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
@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.