ancker

I'm looking to build up a new race bike.

Components are relatively easy. The frame is tough.

I currently have a Giant TCR Composite and a Trek 1.2. Neither would be considered 'race' geometries, so I'm looking for something a bit more agressive. The Trek is a 50cm and fits well, the Giant is a Small and also fits well. I'm guessing I need something in the 50-52cm range.

I've thought about going the ebay carbon route, but am worried about getting scammed and/or getting something of low quality. I've looked specifically at the MiracleTrade 315, Figmo 900, and the FM098. All look decent and have good reviews, but there are also a handful of problems out there. I don't really want to deal with shipping a frame back to China due to an issue.

What should I look at that is a little more readily available? CAAD10?

Thanks.

carpediemracing 

Define what you consider "race" geometry.

Youngin

What is it you're really looking for? Something "stiffer?" The TCR composite is a race frame with race geometry. If you were to buy a bike with more aggressive race geometry, you would run out of steerer tube.

Picture is of OPs bike.

ancker

CDR, something with a shorter head tube and a bit steeper seat tube angle.

Youngin, I would indeed like something a bit stiffer. My set up has changed a bit since that picture was taken. Stem is flipped and sitting on top of the cone headset cover. I'm sufficiently stretched out and I love the position for longer rides/races, but I want something that puts me in a bit of a lower position for crits or shorter road races.


I know this has nothing to do with geometry, but I'd also like to find something with a horizontal top tube. Not sloping or angled like my Giant or Trek.

carpediemracing 

Okay I can see your point. I looked up the 2013 Giant specs (I don't know one Giant from another) and it seems that a size S has a 13.5 cm head tube, a 73.5 deg seat tube.

A couple things to keep in mind:
1. A 13.5 cm head tube is pretty short. The shortest you'll find is about 11.5 cm (from my experience anyway).

If it were me I'd want a shorter head tube and a steeper seat tube. So okay, I see that.

2. Is your stem a -17 or is it a -10 or something that's just on the flipped side? A -17 stem is virtually never used flipped up but it'll get you another cm down.

If you don't have a -17 that's the first thing to do.

3. Are your wheels stiff? Have you ridden other bikes? Sometimes a bike can feel stiff or flexy or soft or whatever and it's because of wheels or tires. Ride someone else's bike, preferably with your wheels, and see if there's a difference in the frame. The front end (bars/stem/fork) may feel different but try to keep that separate from the rear of the bike.

I used to ride (and still own) two size S TCRs, one alum, one carbon. I also used to ride (and still own) a size 52 Cannondale SystemSix. The Cannondale has a 74 deg seat tube and a 12 cm head tube. Or maybe it was 11.5. Whatever, the new CAAD10 has a 74 seat tube and a 12 cm head tube. The seat tube will get you a few mm forward and you'll lose 1.5 cm in height, give or take, with the head tube.

Both those frames have a 53.5 top tube.

Therefore you may like the CAAD10. It fits both your requirements, in a subtle change kind of way.

If you really slide your saddle forward then you can think about a custom, but that may be extreme at this point.

For me personally I finally went custom and got a 75.5 deg seat tube, the same seat tube as a size S alum TCR (40 cm) which was my favorite size bike, a 56.5 effective top tube, and a 9.5 cm head tube (11.7 effective with a headset). Combined with a -17 deg 12 cm stem I'm just a bit higher than I want but the reach is good.

What I realized is that if the frame fits really well then it works really well.

I kept the front end of the Cannondale - 73 deg head tube angle, 43 mm rake, and the best fork I could afford (ENVE 2.0 or 3T Team something). I like the way the Cannondale front end handled better than any bike I've ridden before.

Hope this helps
cdr

waterrockets 

Size S Fuji SST has an 11cm head tube, FWIW. For aggressive technical racing, I love my SST (mine is size L/XL). The position is great, as with my forearms parallel to the ground, the back of my jersey is hitting more air than the front.

Crash716

CAAD10s are great racing frames..i raced one for a year and loved it. Sponsorship sent me to the BH i am on now, but its still sitting out the shed all stripped down.

rkwaki

As they are my sponsor Masi Evoluzione is the way to go. Mine was built completely as a crit bike and is the stiffest bike I have ever ridden. Pricewise they are a great frameset and are now owned by Haro so they are not going anywhere.

merlinextraligh

I don't see where the OP is getting that the TCR Composite isn't "race geometry" The TCR Composite has the same geometry as the TCR Advanced SL, which seems to work reasonably well as race bike for Rabobank.

Looigi

Why does seat tube angle matter to you? Also, how short a headtube do you need? A -17 degree stem with no spacers can make up for a taller headtube...or simply get a size smaller frame, like the pros do.

thechemist

wheelbase should also be looked at for certain types of racing. Longer for smoother riding and shorter for better cornering.

botto 

incorrect.

ancker

I kind of took that back. My TCR Composite, in size Small is set up nicely for longer rides. I want to build another bike specifically for short races/crits. It's not that the TCR Composite isn't a race frame, it's that MY frame isn't set up for short races/crits. (I apologize for not being clear earlier.)

It doesn't. I was asked what I considered a race geometry. So I answered. I don't specifically need a steeper seat tube. And again, I don't necessarily need a shorter head tube. I just answered the question.

ancker

Agreed. I sort of corrected myself. As I mentioned above, it's not that the Giant isn't a race geometry, it's that my frame/size doesn't put me in the agressive position I want for short races/crits. I know I could get there with a different stem, etc. But I want to build up another bike. Hence this thread.

carpediemracing 

OP clarified he wants a shorter head tube and steeper seat tube. For him that's "more race geometry" than what he currently has. Maybe not a good choice of words to say "race geometry".

I guess it's like that Astana rider that has a 16.5 cm stem. I'm sure that guy thinks that his frame is not "race geometry" enough.

*edit where the heck did responses #10 on come from? haha. well consider my response as written with no regard to posts #10 on.

shovelhd

Gaulzetti.

mollusk

I am the guy that custom frames were made for: long torso, short legs but long femur relative to shins. The best modern bike I have for fit is a 2002 Lemond Zurich because it has a really short head tube, but it is currently my TT frankenbike. My race bike is a Spooky Skeltor, slammed -17 degree stem, and deep drop bars and it ain't enough drop.

I am seriously considering building up the Lemond as my #1 bike. It is a weight penalty, but it fits better than anything else I own.

carpediemracing 

^ hey good to see you post here.

carpediemracing 

A steeper seat tube is good if your saddle is already jammed forward. I used to slide my saddle forward almost until I had no rail left. With a 75.5 I move the saddle a little forward of center on a zero setback post. I asked for a 76 seat tube but the builder said 75.5 would be better. I calculated what I wanted for seat tube by digging out an old protractor, holding a tape measure from the BB to the center of the saddle rails, and reading the protractor. Rough but apparently I was spot on. If I had a 76 my saddle would have been centered.

I also asked for a 57 TT and builder suggested 56.5 instead. This hasn't proven to be a bad thing.

As far as head tube goes I wish I could get a 7 or 8 cm head tube. I wouldn't have to buy track or -17 stems and I wouldn't have a frame that goes up only to have the stem go level or point down. A much shorter head tube would allow use of a 80 or 90 deg stem, more common than a -17 or track stem, giving me a much wider range of adjustment. Right now I can't go lower at all. It'd be nice to have that option.

Short head tubes work well if you have a forward saddle position. The forward saddle position allows your pelvis to rotate forward, letting you lower your back, making a lower bar worthwhile. It's sort of a cascading effect thing.

shinyandfree

What you want to be careful about is shifting your whole body further and further over the bars. You may end up with your knees falling well ahead of the pedal spindle (in the 3 O'clock position). Sitting further back tends to put more stress on the glutes, further forward puts more on the quads. Ultimately your body will be able to adapt (to some degree) to whichever position but if you're training on a bike with a more rearward position and then shifting forward to race you'll find yourself lacking in power.

The counterpoint is that putting the bars further out in front of the bottom bracket can a good position for sprinting out of the saddle. If I were building up a bike specifically for short hard races I'd probably make sure my knees fall above the pedals in the same spot as my other bikes then look at stretching myself out a bit more either by using a longer stem or some deeper/less compact bars.

Generally speaking, the first step in bike fittings is you figure out the position over the pedals and leave it the hell alone, then work on the bar/torso positions. I personally I have one bike I use for all types of road racing but swap out three stems depending on the time of year and type of race.

waterrockets 

You want to be careful about basing position on Knee Over Pedal Spindle. Your body makes a "7" on the bike. Changing the angle of the 7 has an impact on fit. Rotating that 7 also has an impact, but not the same as KOPS would assume. For my TT position, I started by keeping my hip angle constant while lowering my shoulders. This resulted in a much further forward saddle, relative to the BB. Near perfect fit.

shinyandfree

Waterrockets, I generally agree.

TT positions frequently are shifted forward (in fact the UCI has rules about how far forward you can be). In setting up a TT bike you are not necessarily going for maximum ability to generate power. Being further and further forward allows you to get more aero. Sometimes it is worthwhile to sacrifice a little power for a bigger aero advantage. Rarely is that a compromise you'd want to make on a traditional road bike. Some people however do seem to like sitting with knees in front of the pedal (almost never behind), usually toe pointers or people who just have really strong quads and weaker glutes or otherwise unusual pedal strokes or body types. I myself had forward setup for about a year but eventually went back due to constant muscle adhesions in my quads. All I'm saying is it's best to try and get a similar position over the pedals on all your (traditional) road bikes.

waterrockets 

Roger