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
@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.