Weight Weenies
* FAQ    * Search    * Trending Topics
* Login   * Register
HOME Listings Blog NEW Galleries NEW FAQ Contact About Impressum
It is currently Mon Sep 25, 2017 7:20 am

All times are UTC+01:00





Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 56 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 3 4 Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Jul 03, 2017 4:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 7:31 pm
Posts: 456
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.


Top
   
Posted: Mon Jul 03, 2017 4:44 pm 


Top
   
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 03, 2017 5:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 10:29 am
Posts: 6535
Location: Athens, Greece
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.

_________________
My 6538gr TIME Skylon
My 9733gr COLNAGO Master X-light


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Jul 03, 2017 5:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2016 8:43 pm
Posts: 184
Location: Los Angeles, California
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. :exactly:

_________________
Oldbie


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Jul 03, 2017 5:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 7:31 pm
Posts: 456
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.

Image


Last edited by diegogarcia on Mon Jul 03, 2017 5:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Jul 03, 2017 5:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 6:02 am
Posts: 3732
Location: On the bike
kgt wrote:
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.

_________________
"Marginal gains are the only gains when all that's left to gain is in the margins."


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Jul 03, 2017 5:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 10:29 am
Posts: 6535
Location: Athens, Greece
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.

_________________
My 6538gr TIME Skylon
My 9733gr COLNAGO Master X-light


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Jul 03, 2017 5:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 6:02 am
Posts: 3732
Location: On the bike
kgt wrote:
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.

_________________
"Marginal gains are the only gains when all that's left to gain is in the margins."


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Jul 03, 2017 6:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 10:29 am
Posts: 6535
Location: Athens, Greece
So seat tube angles do not matter?

_________________
My 6538gr TIME Skylon
My 9733gr COLNAGO Master X-light


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Jul 03, 2017 6:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:36 pm
Posts: 870
kgt wrote:
Sizes have nothing to do with stack and reach.


Nothing?

Image


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Jul 03, 2017 6:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 10:29 am
Posts: 6535
Location: Athens, Greece
Another 12 year old post by tranzformer as expected...

_________________
My 6538gr TIME Skylon
My 9733gr COLNAGO Master X-light


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Jul 03, 2017 6:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 11:43 pm
Posts: 3284
kgt wrote:
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?


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Jul 03, 2017 6:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 11:43 pm
Posts: 3284
diegogarcia wrote:
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 :P


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Jul 03, 2017 6:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 6:02 am
Posts: 3732
Location: On the bike
kgt wrote:
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.

Image

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:

Image


Cervelo R5:

Image


Felt AR:

Image


Felt FR:

Image

_________________
"Marginal gains are the only gains when all that's left to gain is in the margins."


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Jul 03, 2017 7:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 10:29 am
Posts: 6535
Location: Athens, Greece
@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?

_________________
My 6538gr TIME Skylon
My 9733gr COLNAGO Master X-light


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Jul 03, 2017 7:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 6:02 am
Posts: 3732
Location: On the bike
kgt wrote:
@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.


kgt wrote:
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:

kgt wrote:
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.

_________________
"Marginal gains are the only gains when all that's left to gain is in the margins."


Top
   
Posted: Mon Jul 03, 2017 7:38 pm 


Top
   
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 56 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 3 4 Next

   Similar Topics   Author   Replies   Views   Last post 
There are no new unread posts for this topic. Carbon, Clincher, Tubeless, Rim brakes .. would you descend Alps?

[ Go to page: 1 2 ]

in Everything wheels

amey

17

2097

Mon Dec 19, 2016 3:57 pm

amey View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. What's the difference between brand name and smaller brand wheels?

[ Go to page: 1 2 ]

in Everything wheels

buhx2

21

2218

Wed May 31, 2017 7:08 am

Beaver View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Between frame sizes - : Going larger frame vs going smaller frame

[ Go to page: 1 2 ]

in Road

jeffy

16

1204

Sun Jul 09, 2017 11:03 pm

sooni View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Is carbon lugged dead? Have modern monocoque frames usurped carbon lugged frames outside of just weight?

[ Go to page: 1 2 ]

in Road

tranzformer

17

2107

Sat Jul 22, 2017 4:14 pm

spartacus View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Legend frames

in Road

blueturtle

4

1554

Sun Jan 29, 2017 1:43 am

phillipivan View the latest post


All times are UTC+01:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: DOUG and 10 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited