length > min saddle height+crank arm length.
* Arm and torso length needs to fit within the range for saddle-to-shifter length.
But then there style choices which are very personal and experience-based:
* You have to size down if you require a lower stack for an aggressive position (often need a longer stem)
* New riders may feel uncomfortable with a standard road bike position (bending over)
So why rectangle? What defines the borders?
– For the inner leg length axis, the borders are the min/max seat post range(or stand over height).
– For the height axis, it’s the saddle to cockpit length. Saddle can move, and stem length can vary so there is a range for adjustments.
The rectangle chart kinda shows the hard requirements but leave other choices vague.
Again there is no perfect recommendation, if you ask a bot and it has to give you one answer, it has to pick one for you.
The rider in the end makes the decision. And Canyon have an easy return process for you.