|Please put my obsessive compulsive mind at ease||Mothhunter|
Jun 22, 2001 9:43 AM
|I finally ordered my new frame, A Mondonico EL-OS. I went with the 53cm even though, based on my measurments, Greg LeMond and the bunch say I'm closer to a 52. I'm not the most limber guy, and as a result, I like the bars slightly higher than a lot of people. But the trend now sees to be with smaller bikes, so will I regret the bigger size? Will one centimeter be the difference between total jubilation and complete regret? Please put my mind at ease.
|re: Please put my obsessive compulsive mind at ease||seamus|
Jun 22, 2001 9:47 AM
|One centimeter isn't going to make the difference between comfort and misery, or even fashionably cool setup and a way-too-high stem. Besides, size can be a personal preference thing...the LeMond method suggests a 54cm for me, but I like 55's better.
Sounds like a nice machine. I wouldn't worry about it.
|No major diff in seat tube length on 1 cm, but...||Cima Coppi|
Jun 22, 2001 9:50 AM
|Does the top tube length on the Mondonico fit you properly based on your measurments? |
How were you fitted, by your LBS or by reading up on the sites?
If there is uncertainty here, no bike with a bad fit will bring the jubilation we all strive for!
|geez, people!||Jack S|
Jun 22, 2001 10:21 AM
|It's not just top tube length, but seat angle that is important. For example, you can have a slack angle and long top tube and the bike might just fit "shorter" than a bike with a steep angle and shorter top tube. Right? And when you throw in longer length seat tubes everything changes again 'cause the BB setback is greater. Unless way too tall, standover height is the least important measurement- at least on road bikes.
All that said, 1 cm is probably not a big deal. Being that you like higher bars, you might even prefer the bigger frame as it probably has a slightly longer head tube (esp. important if you are using a quill stem). BTW, who gives a dam whether the trend is to smaller bikes (who's trend is it anyway?)- it's the fit that counts.
|If my math is right.....||Len J|
Jun 22, 2001 9:51 AM
|You are talking about approx 4/10ths of an inch difference. Probably smaller than the length of your thumbnail. As long as you have enough clearance over the top tube when standing on the ground I can't imagine that this will make or break your bike pleasure. (Plus all other things being equal, a larger frame is more compliant than a smaller frame (more comfort over long rides)).
I would relax and enjoy the ride. Sounds like nothing more than second guessing (perfectly normal BTW).
|I'm guessing you'll love it.||cory|
Jun 22, 2001 10:18 AM
|I'm not going to go up against Greg Lemond, but at least for me, his system yields a frame that feels too small. I'm more the grizzly bear type compared to his gazelle, which probably accounts for a lot of it, but I just don't have the time or desire to get as lean and limber as I need to be to reach all the way down there to the handlebars. I ordered 2cm bigger based on test rides (64 vs. 62), and I've never been sorry.|
Jun 22, 2001 10:36 AM
|You've put my mind at ease. I'm sure I will love it, and I can't wait to build it up and get it out on the road. Thanks Again.|
|About that bike||mike mcmahon|
Jun 22, 2001 11:09 AM
|I have a five-year-old Torelli EL-OS, which was built by Mondonico. You made a good choice. I've really enjoyed my bike. A friend of mine bought a Mondonico EL-OS about a month after I bought my Torelli. Unfortunately, his has been used as a $2500 coat-rack for most of its life. I rode with him about six months ago and his bike still looked like it has just been ridden out of the shop where he bought it. It's such a shame to see a beautiful bike like that go to waste. Make Antonio happy; be sure yours sees plenty of miles.
|Thanks Everyone!||Ray Sachs|
Jun 22, 2001 11:46 AM
|If you want even more confirmation (and possibly make you second guess whether your frame is large ENOUGH), check out the Rivendell web site at www.rivendellbicycles.com and check out their articles about frame sizing, handlebar height, seat angles, etc. If you're a racer and put full-on performance at the top of the scale and comfort at the bottom, get a small frame. If your bias is comfort, go large.
|sounds like the right choice...||C-40|
Jun 22, 2001 7:41 PM
|A common mistake is buying a frame 1 or 2cm too small, then having to use a high rise stem or lots of spacers to get the bars up.
What is often overlooked and rarely measured, is the head tube length. For me, if it's less that 135mm, I know I'll need some spacers, with an 80 degree stem.
On my 55cm C-40, the head tube length is 133mm, and I use only 2.5mm of spacers below the stem. This places the bars about 9cm below the saddle, which is more than a lot of folks can stand, but it's OK for me. My seat rails are about 13cm above the top tube, and I have 3.5cm standover clearance, to hard contact in bare feet. It's as big a frame as I would want to use.