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
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!