Hello,
I am searching for a good frame for my next build which is to be road disc with thru-axle and I came across this Cinelli.



I am trying to get a bike with a geometry close to that of my beloved Kestrel 200 Sci.





The superstar gets close, however the more modern geometry is not as straight (ha) forward as the Kestrel.





What confuses me about the SS's geometry is the "virtual" seat-tube length. With the numbers given, I can calculate for size M:

T1-reach=550-387=163
Stack is then 548, so: 548 squared + 163 squared = C squared = 326,873.
Root that and we have a "virtual" seat-tube length of 571.73

That strikes me as quite a tall seat tube for a size M. So, am I not understanding the dynamics of the more modern geometry or what? My inseam is 77 and my saddle is typically 74.5cm from BB center. Would the M then be OK? The "virtual" top tube length of 550 is nearly perfect. I do however like the wheelbase of the size S much better, as it is much more similar to my 54cm Kestrel.

If I calculate the "virtual" seat-tube length of size S, I get 543.12 which is much more in my arena. Only thing about the S that I don't like is the 2cm shorter top-tube, which is really no biggy as I run a 110mm stem on the kestrel and could take that down to an 80 or 90.

All that said, the color scheme is regretfully quite feminine, something I would have to change if I were to purchase it. I am however still very interested and believe that this may just be a great performer for this price point. Wondering if anyone has some personal experience and a few words they would like to share about it. Any help with the sizing would also be great! Thanks in advance.

I don't know, but looking at the Cinelli I see the frame is 1000g. Another you might be interested in is the same one I have, a DB Podium E'Tape Disc, which they say is sub-900g. If you register for a corporate account the entire bike is $1495, less than the Cinelli frameset, and you could sell the components if you don't want them. They have a M/54 in stock that looks to be your size. I can tell you the ST length in the chart is c-c. My 56 has a ST of 56 c-t. And it's a smooth riding frame on rough roads, smoother than any steel bike I ever had.

https://www.diamondback.com/road-bik...um-e-tape-disc

Thanks for the suggestion Lazy. The frame doesn't look bad. I don't dig the arching seat-stay. Perhaps would render a little bit too relaxed of a ride for me. Also, the build quality from Diamondback...? I mean, most frames these days are made in China. But how stringent is their QC? I had a diamondback when I was 8, but I don't know if I would do it again.

What I was really looking for is someone who knows the geometry of the Cinelli frame and that could help me out with the actual measurements. I mean, this frame is almost spot on with the Kestrel. But the wheelbase for the M is significantly larger, as well as the virtual seat tube as I had discussed. Is the M really that big? Would the S be too small?

Regards,
CK

So I have contacted Cinelli and await an answer. For the time being I have calculated the Stack and Reach of the Kestrel:

Kestrel Size 54: Stack 52, Reach: 39.7

Cinelli Size M: Stack: 54.8, Reach: 38.7
Cinelli Size S: Stack 52.2, Reach: 38.3

The Kestrel's Stack of 52 is already at the upper limits for me and therefore a stack of 54.8 and like I have said a virtual seat-tube length of 57.2 is just too big. I would sacrifice the slightly shorter reach as that can be more easily accommodated for.

It is clear that I am over-thinking this, yes? This is because there are no dealers anywhere around which carry this bike and I cannot simply go try it.

I am still considering Giant and Scott frames with similar specs. But this Cinelli is very enticing.

I'd rather have a longer stem than shorter. What's the stem on your Kestrel?

That's a great question and one of the reasons why I am skeptical about the shorter reach of the Cinelli frame. On the Kestrel I have a flatbar with a 110mm Ritchey stem. If I were to have drop bars, I would run a shorter stem. My plans for the Cinelli are not yet fixed on either flat or drop bars. I think though, for me flat bars are much more fun for the type of riding that I typically do and if I were to go that direction with the Cinelli frame, I think longer than 110mm is not a good idea.

Another thing that I have just considered is the seatpost set-back. I need to verify this but the Kestrel has what I think is a 2.5cm set-back and my saddle is perfect center. I believe that this means if I run the same set-back on the Cinelli S frame and with the saddle more to the rear, that I could pull this off quite nicely. Question is then: would the bike ride well with the saddle so far behind the crankset? Seated climbing might suffer a bit.

After looking around it seems that other manufacturers such as Giant and Scott have also similar geometry: Much longer virtual seat-tube, and shorter reach lengths than the classic European road bike geometry of the Kestrel.

to be honest i size all my bikes on ETT only. The rest is adjustable.

Thanks and after further reading I must correct myself in that ATT (actual top tube) is the correct term and not "virtual top tube." I found some further reading about ETT (effective top tube) and ATT here. They however explain ETT for a specific mountain bike where the crank axis is offset from that of the seat-tube. This is where ETT becomes more important than ATT. But for a bike where the seat-tube and crank-saddle axis are the same, ATT and ETT are equal.

I agree that Reach, Stack and ATT (or ETT) are most important when considering frame size. That understood, this is still a tricky decision for me as the stack for the Cinelli size S is perfect for me but the reach is somewhat too short. As well, for the size M is the stack far too large and the reach almost perfect! Another drawback for the M is that the wheelbase is quite long. My Kuota Kredo's WB is 979, Kestrel: 984, Cinelli S: 987 and M: 995!

Given my dimensions, I could live more easily with a longer reach than stack. That said, I am now considering other frames such as the Giant TCR or Scott Foil. It's too bad that I cannot simply try the Cinelli.

Am I missing something or is this kvetching over a reach difference of 4mm?

Yeah, I guess it looks that way. I wans't quite accurate when I said "almost perfect" as perfect would be the Kestrel at 39.7 and the Cinelli M has a reach of 38.7. Not quite "almost perfect" but 1cm aint bad. What really bothers me about the Cinelli M is the "Actual Seat-tube," if you will, which is 57.2cm for a size M. Kestrel is 54.

What I am noticing about most of these modern bikes is that they all have rather long AST's and shorter Reaches. I had a 2010 Giant TCR SL 0 in size M which fit me OK. It has very similar geometry to the new TCR SL and this Cinelli. It would be nice if I could try the Cinelli but things are looking more towards the Foil or TCR as local dealers have them in stock.

The TCR stack and reach is within 5mm of the Cinelli so if one fits so will the other. Ignore the "actual seat tube".

Thank you for the input. Today we looked at the TCR's and I agree with you about ignoring the "AST" as the size S was clearly too small. They had a TCR Advanced Pro 1 and I can't say that I like it. The Scott Foil really catches my eye, but the Cinelli strikes me as the best bang-for-buck out of them all.