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  [ 245 posts ] 
Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ... 17  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu May 02, 2013 2:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2013 12:34 pm
Posts: 53
bikerjulio wrote:
My conversion says that you are 5' 8".

Cannondale has this handy chart.

http://www.evanscycles.com/product_document/file/e60/9e4/ed6/676/cannondale-road-bike-sizing-chart.pdf

Which puts OP squarely on a 54 Cannondale.


It's really more like 5'8.25". At least that is what my ego keeps telling me. :wink:


Top
 Profile  
 
Posted: Thu May 02, 2013 2:19 pm 


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 02, 2013 2:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 9:40 am
Posts: 416
Location: Switzerland
AGW wrote:
I plugged the numbers in to ye olde bike comparator. If it's 100% accurate, you'd need a 95mm -6* stem on a 5cm spacer to have an identical position to your current one on the CAAD8. If you went with the 50cm SLR01, you'd need a 100mm stem on 25mm of spacers. Of course, one test ride is worth a thousand internet comparisons. Good luck!

SLR01 53 (red) compared to a CAAD8 using the geo chart you posted:
Image

Image


thanks, but this raises a few questions:

'height at top of headset' would correspond to 'stack' , right ?

then from where is 'handlebar height with spacers' measured, also from the bb ?

is yes, then a 20 mm difference between the two is hardly possible if the stack height of a stem is 40 mm alone, then add a raise because of the upward angle

there's no spacers used in your calculation, right ?

where do we find proof that a saddle to handlebar drop of 110 mm can be achieved ?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 02, 2013 3:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 2:11 pm
Posts: 400
Location: Tucson, AZ
I used 10mm of extra headset height (or I could have added as spacer height instead) on the CAAD8 to match the OP's bearing cover height, but SLR01 is slammed. I think you're right that it's calculating stack, and it's only about 3-4mm off from what BMC publishes, but I have no idea what the stack is for a '04-'05 CAAD8 to compare. Also, BMC didn't publish its fork rake, and I don't know if that affects the output calc for stack in the spreadsheet. Perhaps someone with BikeCAD and a lot of free time can do an overlay? That would also produce a bar drop figure.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 02, 2013 3:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2013 12:34 pm
Posts: 53
OK, I think I can answer my question now.

I stripped the CAAD8 down to the bare frame and took it to a friends tool & die shop. We locked the frame in a jig and used the front and rear axles to ensure that the frame was sitting level. We then built a tool that inserted into the bottom bracket that had one rod going vertical and another on a 90* that we could raise and lower. While this wasn't the most accurate measuring tool in the world, we ended up with a stack of 533 mm and a reach of 382 mm.

There may be a +/- in there somewhere, but this should but me perfectly on a 50 cm SLR01.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 02, 2013 4:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2013 2:50 am
Posts: 80
I'm 5'7 and ride a 50. Kinda wished I went for a 48.

50 should be perfect for you.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 02, 2013 4:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 2:11 pm
Posts: 400
Location: Tucson, AZ
That posted geo chart matches the one for a 2004 R1000 I found with the wayback machine. In bikecad. You're right on on reach (381), but I got a stack of 554. You'd fit on either frame, the difference is mostly going to be 20mm of spacers.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 02, 2013 4:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 9:40 am
Posts: 416
Location: Switzerland
DaleRider wrote:
OK, I think I can answer my question now.

I stripped the CAAD8 down to the bare frame and took it to a friends tool & die shop. We locked the frame in a jig and used the front and rear axles to ensure that the frame was sitting level. We then built a tool that inserted into the bottom bracket that had one rod going vertical and another on a 90* that we could raise and lower. While this wasn't the most accurate measuring tool in the world, we ended up with a stack of 533 mm and a reach of 382 mm.

There may be a +/- in there somewhere, but this should but me perfectly on a 50 cm SLR01.



have you still got the caad 8 ? to be 'really' sure, you could measure the headtube lenght and relate that to a period cannondale geo table


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 02, 2013 5:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2013 12:34 pm
Posts: 53
AGW wrote:
That posted geo chart matches the one for a 2004 R1000 I found with the wayback machine. In bikecad. You're right on on reach (381), but I got a stack of 554. You'd fit on either frame, the difference is mostly going to be 20mm of spacers.


I typed a little to quickly. The stack was 543 mm, but its easy to see where I could be off by as much as 10 mm.

I spoke with the guy who has done my last three yearly fittings and his words were "If you plan in racing again go with the 50. If all your going to do is charity rides and Gran Fondos, get the 53".

I refuse to do another crit again, but there has been some really cool road races popping up in Michigan and Ohio lately. So I'll have the local BMC dealer order up the 50.

Thanks for all the help with what should have been a simple decision.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 02, 2013 5:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 9:40 am
Posts: 416
Location: Switzerland
DaleRider wrote:
AGW wrote:
That posted geo chart matches the one for a 2004 R1000 I found with the wayback machine. In bikecad. You're right on on reach (381), but I got a stack of 554. You'd fit on either frame, the difference is mostly going to be 20mm of spacers.


I typed a little to quickly. The stack was 543 mm, but its easy to see where I could be off by as much as 10 mm.

I spoke with the guy who has done my last three yearly fittings and his words were "If you plan in racing again go with the 50. If all your going to do is charity rides and Gran Fondos, get the 53".

I refuse to do another crit again, but there has been some really cool road races popping up in Michigan and Ohio lately. So I'll have the local BMC dealer order up the 50.

Thanks for all the help with what should have been a simple decision.


you won't regret it, pls post pics when ready


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 02, 2013 5:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2013 12:34 pm
Posts: 53
WIll do. I've been wanting a BMC for a long time now so this will be like my dream bike build.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 03, 2013 12:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2013 12:34 pm
Posts: 53
Well, last night at our local shop ride there was a gent there with a 53 cm Pro Machine that was kind enough to let me spin on it for a few miles. I am so glad that he did as ordering the 50 would have been a bad choice. His frame had a 100 mm stem slammed on to the top cap, and the reach/stack felt even better than my CAAD8. He didn't have a power meter on his bike to confirm it, but I actually felt like I was making more power with less effort (lower heart rate, same cadence).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 03, 2013 12:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 1087
Location: Toronto
DaleRider wrote:
Well, last night at our local shop ride there was a gent there with a 53 cm Pro Machine that was kind enough to let me spin on it for a few miles. I am so glad that he did as ordering the 50 would have been a bad choice. His frame had a 100 mm stem slammed on to the top cap, and the reach/stack felt even better than my CAAD8. He didn't have a power meter on his bike to confirm it, but I actually felt like I was making more power with less effort (lower heart rate, same cadence).


Isn't that the setup I told you to go with???? :thumbup:

_________________
There's sometimes a buggy.
How many drivers does a buggy have?

One.

So let's just say I'm drivin' this buggy...
and if you fix your attitude you can ride along with me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GekiIMh4ZkM


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 03, 2013 12:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2013 12:34 pm
Posts: 53
:beerchug: Yup


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 04, 2013 1:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 28, 2013 1:11 am
Posts: 31
I'm thinking about buying a new tarmac or venge. My current 8 year old Trek is a 56 - so up until now I have thought that was my size. Recently it has come to my attention that I should be looking for a 58.
What do you think?
Here are my measurements:
Bare feet
Inseam: 33
Trunk: 26
Forearm: 12.5
Arm: 25.5
Thigh: 23.25
Lower Leg: 22
Sternal Notch: 59.5
Total Body Height: 72

On paper, would a 56 or 58 fit me better?

The measurements were taken alone by myself so they may be slightly inaccurate. I also plan on going in to get sized properly. But with all that aside it would be nice to know your opinion.
Thanks!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 04, 2013 5:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 24, 2006 1:26 pm
Posts: 2527
You have short legs and a long torso.

You can't compare frame size number between brands. What you really need to compare is the stack and reach, if they are listed. If not, then the next best thing is the head tube length to get an idea of the frame's true vertical size and the combination of TT length and seat tube angle to compare the reach. If the TT lengths are the same, but one frame has a numerically smaller STA, then the reach is shorter, by about 1cm per degree.

What you need to ask yourself is what is wrong with your current setup. Is your stem excessively long and/or your reach too short, due to your long torso? What makes you think that your current frame doesn't fit?


Top
 Profile  
 
Posted: Thu Jul 04, 2013 5:32 pm 


Top
  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 245 posts ] 
Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ... 17  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 36 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. Fitting mechanical to a Di2 frame

in Road

CIANSUTCLIFFE

6

745

Fri Apr 18, 2014 5:41 pm

SuperDave View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Frame aesthetic questions

in Road

vdrey

7

559

Mon May 26, 2014 1:20 pm

bikerjulio View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Principia Revolution SX 2009 frame size information

in Road

hoojammyflip

7

811

Wed Nov 27, 2013 12:33 pm

Krull View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Frame failure Carbon Road Bike

[ Go to page: 1, 2 ]

in Road

Tucker13

24

2246

Sun Aug 17, 2014 7:27 pm

mattr View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Seatpost suggestions and fitting feedback

[ Go to page: 1, 2 ]

in Road

CBJ

22

1072

Tue Feb 18, 2014 4:34 pm

CBJ View the latest post


It is currently Wed Oct 01, 2014 10:17 am

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