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
actually I don't find RP's setup extreme at all - it is almost identical to mine. We have same height and I'm on a 48 cm c-c, but with 69cm saddel c-t and 172,5 arms (he has short legs). What matters the most these days is to get the saddle-to-bar drop right, without fooling around with spacers - "slam it down" I think you call it around here.
For the rider it would lower and bring forward the centre of gravity (increasing bike handling - same technique for descending); and decrease the front cross-section of bike and rider that passes through the air (lowering drag to a degree).
Maybe toe-lap stopped being a thing to worry about as well.
A smaller frame with longer stem instead of top tube may provide some additional control -- at race speed -- when doing a monster descent. In essence, these guys are turning themselves into pinballs and whipping themselves through the corners and the fewer centimeters extended into the void, the better.
Small(er) frameset -- shorter wheel base being easier to maneuver openings -- and then nicer in a crash!?
@Nate
Why would you say that? Low center of mass is always better; big frames with all the weight at the top with people cruising around in the sit up and beg position - now that's not going to handle like the bike was designed.
@frank
Having a low CoG is certainly important, but it's also important to have the wheels in the right place relative to the CoG, which is pretty hard on a bike that's too small.
I really don't understand todays bike fitting myself, but I guess I go along. I am 5'10" and I ride a 52 sloping C59, and a 56cm master X-light. The C59 looks like a kiddy frame next to my master, but it may be the 1984 filter I see it through. I do have to say the c59 doesn't feel small riding it, it is just how they look side by side.
From Greg LeMond's Complete Book of Cycling
@frank Amen brother. The prophet doesn't lie.
@Chris Cosgrove Uh oh.