Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Singlespeed & Fixed Gear
Reload this Page >

Vigorelli Steel track sizing question

Notices
Singlespeed & Fixed Gear "I still feel that variable gears are only for people over forty-five. Isn't it better to triumph by the strength of your muscles than by the artifice of a derailer? We are getting soft...As for me, give me a fixed gear!"-- Henri Desgrange (31 January 1865 - 16 August 1940)

Vigorelli Steel track sizing question

Old 06-13-19, 12:43 AM
  #1  
Burnout
Newbie
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Vigorelli Steel track sizing question

Hey folks, I wonder if anyone with experience with the newer steel Cinelli Vigorelli track frame might be able to offer me some comparative information.

I have an aluminum Vigorelli in a 52 and I feel like the bike fits me well and was well set up for my physique without any elaborate efforts. I am 67.5cm tall with a slightly short inseam for a guy: 75.5.

I am interested building a steel Vigorelli, and beyond the more relaxed geo. already baked into the "Crit" intent that Cinelli designed the frame around, I am also a bit vexed by the sizing differences between the alum. and the steel - and before saying any more I understand that this is kind of apples and oranges here nevertheless:

The steel frames size at 50cm, then 53cm, etc. I am leaning toward a 50cm, but could almost imagine the 53 working, though in all important measurements it is bigger than my 52 aluminum bike. I have read and looked at all the numbres for the Aluminum (which I am familar with) and the steel in both possible sizes. Part of me is am honestly wondering whether the steel may just not be a good fit for me at either 50 or 53 - I can certainly ride either one, but I don't want to make heroic compensatory adjustments in the form of no post/skying seat or crazy long stem/stubby, etc. I can't get next to a built up 50 or 53 in aluminum since I no longer live in Chi/NYC as I did for years.

I wonder if there is anyone here who is some where in the neighborhood of my height/inseam who has rode/rides a new steel Vigorelli in either of the referenced sizes and who might offer some perspective. Any input would be really appreciated. Looking at the measurements my gut tell me to go for the 50, but that seems counter-intuitive, given that the 53 is closer by designation.

Thanks a lot.
Burnout is offline  
Old 06-19-19, 05:28 PM
  #2  
seau grateau
Senior Member
 
seau grateau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: PHL
Posts: 9,722

Bikes: Litespeed, IRO

Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1225 Post(s)
Liked 149 Times in 85 Posts
I think in this case it's more useful to use the S/M/L etc. designations for frame size. I think the numbers you're referencing are the C-T seat tube measurements, which is generally not a useful dimension for frame sizing. The "50" steel frame and the "52" aluminum frame (both S sizes) have the exact same effective top tube and reach measurements, and very similar stack.
seau grateau is offline  
Old 06-23-19, 09:32 PM
  #3  
Burnout
Newbie
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by seau grateau View Post
I think in this case it's more useful to use the S/M/L etc. designations for frame size. I think the numbers you're referencing are the C-T seat tube measurements, which is generally not a useful dimension for frame sizing. The "50" steel frame and the "52" aluminum frame (both S sizes) have the exact same effective top tube and reach measurements, and very similar stack.
Thank you for your response. I appreciate you confirming the importance of those measurements (reach & stack vs. C-T). I have been reading more articles about bike fitting/frame building more recently, and despite having ridden for decades I am not always clear on the details of frame geometry - always learning. I buy frames and build-up bikes very sparingly and so each time it's a new adventure. Your suggestion to consider the sizing designation with these frames was also useful. Though it is usually something that I take as only a rough guide, I looked at that aspect as well: I was once again thrown by the shorter C-T and was second guessing/over complicating my thought process regarding the top tube vs seat tube and how that would translate into overall fit.
Burnout is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
eric044
General Cycling Discussion
8
08-11-17 01:55 PM
bres dad
Framebuilders
10
11-30-13 06:29 PM
pepperbelly
Classic & Vintage
11
08-01-12 08:14 AM
Rubo
Road Cycling
120
11-17-11 09:42 AM
Epicus07
Road Cycling
28
01-03-10 09:20 AM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.