Page 7 of 10

Re: Better bike for endurance

Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2018 7:53 pm
by otoman
I bet they said that each other in the middle of the Ronde today too

Re: Better bike for endurance

Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2018 7:53 pm
by Weenie

Re: Better bike for endurance

Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2018 8:44 pm
by jih
I was saying it on my 60km training ride (but still kept it as a non-stopper - just quicker that way)

Re: Better bike for endurance

Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2018 9:59 pm
by wingguy
themidge wrote:
Sun Apr 01, 2018 3:16 pm
wingguy wrote:
Sun Apr 01, 2018 1:10 pm
themidge wrote:
Sun Apr 01, 2018 10:23 am
I don't see why it can't be, my saddle looks like this:
Sure, but that’s not a 54cm bike
Actually it is, sort of. It's a 'small' which according to bike comparator (which is really good BTW) it equates to a roughly 54cm size. Dunno about the OP's though.
Sorry but no. It equates to a 51/52, Btwin's size chart calls it a 52, and it has exactly the same seattube length as an Allez Sprint 52. It's definitely not , in any sense, a 54. And so that saddle height still looks super high for a 5'9" guy on a 54.

In fact, looking at the first riding photo again it may not be trollage, just a bad fitting. Can't see the knee angle but you can see he's rocking his hips and being very toe-pointy through the bottom of the pedal stroke. Not enough to say for sure, but certainly would not be surprised if it's too high for him. Would be consistent with feeling lots of saddle pressure in the drops too. Too high saddle really excacerbates any issues there.

Re: Better bike for endurance

Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2018 11:02 pm
by themidge
wingguy wrote:
Sun Apr 01, 2018 9:59 pm
Sorry but no. It equates to a 51/52, Btwin's size chart calls it a 52, and it has exactly the same seattube length as an Allez Sprint 52. It's definitely not , in any sense, a 54. And so that saddle height still looks super high for a 5'9" guy on a 54.
If my bike had a horizontal top tube, it would have a seat tube length of about 54cm. I know it's a bit more complicated than that, but in most people's books that makes it a size 54 frame. I don't know about you, but when comparing the saddle heights of different bikes by sight I look at the height of the saddle above the rear tyre, rather than the amount of seatpost showing. That's the 'measurement' from which I'm drawing my conclusions.

To the OP: as Winguy has noted, your saddle looks to be a little (or very) high, perhaps try moving it down a bit and see how it feels. I feel really bad if my saddle is too low, but pretty okay if it's a bit high, so it might feel strange at first. If you can keep the same leg extension (basically knee bend) but 'flatten' your foot (toes less pointed), your body might not notice the difference in saddle height, but your back and hands may thank the reduced saddle to bar drop.

Re: Better bike for endurance

Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2018 11:26 pm
by wingguy
themidge wrote:
Sun Apr 01, 2018 11:02 pm
If my bike had a horizontal top tube, it would have a seat tube length of about 54cm.
But it doesn't, and we're talking about what the visual cues of what a saddle height looks like, so it's irrelevant.
I know it's a bit more complicated than that, but in most people's books that makes it a size 54 frame.
It is more compicated than that, but at the same time most people's books would not make that mean it is a 54. It's not a 54. Not in any sense of sizing that you can compare to damn near any other modern bike on the planet that is actually called a 54. This is honestly not a matter of opinion, you're just wrong.
I don't know about you, but when comparing the saddle heights of different bikes by sight I look at the height of the saddle above the rear tyre, rather than the amount of seatpost showing. That's the 'measurement' from which I'm drawing my conclusions.
Good luck eyeballing that with any accuracy! :wink:

Re: Better bike for endurance

Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2018 12:20 am
by 07stuntin6r
themidge wrote:
wingguy wrote:
Sun Apr 01, 2018 9:59 pm
Sorry but no. It equates to a 51/52, Btwin's size chart calls it a 52, and it has exactly the same seattube length as an Allez Sprint 52. It's definitely not , in any sense, a 54. And so that saddle height still looks super high for a 5'9" guy on a 54.
If my bike had a horizontal top tube, it would have a seat tube length of about 54cm. I know it's a bit more complicated than that, but in most people's books that makes it a size 54 frame. I don't know about you, but when comparing the saddle heights of different bikes by sight I look at the height of the saddle above the rear tyre, rather than the amount of seatpost showing. That's the 'measurement' from which I'm drawing my conclusions.

To the OP: as Winguy has noted, your saddle looks to be a little (or very) high, perhaps try moving it down a bit and see how it feels. I feel really bad if my saddle is too low, but pretty okay if it's a bit high, so it might feel strange at first. If you can keep the same leg extension (basically knee bend) but 'flatten' your foot (toes less pointed), your body might not notice the difference in saddle height, but your back and hands may thank the reduced saddle to bar drop.
I could lower the seat. So what your saying when all the way down my foot should be flat not pointed?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


Re: Better bike for endurance

Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2018 1:45 am
by AJS914
Some people are toe pointers, some are not - you can't go by that. Try lowering it 1 cm and see how it feels.

Do you have any road racer buddies you can watch you ride and give you some feedback?

Re: Better bike for endurance

Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2018 7:39 am
by dim
here is a good bike fitting calculator:

https://www.competitivecyclist.com/Stor ... e.jsp#type

enter your measurements, and use the Eddy Bike fit results

use that as a start, and as your core strength increases, you can make finer adjustments.

Re: Better bike for endurance

Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2018 10:02 am
by Leviathan
Ride your bike more!
Seven pages of opinions on bike fits, stems, saddles etc, mostly overlook the point that as an effective beginner, 50 miles is always hard, it always hurts, and nothing will really alleviate this as long as the bike is within 10cm of a good fit. Anything you can do to alievate the pain will be good, but frankly there are cheaper ways than getting new kit - coffee stops, rewards, riding in a group, all work better than god forbid buying a new "endurance" bike.

Bike riding is hard. It gets easier.

Re: Better bike for endurance

Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2018 10:20 am
by themidge
07stuntin6r wrote:I could lower the seat. So what your saying when all the way down my foot should be flat not pointed
AJS914 wrote:
Mon Apr 02, 2018 1:45 am
Some people are toe pointers, some are not - you can't go by that. Try lowering it 1 cm and see how it feels.
True, so if it feels wrong for the OP then they should obviously stay a bit pointed, but if they can adapt to a foot position that has a lower heel (not necessarily flat, but lower than it is now) then the reduction in saddle height will also reduce their saddle to bar drop, which looks like it could be part of the problem (especially with so many spacers already).

Okay Wingguy, we're getting a bit off topic here, can we wrap this up soon? Maybe it is what convention and b'twin's size chart would call a 52, but it is mega slopey, and mega tall too:
Image
For the record I have a saddle to bar drop of around 9cm, but could probably go a bit lower, and can use the drops just fine.
I suppose it kind of has the front end height of a racing 56, with the back end of an endurance 52. Whatever we decide it is, I know for definite by comparing the geometry charts (not riding) that I couldn't ride a size 52 allez sprint without some serious drop or too many spacers. You wouldn't call a size L giant tcr advanced sl a size 52 would you? (525mm seat tube).
It's a pretty f***ing weird bike whatever it is, thank goodness I've got myself an evo eh? :D
wingguy wrote: Good luck eyeballing that with any accuracy! :wink:
Thank you. I wish the same luck to you, unless you have some kind of magic tool for this that isn't also your eyeball.


P.S. OP, don't listen to any of us arguers, listen to @Leviathan, just ride.

P.P.S. No I won't cut my steerer, this bike has to maintain some kind of resale or reuse value, and it's an alloy steerer so it's safe.

Re: Better bike for endurance

Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2018 10:25 am
by 07stuntin6r
AJS914 wrote:Some people are toe pointers, some are not - you can't go by that. Try lowering it 1 cm and see how it feels.

Do you have any road racer buddies you can watch you ride and give you some feedback?
No I have none

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


Re: Better bike for endurance

Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2018 10:55 am
by themidge
Ask some randomers at your next race for advice, everyone's a pro when a newb asks them something :D .

Re: Better bike for endurance

Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2018 12:10 pm
by jih
07stuntin6r wrote:
Mon Apr 02, 2018 10:25 am
No I have none
Why don't you join a local cycle club?

No better way to get miles in than to ride with other people to encourage you.

Re: Better bike for endurance

Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2018 12:12 pm
by jih
Leviathan wrote:
Mon Apr 02, 2018 10:02 am
Ride your bike more!
Seven pages of opinions on bike fits, stems, saddles etc, mostly overlook the point that as an effective beginner, 50 miles is always hard, it always hurts, and nothing will really alleviate this as long as the bike is within 10cm of a good fit. Anything you can do to alievate the pain will be good, but frankly there are cheaper ways than getting new kit - coffee stops, rewards, riding in a group, all work better than god forbid buying a new "endurance" bike.

Bike riding is hard. It gets easier.
Exactly this.

Yes, fit matters, but for a 50 mile ride as a target, the fit only has to be 'ok enough'.

I did up to my first century on a cheap steel bike that was quite a bit too big for me. Still did it, still had a good time. Still got fit.

Re: Better bike for endurance

Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2018 1:09 pm
by wingguy
themidge wrote:
Mon Apr 02, 2018 10:20 am
Okay Wingguy, we're getting a bit off topic here, can we wrap this up soon?
Totally up to you. You can keep insisting the sky is green if you want, or we can wrap it up :wink:
Maybe it is what convention and b'twin's size chart would call a 52, but it is mega slopey, and mega tall too:
A) because it is a 52.
B) Exactly. The mega slopeyness makes it look even smaller and exacerbates the optical effect of the saddle height - which is the point of this conversation.
I suppose it kind of has the front end height of a racing 56, with the back end of an endurance 52.
And it is an endurance bike, so it’s a 52. Comparing it to a racing bike purely on stack doesn’t tell you anything.
Whatever we decide it is, I know for definite by comparing the geometry charts (not riding) that I couldn't ride a size 52 allez sprint without some serious drop or too many spacers.
So?
You wouldn't call a size L giant tcr advanced sl a size 52 would you? (525mm seat tube).
Of course I wouldn’t, because seattube length doesn’t necessarily relate to size at all in modern bike design.

However - since you said earlier that seattube length does define what size your bike is, why wouldn’t you try and call it a 52? You’re arguing against yourself now....

Re: Better bike for endurance

Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2018 1:09 pm
by Weenie