Once more, trendy small frame size

For kicks I got my wife to measure me and we input the numbers into competetivecyclist fit calculator.


The top of seat from BB dimension was just about perfect to what I have now, but get this. They recommend a bike with a 55 c to c seat tube with a 53 tt...

Now where would I get that other than a custom bike, or a womens bike?

 

French, Eddy, or trendy?

 

Well, the trendy and the eddy both gave me a shorter TT than seat-tube. I know from what you have posted here already, that Eddy rode his bike that way, but not to the extent that this one is giving me. Also, I set up a spare bike I had, a Cannondale 53, it has the 53 TT that the fit recommended, but I could not get the C to C on this bike, since it is made like most other bikes, it had a 53 c to t. Anyway, I have a Thomson set-back seatpost on it and even then I had to slam the seat all the way back (Arione) to get close to the set-back that the system recommended. Then by it's recommendation I put on a 105 stem, since I do not have anything other than a 120, which I may put on there tonight to see what that feels like.

One word..Twitchy! I did seem to overcome that easily, but is this something that I want to be thinking about while racing, and it seems that my weight is farther back on the bike. I have a scheduled 1.5 hours tonight, I may switch the stem and just for kicks see how it feels for that amount of time. I got about 20 minutes on it last night.

Saddle to bar drop is over 10cm.

HUMP

 

53 c-t would be about 51 c-c with a fat Cannondale top tube. This bike must have one helluva steep seat tube to warrant a setback seat post with the saddle slammed back. With a short stem, it's no wonder the bike is twitchy. I'm surprised you're not popping wheelies.

The 10 cm saddle-to-bar drop seems steep but not totally out of line. How comfortable are you with it?

Most manufacturers arrive at a "square" frame at around 55-57 cm. Below that, top tubes get longer than seat tubes and vice-versa for bigger sizes. Short of choosing a woman's frame, I would shop for bikes that have short top tubes in smaller sizes. For starters, this one doesn't quite match the CC spec, but it gets darned close: http://www.excelsports.com/new.asp?...+without+Fork&vendorCode=GIOS&major=1&minor=1

 

That is the whole deal, if you go with a 55 c to c, you are either going to get a 56 to 56.5, or a square frame like you said with a 55, 55. I think that the calculations are off, I cannot be that out of wack???? Can I?


As far as the set-back goes, this was also derived from the calculations, which stated that I needed to be 7.5 to 8 cm set-back. That is using a 2 foot level from the center of the BB back, and that is why it is slammed back.

I have been riding a 55 Lemond like I have stated in my previous post, and it has a 56.5 TT. I cannot put the seat back like it states here and ride the bike, I am way too stretched out.

I did read somewhere, I cannot quote where, but there was one guy I think that was so out of whack that he had the owner of Cyfac build him a custom that would fit my criteria if these measurements hold true.

The only problem with looking at another bike, is the fact that I am sponsored, so I ride what is given to me. That is why I am searching so much now, we will be ordering bikes soon and I do not want to spend the next season on the wrong bike. I did that toward the end of the season.


This is what I put in with the help of my wife doing the measurements.


Measurements
-------------------------------------------
Inseam: 33.25
Trunk: 27.25
Forearm: 12.25
Arm: 25
Thigh: 25
Lower Leg: 20.87
Sternal Notch: 56
Total Body Height: 69.25


The Competitive Fit (cm)
-------------------------------------------
Seat tube range c-c: 54.7 - 55.2
Seat tube range c-t: 56.4 - 56.9
Top tube length: 52.6 - 53.0
Stem Length: 11.2 - 11.8
BB-Saddle Position: 72.3 - 74.3
Saddle-Handlebar: 52.3 - 52.9
Saddle Setback: 7.6 - 8.0
Seatpost Type: SETBACK


The Eddy Fit (cm)
-------------------------------------------
Seat tube range c-c: 55.9 - 56.4
Seat tube range c-t: 57.6 - 58.1
Top tube length: 52.6 - 53.0
Stem Length: 10.1 - 10.7
BB-Saddle Position: 71.5 - 73.5
Saddle-Handlebar: 53.1 - 53.7
Saddle Setback: 8.8 - 9.2
Seatpost Type: SETBACK

 

I missed the Lemond part. You need not explain more. Greg designed his frames to emulate his fit, rather stretched out and behind the bottom bracket, for his rather average body proportions. Geometry charts don't tell the whole story but Lemond's generally indicate longer top tubes. I think Lemond makes terrific bikes, for riders with short to average-length limbs. Now I'm going to get flamed by the guy who bought a smaller size, ordered longer cranks, maxed out the seat post, and installed a short riser stem. Sorry, I'd rather buy a bike that was designed for my proportions.

Most Kuota models have shorter top tubes. Not as short as the Gios, but in the ballpark. Check out the Kebel, traditional geometry in 14 sizes.

I've fretted over fit so much over the years that I've learned to adapt to most of the riding and handling quirks of different bikes. I get impatient with riders who base their choices solely on weight and component specs. If the bike is straight and well made and its looks appeal to you, you'll figure out how to make it go fast. If you can't make it fit, though, you'll never get what you want from it.

 

Most people can adapt, as long as it is not too out of whack. I have felt though on some of the smaller bikes, during races not as stable due to the shorter wheelbase. It causes some weird things in crits.

Like I said prior, finding the size may not be a problem. Finding the size in the team sponsored bike on the other hand may be.

HUMP

 

I am riding a huge frame for me, as i talked to my LBS about frame size for a giant scr 3.0 and they told me to go for a 55cm frame, which is a large. I am only 5'8, so i have had to remove all the spacers, 80mm stem, and 170mm crank.
But now i am happy with the bike.
I dont race so its ok, as i am comfortable.

 

I'm 5'8", and originally started on a 51 cm frame with 53.5 cm effective top tube. I rode that bike for more than a year, but always felt a bit cramped. I had problems on long rides with back pain (lower and upper). I tried a slightly longer stem, but still had too much weight on my hands.

I sized up to a 55cm frame a few months ago, and have never been more comfortable on a bike. I'm much more comfortable now, and don't have any of the neck, back, hand pains I had on the smaller frame. My new fit fell somewhere between the Eddy and French fits on www.competitivecyclist.com. If I was a racer, I probably would have stopped at 53cm. But I enjoy the longer rides and am considering some even longer randonneuring next year, so all-day comfort is a priority. I just couldn't stay comfortable on the shorter frame.

 

Well, there is the problem, if you go to the smaller frame, the longer rides are a bother, but to get to a level where racing is easier, doing the longer rides is necessary. I am going to play with this some more. I have some time this week to try some different things.

HUMP

 

I hear you. For a couple of years we were sponsored by Fuji, who gave us six Pro models of assorted sizes to use as we saw fit. Pardon the pun. I think the expression back then was "like a monkey on a stick." Our top riders rode their Gioses, Masis, and Colnagos, and they were comfortable.

 

I have lusted over the Colnagos for years, never had the money to buy one. I would love to try and get the team sponosored by them, I know they offer numerous sizes, and they have more laid back geometry.

I am going to go out on the Lemond again today and see what it feels like with the saddle set up from my last fitting. I do not think getting the engine department (legs and hips) is the progblem, it is getting the cockpit right so that I am not kicking myself in the chest.

HUMP

 

Another long-limbed rider who had fitting issues was Alexi Grewal. His Pinarello frames weren't long, but he had a flexibility issue with his back or hips that he accommodated by using a more forward and slightly higher seating position. His disregard of KOPS effectively rotated the lower body down and back, keeping the knees away from the chest. He was essentially moving toward the contemporary time trial position, so he was aero, too.

Hump, I'd recommend trying this just to get decent balance between the axles and get comfortable on that Lemond.

 

Funny that you posted this, because just this morning, I took the Cannondale out, it is a 53 c to t, with a 53 tt. I have a 120mm stem, and it is slammed on the headtube. I have my classic bend Ritchey's on it with Shimano 10 speed. I set out with the saddle set back some, but kept feeling like I was missing something, and that I was reaching too much with my legs instead of pedaling ( I hope that made since). Anyway, I moved that saddle forward, and raised it to keep my saddle height the same and there you go. I can get really low in this position, the bike still feels a little twitchy when climbing, so I think that maybe one size bigger, a 54 would make that come around, but after doing this I felt like I was actually pushing with my legs instead of reaching and I could lay the power down with this position. This in essence is what you said about Grewal, I have felt this before, that a more forward riding position suited me better.

I appreciate all the help, I am going to take a look at some pics of Alexi. I did get back on the Lemond with the saddle set up the same way and felt good, but could feel like I may have been stretched out some.

Compromise I think between the two frames will put me in a good position. I guess I need to go get my Cervelo from the shop, it is a 54, and I may be able to see what that feels like.

HUMP

HAPPY THANKSGIVING!!!

 

Glad to help. While we're talking about setups, see if you can find old photos of Smilin' George Mount. I always thought the reason George always had a smile on was because he was so comfortable on his bike.