View Full Version : Swap dura-ace in, or keep the newer lower quality stuff?

Swap dura-ace in, or keep the newer lower quality stuff?

schwim

alfeng

I bought a slightly used Giant TCR about a year and a half back. It is about 3 years old. It is a great bike - carbon fiber frameset, all components are dura-ace, and the wheelset is Mavic CXP33 rims with Dura-ace hubs.

I've put about 2000 miles on the bike and I've found that going longer distances is a painful experience, particularly in the neck/shoulder/hands area. I took it to the LBS to have it fit to me hoping some magic would help, or at least to find out if the frame is a bad fit. I was told that the top tube is too long for me. I tend to agree as I always feel like superman on it, stretched out trying to reach the hoods. They recommended something in the Trek Pilot 5.x series. I tried a 58cm 5.0 on for size on the trainer and it felt awesome compared to the Giant.

Here's the question... I'm not inclined to spend a huge amount of money on the upgrade, and I want the best I can get for any money I do spend (surprise). That said, would I be better off buying a Pilot 5.0 for the frameset and swapping my dura-ace components out to it, going with a Pilot 5.2 and doing the same or mixing/matching, or should I get one or the other and keep the 105/ultegra and give up my dura-ace components?

In any case, the TCR ends up sold.
Perhaps. But, you are being premature in your decision ...

How much "too long" is the top tube on the GIANT?

What is the length of the top tube on the TREK?

I can't believe the difference is more than 2cm ... but, maybe it is.

Is the GIANT's (virtual) top tube 58cm?

Is the TREK's virtual top tube less than 56cm?

For under $30 (well under OR a great deal more if you choose to spend more) you could simply get a shorter stem. Presuming the GIANT has a 11cm stem (for example ... a typical length, now, BTW), you could get a stem that is 9cm long, or even 7cm long. A "downhill" stem will look a bit odd on your bike, but the extension is minimal (4+cm?).

Also, different handlebars have a different forward reach than others ... the variance in reach is more than 1cm from the longest to the shortest.

Raising the handlebars (invert the stem to elevate the bars, if possible -- the stem may already be "inverted") will effectively shorten the reach.

The questions are:

How tall are you? Arm length? Leg length? Torso length?
What is the "virtual" length of the top tube?
What is the current stem length?
What is the length of the TREK Pilot's top tube? Stem length? Handlebar reach?

YOU NEED TO USE A TAPE MEASURE ON THE TWO BIKES (TREK vs. your GIANT).

You need to know the orientation (fore-and-aft) of the saddle on the seatpost & the seatpost's setback ON BOTH BIKES.

How long were you on the TREK? As long a time as it takes to become uncomfortable on your GIANT OR just a couple of minutes?

The Pilot is, presumably, aluminum -- and that means it will have a different ride characteristic which you may regret in the long run.

Regardless, I say "shame" on the bike shop you went to for not addressing the situation in a more complete (i.e., honest) manner.

Even if you decide you MUST HAVE a new frame, I would consider shopping at a different bike shop ... find one that provides you with MORE fitting options than putting you on what amounts to being a "comfort" bike.

FWIW. Many bike shops often have boxes of pulled components that they sell at a significant discount ... figure on less-than-$10-up-to-whatever-they-can-get-you-to-pay for a used stem, depending on the brand & cosmetic condition.

schwim

Perhaps. But, you are being premature in your decision ...

How much "too long" is the top tube on the GIANT?

What is the length of the top tube on the TREK?

I can't believe the difference is more than 2cm ... but, maybe it is.

Is the GIANT's (virtual) top tube 58cm?

Is the TREK's virtual top tube less than 56cm?The Giant top tube length measured at 58.5cm. The Trek specs show it at 53.9cm, but the effective length is 57cm.

For under $30 (well under OR a great deal more if you choose to spend more) you could simply get a shorter stem. Presuming the GIANT has a 11cm stem (for example ... a typical length, now, BTW), you could get a stem that is 9cm long, or even 7cm long. A "downhill" stem will look a bit odd on your bike, but the extension is minimal (4+cm?).

Also, different handlebars have a different forward reach than others ... the variance in reach is more than 1cm from the longest to the shortest.

Raising the handlebars (invert the stem to elevate the bars, if possible -- the stem may already be "inverted") will effectively shorten the reach.
Yes, I pretty much tried all of these options myself. The Giant presently has a 10cm stem with at 10deg rise. This helped somewhat compared to the 12cm 5deg rise stem it came with. I tried it with an 8cm stem with 17deg rise as well. This helped a little more, but not enough to make me feel like the problem was being solved. I also checked into the short-reach handlebar option, but considering the weight is still on my hands significantly even when as far back as I can get on the bars anyway, I didn't get a sense this would help much.

The questions are:

How tall are you? Arm length? Leg length? Torso length?
What is the "virtual" length of the top tube?
What is the current stem length?
I am 72.75 inches tall. No idea on arm, leg, torso length. Top tube measured at 58.5 with a 10cm stem as I said.

What is the length of the TREK Pilot's top tube? Stem length? Handlebar reach?
Trek's top tube is 53.9 per mfr specs, the stem I tried was 10cm w/17deg rise. Reach was measured at 71cm. Oddly he didn't write the reach down for my Giant. Interesting...

You need to know the orientation (fore-and-aft) of the saddle on the seatpost & the seatpost's setback ON BOTH BIKES.The Giant's seatpost has a 2.5cm setback, and the seat is fully back. He noted "saddle recess" as 8.5 on the giant, and 8.0 on the Trek. I'm unsure if saddle recess is the same as setback.

How long were you on the TREK? As long a time as it takes to become uncomfortable on your GIANT OR just a couple of minutes?
About 10 minutes. Not long enough to be certain, but long enough to immediately feel the difference. I did not feel over-stretched, and I could reach the drops and still breath.

The Pilot is, presumably, aluminum -- and that means it will have a different ride characteristic which you may regret in the long run.

Regardless, I say "shame" on the bike shop you went to for not addressing the situation in a more complete (i.e., honest) manner.

Even if you decide you MUST HAVE a new frame, I would consider shopping at a different bike shop ... find one that provides you with MORE fitting options than putting you on what amounts to being a "comfort" bike.The Pilot is carbon fiber. I have no desire to go back to aluminum, nor do I have a desire to downgrade my components unless there is some wisdom anyone out there can lend me on the pros/cons of re-using 3-4 year old dura-ace as opposed to dealing with new 105/Ultegra components.

Maybe I should just buy a frame if I really need it, but then I was told "Trek doesn't just sell frames". This sounds fishy. I am planning on seeking the advice of a different LBS today. Ideally, I'd like to keep it for the weekend, put a few miles on it and see what happens.

JohnO

There's always ebay - plenty of framesets for sale there. You'd have to be careful to get the geometry that fits you best. Most sellers who know their bikes don't object to supplying measurements.

alfeng

The Giant top tube length measured at 58.5cm. The Trek specs show it at 53.9cm, but the effective length is 57cm.

Yes, I pretty much tried all of these options myself. The Giant presently has a 10cm stem with at 10deg rise. This helped somewhat compared to the 12cm 5deg rise stem it came with. I tried it with an 8cm stem with 17deg rise as well. This helped a little more, but not enough to make me feel like the problem was being solved. I also checked into the short-reach handlebar option, but considering the weight is still on my hands significantly even when as far back as I can get on the bars anyway, I didn't get a sense this would help much.

I am 72.75 inches tall. No idea on arm, leg, torso length. Top tube measured at 58.5 with a 10cm stem as I said.

Trek's top tube is 53.9 per mfr specs, the stem I tried was 10cm w/17deg rise. Reach was measured at 71cm. Oddly he didn't write the reach down for my Giant. Interesting...

The Giant's seatpost has a 2.5cm setback, and the seat is fully back. He noted "saddle recess" as 8.5 on the giant, and 8.0 on the Trek. I'm unsure if saddle recess is the same as setback.
[/color] About 10 minutes. Not long enough to be certain, but long enough to immediately feel the difference. I did not feel over-stretched, and I could reach the drops and still breath.

The Pilot is carbon fiber. I have no desire to go back to aluminum, nor do I have a desire to downgrade my components unless there is some wisdom anyone out there can lend me on the pros/cons of re-using 3-4 year old dura-ace as opposed to dealing with new 105/Ultegra components.

Maybe I should just buy a frame if I really need it, but then I was told "Trek doesn't just sell frames". This sounds fishy. I am planning on seeking the advice of a different LBS today. Ideally, I'd like to keep it for the weekend, put a few miles on it and see what happens.With the understanding that no two people are alike, I would say that a frame with a 54cm top tube is really/(probably) too short for someone who is just over 6' tall.

I'm 5'9" ... and, I currently ride a ROAD frame with a 54cm top tube + a 12cm stem ... another ROAD frame that I ride which has a 55cm top tube is fitted with an 11cm stem ... a vintage ROAD frame with a 57cm top tube is fitted with a 9cm stem ... I set up a "compact" frame that has a 56cm virtual top tube with an inverted stem (a slight rise) whose effective length is just under 10cm long, etc. ALL of those bikes are set up with a longer seatpost to handlebar reach longer than the TREK Pilot you tried, and I'm 3" shorter! The reach to the hoods is, of course, further.

I don't know how many centimeters of spacers you have between your headset & stem, but (FWIW) if you have less than 3cm with no more steerer to allow additional spacers then I would suggest that you consider ponying up for a new fork ($100-to-$300+, depending on your inclination) & ~3cm of spacers ... whatever it takes to get the handlbars closer to being at the same level as the top of the saddle (i.e., the touring position). They make hi-rise stems for MTBs ... you can fit ROAD bars in the clamp of most MTB stems despite the different spec (if you have an OS handlebar, so much the better) ... REI used to sell one for just under $20.

If you're hellbentforleather toward that Pilot with a 54cm top tube (and, you may think THIS FOLLOWING SUGGESTION is unwise ... AND, I certainly don't know what that TREK Pilot might cost you, tomorrow), I think at this point it would be worth a $100+/whatever investment in a USED frame/bike of any variety that has a 54cm top tube ... and, fit it (even if it costs you an extra $50+) with a gooseneck stem & long-enough seatpost.

In a just a little over a month, all 2007 bikes will be going on sale (usually happens near the end of June) ... and, those bikes will be at least $100 less than the current "sticker" price at the shop -- figure ~20% less than retail ... so, if the Pilot is $1500, it will probably be about $1200. If it retails for more, the discount will be more. If it retails for less, the discount will be less.

I don't know whether-or-not TREK sells frames separately ... there are enough (quality at all levels) frames/framesets which are available (new & used) other than TREK that I wouldn't lock onto any particular brand.

BTW. The 10-speed 105 & Ultegra are probably BETTER (mechanically) than the 9-speed Dura Ace -- supposedly (and, this may not be a concern where/how you ride), the new Shimano STI shifters can downshift under load (i..e, when ALREADY going uphill) whereas the older, 8-/9-speed shifters would balk ...

schwim

With the understanding that no two people are alike, I would say that a frame with a 54cm top tube is really/(probably) too short for someone who is just over 6' tall.Actually, further review of the Trek site indicates the effective top tube length is 57cm. I have to assume this is the "real" number used in determining the fit.

I don't know how many centimeters of spacers you have between your headset & stem, but (FWIW) if you have less than 3cm with no more steerer to allow additional spacers then I would suggest that you consider ponying up for a new fork ($100-to-$300+, depending on your inclination) & ~3cm of spacers ... whatever it takes to get the handlbars closer to being at the same level as the top of the saddle (i.e., the touring position).Interesting idea. I guess I could get a new fork with a longer steerer and pile on the spacers. Is this a typical "fix"? How far can I go with the spacers?

This is interesting. When I compare the mfr geometry specs for my TCR and the Pilot side by side, I see they are very, very close. Aside from the effective top tube length, I'm not seeing that much of a difference. Could it be that the slightly lower head tube angle is helping make the difference?

giant pilot
head angle 73 72.6
Seat angle 72.5 72.7
effective top tube 58.5 57
chainstay 40.5 41.7
wheelbase 100.6 100.6
standover 31.7 31
seat tube 55.5 53
head tube 18.5 17.3

BTW. The 10-speed 105 & Ultegra are probably BETTER (mechanically) than the 9-speed Dura Ace -- supposedly (and, this may not be a concern where/how you ride), the new Shimano STI shifters can downshift under load (i..e, when ALREADY going uphill) whereas the older, 8-/9-speed shifters would balk ...I don't seem to have issues downshifting or upshifting under load at all with the dura-ace, so I wouldn't use that as a justification for switching. It would be nice to have a 10 speed setup, but it is not that big of a deal. Looking at the 105 components, I can see a sizeable gap in quality of finish compared to the dura-ace. Ultegra not so much so. I'm not saying this is an indication of quality of function, just that the apperance of quality is different.

alfeng

Actually, further review of the Trek site indicates the effective top tube length is 57cm. I have to assume this is the "real" number used in determining the fit.

Interesting idea. I guess I could get a new fork with a longer steerer and pile on the spacers. Is this a typical "fix"? How far can I go with the spacers?

This is interesting. When I compare the mfr geometry specs for my TCR and the Pilot side by side, I see they are very, very close. Aside from the effective top tube length, I'm not seeing that much of a difference. Could it be that the slightly lower head tube angle is helping make the difference?

giant pilot
head angle 73 72.6
Seat angle 72.5 72.7
effective top tube 58.5 57
chainstay 40.5 41.7
wheelbase 100.6 100.6
standover 31.7 31
seat tube 55.5 53
head tube 18.5 17.3
Yes, you want to use the "effective" (or, virtual) top tube length when determining fit.

I don't want to say that 1.5cm is sizeable, but it isn't insignificant ... and, it is certainly a reason why different length stems are available.

As you observed, the slacker headtube angle (and, slightly steeper seat tube angle) does shorten the effective top tube as the stem is located higher on the steerer.

The LEAST EXPENSIVE (and, probably the second least attractive -- ONLY because it means that you are probably kludging the fit -- but, acceptable ... and, who cares if it works?!?) solution is to get the intended-for MTB hi-rise stem. My recollection is that the effective reach on one that I had (a friend is "borrowing" it) is 9cm ... it must raise the handlebar by a good inch. You can ALWAYS paint it with FLAT BLACK paint.

The Giant has a 1.2cm longer headtube -- potentially, a significant amount.

FWIW. The rule of thumb that I have seen is that the maximum stack of the spacers is apparently equal to the diameter of the steerer == ~30mm for a 1 1/8" steerer & ~25mm for a 1" steerer. Not really that much in either case, I suppose. Maybe, that was just for carbon fiber steerers ... I don't recall, now.

I hate to say that replacing the fork is a "standard fix" ... it is if you have DEEP POCKETS! That's ONE reason, but not the only one, why you may see extra spacers stacked above a stem on a new installation.

There is something that is called a ZOOM (?) extension which clamps onto the top of the steerer and raises the stem by as much as the height of a typical stem -- this may be the least attractive way to mount the stem at a higher location on the steerer & I guess you would only use it with a steel or aluminum steerer; but, if it is the only thing that is appropriate, then it becomes the option of choice. The ZOOM extension is a female sleeve that fits over the end of the steerer upon which there is a male extension onto which you would install your stem. I've seen them in the Nashbar catalog, amongst others.

Serotta makes a titanium insert that you set in the top of the headtube ... of course, if your steerer is already cut, then it not useful.

Hope that helps.