2010 TCR Advanced SL ISP

Who are you (no off-topic talk please)

Moderators: MrCurrieinahurry, maxim809, Moderator Team

addicted
Posts: 889
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2007 5:56 pm

by addicted

Those rotors are hot!

User avatar
carbon2329
Posts: 753
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 1:13 am
Location: Utah

by carbon2329

Really nice builds.
The Black/White combinations especially on the TCR Advanced SL are just perfect. White saddle & tape go perfectly, Black would have muted them. And the matte finish, perfect.

BTW, what spokes are you using on the 1.38's. And it appears the 45's are the same spokes?

by Weenie


Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓    Broad Selection ✓    Worldwide Delivery ✓

www.starbike.com



User avatar
Mr.Gib
Posts: 5577
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: eh?

by Mr.Gib

Very nice bikes SteelerHoo. I happen to have the same, just now building an 09 SL (preferred the gloss to the matte finish) and getting ready to retire the 07. I also run Red and like having the shift paddle "handy".

How tall are you? What is your saddle height? 73cm uncut ISP + 2cm seat clamp + 5cm saddle = 80 cm approx? That is seriously up there on a 55.5 cm TT. In some ways I have the reverse dimensions to you - longer torso and shorter legs (also long arms). That is why I have been so happy on Giant - laid back geometry and a little longer TT then average.

Do you notice the difference in head tube angle between the two bikes? In my size (ML) the change is seat tube angle which results in a front end that is about 6 mm closer on the new SL assuming the same setback. I am contemplating moving up to the next longer size stem for my build.
wheelsONfire wrote: When we ride disc brakes the whole deal of braking is just like a leaving a fart. It happens and then it's over. Nothing planned and nothing to get nervous for.

addicted
Posts: 889
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2007 5:56 pm

by addicted

Mr.Gib wrote:longer torso and shorter legs (also long arms). That is why I have been so happy on Giant - laid back geometry and a little longer TT then average.

.


Weird, I have short legs too compared to my torso (but shortish arms too), and I find I don't like the laid back geometry as much, I'd rather have a 74 SA given my short legs.
Other than that, ie. the fact that I have to push my saddle forward a ways, the 2009 Giant SL ISP is a pretty damn amazing frame.

User avatar
Mr.Gib
Posts: 5577
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: eh?

by Mr.Gib

My legs are "shorter" not short - slightly below average length for my size. I have very large feet - size 45, and this puts me further behind the BB. With my long torso and arms the reach is no problem. I am also cursed with very wide shoulders for my size and weight, and as a result if I am too far forward on a bike too much weight gets dumped on the handle bars. I really love to have my fore and aft balance on the bike just right and let my leg muscles adapt if I am behind the BB a bit more than is typical.

Interesting how there are so many ways to approach fitting issues. I believe that everyone should get a proper fitting done (I have been fitted by a kenesiologist who specializes in bike fitting and this is what we came up with) but I believe each cyclist must study the issue and pay close attention to their body and be able to make adjustments that only they will be able to determine. :smartass: As for the OP, that setup is at the extreme end of things.
wheelsONfire wrote: When we ride disc brakes the whole deal of braking is just like a leaving a fart. It happens and then it's over. Nothing planned and nothing to get nervous for.

addicted
Posts: 889
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2007 5:56 pm

by addicted

Sounds like we have a similar build....45's here too, and wide shoulders.
I've always set my cleats almost all the way back on the shoes. Do you put yours more forward in an effort to move yourself rearward?

SteelerHoo
Posts: 17
Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 8:26 pm
Contact:

by SteelerHoo

Mr.Gib wrote:As for the OP, that setup is at the extreme end of things.


As a strong proponent of bike fit, it is curious that you can diagnose my fit as extreme without seeing my build or watching me on the bike.

I also strongly believe in getting fit and do so every year or whenever I buy a new bike. That being said, I have been fit by many great fitters, including the guys at Cadence Cycling in Philly and my last two fits (including the most recent one with my coach) have been done by guys whom cyclingnews feels comfortable publishing.

I'm only 5'10", but I've got very long legs, longs femurs (hence the 175mm cranks) a short torso and long arms. I could ride a larger frame though the top tube would force me to use an 80mm or shorter stem, not so great for handling. From all of my fittings, it's uncanny how the answer has always been the same so I'm pretty comfortable that my position is dialed.

In terms of bike choice, I need a bike that is more square (e.g. taller head tube, shorter top tube) than the average bike. The Giant TCR in size medium fits the bill with a 55.5cm top tube whereas most other manufacturers make their mediums with at least a 56cm top tube.

SteelerHoo
Posts: 17
Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 8:26 pm
Contact:

by SteelerHoo

carbon2329 wrote:BTW, what spokes are you using on the 1.38's. And it appears the 45's are the same spokes?


On both of the wheels, I'm using DT aerolites. The 1.38's are chrome, the 1.45's are black. I thought about using white aerolites for the 1.45's and my incoming 1.68 ceramic tubulars, but that would have delayed my wheel delivery and might have been a bit of overkill :noidea:

SteelerHoo
Posts: 17
Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 8:26 pm
Contact:

by SteelerHoo

Mr.Gib wrote:How tall are you? What is your saddle height? 73cm uncut ISP + 2cm seat clamp + 5cm saddle = 80 cm approx? That is seriously up there on a 55.5 cm TT. In some ways I have the reverse dimensions to you - longer torso and shorter legs (also long arms). That is why I have been so happy on Giant - laid back geometry and a little longer TT then average.

Do you notice the difference in head tube angle between the two bikes? In my size (ML) the change is seat tube angle which results in a front end that is about 6 mm closer on the new SL assuming the same setback. I am contemplating moving up to the next longer size stem for my build.


I'm 5'10" the saddle height on both bikes is 79cm.

Interesting on the M/L geometry change. The geometry on the Medium for '08 and '10 is exactly the same, so it made it easy to build the new bike, particularly with buying the same handlebars and stem.

User avatar
Mr.Gib
Posts: 5577
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: eh?

by Mr.Gib

SteelerHoo, wow those are some long legs (and not much left for the torso). I am 2 inches taller with close to average body proportions and have a 76 cm saddle height. You body was built for riding a bike, mine was built to function as a sail on a yacht. Wasn't diagnosing your fit at all - just noting that you had pushed the medium size to the limit.

and Addicted, I too have my cleats all the way back. I guess it's more the fore and aft balance the has me preferring slacker seat tube angles. With so much upper body I would not be comfortable with KOP.
wheelsONfire wrote: When we ride disc brakes the whole deal of braking is just like a leaving a fart. It happens and then it's over. Nothing planned and nothing to get nervous for.

User avatar
Mr.Gib
Posts: 5577
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: eh?

by Mr.Gib

SteelerHoo wrote:
Interesting on the M/L geometry change. The geometry on the Medium for '08 and '10 is exactly the same, so it made it easy to build the new bike, particularly with buying the same handlebars and stem.


OK, your older bike is an O8 not an 07. I was certain those two years were absolutely identical but Giant shows different head tube angles for the medium size (the 07 is 72.5 vs 73 for the 08). Could be an error in their charts. A minor mystery. Oh well enjoy the bikes.
wheelsONfire wrote: When we ride disc brakes the whole deal of braking is just like a leaving a fart. It happens and then it's over. Nothing planned and nothing to get nervous for.

KBBS
Posts: 1
Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2012 2:20 pm

by KBBS

Having the same frame (2010 TCR Adv. SL ISP) and finding it one of the most comfortable carbon frame sets, I don't understand your choice in handlebars. Why not go with carbon bars, when you've spent so much on the rest of your setup? Do you have any special criteria that require the extra rigidity of the aluminum handlebars?

I don't really care much about saving a few grams here and there, I'm much concerned with comfort on the bike, as being comfortable on long rides, will enable you to focus on riding, rather than sore hands and arms.

addicted
Posts: 889
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2007 5:56 pm

by addicted

KBBS wrote:Having the same frame (2010 TCR Adv. SL ISP) and finding it one of the most comfortable carbon frame sets, I don't understand your choice in handlebars. Why not go with carbon bars, when you've spent so much on the rest of your setup? Do you have any special criteria that require the extra rigidity of the aluminum handlebars?

I don't really care much about saving a few grams here and there, I'm much concerned with comfort on the bike, as being comfortable on long rides, will enable you to focus on riding, rather than sore hands and arms.


I've never heard of anyone curing sore hands/arms by switching from aluminum to carbon bars. Same goes for seat post material. Comfort comes from position on the bike, saddle choice and tire pressure, IMHO.

Post Reply