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
@Nate In fairness (regarding Ryder's handlebar position), one thing that we've not talked about is the fact that "riding on the hoods" is the new "riding in the drops". There's massively more saddle-to-bar drop amongst pros than there used to be in, say the Prophet's era, but it also seems like many pros spend more time on the hoods than they ever used to. For that matter, most handlebars are relatively flat behind the hoods rather than having the hoods partway down the curve of the bars.
@ChrisO
I'm curious to know your more precise dimensions (inseam, arm-length, torso?) and bike choices. I'm 188cm, which I've been told equates to 6'2.
I still have my first (and sadly, still-only) road bike which was the shop-"fitted" 58 (classic geo), which indeed does fit fine, but I've slowly removed all spacers and still find myself ~40deg from horizontal. Not good - going to try a -30deg stem soon. Had a ride on my step-father's T-Mobile Giant TCR, which is a Medium, and found myself quite comfortable with that bike and a 130mm stem.
On the other hand, my TT bike is nominally a size 60 (and is indeed a huge beast) but, with a slammed stem and low-profile bars, I've got 19cm of drop and a flat back. It doesn't get more aggro for a non-UCI position, and between a slammed Speed Concept XL or a pedestaled L, upgrade choices are too many. Bike sizing is a confusing affair.
@cognition
That's also a technology-influenced thing. When downtube shifters were all you had, the best option was to keep your hands on the drops at all times, near the shifters. Accordingly, the drops were positioned so you could spend your day in them.
With the advent of STI shifters and especially Di2, pros no longer need that, and could lower the hoods to that position and keep the drops for special times - breakaways, sprints or whatever required a slightly less comfortable, but faster, position.
Also, look at the old pros - all of them with their forearms completely horizontal. Modern pros ride with their arms nearly straight down (Ryder is a good example). Both end up with their upper body in a similar, flat position, but the old position depends on core strength a bit more. On the other hand, locked wrists are worse dampers.
@Nate
Actually, he's nicked @frank's Cervelo. The grimace is a result of popping two neck vertebra through having to extend so much.
@Dan_R
BMC are obviously a lot more accommodating in that regard: Custom fork assembly with integrated bars for Cuddles!
http://www.bmctempo.com/every-second-counts-customizing-cadels-tm01/?lang=en
@tessar Yes; I was trying to make the point that with a flat back and horizontal forearms, a pro's hands now often hit the hoods, while a pro in the 70's with a flat back and horizontal forearms would be riding in the drops. I take your point, though. about handlebar-based shifting making it more likely or possible.
I miss the flexibility of my late teens and early twenties. I'll have to work on getting back to a flat lower back...
@wiscot
That's just what the owner of a Ferrari wants to hear...that his mirrors are cheap!
@The Pressure
Dammit! What I meant was, compared to some of the ridiculous prices being charged for carbon cages (the kind that would in fact be appropriate for a steed of this quality), it's refreshing that Marko has saved beaucoup $$ and gone for a pair of classic - yet still do the job 100% - cages.
@wiscot These are the stainless ones to boot (inox model), opposed to the regular alloy ones. The stainless are lighter (not a big deal as I could afford to lose more than a few bidon cages worth off my mid section these days), don't mar up bidons (stainless), are prettier (subjective) because they are mat, much thinner gage wire (even cooler), and closer to the price of a carbon cage but still a good 15 bucks less than the average carbon one. And they rarely if ever fail because they're designed right and the stainless can be bent for a tighter fit. Oh, and they're Italian just like your ferrari.
@marko
@wiscot Just teasing gents!! Sure and she is one fine whip. (of which i'm envious...my size too in case you're tired of her awesomeness!!)