Long legs, short torso - 'race' frame options

Discuss light weight issues concerning road bikes & parts.
raymondbroeren
Posts: 17
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2014 11:45 am

by raymondbroeren

Lemond75 wrote:Does your next bike have to be carbon?

Just thinking that something like a Tommasini Fire or a Condor Super Accaio could be custom built to your requirements and probably within, if not below your budget based upon the frames you've listed. The Tommasini retails at around £1500 including fork and is available with custom geometry at not extra cost, and the Super Accaio is £1300 for a stock frame and an additional £150 for custom geometry.

I've just bought a Super Accaio and am very impressed with the build quality. I haven't ridden it on the road but it feels stiffer than the Giant TCR Advanced it replaced whilst on the rollers.

The Super Accaio was developed to provide all of the features that you'd expect on a race frame, ie tapered head tube and steerer, full carbon fork as well as an oversized BB for stiffness, but with the compliance that steel provides.

Food for thought perhaps?


Thanks for the suggestion, but I rather stick to carbon. As a 'climber' I actually wanted to achieve a lighter set-up than my current. With steel I would likely achieve the opposite.

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

by GT56

raymondbroeren wrote:
Lemond75 wrote:Does your next bike have to be carbon?

Just thinking that something like a Tommasini Fire or a Condor Super Accaio could be custom built to your requirements and probably within, if not below your budget based upon the frames you've listed. The Tommasini retails at around £1500 including fork and is available with custom geometry at not extra cost, and the Super Accaio is £1300 for a stock frame and an additional £150 for custom geometry.

I've just bought a Super Accaio and am very impressed with the build quality. I haven't ridden it on the road but it feels stiffer than the Giant TCR Advanced it replaced whilst on the rollers.

The Super Accaio was developed to provide all of the features that you'd expect on a race frame, ie tapered head tube and steerer, full carbon fork as well as an oversized BB for stiffness, but with the compliance that steel provides.

Food for thought perhaps?


Thanks for the suggestion, but I rather stick to carbon. As a 'climber' I actually wanted to achieve a lighter set-up than my current. With steel I would likely achieve the opposite.


yeah, and you never know what the ride quality (vertical compliance) will be like

just had a look at trek's domane (the standard version) - tall and short, that's what you need

raymondbroeren
Posts: 17
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2014 11:45 am

by raymondbroeren

GT56 wrote:
raymondbroeren wrote:
Lemond75 wrote:Does your next bike have to be carbon?

Just thinking that something like a Tommasini Fire or a Condor Super Accaio could be custom built to your requirements and probably within, if not below your budget based upon the frames you've listed. The Tommasini retails at around £1500 including fork and is available with custom geometry at not extra cost, and the Super Accaio is £1300 for a stock frame and an additional £150 for custom geometry.

I've just bought a Super Accaio and am very impressed with the build quality. I haven't ridden it on the road but it feels stiffer than the Giant TCR Advanced it replaced whilst on the rollers.

The Super Accaio was developed to provide all of the features that you'd expect on a race frame, ie tapered head tube and steerer, full carbon fork as well as an oversized BB for stiffness, but with the compliance that steel provides.

Food for thought perhaps?


Thanks for the suggestion, but I rather stick to carbon. As a 'climber' I actually wanted to achieve a lighter set-up than my current. With steel I would likely achieve the opposite.


yeah, and you never know what the ride quality (vertical compliance) will be like

just had a look at trek's domane (the standard version) - tall and short, that's what you need


Yep, Domane in 54 could work: 542 TT, 160 HT, 575 Stack 374 Reach. Maybe size 56 will also work. Reviews indicate that it handles / corners quite well.

Also wondering whether anyone has experience with the Giant Defy Advanced SL ISP? In size M: 545 TT, 165 HT, 570 stack and 375 reach. Based on this review - http://www.bikeradar.com/road/gear/category/bikes/road/product/review-giant-defy-advanced-2-13-47086/ - it should be a good bike.

If you would have to make a list of which type of bike is the better 'racer' of the endurance bikes available, what would be your number 1, 2, etc.? Please consider the Giant Defy, Roubaix SL4, Cannondale Synapse, Trek Domane, Time Fluidity S, or other endurance model.

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

by fa63

I am curious; I thought you had to run 60 mm of spacers with your old bike that had a stack of 575 mm and weren't happy about that, so why even look at bikes with 570-575 mm stack? Are we missing something?

Also, I got curious about your position so I drew up a size M Ridley in CAD. Entering in the information you gave (60 mm of spacers, 80 mm stem, 782 mm saddle height) I am not sure how you have a drop of 8.5 cm, unless you run your levers low on a classic bend bar. Do you have a side shot of your current bike that you can share?
Last edited by fa63 on Mon Feb 03, 2014 10:03 pm, edited 2 times in total.

TurboKoo
Posts: 435
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 7:55 pm

by TurboKoo

Can you think of putting stem upwards?
Scott Foil
Shimano 9150
Shimano FCR-9100-P
Shimano C60 tubulars

raymondbroeren
Posts: 17
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2014 11:45 am

by raymondbroeren

fa63 wrote:I am curious; I thought you had to run 60 mm of spacers with your old bike that had a stack of 575 mm and weren't happy about that, so why even look at bikes with 570-575 mm stack? Are we missing something?

Also, I got curious about your position so I drew up a size M Ridley in CAD. Entering in the information you gave (60 mm of spacers, 80 mm stem, 782 mm saddle height) I am not sure how you have a drop of 8.5 cm, unless you run your levers low on a classic bend bar. Do you have a side shot of your current bike that you can share?


Good point.

Here is a drawing made by the Bike fitting lab that suggested an Isaac Boson. Here you should hopefully be able to see what I need in terms of positioning: http://i59.tinypic.com/2cqe2wk.jpg

And here's a side shot from my Ridley: http://i57.tinypic.com/2m5z87q.jpg

My Ridley has a reach of 390 and TT of 560. The idea was, however, that a bike with a shorter reach (and even with a stack of 570-575) would allow me to fit a longer stem - probably with a slight offset - which on its turn would generate a further increase of the steer. I have to admit that this is a big uncertainty in my equation so far… and a stack of 590 would of course be better I guess. The latter goes for the Roubaix in size 56 with TT 565 and reach 387; with stem 90 and 3-3.5cm spacers the Roubaix should work according to the LBS. So, with a reach of 374 on the Domane size 54 I end up with a difference in reach of 13mm compared to the Roubaix and 16mm compared to the Ridley. I was hoping that the additional clearance in stem length would be sufficient to reach the same steer height, but then again there is also the slight variance in head-tube angle. So, honestly: I don't know anymore what's realistic and what's not… :(

tigoose
Posts: 234
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Mal Born, Oz.

by tigoose

i'm the same height with an 88.5cm inseam. Have you considered going to the smallest frame youcan with a comfortable toe overlap if any?
I've been fitted to 55 & 56cm frames and never felt good. My upper back would tighten up and that would be the day after the ride i'd feel it. Neck aches, fatigue etc..
It wasn't until i spoke to my osteopath about fit issues. He said it's ok to go low just not long. So from this i tried a 54.5cm top tubed frame and slammed the stem. It was'nt perfect but felt better than before. I noticed on rides i was using the drops out of comfort and wondered if i could set the bars lower???
I found a nos aluminium frame in a 53 cm with a 54cm top tube. Head angle slacker than seat so the gap closed. The bars are as low as i've ever been and the pressure has gone from my upper back. Bingo.
So i think with high bars it forced me into a semi push-up position accumulating in overall tension of my torso. So far so good.
good luck with it.

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

by fa63

That CAD drawing from your fitter doesn't seem to match the frame geometry published by Ridley (shows top tube as 545 mm, and the seat tube/head tube angles do not match either) or your particular setup (for instance, it is clear that you don't have a 100 mm stem). But regardless, from the picture you have posted and all the information you gave, I still think something like a 58 cm Trek Domane with a 90 mm stem might be the answer for you. I know you are thinking that because you run such a short stem now that you should look at "smaller" (54 cm) bikes so you can run a longer stem. However, as you can see from your frame Ridley tend to run quite long for their size, and a size "58" Trek Domane actually has 1 cm less reach than a size M Ridley while having 35 mm more stack which is what you need to reduce the amount of spacers you run (assuming you are comfortable with your current fit).

Another solution would be to buy a smaller frame but run a long but upturned stem (+10 or +17 degrees) if you don't mind the aesthetics. Or get a custom bike with a short top tube and long head tube and run whatever length stem you want.

RichTheRoadie
Tinker, Taylor, Tart
Posts: 2006
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2008 8:00 pm
Location: Sydney, Aus.

by RichTheRoadie

Colnago CX Zero?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

raymondbroeren
Posts: 17
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2014 11:45 am

by raymondbroeren

fa63 wrote:That CAD drawing from your fitter doesn't seem to match the frame geometry published by Ridley (shows top tube as 545 mm, and the seat tube/head tube angles do not match either) or your particular setup (for instance, it is clear that you don't have a 100 mm stem). But regardless, from the picture you have posted and all the information you gave, I still think something like a 58 cm Trek Domane with a 90 mm stem might be the answer for you. I know you are thinking that because you run such a short stem now that you should look at "smaller" (54 cm) bikes so you can run a longer stem. However, as you can see from your frame Ridley tend to run quite long for their size, and a size "58" Trek Domane actually has 1 cm less reach than a size M Ridley while having 35 mm more stack which is what you need to reduce the amount of spacers you run (assuming you are comfortable with your current fit).

Another solution would be to buy a smaller frame but run a long but upturned stem (+10 or +17 degrees) if you don't mind the aesthetics. Or get a custom bike with a short top tube and long head tube and run whatever length stem you want.


Thanks for thinking along and the effort putting everything in CAD.

Please note that the CAD drawing from the fitter does not regard the Ridley. This one has been made last week when trying out a few options (i.e Roubaix and Canyon). In addition the fitter came up with the idea of an Isaac Boson, for which this particular drawing was made; the positioning should however match exactly with my current position on the Ridley.

Seems that there are several votes for a Domane - also on another forum - so have put it on the top of my option list.

Colnago CX Zero may work as well - and I like the brand; I had two steel Colnagos in the past - but stack and reach numbers of the Domane are slightly better.

Hawkwood
Posts: 269
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 4:27 pm

by Hawkwood

raymondbroeren wrote:
fa63 wrote:I am curious; I thought you had to run 60 mm of spacers with your old bike that had a stack of 575 mm and weren't happy about that, so why even look at bikes with 570-575 mm stack? Are we missing something?

Also, I got curious about your position so I drew up a size M Ridley in CAD. Entering in the information you gave (60 mm of spacers, 80 mm stem, 782 mm saddle height) I am not sure how you have a drop of 8.5 cm, unless you run your levers low on a classic bend bar. Do you have a side shot of your current bike that you can share?


Good point.

Here is a drawing made by the Bike fitting lab that suggested an Isaac Boson. Here you should hopefully be able to see what I need in terms of positioning: http://i59.tinypic.com/2cqe2wk.jpg

And here's a side shot from my Ridley: http://i57.tinypic.com/2m5z87q.jpg

My Ridley has a reach of 390 and TT of 560. The idea was, however, that a bike with a shorter reach (and even with a stack of 570-575) would allow me to fit a longer stem - probably with a slight offset - which on its turn would generate a further increase of the steer. I have to admit that this is a big uncertainty in my equation so far… and a stack of 590 would of course be better I guess. The latter goes for the Roubaix in size 56 with TT 565 and reach 387; with stem 90 and 3-3.5cm spacers the Roubaix should work according to the LBS. So, with a reach of 374 on the Domane size 54 I end up with a difference in reach of 13mm compared to the Roubaix and 16mm compared to the Ridley. I was hoping that the additional clearance in stem length would be sufficient to reach the same steer height, but then again there is also the slight variance in head-tube angle. So, honestly: I don't know anymore what's realistic and what's not… :(


I'm getting confused, how will you get a saddle/handlebar drop of 82mm on the size 52 Boson with just 43mm of spacers, when it's taking 60mm of spacers on the Ridley which is a larger frame with longer headtube, plus they both have similar head-tube angles? Will having a longer stem make this difference? Judging by your set-up on the Ridley it looks like you need a frame with a longer head-tube, as you're at the extreme as it is with 60mm of spacers.

raymondbroeren
Posts: 17
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2014 11:45 am

by raymondbroeren

Hawkwood wrote:
raymondbroeren wrote:
fa63 wrote:I am curious; I thought you had to run 60 mm of spacers with your old bike that had a stack of 575 mm and weren't happy about that, so why even look at bikes with 570-575 mm stack? Are we missing something?

Also, I got curious about your position so I drew up a size M Ridley in CAD. Entering in the information you gave (60 mm of spacers, 80 mm stem, 782 mm saddle height) I am not sure how you have a drop of 8.5 cm, unless you run your levers low on a classic bend bar. Do you have a side shot of your current bike that you can share?


Good point.

Here is a drawing made by the Bike fitting lab that suggested an Isaac Boson. Here you should hopefully be able to see what I need in terms of positioning: http://i59.tinypic.com/2cqe2wk.jpg

And here's a side shot from my Ridley: http://i57.tinypic.com/2m5z87q.jpg

My Ridley has a reach of 390 and TT of 560. The idea was, however, that a bike with a shorter reach (and even with a stack of 570-575) would allow me to fit a longer stem - probably with a slight offset - which on its turn would generate a further increase of the steer. I have to admit that this is a big uncertainty in my equation so far… and a stack of 590 would of course be better I guess. The latter goes for the Roubaix in size 56 with TT 565 and reach 387; with stem 90 and 3-3.5cm spacers the Roubaix should work according to the LBS. So, with a reach of 374 on the Domane size 54 I end up with a difference in reach of 13mm compared to the Roubaix and 16mm compared to the Ridley. I was hoping that the additional clearance in stem length would be sufficient to reach the same steer height, but then again there is also the slight variance in head-tube angle. So, honestly: I don't know anymore what's realistic and what's not… :(


I'm getting confused, how will you get a saddle/handlebar drop of 82mm on the size 52 Boson with just 43mm of spacers, when it's taking 60mm of spacers on the Ridley which is a larger frame with longer headtube, plus they both have similar head-tube angles? Will having a longer stem make this difference? Judging by your set-up on the Ridley it looks like you need a frame with a longer head-tube, as you're at the extreme as it is with 60mm of spacers.


I see what you mean. Good question.

The Boson's stack is 573 according to the CAT from the fitter. The Ridley has a stack of 575, so 2mm more. The fitter added a 20mm longer stem on the Boson while it has 17mm less spacers compared to the Ridley. So, it indeed seems weird that a 20mm longer stem would be suffcient to compensate for a 17mm + 2mm = 19mm decrease in steer height. I will check what the fitter has to say to this...

Hawkwood
Posts: 269
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 4:27 pm

by Hawkwood

raymondbroeren wrote:
I see what you mean. Good question.

The Boson's stack is 573 according to the CAT from the fitter. The Ridley has a stack of 575, so 2mm more. The fitter added a 20mm longer stem on the Boson while it has 17mm less spacers compared to the Ridley. So, it indeed seems weird that a 20mm longer stem would be suffcient to compensate for a 17mm + 2mm = 19mm decrease in steer height. I will check what the fitter has to say to this...


I've got you, the bb bracket height on the Ridley is 7mm less, and the head angle is a little steeper as well, so this evens out the stack and reach a bit.

User avatar
CharlesM
Posts: 5771
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 12:37 am
Location: Phoenix Arizona

by CharlesM

I have the same issues... I'm 5'8 but take a 32 pant inseam and have a 72 inch boxers reach ("It's like trying to hit a quick turtle" // "You're built like an "X" with a dot at the top").

It's part of the reason I started down the custom road.

My bike suggestions are Parlee, Crumpton, Sarto, Scapin, Lynskey, Kelly Bedford... the list is long and the prices go from reasonable to high.

basilic
Posts: 660
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 8:05 am
Location: Geneva, Switzerland

by basilic

another internet fit opinion, apologies if it does not make sense...
On the Ridley the saddle is set quite far forward for someone your size (especially as long legs often mean long femurs). Short setback rotates the rider forward, and increases weight on the handlebars. People correct this by moving the bars up and close, and the position is messed up. I wonder if more setback (and possibly a slightly lower saddle height) wouldn't allow you to put the bars lower and further out, and be in a more balanced position.
(as a possible bonus, standard geo frames would fit better too).

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post