Last year we read that Philippe Gilbert is riding a 50cm (top tube of 535mm) BMC frame and he is 1.79m (5’10”) tall. Now it’s reported in Cyclingnews that Ritchie Porte’s Pinarello is a 46.5cm frame (top tube of 515mm) and Porte is 1.72m (5’8″) tall. He is no Nairo Quintana but somehow he is on Quintana’s old bike. Porte is just one inch shorter than the average Australian male, he is not short. And I used to think Sean Kelly’s bike was a tiny bit small for him.
Taylor Phinney was moved down from a 60cm to a 58cm frame when he joined BMC. He is 1.96m (6’5″) so it’s not a radical move, I can understand a very tall person wanting a less whippy frame, not that a BMC 60cm carbon frame is in any way loose. And they are getting the advice of people who know what they are doing, so there are some solid ideas here just ones I haven’t thought of.
What are the advantages of riding such small frames? Really, I don’t know and would like to understand. Ritchie Porte is 1.72m, rides a kid’s bike and has a 120mm stem on it, how is that a good bike fit? Has everything we learned about bike fitting been with a huge caveat: after many measurements and calculations, here is what frame you should ride but if you want to throw all that out the window and go down six centimeters, that works too. And yet, Mr Porte looks pretty good on it so tell me, oh wise ones, what am I missing?
[dmalbum path=”/velominati.com/content/Photo Galleries/j.andrews3@comcast.net/frame job/”/]
I know as well as any of you that I've been checked out lately, kind…
Peter Sagan has undergone quite the transformation over the years; starting as a brash and…
The Women's road race has to be my favorite one-day road race after Paris-Roubaix and…
Holy fuckballs. I've never been this late ever on a VSP. I mean, I've missed…
This week we are currently in is the most boring week of the year. After…
I have memories of my life before Cycling, but as the years wear slowly on…
View Comments
Its weight right? Smaller frames are lighter despite longer stems.
My thought for the night.
Crazy to see those numbers. I am 5'8" and on a 54cm Madone with a 130mm stem. At that I still feel a bit too forward on the bike, not all the time, but at moments. I can't imagine going any smaller. My biggest question is how much power is lost via seat post flex when the frames are so under sized? Common sense would say when the seat post is moved farther from the top tube it becomes less supported. And are the cons of seat post flex outweighed by aerodynamics and weight reduction of smaller frames, or simply a stigma/ stubbornness of the pro's going with what seems more beneficial vs what actually is more beneficial?
stiffer, less power deflected, lower centre gravity, shorter wheel base, more responsive
With a small frame you can get the seat post out more and if you whack a long stem on it you still have the reach you need but more saddle to handle bar drop than if you got the same reach/saddle height but on a larger frame... If you see most pro bikes they have a large saddle-handle bar drop that most people would find uncomfortable/crippling.. It seems a pros fit is not the same as a non-pro fit..
... and much more aero (if you're flexible enough!) due to larger saddle to bar drop
Can't really see what the issue is. Most pros ride the smallest frame they can. I'm 172cm too and ride a Ritte Bosberg with a 51.5cm top tube and a 120mm stem. It's a perfect fit. How much power is lost by seat post flex? At a guess the square root of FA.
Simple: Short tubes are stiffer and lighter. A long stem is stiffer than a longer top tube. A long seat post is light and comfortable without loosing efficiency. Finally, a small frame handles better.
Ride the smallest frame you can get into the right position on.
Because of the sloping top tubes the seat tube lengths are meaningless but these are still often short in the top tube. With stock frame sizes, an undersized frame and long stem is a way for these guys to get lots and lots of saddle to bar drop as is the fashion nowadays. But the bikes probably don't handle like they are designed to.
lower position. smaller frame comes with a shorter head tube. cav just went to a smaller frame too.
Am I right in thinking that a longer stem steadies the front end too?