Aug 10, 2002 2:43 PM
|I went to my LBS today and discovered I can get a Look 281 with the all carbon fork and full Ultegra for about $2000 built... the thing is, the largest frame they have is a 57. I'm about 6'1" and have been riding a 58 Trek, which are measured a bit differently than Look (Look is C-C, Trek C-T).
Anyway, I don't want the guy to say "you look like a 57" just because they have a 57 and not a 58 so they can sell me a bike... on the other hand, they need to build this thing before I can even ride it. I can test ride a 58, which I will do on Monday, but it is a demo that is apparently not for sale.
This LBS is the last LBS I'd expect someone to sell a frame just to sell a frame... they are arguably the best shop in town. Any thoughts?
|I say measure the top tube.||hayaku|
Aug 10, 2002 8:22 PM
|If it's within a cm you can adjust the with stem length, try to get it as close to the setup you're comfortable with now though. If the seat angles are different take that into account. If you're not particularly fussy about KOPS or any of that you can adjust the seat setback relative to the BB.
There is a lot of adjustability in bike geometory, I think more than people admit. However it does suck to have an ill-fitting bike.
Measure it up and make your best judgment, good luck.
Aug 10, 2002 9:12 PM
|I've got a few bikes (same maker) that vary by 1cm in their sizing (seatube) but only by 0.5cm in top tube... this works well for me.
When I size any new frame... outside of noting what the maker says... I measure center to center along the top tube (or it's effective length).
Remain In Light.
|Lower back pain||filtersweep|
Aug 11, 2002 3:52 AM
|The geometry looks quite good- in fact top tube length is identical at 57.4 on both bikes. Angles are both very good, very similar. It is actually possible a Look 57 is larger than a Trek 58.
On my Trek, my seatpost is about as high as it can go (within maybe a half cm to the max line), but there isn't an obnoxious handlebar drop- any lower and my knees don't like it. Any higher and my hips start to rock.
I've also been trying to sort out the cause of my lower back pain- wondering if it is a fit issue, or if I'm spending too many hours sitting at a desk all day at work. My work responsibilities changed this spring which require me to spend much more time sitting at a desk at a central office. This is a new office, with all new furniture, and the purchaser ordered a buch of "cool looking Italian office chairs" that are the most uncomfortable things I've ever sat it. There has been a recent backlash now that one employee has enlisted her physician to write a letter requesting something a bit more ergo.
Anyway, I can ride very comfortably for 20 miles at a time before I feel the need to stretch (I have a dull, nasty pain that appears to be muscular to one side or the other of my spine). After briefly stretching, I'm good for another 20 miles. I also wonder if this is from a habit I have of spinning up hills, which seems to stress the lower back more than when I stand (there is a long curved narrow hill with no shoulder where I usually stay seated to hold a better line in traffic).
My thinking is this isn't necessarily a fit issue, but when I ride a mtn bike, I never have any back pain (although everything else feels beat up). I should mention that I mainly use my other bike for recovery rides, or a more recreational pace, which may also contribute to why my back is fine. If it IS a fit issue, I don't want to make the issue worse.
|Have you considered handlebar height?||Spoke Wrench|
Aug 11, 2002 5:06 AM
|You've said your seatpost is near the min. insertion mark and you don't have the same discomfort on your mountain bike. While I have obviously never seen you or your bike, those two statements make me suspect you might be happier with a handlebar that's maybe an inch or so higher.|
Aug 11, 2002 5:10 AM
|since you ride a 58 c-t, a 57 c-c should be about the right size. You can look at Look's website for geometry and top tube lengths to see how the 57 and 58 compare. I'm 6'2", 35 inch inseam and felt comfortable on a 58 look frame, so you're probably good with the 57. Personally, I think the main thing is to see how your pedal position works out--can you get the seat back enough for a good knee to center of pedal spindle position. Then, your reach to the handlebars is a matter of stem choice. As long as you don't have monkey arms, it should be fine. With the look, I'd go for the smallest frame that will fit you--lighter and stiffer|
Aug 11, 2002 5:22 AM
|I ditto the previous comments, I ride an older look 231 frame. They only came in 2cm increments, and opted for the 59cm. After checking the geometry on the 57cm the top tubes were indentical in size. I am 6'-1 and have a 34" inseam and found i could adjust the seat to aquire the correct pedal to knee alignment which is the most crucial measurement.|
|lower back pain||rob45|
Aug 11, 2002 5:18 AM
|It is pretty common to get the kind of back pain you mention since the lower spine is a major pivot point in riding. Since the pain is on one side or the other there's some asymmetries that need to be worked out. A good massage therapist or chiropractor can help with these. Also, avoid sitting on your wallet and develop a stretching routine, particularly something to do at work to break up long bouts of sitting. A weight routine for abs (back pain is often due to weak abs) and lower back (good mornings) can also help|
|lower back pain||filtersweep|
Aug 11, 2002 6:06 AM
|It is nice to know this is common (I guess). I never know if a problem is "just me" or whether other people share those issues... I spend all winter in the gym, and specifically focused on back and abs last winter in an attempt to address the issue.
You hit the nail on the head with the asymmetries issue. My left outer quad has been causing some cramping problems and I'll end up favoring my right from time to time...