hack

Thanks! Will check it out.

robbyville

I have over 5000 miles on my DA cassette so far, no worries. Like Shovel mentions there are pics of some fractured carbon carriers. I tried the SRAM HG90, it's as pricey as the DA and a little lighter if you care (this was before Ultegra 6800), it shifts fine but noisier in certain gears. I also now have an Ultegra which is a third of the price and it shifts flawlessly just as the DA does.

robbyville

I got the set from Nashbar a couple years ago, somewhere around $50 with bits. It's been fine and dandy as well

Creatre

I'm considering getting a new bike, eying this one in particular, seems like a sweet deal.

I'm currently riding a bike with a 564mm top tube, 160mm head tube with a 90mm stem. The steering feels twitchy at times in the past, but I think I have gotten mostly used to it. I already have a decent saddle to bar drop. See the picture below.



My two options would be this for the bike in the link above: 565mm effective top tube, 175mm head tube or 545mm effective top tube and 145mm head tube. You think I should stick with the 565 and use a shortish stem (90mm or so) again and hope I can get it low enough (15mm taller head tube), or go down a size on the frame, use a decent sized stem (110mm or so), and hope my saddle to bar drop isn't so huge I have 4 spacers under the stem.

misterwaterfall

Smaller TT with a longer stem is my preference.

hack

What's the seat angle on your current bike vs the Ridley? Actually, what's the stack and reach on your current bike? That'd be a better comparison than just TT.

With that, I'd go smaller w/longer stem.

shovelhd

Smaller with longer stem. It will help with the twitchyness and give you more fitting options. Felt changed two dimensions between my previous F5 and my current Fc and it took me almost a year to adapt to it. I'm still tweaking.

Creatre

Unfortunately don't have stack reach info for the old bike. Old has seat angle of 73. New on 545mm eff top tube has 73.5 seat angle, stack of 545mm, and 385mm reach. New on 565mm eff top tube has a 73 seat angle, stack of 575mm, and 390mm reach.

I was also thinking that the longer stem would make it handle a bit nicer than the current setup. The Comp Cyclist sales guy I'm working with is trying to put me in the 565 one. You guys don't think I'll have any issues with saddle to bar drop being 6 foot on the smaller frame? I don't want to be a dork and have a positive 30 degree stem or something.

shovelhd

FWIW and it isn't much. Going from a 564 ETT and a 90mm stem (6*?) to a 545 ETT puts you at a 110mm stem in isolation. The seat tube is steeper and that may dictate a 120mm or going to a higher stem angle, depending on the HT length and other factors. At any rate, if it's close with a 110mm of any angle then you are right in the tweaking sweet spot.

hack

Tough call. Some time ago, I was looking at a Ridley on CC and they were going to put me on a medium frame and I'm 6'3". Their bikes seem to run big. I ended up on something else kind of right in between their Medium and Large.

While not exact, the reach numbers on the Medium Ridley and your current are likely pretty similar (your current reach is probably a bit more with your lower head tube). Based on your current bike, the Ridley small might be an aggressive fit and the medium would likely be ok. You could always change to a -17 stem to recreate your current fit due to the taller headtube on the medium.

Creatre

Well I think I'm definitely between sizes. Unfortunately, I think I'm leaning towards the bigger one. For one, I don't think I can handle a steep saddle to bar drop. I can barely ride in the drops as it is. Though it could be some other issue causing that. I researched the steeper seat tube angle and that's gonna cause the need for me to push my saddle back further. I already slam it back all the way on the current setup for leg fit (part of the reason why I have a short stem probably), and I would probably need a setback post. But I can't find one that goes with that Noah frame since it's a proprietary aero post. It also looks like I'd need to get a +6 110mm or 120mm stem, but I'd have to put at least 15mm spacers underneath it. I think it's gonna end up looking funny.

If I go with the larger frame, I should be able to have the saddle in the middle or towards the back of the rail, well within spec. I then should be able to get a -17 stem to make up for the taller head tube and it'll put me 2mm short on reach, but 2mm lower than my current bike, which is pretty close. I'm thinking this is gonna be the way to go. Just hope to the steeper head tube handle (73.5) on this bike won't make the steering even more twitchy with the 90mm stem.

shovelhd

A 5mm spacer on top of a standard 10mm top cap doesn't look funny at all. Just saying.

Creatre

I hear you, I appreciate your guys advice. I think unfortunately I'm just like slightly better off on the bigger frame. It's the +6 stem more so than the spacers. The spacers with a -6 or -17 wouldn't look bad. I've actually rocked that some in the past.

I think I'm going to go with the bigger frame, get a handlebar with less reach, and get a 100mm stem and I'll end up having about 4mm more reach and 3mm lower than my current setup. I used to have a decent setup that was 9mm more reach, and 7mm lower, so this should be a good middle ground.

shovelhd

Post some pics when it's all set up.

carpediemracing 

Not sure if it's too late or what but the shorter top tube affects weight distribution. It's not about reach, it's about how much weight you have on the front wheel. If you get a shorter stem your hands are further back relative to the front wheel (meaning like compared to where your hands are relative to, say, the front hub). With about a 110-120mm stem and normal bars I like the weight distribution for cornering etc. With compact reach I want a 14 cm stem to place my hands in the same fore/aft region relative to the front wheel.

When you have a bit more weight on the front wheel, when you have a slightly longer stem, the bike is more stable at speed. This is what I found after trying the Missus's bike, which was really squirrelly with a 90mm stem (hers) and then a 120-130mm stem (mine). At the time we rode about the same size bike so I could ride her bike with one of my stems. With the longer stem and literally everything else the same it was much better. Therefore I chalked up the wiggly tendencies to the only thing I changed, the stem length. With the 90mm stem it was wiggly, even under me.

tetonrider

this is interesting. your posts have really made me think. traditionally i've tweaked stem size in order to keep hoods in the same spot (same distance from the nose of the saddle). didn't really think about the curve of the drops when switching bars and how that affects weight distribution.

thanks for making me think!

with my crashes this season i've had lots of time to think about descents--and some issues with descending/cornering. some of the issues are mental and others are mechanical (e.g., my hip doesn't quite have the same fluidity of movement). i've noticed that despite the same geometry, one of my bikes (venge) seems prone to understeering just a bit whereas another bike (Tarmac) is spot-on. i currently have different-but-similar bars on them, but i suspect it could be some other property of the bike aside from pure geometry.

thechemist

I won't ever go back to anything less than 110mm stem. Stability has been a huge confidence booster with a longer stem.
@tetonrider it is interesting that you found a difference between the tarmac and venge descending/cornering. My future plan was always to drop a bike size and go with the venge over my current tarmac for several reasons. However, since adding length to my stem, I wonder if I had judged the tarmac too severely and perhaps will just drop a size for another tarmac.

Moyene Corniche

All the bike measurements still don't illustrate how you are sitting / fitting on the bike. What is your reach shoulder to palm ? leg inseam ? crank lengths ? How is your position on the bike ? Are you opened up in the thorax / chest area so you can breathe efficiently ( this combines both handlebar width as well as enough reach so that your back is flat when in the drops or on the hoods and driving down the road.
That for me is some of the most critical factors in bike fit. If you cannot breathe optimally and are unable to transmit all your energy to the pedals then you are using up energy where it is wasted.
I have all my measurements for my current bike ( a super old Caad Cannondale ) It is however relegated to a training bike but all the measurements will be translated to my new Raleigh militi 3 Carbon frame as well as either a Specialized Tarmac or Cannon Evo as back ups.
The seat tube angle changes depending on where your seat is located, further back or forward.
At 6'3" tall and 180lbs, with an arm length of 86cm ( shoulder to palm ) and a leg inseam of 91cm, my seat height is 85cm. Stem length is 135mm. Top Tube ( 58cm frame ) is 57.5cm. Seat to handlebar drop is 16cm. The reach ( handlebar center to saddle tip ) is 62cm. handlebar width at 43cm C to C. crank length being 172.5 I had used 175's in the past but find that 172.5 allows for a more efficient cadence. It's not much but spinning at 75-80 versus a more optimal 90-95 is much more efficient over 2 to 3 hours or more.
All in all that fits me with a position that works well all around. Long road races, hilly road races, crits as well as training rides of 120+km.
Componentry is all Campy Chorus, look Keo pedals and Mavic wheels.

Many years ago one of my 1st racing bikes was a Paletti, a beautiful italian frame, I had it setup with an all Mavic ssc groupo ( still have the bike stored away, but never ride it ). Problem was that I followed Branford Bike's suggestion for fitting and the frame was a 62cm. Absolutely horrible. I always felt perched on top of a fence rather than in the driver's seat. This really became problematic the 1st time I took to it to southern France. Descending the switchbacks from the Col de La Madone, I had to fight the bike. Needless to say I rode it for one season only, going to a Bianchi then Trek and settled on Cannondales.
When it comes to bike fit, the measurements are all a range of where you need to be close to, but you still have to dial it in to your specific style of riding and most importantly what type of racing you focus predominantly. Crits are definitely going to require a much twitchier feel, stiffer frame than a road racing frame. However today's choices really make it so you can actually get away with just one or two bikes.
For me performance is the 1st criteria followed by comfort. The two are not mutually exclusive, but they do take quite a bit of experimenting and staying with a set up for a while, to really see if it works. If not then it's a small tweak here and there and again an adjustment period.

carpediemracing 

The assumption with the stem length bit is that the contact points remain consistent. Any problems with the body's position is a separate one, meaning fit isn't the issue (since the different bikes presumably fit the same, once properly fitting bars/stem are selected and everything is adjusted).

The bar/stem thing concerns weight distribution over the front wheel. A shorter stem will almost always put the rider further back from the front axle (I suppose a 90 degree derny racing bike might be different).

Interestingly enough my top tube length is just 1 cm shorter than yours. I probably have a steeper seat tube angle (75.5) and even with that my saddle is forward. I imagine our reach is very similar, but my saddle height is much lower, about 67 cm from saddle top to center of BB. 175 cranks with Look Keos so about 16.5 cm to the pedal top, give or take, giving me about 83 cm saddle height. I'm 5'7" so 8" shorter than you in height.

Personally I found that once a stem gets below 100mm it's a bit short for stability. This is based on troubleshooting the Missus's bike as well as test riding countless repairs and new bikes while at the bike shop.

There's a reason why I spec'ed out a 120mm stem as my base stem for a custom frame - it was to place my hands properly relative to the front wheel. I figured out the top tube length based on that 120mm stem.

Of course that was with a normal bar. With a compact I really a longer stem. I've gone with a 145mm stem and it's been good (the bars are I think technically 28mm shorter in reach). With the compact I also needed to move the bars down 3 cm, so I had to do that as well. For me the only way was to do a custom stem.

ips0803

The shorter stem also effects the steering input radius (obvious). You move your hands a given amount (deflectin/arc length) results in a greater angular change (wheel turns more).

At least that's how I think about it after driving cars with normal (350mm) wheels vs. some with 250 mm wheels.

Moyene Corniche

i'm misunderstanding where you mean compact regarding the frame geometry ?

ips0803

compact bars vs. traditional round is how I interpreted.

tetonrider

the understeering is really subtle. i've been riding a tarmac and venge, extensively, for 3 years. i ride them side by side. i typically train on the tarmac and race the venge, but in any given week i have them both out. the difference is subtle enough for me that it took until know and really focusing on small things for me to pinpoint.

i'm 5'11" and ride 56 frames with 120mm stems. i run a flat top cap with almost no stack height instead of the supplied caps. this is a particular issue with the tall head tubes and especially so for the venge's "aero" top cap; the shortest one is 15mm.

i have no problem recommending either bike (in fact, the venge is the one bike you'd have to pry out of my cold, dead hands), but i figured i'd note the slight understeer. if faced with riding a sub-100mm stem, i'd definitely look at the next lower size.

the tarmac is honestly a great handling bike. i can understand someone preferring another or simply not wanting to buy a specialized bike, but if someone rides a tarmac for a while and thinks 'meh' with respect to the handling, i think it may be more of a sign that something is not right with the setup. it's been around for a long time for a reason and is a common choice in the pro ranks for a reason (beyond just the marketing/sponsor stuff). i'd at least test the right size tarmac with a 110 or 120 stem to see what you think., but of course also test other bikes in the right size.

tetonrider

so when you have a normal, round bar vs one with compact reach, you are finding that you increase stem length by 2.5cm and reduce drop (in the stem) by 3?

cool stuff, cdr.

i use different bars on 2 bikes but they are within a few mm of drop and reach. i have some 130mm stems i might play with a bit. i've found saddle height/setback to be critical, while cockpit position is more preference (comfort + handling).

carpediemracing 

Yes, compact bar, sorry for not being clear.

In this picture the red bike has compact bars, the black the regular crit bend bars (round, considered shallow drop back in the day). I have the 14 cm stem on the red bike but no real extra drop. You can see how much higher the drops are relative to the front wheel. Geometry on the two frames are the same.


In this picture I'm comparing the FSA Energy bar (15 cm drop) to the FSA Wing Compact (12 cm drop). You can see that even though the Energy bar has more drop the effective drop at the meat of the curve is significantly less. I bought the Energy bar thinking it would solve the problem but it didn't, the drop was the wrong angle for me and it wasn't as low as I wanted.


The reason for the 3 cm stem drop - you can see that based on my preferred drop position the tops were much lower. 3 cm.


The compact bars work well for certain situations but fitting such a bar on a bike that had a regular bar on it originally will bring your weight back a bit. It may not be a good thing. I chose to pursue the compact bar (it's been a multi year process) because they're available and they're significantly stiffer than the old bars I've been using. The Mavic 315 bar I bought in 1997 when Mavic was closing out their component stuff. The 3ttt Gimondi bars I bought even earlier - they were unavailable by 1997 hence my purchase of the heavier, non-heat treated Mavic bar. The FSA Compact bar was so much better that I made the effort to make them work.