Frame Job
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/”/]
Smaller frames are fine, but the peloton is starting to resemble circus bears. I thought I was pushing it riding a 52(theoretical) at 170cm. For asthetic reasons alone I can’t get behind riding anything smaller than that. After all I am not fast so I have to look good.
Look at their arms, then their back. My non-scientific theory is that with high bars and an equal angle between the back and relatively straight arms, you compress your lumbar region and end up putting more pressure on your lower back. If you have shorter, lower reach, your hands are closer to being underneath your shoulders, (not quite but for the same of the example) and your lumbar region is extended with less pressure on your back. Your arms are supporting your weight rather that bracing your torso in position, and so if you can manage the different position, counterintuitively, you’ll have less load on your lower back.
Of course too low and you compromise power.
Colnago C50, white and black with the wheel graphics
I’m 6’4″. I got sized for a 65cm frame with 120mm stem,”You need the longest top tube they got.” …one 5mm spacer under the stem, fair amount of seat post showing. I was on a 62cm steel Celo Europa with 130mm stem before that. A bit cramped feeling.
65cm C50 felt like I was “sittin on top o the world” for the first few decents. But I’m comfortable now…I don’t notice it any more. I don’t miss the Celo.
My Cycling Sensei always said ride a size one smaller for stiffness, responsiveness. Usually 1cm in both directions TT-ST.Set up KOP at 3 o’clock and viewing across the bars lines up (hides) with the front hub on the tops. On the drops nose should be at least 1 inch behind the bar tops. That was my stating point, the rest is adjust for comfort.
Went to visit mother dear’s place last weekend and she found a Bicycle Guide, May 1991 magazine in her pile of women’s magazines. Had a flick through it found this little gem of a ad;
Design – The RB-1 designed like European road bikes were in the mid 70’s (and the best modern ones still are). The long top tube and shallow seat tube to keep your butt back and your back flat – a fine position for hard, fast riding on the cobbles of Flanders or on any road in America.
So here’s your choice:You can ride a thoroughly modern, extremely stylish road bike built with the newest materials and the latest parts . . . and watch it go out of style next year when fashions change.
You could go down Cervelo’s Reach & Stack fit;
http://www.cervelo.com/en/engineering/thinking-and-processes/geometry-and-fit.html
@norm
Heehee, reminds me of;
It’s headtube length
The major manufacturers are making bikes for fat old inflexible guys because they’re the ones who have money.
This means v upright angles and stupid height headtubes. To get the contact points right for a serious cyclist then means shifting to a smaller frame with a longer stem.
It’s about the business. It’s not about the bike.
Specialized gave a half arsed response about why Cav had to shift to a smaller frame.
Very few of these guys would choose to ride bikes with dimensions like these but they don’t get a choice.
Ah, I found it. The relevant part of the CONI manual, for your reading pleasure.
@Paul good call! Seen a 58cm with a 205mm headtube length!
@ChrisO Oops.
@frank No doubt. All the numbers interact and it’s not down to just one dimension.
Let’s not forget that when it comes to bikes, tiny measurements can make a big difference. One cm in wheelbase can feel very different, or a single degree of seat tube.
For most road races, being on a tiny frame probably just puts the rider in more of a TT position over the front wheel. I don’t think you would see people doing that for a crit or CX where steering and maneuverability is a bigger issue.
A brilliant sports writer named Geoffrey Grosenbach penned an amazing, Pulitzer prize worthy article on bike geometry in this month’s Cyclocross Magazine.
@Nate Thanks for that great info!
Orrrrr page 130 “Weight of the athlete”. That means I can’t ride my Tange No.1 Pro frame 0.6mm-0.3mm-0.6mm! Back in the late 80’s when I had it built I would’ve been ~62kg – 65kg, now 80kg!
@sthilzy That RB-1 advertisement is so effective on me it’s scary.
@sthilzy
Those Bridgestone ads had a huge influence on me. As a cyclist, sure, but also as someone just starting in print advertising. Totally Ogilvy and riffing on early VW ads, but with Petersen’s boisterous self-effacing humour. I still think they did it totally right, bikes and campaign, but history, blah, blah. Here’s Pineapple Karen on an MB-4:
@Paul has nailed it – its the increase in head tube lengths for the golf migrants that has forced the rest of us to shift down a size or two.
@sthilzy Correction,
At over 40, I have decided I can no longer justify skinny jeans. I put small bike frames in the same bucket. I will ride big and comfy every time – especially as I don’t have a professional masseuse at home to sort the knots and pain out…
Frame size is less important than you might think for rule adherence and looking pro….The use of gumwalls on a classic french bike here is inspired, although I am a little concerned about the flipflops ,and the inability to find a computer small enough to be in proportion is a nono!
I’ll never be Dutch monkeyesque.
@Deakus
Granted the use of gum sidewalls is more important than getting the intricacies of fit right but not even that overcomes the shocking state of the bar tape and the somewhat erectile angle of the brake levers.
As for the baggyness of the riders kit, I’m not going there lest I cause further offence to our esteemed and beloved leader.
Here’s my theory… I think people have a tendency to get stuff that is too big for them because it is comfortable and easy. Shoes, jeans, bikes and pretty much anything that comfines our bodies within physical dimensions.
We demand instant comfort. We* aren’t prepared to suffer a little bit, or make some sacrifices or put up with anything that takes getting used to.
I realised a few years ago I had been buying shoes at least half, maybe a full size too large all my life because they felt right when I put them on in the shop. For various reasons I bought smaller and endured some real pain breaking them in but now they are the most comfortable, best fitting pair I have.
Bikes are similar – from childhood people are put on too large bikes and get used to that feel. They try it in the shop and it feels OK from the start but with some adjustment and work a smaller size would actually be better for them.
As for jeans, being able to wear skinny jeans and not look like I’ve had to be poured into them is one of the reasons I like being a cyclist.
*I’m talking about Society here, not the Velominati as a whole.
I’ve been giving his some thought recently (part of a fantasy about buying a new bike as mine suffers the ignominy of being the commuter as well as the #1).
I’m about 5’9” and on a 54 at the moment. It certainly feels like I could go smaller – it’s not too large but I wouldn’t want it to be any larger. The differences between a 54 and a 52 seem to be marginal by the time you’e fiddled with stem lengths and seat posts and the only real downside I can see to a 50 would be that the head tube might start to push the limits of my spinal (in)flexibility – it’s one thing going for a longer stem to compensate for a smaller frame but extra spacers? No.
An extra degree of sharpness on the HT angle would certainly improve things in a bunch but it’d be interesting to see how it would affect stability overall and whether it would make those handsfree moments significantly harder.
The chart below is the supersix whereas I’m on a CAAD 8 the moment but it differences are of a similar order.
@minion
Concur. I once succumbed to the lure of (almost) sit up and beg geometry, and although it was easier on my hands and shoulders, it was killing my lower back. A modest 11cm of drop fixed that right up, and some carefully targeted calisthenics (not too many!) took care of the upper body issues.
I’ve always ridden on frames that were too small. My very first “bike shop bike” was fitted to me by the salesman. It was a 58cm. When I decided to try racing, and got hooked, I realized that bike wasn’t as responsive as I’d like and it was more of a touring frame anyway. So I test rode a bunch of whips and settled on a 56cm Trek 5200 (which was high end new tech at the time).
I kept buying different 56’s thru the 90’s, then didn’t ride hardly at all in the 00’s. After getting some miles in when I got back on the bike 4ish years ago, it was time to upgrade to new plastic from the 56cm steel Ritchey. Imagine my surprise when I hopped on a bitty carbon frame. TBH, I’ve never measured the seat tube length of #1, but side by side with the Ritchey, the top tube looks 4-5cm lower on the Blue. Seat height is the same, as is the reach. The bars are lower too. I didn’t think my back would hold up, but it’s actually pretty comfortable.
Damn. I’m 6’2 and ride a 63cm frame with a 100mm stem. If I tried to ride a 60 I’d be balled up and my knees would get in the way when pedaling in a turn.
I’m just a titch under 6’1″ and am riding a Specialized 56 with a standard stem. I often wonder if I’d be better served by a 54 with a slightly longer stem?
I rode a friend’s 52 a while back and I was surprised that it was actually a pretty good fit once I cranked the saddle up to my height. That really got me thinking about a 54.
@ScottyCycles62
Not if you have sufficient saddle height.
I’m an inch taller than you and riding a frame 7cm smaller with a 120mm stem.
@TommyTubolare
Just a minor detail here; he rides in the -6 position, not the +6. Those angles are based on subtracting them from the head tube angle to arrive at a composite angle relateive to the horizonatal.
Assuming the HT angle is 73 degrees, you subtract -6 to get 73 – (-6) = 73 +6 = 79. That means the angle from the horizontal is 90 – 79 = 11 degree rise from the horizontal.
For my -17 degree stem, its 73 – (-17) = 90; 90 – 90 = 0, which is a zero degree rise.
Nothing like getting my geek on in the morning.
@Chris those Evos are nice. get one.
@Darren H
There is no greater joy for the peanut gallery than to accuse someone of riding too small a frame. Believe me.
@simon
After I went as low as I am now, I found my front wheel overweighted on the technical bits as well. Then I built up my core and not I’m not just a lump on the bars; my weight is more evenly balanced and I can control how much the front wheel gets weighted, adding or removing weight as needed for the terrain.
@Chris interesting, Im on a 56 @5’10″/ I have a good amount of post and a 120cm stem, but I like the streched feel as opposed to the feeling bunched up.
@sthilzy
I had such a wicked crush on her in my teens.
I’m 5’11”, and I’ve always ridden a 56c with an 80-100mm stem. As I get closer to n+1 again, I’ve been trying a few 54’s, and I have it say, it has given me some food for thought.
@G’rilla
Lets also not forget that fitting and geometry principles matter less when you tend to run with your bike rather than ride it.
Good boy wearing your V-Kit in that photo.
@ScottyCycles62
In my opinion, someone your size shouldn’t be on a stem shorter than 12cm. You have at least 3 or 4 cm of reach to play with, which means you can go down several frame sizes. And as @ChrisO says, they make seat pins as long as 450mm, so seat height being a problem is just an illusion.
@kixsand
I don’t believe stem length has been standardized, so I don’t know what length you mean. That said, 12cm is a good starting point and in my opinion should be considered the standard.
something that never gets talked about is Bar width.
@frank
Thanks for your attention to details but I thought it was obvious he rides -6 and since stem c-c measures 140 mm. I should have add – before 6 in one sentence. The fact stays right though the longer the stem the higher the bars if you use -6 stem. For that very reason I also use -17 on my bikes – it looks great and puts me in a reach I want while the bars remain low.
Another fact you should remember is you only mount the stem on + degree if your name starts with Floyd and ends in Landis.
@Nate
Thanks Nate. Is the Coni manual the big blue soft cover Italian book? If so I used to own that, loaded it to some punk and never saw it again. I bet it would fit us all to Merckx size frames, which is what I always grew up believing. He was not on a 50cm steel frame, by golly, and you kids, get off my lawn!
@TommyTubolare
+1…it must have been that bad hip.
@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