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
@Frank
You are correct of course. I should have been more specific but I didn't know the measurement off the top of my head so I just tried to sneak some bullshit by you...
The stem that shipped with my bike measures 10 cm in length.
Dropping from 56 to 54 with a 12cm stem should be doable.
I have been crazy busy lately (go figure eh?), but I need to take the time to chirp up on this article - great job @Gianni.
I just fit a customer to a new Cinelli Saetta yesterday. He was convinced that it was going to be too small for him, but alas, it was super comfortable with only a few minor adjustments. We'll will be doing a secondary fitting in the Spring when he is able to get on the road a bit, but he is nearly dialed in already. But it took some convincing, as his previous ride is an older steel Marinoni with very traditional geometry. Another guy couldn't see past the "48" size on the Merckx EMX-3. I had to measure for him to show that it has a 556mm effective TT. I rode my VMH's mnt bike in a 24 hour race last year, and I was able to really throw it around. So small as you can properly ride is what I recommend these days. Although, there is definitely nothing wrong with riding an old vintage bike with an inch of seatpost for just riding around.
@Gianni, @frank, @Nate Ahhh yes the CONI manual. While building a frame at UBI, we went over the old CONI system - very old school, very Italian. Perfect if you always need to be flat out, stretched out, and no seatpost showing. If think I may not have been able to touch the ground trying to stand over the bike if I used the CONI for myself. That said, there is some gold in there. All lugs were cut to adhere strictly to CONI too.
@RedRanger I'm on a 120 stem as well so don't really feel that it could get much shorter but I sometimes feel that I'm on the edge of being stretched. I have a feeling that spending significant amounts of time in the drops, especially with my hips rotated forward, might feel better if my forearms were flatter and upper arms more vertical.
When I find myself in a position to N+1, I'll need to start in an understanding bike shop that stocks Cannondales, has a bunch of different length stems and doesn't mind me spending a day on testing options on the rollers.
I don't know -- I rode this for a while and at 6'5" the 60cm frame always seemed cramped. Kind a a bear on a tricycle thing. After picking up a 65cm Waterford with a 62cm TT, all is good with the world. I think I'll keep it. Caveat - I was 240 in this picture and still thinking I had rugby days ahead of me. I'm now 190 with no upper body at all, so things might be different if I went back to the smaller frame, but I kind of doubt it...
@GreenGiant
And yes, this is an aluminum CX bike. It was a (generally successful) attempt to find something that I couldn't destroy over the course of a few months. The 15lbs Scott CR1 Pro I had at the same time did not do as well, but that's an ugly and painful story for another time...
@GreenGiant your saddle is too low and the stem too short; if your seatpin is at max extension and your're on a 13 or 14 cm stem then that bike is indeed too small. Otherwose you still have options.
The VMH has that same Blue also built w Force. Great bike.
@frank Thanks Frank - I've been pondering it anew because I've lost a bit of weight since them days. And I'm now on a 10cm stem, so I'm not exactly a gorilla...might be time to hit up the purchasing committee.
@frank - I actually had good leg extension, so felt OK with the seat (177.5 cm cranks), I was running a 120 stem in this photo. I still use the bike for racing cross, but I have to say I like my R33 with a 130 stem, long head tube, and 62 VTT now for everything else. Gives me a very long flat reach that I find comfortable. BTW loved your "chicken motivation" comment on the Packfiller Podcast!
@Gianni that is the one.
@GreenGiant rarely does anyone post a picture that so aptly demonstrates why they use a particular handle. emoticon:smiley facesmiley face