Frame Job

View Comments

• @richard mclamore

  Good points. I remember Christian VDV talking about getting back on his race bike after some time off. Man this saddle is high, these bars are low and this stem is long. Those guys are all on one end of the spectrum of bike fit. Most of us can't and wouldn't want that fit. And as we get older we can't get as long and low either, I can't.

• I've posted this before but its worth another airing. '55X11 for ye anoraks'

  Obree, isn't scared of a long top tube....

• I recently got a retul fit done (a gift). It went as expected; "the computer says your back angle is to low". Even if I was comfortable with my 12cm of bar drop, he wanted to give me 8.5cm. I didn't buy a 54 with a 120mm head tube so I could ride it with 4cm of spacers.

• @Nate

  @frank All my bikes are 57-57.5mm TTs. The bikes with the longer wheelbase give a fantastic, intuitive ride. In contrast I feel like I am perched on top of the one with the shorter wheelbase, and the bike flops over from side to side in an unpredictable way. The difference is probably less than a cm.

  At some point I found and read a copy of the CONI manual section on frame design and it was quite interesting.

  That's not because of the wheelbase so much as it is the geometry; your bike with the shorter wheel base probably has a higher bottom bracket which is what gives you that feeling of being perched up and out of control.

  Longer wheelbases are more stable, shorter more responsive; then HT angles and how tight the rear wheel is under the frame start to matter a lot as well. CX bikes have very steep head tubes because it is more stable...it all gets really fucking cool when you mix them together, but the point to remember is that none of these factors independently answer the question.

  The physics at the core is lower the center of mass for stability, shorten the wheelbase for responsiveness and extend it for comfort. Merckx's geometry was designed around a combination of stability (low bb) and comfort (long wheel base) so he could catch up to the climbers on the descents.

• 1.72m is not short!!!

  My fucking word. I have been waiting my entire life for some tall bastard to confirm what I already knew!

  Thank you, Gianni. This means a lot to me. All these years fighting the good fight, now it's been confirmed that I'm a Medium-Sized Man. Fuckin' rockin'. I'm gonna have me a good Friday night.

• Rare jongens, those Sky riders...

• This trend has been taken to such extremes in track that many riders need riser stems to get their bars up high enough. The tiny frames seem especially comical paired with legs bigger than most road pros' waists.

• @Ron

  1.72m is not short!!!

  My fucking word. I have been waiting my entire life for some tall bastard to confirm what I already knew!

  Thank you, Gianni. This means a lot to me. All these years fighting the good fight, now it's been confirmed that I'm a Medium-Sized Man. Fuckin' rockin'. I'm gonna have me a good Friday night.

  Let it be noted that I do try to help the humans now and again.

• Hmm, interesting.  I'm 6'0 and I ride a Giant TCR with a 57 top tube.  I used to have the size down - a 55, from memory, and I hated it.  I tried all sorts of dangly stem lengths, constantly felt cramped up, had back pain, and felt like I was always three steps away from chucking it into the bushes on any descent even moderately twisty - the front wheel always felt overloaded.  Feel much more "in" the bike than "on" it now, if that makes sense - much more confidence inspiring.

  Got to say that when I'm racing having something that handles sharper isn't really something that's too far up the list - there's already so much going on the last thing I want to worry about is handling that's too quick for me, or a front wheel inclined to wonder when I'm wrestling myself out of a cape...difference between me and the pros, I guess.

• @Nate

  @frank All my bikes are 57-57.5mm TTs.

  Spinal Tap goes metric.