TCR Advanced Pro 1 tad small?

[clipsed]

Just to throw a spanner in the works, i am 177cm and ride 56/58 cm. 395+ reach frames with 120/130mm stems.

I have a 197cm arm span finger tip to finger tip .

[jeffy]

clx
(54S) stack 582 reach 385

TCR2016
M stack 54.5 reach 38.3
M/L stack 56.7 reach 39.8

where do you get those Giant figures from?

Should be : http://www.giant-bicycles.com/nl-be/bikes/model/tcr.advanced.sl.ff/25378/91428/#geometry

M stack 55,2 reach 38,6
M/L stack 56,6 reach 39,1

At first i thought you differences were because you linked to an SL frameset when OP is an Advanced Pro .... but it seems the Belgium Giant site lists the old TCR geo (Geo changed for 2016)
See Germany for instance (only Beligium it seems has the old geo from a quick look through different countries)
http://www.giant-bicycles.com/de-de/bik ... /#geometry

[dlcrep]

Honestly, you should be on a ML. I test rode a M and it felt too small. The ML felt more balanced and I can bet it will feel more stable during descents, especially how responsive this frame is. I'm smaller than you too, at 5'10, 32.5" (83cm) inseam. If you have long legs/arms and short torso like me, then the M will just have a longer stem and high stack. Obviously you could slam your stem, but back will be cursing you out on climbs. I prefer to ride in comfort.

[Fiery]

He rode both sizes and the M/L felt big. You rode both sizes and the M felt small. In your opinion, he should go by what felt good to you, not what felt good to him?

[dlcrep]

He rode both sizes and the M/L felt big. You rode both sizes and the M felt small. In your opinion, he should go by what felt good to you, not what felt good to him?

I guess you didn't take notice of his posted measurements and mine. Read the topic of this post - I'm simply giving my opinion.

[lrdunc]

Hi OP / everyone else,

Apologies in advance if this has been answered elsewhere; I searched and couldn't find what I was looking for.

With respect to the frame only, is there any difference between the 2016 Advanced Pro 1 and the 2016 Advanced Pro frameset? In other words, if you buy the Advanced Pro frameset (frameset only), are you getting the same frame as the Advanced Pro 1 bike (in a different color) or the Advanced Pro 0 bike?

Based on what I've read, it seems like the only differences between the Advanced Pro 1 and the Advanced Pro 0 are Ultegra vs. Dura Ace and the wheelset.

http://www.giant-bicycles.com/en-us/bikes/series/tcr.advanced.pro/22170/

[simacu]

You are correct, the only difference is the groupset and wheels.
The rims are also the same but on the 0 you get better hubs and spokes and save about 90g. Also, the tires are a grade up on the pro 0.

If you go to the giant site and select the bike, it allows you co compare side-by-side with 2 others and see the diffs, albeit with minimal information.

Bargain!

[lrdunc]

Great, thanks for the info!

[uteboy]

First post on Weight Weenies. Would be interested to understand how the owner got on with the sizing riding the Medium.

I'm 181 cm tall, 84.5 cm inseam, torso 65.5 cm & arm length of 62 cm. So I've got a marginally longer torso than leg length. Hence I thought I would be suited to a TCR with a longer reach. I'm looking for new road bike - I'm not into racing but am flexible, fit and do like a stiff bike to thrash up a hill.

Ideal reach seems around 39.5 cm, stack of about 55.5 cm. My BB to seat top is around 75 cm.

When I recently test rode the 2017 medium (reach 38.3 cm, stack of 54 cm), with spacers removed it just felt too low, plus knees came close to handlebars when climbing @ 10%.

Riding the 2017 Medium-Large (reach 39.8, stack of 56.7 cm), with spacers removed (this helped drop the bars) the reach with the factory 11 cm stem felt too long. So I'm ape, and sit in the middle of Giant's sizing chart... but fit neither bike, lol. To get the ML to fit, I'd need to reduce the stem length to 10 cm, or maybe 9 cm to reign in the reach - not a smart move. Looking at Giant's sizing chart, the ML does not sit evenly for reach between the M & L, it's skewed quite heavily towards the large. I reckon they messed up the sizing of the ML for 2016, making the ETT too long at 57 cm.

All this after test riding both sizes, twice each, it's a shame as I was super keen on a Giant TCR SL. Responsive, awesome climber and really comfortable over broken bitumen (compared with an Izalco max and Cannondale SSE). Extended rides on the 54cm would have resulted in a sore neck, whilst the ML would be too big.

I'm now looking at an Ultimate SLX in medium as although the stack is 56.7 (same as the ML TCR), the reach is shorter at 39.1 cm, with a 55.6 cm ETT (which BTW lines up with the Competitive Cyclist web fit tool). Only concern now with the Canyon is toe overlap, as the chainstay to wheelbase ratio is greatest. I wear Euro 46 shoes, so it's a gamble.

Interested to know if others have had similar sizing issues with 2016/2017 Giant TCRs and have arrived at other makes.
Mike

[simacu]

I ended up giving the frame to my father and bought something else. It was just too short for me, knees would brush the stem sometimes and my shoes would clip the front tyre. Now my frame is 56 reach and 56 seat tube. This with a 120mm stem is perfect for me. So sounds like medium is not for you also.

[uteboy]

Good to hear you found something right for your fit. I guess there are bikes out there for everyone.

[jeffy]

uteboy ... why are you insisting on removing spacers? You are clearly a medium for the TCR.

You get way "better" handling with a 100mm or 110mm stem, for me buying a bike that needs less is a no go.

Also re: reach. Giant bikes are actually pretty short when comparing them to other brands race bikes - especially Focus.

[uteboy]

uteboy ... why are you insisting on removing spacers? You are clearly a medium for the TCR.

You get way "better" handling with a 100mm or 110mm stem, for me buying a bike that needs less is a no go.

Also re: reach. Giant bikes are actually pretty short when comparing them to other brands race bikes - especially Focus.

I removed the 40mm of spacers from the medium as they looked silly. Its short headtube is what caused me to look at the ML, that's my main issue with the medium.

Re stem length I agree, having to reduce the stem downwards on the ML is daft - too short.

The TCR ML reach is identical to the Izalco Max 56cm at 398mm (I've ridden) but the TCR ETT is 5mm longer. Both bikes feels long (to me).

The Canyon Ultimate in a Medium has shorter reach than the ML TCR, so is of interest.

[jeffy]

a higher stack, means that reach is effectively increased. ignore ETT

if you want to be a cool dude and slam your stem, buy an endurance bike.

Looking at the Geo the M(ultimate) vs TCR(ML) is an interesting one. same stack ~10mm shorter