Do 'smaller' frames descend better ?

[diegogarcia]

I ride a M/L TCR ADV pro 1 which I think is a great bike and descends beautifully.

My friend rides a medium and typically, we can both ride both sizes. Had a go on his bike and felt a little more 'in the frame' rather than 'on the frame'.

As such, do smaller frames descend better or is it simply just fit ? We both ride frames fitted by our local fitter and reach on respective bikes is fine though if I went his size i'd run a longer stem.

Any thoughts on small frames ? I ask as I am invoking a warranty and may go for a smaller bike if I can, but no big deal.

Cheers.

[kgt]

The bike that descends better is the one that fits you.
Nowadays an M size is maybe 4-5 sizes smaller than a L one. IMHO one cannot fit both equally well but maybe an M with a longer stem fits you better.

[Asteroid]

Possibly has more to do with the lower center of gravity, rider included.
My 171.5cm (5-7.5") height seems to give me an advantage over the taller riders in my group.
Or maybe I'm slightly crazier.

[diegogarcia]

Both valid points. For me it kinda makes no odds as both bikes M and M/L have same seat tube angle / head tube angle at 73 degrees for both and to attain 'kops' I would be in the same place on the rails. The bigger frame gives me slightly more reach and a taller front end for comfort, flatter back and 'long rides', though I no doubt agree I could get the same thereabouts with a medium though the HT drops by 20mm hence feeling a little more ' in the bike ' ?

Here is my bike set up with 110mm stem and 75mm reach stock bars.

[53x12]

The bike that descends better is the one that fits you.
Nowadays an M size is maybe 4-5 sizes smaller than a L one. IMHO one cannot fit both equally well but maybe an M with a longer stem fits you better.

That makes zero sense. Go look at the stack and reach if most M vs L frames and the difference isn't as big as you are trying to make it sound.

[kgt]

Sizes have nothing to do with stack and reach.
I guess you know that most companies nowadays offer 4-5 sizes from size 48 to size 62 that's why L is not just one size bigger than M.

[53x12]

Sizes have nothing to do with stack and reach.
I guess you know that most companies nowadays offer 4-5 sizes from size 48 to size 62 that's why L is not just one size bigger than M.

Sizes have everything to do with stack and reach.

[kgt]

So seat tube angles do not matter?

[tranzformer]

Sizes have nothing to do with stack and reach.

Nothing?

[kgt]

Another 12 year old post by tranzformer as expected...

[wingguy]

So seat tube angles do not matter?

The seat tube angles of the specific bike and sizes being discussed are identical.

Could you please explain how the seat tube angle not changing creates a bigger difference than the stack and reach which does change?

[wingguy]

The bigger frame gives me slightly more reach and a taller front end for comfort, flatter back and 'long rides', though I no doubt agree I could get the same thereabouts with a medium though the HT drops by 20mm hence feeling a little more ' in the bike ' ?

Here is my bike set up with 110mm stem and 75mm reach stock bars.

Instant observation - you're running with nearly 2cm of spacers. If the extra drop of your friend's M was what made you feel more 'in the bike' then you could just run the ML slammed. Instant style points.

Otherwise, if you got the M then decided you wanted to be higher again you'd have to use the whole spacer stack. Then you'd look like a sportiver

[53x12]

So seat tube angles do not matter?

Are you just trolling at this point?

For a Giant TCR Advanced like the OP was asking about, no, seat tube angles do not matter as the M, M/L, and L all have the same seat tube angle = 73 degrees.



But even moving away from this example, most manufacturers don't vary the seat tube angle much between a M or L, if at all.


Canyon Ultimate:




Cervelo R5:




Felt AR:




Felt FR:

[kgt]

@53X12 I was talking in gerneral. Let's be specific:

So, in your opinion, 2.1-2.2cm in stack and 0.8-0.9cms in reach (Felt) or 2.5cm in stack and 0.9cm in reach (Cervelo) or 2.5cm in stack and 0.8cm in reach (Canyon) or 1.4inch in stack 0.7inches is something negligible?

[53x12]

@53X12 I was talking in gerneral. Let's be specific:

Why are you talking in general when the OP is specifically talking about a Giant TCR? You could have at least spent the 30 seconds to look at the geometry before commenting, then you would have realized the seat tube angles are the same. My response was specific and why I linked the geometry table with the information in question outlines in a red box.

I was also general in my response, as I showed that across different manufacturers, the M vs. L there isn't a major difference, if any difference at all, between the M vs. L in regards to seat tube angles.

So, in your opinion, 2.1-2.2cm in stack and 0.8-0.9cms in reach (Felt) or 2.5cm in stack and 0.9cm in reach (Cervelo) or 2.5cm in stack and 0.8cm in reach (Canyon) or 1.4inch in stack 0.7inches is something negligible?

In reference to your original reply:

Nowadays an M size is maybe 4-5 sizes smaller than a L one. IMHO one cannot fit both equally well but maybe an M with a longer stem fits you better.

you are incorrect. A M size is not 4-5 sizes smaller than a L one.