Is there a certain body proportion they are really good for? I am very interested in buy the C40 or C50 as the super comfort frame. I have a pretty good bike but the frame is a too stiff alu. so I thought to buy a new frame and use my Ultegra kit. I have read that their frames have a comparitively short top tube. Is there a specific proportion they work better for? I am going to Italy next month and am thinking of treating myself to a new carbon frame.
avitar
read the charts...
You can't generalize about the Colnago geometry. The smaller sizes, 55cm and below have as long or longer top tubes than just about any brand but Trek. The larger sizes have somewhat shorter TT lengths. The biggest mistake you could possibly make is buying the wrong size. If you have a current bike that fits well, it's simple to make a comparison, but if your current bike has fit issues, figure out the solution before you buy.
When comparing the TT length to other brands, you must also account for any difference in the seat tube angle. Add 1.2cm per degree to the TT length of the frame with the steeper STA.
Also don't assume some sort of miracle "comfort" ride from a C-40 or C-50. They will have a good ride, but they are still stiff racing frames. If a good ride is your primary goal, there are certainly cheaper options.
A C-40 or C-50 deserves a lot better group than Ultegra. Putting a $900 build kit on a $3600 frame is kind of unusual. Ultegra would be better suited to a low level Colnago frame. I would also not assume that you can just pick up the size and color of frame that you want, at a reasomable price, just because you're in Italy. It could be cheaper to order one from www.maestro-uk.com.
You can't generalize about the Colnago geometry. The smaller sizes, 55cm and below have as long or longer top tubes than just about any brand but Trek. The larger sizes have somewhat shorter TT lengths. The biggest mistake you could possibly make is buying the wrong size. If you have a current bike that fits well, it's simple to make a comparison, but if your current bike has fit issues, figure out the solution before you buy.
When comparing the TT length to other brands, you must also account for any difference in the seat tube angle. Add 1.2cm per degree to the TT length of the frame with the steeper STA.
Also don't assume some sort of miracle "comfort" ride from a C-40 or C-50. They will have a good ride, but they are still stiff racing frames. If a good ride is your primary goal, there are certainly cheaper options.
A C-40 or C-50 deserves a lot better group than Ultegra. Putting a $900 build kit on a $3600 frame is kind of unusual. Ultegra would be better suited to a low level Colnago frame. I would also not assume that you can just pick up the size and color of frame that you want, at a reasomable price, just because you're in Italy. It could be cheaper to order one from www.maestro-uk.com.
An interesting online review.
You may want to read this interesting online review:
http://www.bikesportmichigan.com/reviews/colnago.shtml
If you want comfort, there are certainly more cost-effective solutions from other
manufacturers than a C40 or a C50. They're certainly really nice bikes with
a high prestige factor, but they are also built to be racing bikes.
You may want to read this interesting online review:
http://www.bikesportmichigan.com/reviews/colnago.shtml
If you want comfort, there are certainly more cost-effective solutions from other
manufacturers than a C40 or a C50. They're certainly really nice bikes with
a high prestige factor, but they are also built to be racing bikes.
Please IGNORE this article...
http://www.bikesportmichigan.com/reviews/colnago.shtml
This article is the most misinformed bunch of baloney you will ever read!!!
Here's my analysis of the article:
The fallacies in this article are so numerous that's hard to list them all. The two frames that the author found to be so different are made of completely different materials, but the author contributes all of the difference to the extremely minor change in geometry and ignores the material difference.
The changes that were made don't make a lot of sense to me. From the picture, it's clear that the frame is plenty small. The saddle to bar height difference has to be more than 10cm, which is a lot for a small rider to tolerate. Most riders have the opposite problem, requiring 2cm of spacers or a high rise stem to get the bars up to height, if they choose a frame that small.
The actual size difference between the 52 and 53cm sizes is pretty trivial. If you correct for the .5 degree difference in the STA, then the 52cm frame actually has a 1mm LONGER TT than the 53cm frame, yet the author still chose to use a 10mm longer stem. The chainstay length on the smaller frame is only 1mm shorter and the front-center is the same. The biggest difference is in the head tube length, which is 9mm shorter. That's why I emphasize the importance of head tube length. These two frames are almost exactly the same length, but the 52 is definitely shorter in height.
Unless the saddle position was moved forward by 10mm, then the reach on the smaller frame was increased by 10mm. This could also have been done on the larger frame. Increasing the length of the stem alone will make virtually no difference at all in the weight balance of the bike. This is easily proven by setting the bike up on a trainer with the front wheel on a scale. Changing to a longer stem does nothing but move the arms forward and results in a weight change that is scarcely measurable. If you want to make a significant change to weight balance, you have to move the saddle.
I've made the same type of change myself, between a 55cm and 54cm C-40 frames and found the handling to be virtually identical. The TT length on the 54cm is only 3mm less, which is so small that a change in stem length was not required. To make up for the 9mm shorter head tube, I chose a Ritchey WCS stem with an 84 degree angle (and a longer stem clamp length), instead of the 80 degree Colnago (ITM) stem. The result was an increase in handlebar height of about 5mm, using no steering tube spacers on both bikes.
http://www.bikesportmichigan.com/reviews/colnago.shtml
This article is the most misinformed bunch of baloney you will ever read!!!
Here's my analysis of the article:
The fallacies in this article are so numerous that's hard to list them all. The two frames that the author found to be so different are made of completely different materials, but the author contributes all of the difference to the extremely minor change in geometry and ignores the material difference.
The changes that were made don't make a lot of sense to me. From the picture, it's clear that the frame is plenty small. The saddle to bar height difference has to be more than 10cm, which is a lot for a small rider to tolerate. Most riders have the opposite problem, requiring 2cm of spacers or a high rise stem to get the bars up to height, if they choose a frame that small.
The actual size difference between the 52 and 53cm sizes is pretty trivial. If you correct for the .5 degree difference in the STA, then the 52cm frame actually has a 1mm LONGER TT than the 53cm frame, yet the author still chose to use a 10mm longer stem. The chainstay length on the smaller frame is only 1mm shorter and the front-center is the same. The biggest difference is in the head tube length, which is 9mm shorter. That's why I emphasize the importance of head tube length. These two frames are almost exactly the same length, but the 52 is definitely shorter in height.
Unless the saddle position was moved forward by 10mm, then the reach on the smaller frame was increased by 10mm. This could also have been done on the larger frame. Increasing the length of the stem alone will make virtually no difference at all in the weight balance of the bike. This is easily proven by setting the bike up on a trainer with the front wheel on a scale. Changing to a longer stem does nothing but move the arms forward and results in a weight change that is scarcely measurable. If you want to make a significant change to weight balance, you have to move the saddle.
I've made the same type of change myself, between a 55cm and 54cm C-40 frames and found the handling to be virtually identical. The TT length on the 54cm is only 3mm less, which is so small that a change in stem length was not required. To make up for the 9mm shorter head tube, I chose a Ritchey WCS stem with an 84 degree angle (and a longer stem clamp length), instead of the 80 degree Colnago (ITM) stem. The result was an increase in handlebar height of about 5mm, using no steering tube spacers on both bikes.
I'd ignore the Michigan article.
Seen it several times. Some of it seems downright screwy.
I'd agree that you are better off figuring out what you want in bike fit first, and then checking the details of Colnago geometry in the relevant size or sizes, than you are thinking about some ideal body type for Colnago geometry (which in many sizes is not that atypical, and may be distinguished more by drop and front end geometry issues than things like top tube length in any case).
Use whatever components you want--the ride will be in the fit, the frame, and the wheels (and tires), not the rear derailler.
I cannot speak to the comfort (subjective anyway) of a C40 or C50, although I find that my CT1 is an extremely comfortable bike for a race bike. OTOH, depending on what it is that bothers you about the current ride, all sorts of things might be an improvement--and some things might do better for you than what you are contemplating (depending on the trade-offs you want to consider).
Seen it several times. Some of it seems downright screwy.
I'd agree that you are better off figuring out what you want in bike fit first, and then checking the details of Colnago geometry in the relevant size or sizes, than you are thinking about some ideal body type for Colnago geometry (which in many sizes is not that atypical, and may be distinguished more by drop and front end geometry issues than things like top tube length in any case).
Use whatever components you want--the ride will be in the fit, the frame, and the wheels (and tires), not the rear derailler.
I cannot speak to the comfort (subjective anyway) of a C40 or C50, although I find that my CT1 is an extremely comfortable bike for a race bike. OTOH, depending on what it is that bothers you about the current ride, all sorts of things might be an improvement--and some things might do better for you than what you are contemplating (depending on the trade-offs you want to consider).
Colnago Carbon
This post hits home with me. My primary ride for the last 6 years has been a Trek 5500. It has served me well but I've decided that the fit is less than ideal (long top tube, short steep head tube) and it's time for a new road bike. One of my riding buds has a C-40 in the same nominal size as my Trek, 56 cm, and he was happy to let me make a direct comparison of the two. I was surprised that I was more stretched out on his bike than mine even though my top tube is longer. And my Trek accelerated noticeably better, even though his frame is lighter. This made the comparison tricky because his stem is 120mm, and mine is 90. And his rims and tires are heavier. His C-40 absorbs vibrations much better and my Trek feels stiffer, but part of this could be the difference in wheels and tires. Anyway because of this comparison I've ordered a C-50 frame and fork but in a 55 cm instead of 56. I'm sure I can get a good fit on the 55. I intend to use it for long distance riding and keep the Trek as a race bike, at least for now. The Colnago will get mostly Record 10 components although I don't care much for the shift tabs and I think I can shift D-A quicker.
~Al
This post hits home with me. My primary ride for the last 6 years has been a Trek 5500. It has served me well but I've decided that the fit is less than ideal (long top tube, short steep head tube) and it's time for a new road bike. One of my riding buds has a C-40 in the same nominal size as my Trek, 56 cm, and he was happy to let me make a direct comparison of the two. I was surprised that I was more stretched out on his bike than mine even though my top tube is longer. And my Trek accelerated noticeably better, even though his frame is lighter. This made the comparison tricky because his stem is 120mm, and mine is 90. And his rims and tires are heavier. His C-40 absorbs vibrations much better and my Trek feels stiffer, but part of this could be the difference in wheels and tires. Anyway because of this comparison I've ordered a C-50 frame and fork but in a 55 cm instead of 56. I'm sure I can get a good fit on the 55. I intend to use it for long distance riding and keep the Trek as a race bike, at least for now. The Colnago will get mostly Record 10 components although I don't care much for the shift tabs and I think I can shift D-A quicker.
~Al
56cm Trek = 54cm Colnago
A "56cm" Trek is the length of the seat tube, not a c-t or c-c measurement. The 56cm Trek is actually a 54cm frame measured c-t or a 52cm, measured c-c.
Colnago list the c-t and c-c dimensions on their geometry chart, making it easy to compare to just about any frame except a Trek or Fuji, which both use the odd-ball seat tube length as the the frame "size".
A "56cm" Trek is the length of the seat tube, not a c-t or c-c measurement. The 56cm Trek is actually a 54cm frame measured c-t or a 52cm, measured c-c.
Colnago list the c-t and c-c dimensions on their geometry chart, making it easy to compare to just about any frame except a Trek or Fuji, which both use the odd-ball seat tube length as the the frame "size".
For one thing ...
C40, thanks for the excellent response as usual.
For one thing, the reviews written on that store's website tends to be mostly about
things peripheral to the actual bike reviewed. Anyways ....
C40, thanks for the excellent response as usual.
For one thing, the reviews written on that store's website tends to be mostly about
things peripheral to the actual bike reviewed. Anyways ....
Trek vs Colnago
~Al
Thanks, yes, I've made all of those measurements. At 5' 8 1/2" I have a relatively short torso and with Trek's "Racing Geometry" I have trouble with the saddle to handlebar drop. With 25mm or spacers and a 90mm 7 degree stem flipped over I still have a 3" drop, and that's too much for my 61 year old body. I think the 55 cm C-50 will be best for me, but a 54 could probably work also. I need my saddle set high for my old knees. Your opinion is most welcome.C-40 said:
~Al
Italian Frame Sizing
If I may add my humble 2 cents worth on sizing. I find in general that Italian bikes run short as to the top tube length. Generally an Italian bike will be 1 to 1.5 centimeters taller (center of bb to center of top tube) than it is long (center of seat tube to center to head tube). Forget all the crazy b.s. and measure your frames by the top tube length from now on (center of seat tube to center of head tube). I think you'll be surprised. There are many builders going after the slightly sloping to full on sloping compact frame. They look kind of like cyclocross bikes; shorter than they are taller. You'll have a little extra seat post showing but you'll have a tight handling bike that fits. If you want a lot less seatpost showing, go with one of the "old man" style bikes like Rivendell. They like to put you on a frame that is way to big and porky looking. That's my 2 cents worth.
If I may add my humble 2 cents worth on sizing. I find in general that Italian bikes run short as to the top tube length. Generally an Italian bike will be 1 to 1.5 centimeters taller (center of bb to center of top tube) than it is long (center of seat tube to center to head tube). Forget all the crazy b.s. and measure your frames by the top tube length from now on (center of seat tube to center of head tube). I think you'll be surprised. There are many builders going after the slightly sloping to full on sloping compact frame. They look kind of like cyclocross bikes; shorter than they are taller. You'll have a little extra seat post showing but you'll have a tight handling bike that fits. If you want a lot less seatpost showing, go with one of the "old man" style bikes like Rivendell. They like to put you on a frame that is way to big and porky looking. That's my 2 cents worth.
unusual geometry...
I could help more if I had an accurate saddle height, measured from center of the BB to the top of the saddle, along the seat tube. A stem length and angle, and the amount of spacers under the stem (assuming a threadless setup) would also tell me more. A handlebar height, measured vertically from the ground to the top of the bars also tells me a lot about your needs. The type of seatpost being used would also be helpful.
Your frame is definitely customized to the point that no stock frame will come very close to those dimensions. You have a steep seat tube angle, and fairly long top tube which combine to make a pretty long reach, depending on the stem length, the type of seatpost and whether the saddle is relatively centered on the seatpost. Just about any stock frame will have less STA and a shorter head tube.
For pure comfort, you may be better off looking at a basic Ti frame without oversized tubes to stiffen the frame. It's a misconception that carbon frames are compliant. They do dampen high frequency vibration as produced by gravel-sealed roads, but they are not likely to be particularly soft riding. My new LOOK KG 461 for example, is even stiffer than a C-40. I would not recommend it to anyone looking for comfort.
I would also not expect any frame to help you keep up with a fast group. With 1 pound or less difference in weight, the slightly lighter weight of a carbon frame will make no measureable difference in your speed.
I could help more if I had an accurate saddle height, measured from center of the BB to the top of the saddle, along the seat tube. A stem length and angle, and the amount of spacers under the stem (assuming a threadless setup) would also tell me more. A handlebar height, measured vertically from the ground to the top of the bars also tells me a lot about your needs. The type of seatpost being used would also be helpful.
Your frame is definitely customized to the point that no stock frame will come very close to those dimensions. You have a steep seat tube angle, and fairly long top tube which combine to make a pretty long reach, depending on the stem length, the type of seatpost and whether the saddle is relatively centered on the seatpost. Just about any stock frame will have less STA and a shorter head tube.
For pure comfort, you may be better off looking at a basic Ti frame without oversized tubes to stiffen the frame. It's a misconception that carbon frames are compliant. They do dampen high frequency vibration as produced by gravel-sealed roads, but they are not likely to be particularly soft riding. My new LOOK KG 461 for example, is even stiffer than a C-40. I would not recommend it to anyone looking for comfort.
I would also not expect any frame to help you keep up with a fast group. With 1 pound or less difference in weight, the slightly lighter weight of a carbon frame will make no measureable difference in your speed.
C-40...
I've been trying to crack the code on Colnago geometry as well and thought that I got it right. However, after reading your posts I'm getting second thoughts. I just ordered my 2003 C-40HP (got an incredible deal). My current ride is a Moots Vamoots - 56cm and it fits well. It has a 56.3 TT, 73.5 degree HT angle, 73.25 seat tube angle, a 14cm HT, and I run a 110 stem. My stats: 5'11", 175 lbs, 33" inseam.
The Colnago that I ordered was 56cm, with a 55 top tube. I was planning on running a 120stem. I hope I was correct in my calculations. What are your thoughts? THANKS A LOT. It would be a huge let-down if I ordered the wrong size.
I've been trying to crack the code on Colnago geometry as well and thought that I got it right. However, after reading your posts I'm getting second thoughts. I just ordered my 2003 C-40HP (got an incredible deal). My current ride is a Moots Vamoots - 56cm and it fits well. It has a 56.3 TT, 73.5 degree HT angle, 73.25 seat tube angle, a 14cm HT, and I run a 110 stem. My stats: 5'11", 175 lbs, 33" inseam.
The Colnago that I ordered was 56cm, with a 55 top tube. I was planning on running a 120stem. I hope I was correct in my calculations. What are your thoughts? THANKS A LOT. It would be a huge let-down if I ordered the wrong size.
C-40...
I've been trying to crack the code on Colnago geometry as well and thought that I got it right. However, after reading your posts I'm getting second thoughts. I just ordered my 2003 C-40HP (got an incredible deal). My current ride is a Moots Vamoots - 56cm and it fits well. It has a 56.3 TT, 73.5 degree HT angle, 73.25 seat tube angle, a 14cm HT, and I run a 110 stem. My stats: 5'11", 175 lbs, 33" inseam.
The Colnago that I ordered was 56cm, with a 55 top tube. I was planning on running a 120stem. I hope I was correct in my calculations. What are your thoughts? THANKS A LOT. It would be a huge let-down if I ordered the wrong size.
I've been trying to crack the code on Colnago geometry as well and thought that I got it right. However, after reading your posts I'm getting second thoughts. I just ordered my 2003 C-40HP (got an incredible deal). My current ride is a Moots Vamoots - 56cm and it fits well. It has a 56.3 TT, 73.5 degree HT angle, 73.25 seat tube angle, a 14cm HT, and I run a 110 stem. My stats: 5'11", 175 lbs, 33" inseam.
The Colnago that I ordered was 56cm, with a 55 top tube. I was planning on running a 120stem. I hope I was correct in my calculations. What are your thoughts? THANKS A LOT. It would be a huge let-down if I ordered the wrong size.
Same height as you are, albeit with a 33.5" inseam. I own two Colnagos, both 57cm with 120 stems and frankly, if I go for a 3rd it will be either a 58 or a 59. Not to say the 57 isn't okay, I just think I could stand them a tad larger. Yours may end up working for you, it wouldn't for me.oneslowmofo said:
C-40 please see my post and pic above.... thx
I gave all the info you asked for. I am very interested and will be appreciative of your response. I really feel like my Mongoose Bosberg frame (size M) is a bit too small. I really noticed this last summer when I got my Serotta. I do want to upgrade the frame and would help any input you can have would be great.
I gave all the info you asked for. I am very interested and will be appreciative of your response. I really feel like my Mongoose Bosberg frame (size M) is a bit too small. I really noticed this last summer when I got my Serotta. I do want to upgrade the frame and would help any input you can have would be great.
points to ponder...
You want or need the handlebars quite high. There is nothing wrong with that, but achieving only a 4cm height difference from the saddle to the bars can be tough on most of today’s stock frames with integrated headsets. A sloping TT design that is on the (overly) large side can help produce this type of fit.
Based on your stated saddle height of 74cm, a 57cm frame, measured center to top (c-t) would be a normal size for you in a non-sloping design. The head tube length of a 57cm 2004 Colnago is 17mm shorter than your bike’s head tube. You could achieve the handlebar height that you need with a Colnago extended-top headset and an 80 degree stem, flipped over to 100 degrees, using very little or no steering tube spacers.
The effective TT length of a 57cm Colnago is 2.5cm less than your Serotta, due to the 2-degree difference in the STA. With the saddle in the same position relative to the BB, you would need at least a 130mm stem with a 100 degree angle to produce the height and reach on the Serotta. If you happen to need more reach in the future, you’re limited to the few stems made in a 140mm length.
Colnago’s largest sloping TT frame would have a .6cm longer effective TT length, but a .8cm shorter head tube. A little improvement in reach, but the bar height problem is greater.
Before making any decisions about frame geometry, you should seriously evaluate your current saddle position and decide if it’s correct, or whether you’ve been moving the saddle back just to increase the reach to the bars. From your height (5’-10”) and saddle height (74cm), I know that you have a relatively long torso and short legs, which is not ideal for a 57cm Colnago frame.
I’ve noticed a number of things about your custom Serotta. You’re using an Easton seatpost which has a lot of setback and the saddle is pushed most of the way back. Both work in opposition to the steep 75 degree STA. This either means that the STA is not correct and this saddle/seatpost arrangement was needed to achieve the desired knee to pedal relationship (KOP) or you’ve been moving the saddle back to increase the reach to the bars instead of getting a longer stem (wrong approach).avitar said:
You want or need the handlebars quite high. There is nothing wrong with that, but achieving only a 4cm height difference from the saddle to the bars can be tough on most of today’s stock frames with integrated headsets. A sloping TT design that is on the (overly) large side can help produce this type of fit.
Based on your stated saddle height of 74cm, a 57cm frame, measured center to top (c-t) would be a normal size for you in a non-sloping design. The head tube length of a 57cm 2004 Colnago is 17mm shorter than your bike’s head tube. You could achieve the handlebar height that you need with a Colnago extended-top headset and an 80 degree stem, flipped over to 100 degrees, using very little or no steering tube spacers.
The effective TT length of a 57cm Colnago is 2.5cm less than your Serotta, due to the 2-degree difference in the STA. With the saddle in the same position relative to the BB, you would need at least a 130mm stem with a 100 degree angle to produce the height and reach on the Serotta. If you happen to need more reach in the future, you’re limited to the few stems made in a 140mm length.
Colnago’s largest sloping TT frame would have a .6cm longer effective TT length, but a .8cm shorter head tube. A little improvement in reach, but the bar height problem is greater.
Before making any decisions about frame geometry, you should seriously evaluate your current saddle position and decide if it’s correct, or whether you’ve been moving the saddle back just to increase the reach to the bars. From your height (5’-10”) and saddle height (74cm), I know that you have a relatively long torso and short legs, which is not ideal for a 57cm Colnago frame.
I'm right w/you...
A+
Philippe
I'm 5'11'', 73 kgs (~165 lbs?) and have a 33" inseam. I have a 57 cm Carrera (57.5 TT) and a 58 cm Colnago (56.3 TT). The Carrera has a 110 stem and the Colnago a 120. Both feel fine and both get raced. I can't imagine riding a 56 cm! It sounds way too small... at least for my build.terry b said:
A+
Philippe
Don't go back...
to the shop that sold you this "custom" Serotta. It looks to me like they goofed on the STA. A normal 73 STA probably would have been fine.
When you got the bike did they have you ride it on a trainer and drop a plumb bob from the front of your knee to the center of the pedal axle, to adjust the saddle fore/aft position? This procedure at least gets you in the ballpark with respect to saddle position.
If the saddle was adjusted only to produce a comfortable reach, then the shop definitely did not know what they were doing.
Try reading the information on this site and see if it helps you understand the basics of fitting a bike: http://www.coloradocyclist.com/bikefit/
Briefly, moving the saddle back enhances the ability to apply torque to the cranks and moving is forward enhances cadence. Power = torque x cadence. Adjusting the saddle fore/aft position is a balancing act with the goal of finding the right position to produce optimum power on the type of terrain that you ride. Personally, I'd never place my knee ahead of the pedal spindle. Somehwere between directly over the spindle, up to 2cm behind is more common. Since I now ride the mountains a lot, I've moved my saddle back about 2cm to favor the higher torque and moderate (80-90rpm) cadence. If I rode more rolling terrain. I'd probably have the saddle placed further forward.
Saddle height is also important. As a rough guide, I always make sure that I can drop my heel at least 2cm below horizontal with my leg locked out at the bottom of the stroke. Setting the saddle too high can reduce cadence ( and power).
to the shop that sold you this "custom" Serotta. It looks to me like they goofed on the STA. A normal 73 STA probably would have been fine.
When you got the bike did they have you ride it on a trainer and drop a plumb bob from the front of your knee to the center of the pedal axle, to adjust the saddle fore/aft position? This procedure at least gets you in the ballpark with respect to saddle position.
If the saddle was adjusted only to produce a comfortable reach, then the shop definitely did not know what they were doing.
Try reading the information on this site and see if it helps you understand the basics of fitting a bike: http://www.coloradocyclist.com/bikefit/
Briefly, moving the saddle back enhances the ability to apply torque to the cranks and moving is forward enhances cadence. Power = torque x cadence. Adjusting the saddle fore/aft position is a balancing act with the goal of finding the right position to produce optimum power on the type of terrain that you ride. Personally, I'd never place my knee ahead of the pedal spindle. Somehwere between directly over the spindle, up to 2cm behind is more common. Since I now ride the mountains a lot, I've moved my saddle back about 2cm to favor the higher torque and moderate (80-90rpm) cadence. If I rode more rolling terrain. I'd probably have the saddle placed further forward.
Saddle height is also important. As a rough guide, I always make sure that I can drop my heel at least 2cm below horizontal with my leg locked out at the bottom of the stroke. Setting the saddle too high can reduce cadence ( and power).
reply to C40
When you got the bike did they have you ride it on a trainer and drop a plumb bob from the front of your knee to the center of the pedal axle, to adjust the saddle fore/aft position? This procedure at least gets you in the ballpark with respect to saddle position.
Yes.... after my bike came in and was built they put me on it on a trainer and adjusted things for awhile. It seems like they really spent their time getting this right. Yes they used a plumb bob and yes I can drop my heel below horizontal (never measured exactly how much, but you are only asking for 3/4"). My first ride on it was actually with Ben Serotta himself. I took delivery on a Serotta demo day! (the final fitting was the day before) I do not know why my STA was decided to be 75deg, but I beleive it has to do with me being a little stiff in the hips (psoas and pireformice), having a bulging L4-L5 and how he judged my flexibility. They spent a good hour with me measuring and having me do all sorts of bends etc. before they put me on the Serotta Fit Cycle. I was on the Fit Bike for at least 20 - 30 minutes. He moved things around alot and in the end came up with my bike. I thought for older less experienced riders like moi, the higher handlebars and bigger HT was a plus? so after all of this, do you have any suggestions on a new frame for my "other" bike?Anything has to be better than the Mongoose Bosberg I currently have.
When you got the bike did they have you ride it on a trainer and drop a plumb bob from the front of your knee to the center of the pedal axle, to adjust the saddle fore/aft position? This procedure at least gets you in the ballpark with respect to saddle position.
Yes.... after my bike came in and was built they put me on it on a trainer and adjusted things for awhile. It seems like they really spent their time getting this right. Yes they used a plumb bob and yes I can drop my heel below horizontal (never measured exactly how much, but you are only asking for 3/4"). My first ride on it was actually with Ben Serotta himself. I took delivery on a Serotta demo day! (the final fitting was the day before) I do not know why my STA was decided to be 75deg, but I beleive it has to do with me being a little stiff in the hips (psoas and pireformice), having a bulging L4-L5 and how he judged my flexibility. They spent a good hour with me measuring and having me do all sorts of bends etc. before they put me on the Serotta Fit Cycle. I was on the Fit Bike for at least 20 - 30 minutes. He moved things around alot and in the end came up with my bike. I thought for older less experienced riders like moi, the higher handlebars and bigger HT was a plus? so after all of this, do you have any suggestions on a new frame for my "other" bike?Anything has to be better than the Mongoose Bosberg I currently have.
Merlin Solis...
http://www.merlinbike.com/bikes/solis.aspx
Take a look at the geometry on the Merlin Solis. It's one of the few frames with a long head tube.
I believe a size ML would work for you. The seat tube angle is a normal 73 degrees, which will move the seatpost back nearly 3cm so your saddle will not have to be pushed all the way back. You may also need a more traditional seatpost than the Easton without so much setback, in a 350mm length.
The TT length is quite a bit shorter, so a 120mm stem would probably be required. Nothing wrong with that.
The head tube length with an FSA (or other brand) extended top headset would be about 193mm, which is very close to your current head tube length.
http://www.merlinbike.com/bikes/solis.aspx
Take a look at the geometry on the Merlin Solis. It's one of the few frames with a long head tube.
I believe a size ML would work for you. The seat tube angle is a normal 73 degrees, which will move the seatpost back nearly 3cm so your saddle will not have to be pushed all the way back. You may also need a more traditional seatpost than the Easton without so much setback, in a 350mm length.
The TT length is quite a bit shorter, so a 120mm stem would probably be required. Nothing wrong with that.
The head tube length with an FSA (or other brand) extended top headset would be about 193mm, which is very close to your current head tube length.
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
