Frame size, new bike fitting, questions

Discuss light weight issues concerning road bikes & parts.
User avatar
fa63
Posts: 2264
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 7:26 am
Location: Atlanta, GA, US

by fa63

How much spacers do you run with the Time?

User avatar
dgasmd
Posts: 1300
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2007 5:10 am
Location: South Florida

by dgasmd

None. Stem is slammed!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

ekloewen
Posts: 11
Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2014 5:55 am

by ekloewen

My apologies if this is a topic that has been discussed before, but I've googled every possible incarnation of my question and have yet to find a definitive answer.

I have an opportunity to buy a 56 cm (MED) BH G6, full Sram Red, 2013 at an absolute steal.

Wondering if anyone has ever had any experiences with the G5 (same geo) or the G6? OR any other BH frames for that matter?

I'm 181 cm (5'11 ish), 170 lbs, and usually ride a 56 cm on all my bikes. I currently own a 56 CAAD 10, and rode a foil last year. I know stack and reach are quite a bit different on a 56 foil vs a 56 BH, but I sat on the BH, and although it felt great, it does LOOK smaller than my foil and my CAAD.

Anyway, if ANYONE could potentially give me a heads up to what they have, it would be greatly appreciated. FWIW, I have a 33" inseam, and am mostly torso.

Thanks again!

User avatar
fa63
Posts: 2264
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 7:26 am
Location: Atlanta, GA, US

by fa63

dgasmd wrote:None. Stem is slammed!


I looked up the geometries for both, made some assumptions (such as the head tube angle for the Colnago which is not listed, and fork lengths/rake and BB drop being the same for both frames) and looks like a traditional size 52 C59 will give a very similar fit to your Time ZXRS XS if you use a 110mm stem (makes the reach about 5mm longer than your time) or a 100mm stem (makes te reach about 5 mm shorter compared to your Time), and 8 to 10mm of spacers under the stem (assuming 5mm tall headset cap for both).

Looks like a 48s (sloping) would have pretty much the same effect also (except the head tube is a couple mm taller so you could use less spacers).

User avatar
dgasmd
Posts: 1300
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2007 5:10 am
Location: South Florida

by dgasmd

fa63 wrote:
dgasmd wrote:None. Stem is slammed!


I looked up the geometries for both, made some assumptions (such as the head tube angle for the Colnago which is not listed, and fork lengths/rake and BB drop being the same for both frames) and looks like a traditional size 52 C59 will give a very similar fit to your Time ZXRS XS if you use a 110mm stem (makes the reach about 5mm longer than your time) or a 100mm stem (makes te reach about 5 mm shorter compared to your Time), and 8 to 10mm of spacers under the stem (assuming 5mm tall headset cap for both).

Looks like a 48s (sloping) would have pretty much the same effect also (except the head tube is a couple mm taller so you could use less spacers).


Thanks for the reply and work. That is pretty close to what I had figured from just eye balling it online. Needing the spacer for the Colnago would be fantastic as I could use the front end being lower, but currently can't as I am limited by the head tube size in the Time. The front end sits higher than my Look 595, but because the reach is longer on the Time it sort of compensates a tiny bit having me more "stretched out".
:beerchug: :beerchug:

photocycler
Posts: 86
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2013 6:19 pm
Location: Portland, Oregon

by photocycler

Looking at a new frame and trying to determine sizing. My current bike has a external headset with about 25mm in spacers and a 100mm stem. I would like to replicate this fit.

Below is my current geo along with 2 options for the new frame

Current Bike:
Head Tube Angle:71.5
Seat Tube Angle: 74.2
Top Tube: 530 mm
Head Tube Length:125 mm
Stack: 540.0 mm
Reach: 377.2 mm

New Bike:
Small
Head Tube Angle:72
Seat Tube Angle: 74
Top Tube: 520 mm
Head Tube Length:120 mm
Stack: 53.51
Reach: 36.57

Medium:
Head Tube Angle:72
Seat Tube Angle: 74
Top Tube: 530 mm
Head Tube Length:135 mm
Stack:54.86
Reach: 36.62

User avatar
DMF
Posts: 1062
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 10:14 am
Location: Sweden

by DMF

They both pretty much seem the same thing and near identical fit between the S and M. Get the M to loose a few spacers, and a 10mm or so taller stem.

fitty4
Posts: 350
Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2009 9:19 pm
Location: Denmark

by fitty4

I also vote M.

cyclenutnz
Posts: 764
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2006 5:18 am
Location: Cambridge, New Zealand
Contact:

by cyclenutnz

If the new model you're looking at has an integrated HS you're going to need a lot more stack than those options you've shown. Headset height likely 25-30mm which means a lot of spacers even on the M shown above
http://www.speedtheory.co.nz
http://www.velogicfit.com - 3D Motion Capture and Frame Finder Software

photocycler
Posts: 86
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2013 6:19 pm
Location: Portland, Oregon

by photocycler

cyclenutnz wrote:If the new model you're looking at has an integrated HS you're going to need a lot more stack than those options you've shown. Headset height likely 25-30mm which means a lot of spacers even on the M shown above


It does not have a integrated HS. I plan to run a Chris King which adds some nice height

g32ecs
Posts: 143
Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2013 2:50 am

by g32ecs

Old bike:

Seat angle: 73.5
ETT: 53.5
Stack: 530
Reach: 378
Stem: 90mm
head tube: 133 + 10mm spacers

New bike:

Seat angle: 74.5
ETT: 51.1
Stack: 52.4
Reach: 366
Stem: 110mm
head tube: 132 no spacers

Am I in the same position as I was before or does the new bike look longer? How much does a degree differ in terms on the seat angle?

I feel that the new bike feels longer BUT I think it's because my position has gone lower on the headtube , but I'll let you guys decide on the geometry first.

GT56
Posts: 571
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 9:40 am
Location: Switzerland

by GT56

g32ecs wrote:Old bike:

Seat angle: 73.5
ETT: 53.5
Stack: 530
Reach: 378
Stem: 90mm
head tube: 133 + 10mm spacers

New bike:

Seat angle: 74.5
ETT: 51.1
Stack: 52.4
Reach: 366
Stem: 110mm
head tube: 132 no spacers

Am I in the same position as I was before or does the new bike look longer? How much does a degree differ in terms on the seat angle?

I feel that the new bike feels longer BUT I think it's because my position has gone lower on the headtube , but I'll let you guys decide on the geometry first.


provided you position your saddle in the same spot in relation to the bottom bracket the seat tube angle does not matter

simply adding reach and stem lenght you'll find that your overall reach increases by a little less than 1 cm (again, proviced the saddle is in the same spot)

boots2000
Posts: 1438
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 9:28 pm

by boots2000

Hi,
I am looking at getting a Canyon Aeroad CF in a size medium and I have some questions for owners/dealers.
1.) My saddle height is 73.2- will that look funny on the medium? Headtube length on size small is way too small.
2.) On bikecad it shows that I would need the 16mm topcap and 7mm of spacers to get exact height.
Do spacers look funny on top af that Acros topcap? Are their other options?
3.) What is the actual length of the seat collar above the toptube on the medium Aeroad CF? I know that the entire center to top measurement if 531mm. In picure collar looks to be about 2cm?
4.) also wondering if the Aeroad CF fits fat wheels- Specifically Zipp 303 Firecrest? or is it tight?
5.) Lastly wondering about cable routing. I guess you have to choose mecahinal or electronic- is it convertible in both directions? Or one or the other?
Anyone have pics of a setup that would be similar to what I would have?
Feedback and pics appreciated!

Valbrona
Posts: 1485
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:25 am
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

by Valbrona

boots2000 wrote:1.) My saddle height is 73.2- will that look funny on the medium? Headtube length on size small is way too small.


Sometimes you can fall in love with a frame but the geometry can be unsuitable for your needs. If you and the type of cycling you do is more suited to endurance-type frames - these typically have shorter reach and increased stack - then there might be other frames out there that you are more suited to.

boots2000
Posts: 1438
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 9:28 pm

by boots2000

Endurance frames have too much stack and not enough reach.

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post