HOT: Active* forum members generally gain 5% discount at starbike.com store!
Weight Weenies
* FAQ    * Search    * Trending Topics
* Login   * Register
HOME Listings Articles FAQ Contact About




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 48 posts ] 
Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Jul 31, 2012 7:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 6:48 pm
Posts: 20
i will make a long story short (excuse the pun)..... i have never had a properly fitted bike, being a short male (163cm tall, 72cm inseam, short torso, short arms and small hands and small feet and far too small other parts too...... but thats for a totally different message board.... i digress)

bottomline, with short arms and feet and torso i have never had a bike that fitted me properly on the top tube/reach.... i am determined to get the proper bike this time around and want to get a bike that is on the SMALL side and not the BIG side.... my local specialneeds dealer sold me a 52cm (53.7 TT!!!!) tarmac..... i must have been wearing 6" heels that day and had arm extensions on, otherwise i dont know what he was thinking..... i had to sell the bike and now i want to get one that fits

i like to ride aggresive and fast, not a racer but i want an aggresive style bike fit..... i have good flexibility and range of motion and am looking to get as aero as i can

here is my dilema, i cannot decide between the xs (48) or the xxs (46) Argon 18 gallium..... i am leaning towards the xxs.... when i tested them, once the xxs was setup for my inseam, the seat heigth was very reasonably a couple cms higher compared to the bars (w/all the spacers underneath) which would suggest the xxs is a reasonable fit... if i am not mistaken, he had to move the seat fwd on the rails when i tested the xs to get my KOPS, thus suggesting the xs is on the big side for me (i have short femurs too)? anyway, here are the dimensions....

xxs/xs ST angle 75.5/74.5
xxs/xs HT length (not comparable to a regular frame cause the gallium has a lower BB and therefore can remove some of the bottom of the head tube) on xxs adjustable from 7.7cm to 10.1 cm/ on xs adjustable from 8.2cm to 10.6 cm
xxs/xs TT 50.2/52
xxs/xs HT angle 71/72

i rode the frame in size xs and xxs..... the xs felt good but i felt more "on top" of the bike on the xxs, my butt felt like it was glued to the saddle on the xxs and i felt very nicely balanced (actually could ride it no hands for kms on end, which i could never do for even a second on the tarmac but that may have less to do with my for/aft balance on the bike and more to do with the different f/e geometry on the two bikes.... regardless, even with the 70mm stem on the xxs, the bike felt very comfy... as for the xs, i still felt my arms were a tad extended riding the xs (it had a 90mm stem which really wouldnt give me much room to shorten), the xxs had a 70mm stem and even tho the stem was too small, the bike did not feel overly cramped... when riding the xs, the front hub was obscured by the bars... when riding the xxs, the stem appears to be a tad short as i could see the hub just in fron of the bars so clearly the xxs would need probably a 90mm stem too

my question is, i am leaning towards the xxs but is it TOO small for me? any other short riders care to comment? coming off my tarmac with a 53.7 tt, the 52 tt on the xs scares me a little... my reach to the hoods felt very comfy and natural on the xxs and with a lower head tube on the xxs, im going to be able to get real low but my main concern is getting a proper fit

any thoughts? can i go with the xxs?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 31, 2012 7:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2006 6:35 am
Posts: 5020
Location: New York
You've been answering your own questions go with the xxs.

_________________
I never took drugs to improve my performance at any time. I will be willing to stick my finger into a polygraph test if anyone with big media pull wants to take issue. If you buy a signed poster now it will not be tarnished later. --Graeme Obree


Top
 Profile  
 
Posted: Tue Jul 31, 2012 7:49 pm 


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 6:48 pm
Posts: 20
stella-azzurra wrote:
You've been answering your own questions go with the xxs.



thx.... u r right but i just need a little peer pressure :roll:

i guess the only intangible is the fact that i have never really ridden a properly fitted bike so its hard for me to know how my hands should feel across the top tube and down to the bars.... when i was fitted on a different 48 (super6), the fitter immediately asked "do u want the bar hoods tipped a little fwd?" after he saw me reach a little far to them and that bike had a 51.5cm TT.... the reach to the bars felt very natural on the xxs argon and it did not seem overly cramped but i dont want to go too short

i guess my real question is that i am unsure how long i want my top tube to be? i have ridden bikes with 51.5/52 effective top tubes that felt either really long or not too bad depending on the geometry so that confuses me even more.... does 50.2cm effective TT sound too short for someone my size?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jul 29, 2006 2:36 am
Posts: 1184
Location: UK
Looking at the info you've given the XXS has a much steeper STA. You'll have to move your saddle back to compensate effectively increasing the TT length.
For instance if your BB to Saddle measurement is 65cm you'd have to move it back 11mm. It means the TTs are getting pretty close.

It would then come down to HT length. Would you need too many spacers on the XXS or can you get low enough on the XS.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 31, 2012 9:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2010 10:24 am
Posts: 595
I'm just a little bit taller than you and I also have a short torso. I have really struggled to find a bike that fits in terms of reach. 53 top tube was too long for me even with an 80mm stem. The XXS sounds ideal for you. I also like aggressive geometry so the shorter head tube is definitely a plus.

Edit: You might also want to consider the Pro lite Cuneo frame. It's even smaller in the top tube and it's actually lighter than the Gallium despite it being aluminium. About 1k cheaper as well, you could perhaps treat yourself to some nice wheels.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 31, 2012 9:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 6:48 pm
Posts: 20
CarpetFibre wrote:
I'm just a little bit taller than you and I also have a short torso. I have really struggled to find a bike that fits in terms of reach. 53 top tube was too long for me even with an 80mm stem. The XXS sounds ideal for you. I also like aggressive geometry so the shorter head tube is definitely a plus.


thanks... that is exactly the type of feedback i was looking for... so often i find bike shops and fitters dont properly understand what its like to have short torso and arms and hands

btw, what size bike do u ride?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 31, 2012 9:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2010 10:24 am
Posts: 595
Well I just sold my Storck which had a 52.3cm top tube. It was too long for me even with a 75mm stem, although I think I didn't get on with it so well more because the head tube was way too tall at 127mm. I'm trying to find something with around a 50cm top tube - seriously considering the Pro Lite Cuneo.

However my other option is to ride my old Trek 1500 frame which had a 52 top tube. I really liked the way it rode even with an 80mm stem and short reach handlebars. The handling was spot on and the stem didn't look to short as the head tube was very short.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 31, 2012 9:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 10:26 pm
Posts: 140
Location: New Zealand
You cannot compare Eff TT lengths in small bikes to get a good idea of the size between bikes. Most manufacturers mess round with STA and HTA so much on the small sizes the only effective way to compare sizes is with reach and stack and then double check you can actually get the saddle setback you actually need.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 31, 2012 9:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 10, 2011 9:55 pm
Posts: 6
CamW wrote:
You cannot compare Eff TT lengths in small bikes to get a good idea of the size between bikes. Most manufacturers mess round with STA and HTA so much on the small sizes the only effective way to compare sizes is with reach and stack and then double check you can actually get the saddle setback you actually need.


I think STA matters more than EFF TT. Do you want to try neuvation f100 bike in 48cm? They have 73 deg STA for all the sizes.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 31, 2012 9:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2006 5:18 am
Posts: 588
Location: Cambridge, New Zealand
You've got an 8mm stack and 6mm reach difference. XXS would feel more stable no hands as the trail is ~70mm (like an MTB) = good for low speed handling.

Only 1mm difference in front centre so toe overlap is hardly a consideration. Also weight distribution will be nearly identical.
So there are no advantages to the XS and going with the XXS gives you more flexibility on stem/bar choice.

_________________
http://www.speedtheory.co.nz


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 01, 2012 1:04 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:52 pm
Posts: 187
Location: eNZed
cos 75.5deg = 0.250380004 420 105.1596017 502 396.8403983
cos 74.5deg = 0.267238376 420 112.240118 520 407.759882
There is a reach difference of 9mm between the two frames with the seat-tube length set at 420mm (you want to make the seat tube length constant so that you're comparing correctly). So, if your seat placement is set the same on both frames (the same distance behind the bottom bracket on both bikes) the stem lengths should be less than 20mm difference (diff between the two stems you used). A really good LBS would've set the bikes up like that, but let's not be presumptious. I would suggest that you go back to the bike shop and both bikes set up the same (ie same distance of seat tip behind bottom bracket and same distance within a few mm from seat tip to handle bars straight) and ride those bikes again. Then make your choice.

I'm 165cm tall and recently had a look at the Argon18 and made the above mathematical calculations. My want is a low front end (the Argon18 is the only off-the-rack frame that has short enough head tube) but my worry was too steep a seat tube necessitating a seat post with huge setback (perhaps not a problem for you as you have short femur).

I decided to go custom and have ordered a custom steelie from English Cycles :up:

_________________
Less is more.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 01, 2012 1:13 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:52 pm
Posts: 187
Location: eNZed
Oooops! 407-396 = 11mm difference.

Also longer stem has effect of slower steering: another reason why you could ride no hands.

_________________
Less is more.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 01, 2012 1:33 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2006 5:18 am
Posts: 588
Location: Cambridge, New Zealand
shimmeD wrote:
cos 75.5deg = 0.250380004 420 105.1596017 502 396.8403983
cos 74.5deg = 0.267238376 420 112.240118 520 407.759882
There is a reach difference of 9mm between the two frames with the seat-tube length set at 420mm (you want to make the seat tube length constant so that you're comparing correctly).


Seat tube length has nothing to do with frame reach (defined as distance from bb to centre of HT). As I said above - the difference in frame reach is 6mm. Which means that for same saddle position and bar height there will be a 6mm difference in reach to the bars.

Quote:
Also longer stem has effect of slower steering: another reason why you could ride no hands.


You should really think a bit more about this claim.

_________________
http://www.speedtheory.co.nz


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 01, 2012 1:59 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:52 pm
Posts: 187
Location: eNZed
Cyclenutz, with all due respect I stand by my comparison method between the 2 frames. If you don't use the same seat tube length to calulate the set-back, you're not comparing apples with apples. Lets say seat-tube length on the smaller frame is 400 and the larger is 420mm. If you use 420mm you're thus moving up the horizontal line to the same level as the larger frame. So I get 11mm difference.

_________________
Less is more.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 01, 2012 2:27 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 6:48 pm
Posts: 20
CarpetFibre wrote:
Well I just sold my Storck which had a 52.3cm top tube. It was too long for me even with a 75mm stem, although I think I didn't get on with it so well more because the head tube was way too tall at 127mm. I'm trying to find something with around a 50cm top tube - seriously considering the Pro Lite Cuneo.

However my other option is to ride my old Trek 1500 frame which had a 52 top tube. I really liked the way it rode even with an 80mm stem and short reach handlebars. The handling was spot on and the stem didn't look to short as the head tube was very short.


i had never checked out pro lite bikes before.... very cool but i am limited in the options of frames i check out around here due to there being only a limited number of dealers in my area


Top
 Profile  
 
Posted: Wed Aug 01, 2012 2:27 am 


Top
  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 48 posts ] 
Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: amey, Bing [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], Seneb and 41 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:  

   Similar Topics   Author   Replies   Views   Last post 
There are no new unread posts for this topic. Look frame choice - 586 vs 595 vs 695

[ Go to page: 1, 2 ]

in Road

thencameyou

17

1443

Wed Jan 22, 2014 2:48 pm

denvertrout View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Why is there that difference on my frame

in Road

isa

2

468

Wed May 07, 2014 4:45 pm

isa View the latest post

This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies. Best carbon frame?

in Road

myndog

7

1318

Mon Dec 09, 2013 2:13 pm

Frankie - B View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Attachment(s) Yonex 650 gram frame

[ Go to page: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ]

in Road

virenque

63

10854

Thu Sep 11, 2014 9:29 am

dogg View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Refurbishing and ALU/carbon frame

in Road

themyers

2

353

Mon Mar 17, 2014 8:17 am

themyers View the latest post


It is currently Tue Oct 21, 2014 11:12 pm

All times are UTC + 1 hour




Advertising   –  FAQ   –  Contact   –  Convert   –  About

© Weight Weenies 2000-2013
hosted by starbike.com


How to get rid of these ads? Just register!


Powered by phpBB