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
@gianni it's Richie Porte not Ritchie Port.
@Nate
That's Zinn's theory too, and in extreme it's true, but I'd be shocked if there was a significant difference in wheel base on a 58 vs 61 cm frame, but the 2-3 cm drop in bar height does pose a significant change.
My VMH's 51 vs my 61 only has about two cm difference in wheel base, and I don't think anyone is talking about going from a 61 to a 51. Within the realm of reason, you're deciding between one or at most two frame sizes.
[dmalbum: path="/velominati.com/wp-content/uploads/readers/frank/2014.01.24.13.13.51/1//"/]
@EBruner
This post is useless without photos.
Whenever I start looking for a 60 ctc, I have decided on a 59 ctc. And now that I intend to build up a graveur it will decidedly be a 58 Columbus SL.
@Chris Cosgrove
He's more of an Apostle than the Prophet, of course, but Apostles don't lie none neither.
@norm
And that photo points out as well that once you're at the low end of the sizing spectrum, it all goes out the door, so a guy like him isn't going to have the option to go smaller even if he wanted to, hence the 12cm stem and stubby post.
P.G. is an interesting example Gianni however getting your position dialled just by looking at Pros bikes and reading about their measurements form bike radar etc. can get you confused.
I believe strongly that at some point he was on a custom made BMC frame simply because there is no 50 cm BMC Team Machine - there is 48 and 51. You can look it up on a BMC geo chart. See the differences on the photos in the articles I linked below. The amount of spacers under the stem is also different. One frame 50 and one 51.
http://roadcyclinguk.com/gear/pro-bike-philippe-gilberts-bmc-team-machine-slr01.html
http://www.bikeradar.com/road/gear/article/pro-bike-philippe-gilberts-bmc-teammachine-slr01-36238/
As far as his stem goes 3T stem measured c-c 140 mm in reality is a 130 mm stem by 3T. 3T stem measures 130 mm on + 6 deg. If you flip it to -6 deg it measures longer hence 140 mm measured c-c. Since his stem is 6 deg the longer the stem the higher the handlebars so he gets his height even though the HT is short.
Personally I'm 180 cm and if I was going to buy BMC frame I'd also take 51. Their 54 which is next measures 55 TT and 148 in HT so for me they are both too long.
Go for the smallest frame that fits you because it is lighter, stiffer and handles better. To be honest there was a few interesting articles I wanted to send you recently as far as fitting is concerned but you'd have to forward me your mail if you want of course. Your recent photos with a cigarette on a bike - I thought your bike was too big and too long and ready to escape from under you. You need to keep the frame more under you e.g. under control. Try to test ride smaller bike and see how you feel. It's all about the feeling.
R.P. position looks ok although from the picture it looks like his saddle is very low. He didn't reach the bottom of the pedal stroke yet but knee angle looks fine already.
American with black socks - rings a bell. I don't know really.
@Gianni
Yes. Basically, physiology is so complicated and we are all so uniquely built, and the the muscle dynamics of moving a pedal around a circle with force is so complex that we knew fuck all about standardizing frame fit in the 50's and 60's and we know fuck all about standardizing frame fit in the 2010's.
It all comes down to experimentation and figuring out what works for you. If you're comfortable, that's a good start. If you can also go batshit fast, then even better. There is science to the madness, we just haven't gotten past the madness.
@frank Thanx for pointing out that reality. I quickly assumed some sort of wheelbase difference, but drive train specs shouldn't be dealing with extra centimeters. The down tube and fork might be the only factor in determining a wheelbase.
@Gianni
Skip the last paragraph mate. Entered too quick without deleting.