|CINELLI Aliante Geometry||Kunfoochi|
Oct 30, 2002 1:39 PM
|I'm about 6'2", and I'm looking at a CINELLI Aliante in 57cm. I've gone to the Cinelli web site, but can't find the geometries of the frame. I'd like this bike because I think I've found a great deal at a 2002 model with full 2000 Dura Ace and Bontrager Race Lites for $1500 slightly used. It's the version with the Carbon seatstays. Anyway, I've tested a 58cm Trek OCLV and it was just about right, maybe a little bit too small on the top tube. Compared to that, could anyone tell me if I could fit on this bike, maybe even if it has to be with a longer seatpost(there's a thomson elite on there now) and a longer stem(it's a 3TTT Forgie, I don't know how long.
|need more info...||C-40|
Oct 30, 2002 2:02 PM
|No one can determine if you'll fit this bike without an accurate cycling inseam. A cycling inseam is measured from the floor to weight bearing crotch contact in bare feet. With this info and your barefoot height, I can come close.
See the fit info at coloradocyclist.com or cyfacusa.com.
Unless you've got short legs though, it's probably too small.
|CINELLI Aliante Geometry||Cima Coppi|
Oct 30, 2002 2:05 PM
|Gary Hobbs has an Aliente frame in the X-Large size on his website. He says the tt length is 58cm, but I cannot tell if that is the effective length or the actual length since the frame is of sloping geometry. My advice would be to stop into a reputable LBS that can do a fitting on you to give you an idea of what will fit and what won't.
|here's the site....||C-40|
Oct 30, 2002 2:11 PM
Just click on the geometry icon.
The XL size is as large as they come. That's probably as good as you'll get.
|here's the site....||Kunfoochi|
Oct 30, 2002 3:46 PM
|Thanks...I kept going to that site and didn't notice the geometry button. According to the Wrench Science fitting program, here are my sizes..
Height :: 74in
Sternum notch :: 61.5in
Inseam length :: 36in
Arm length :: 27.5in
Shoulder width :: 15.5in
Flexibility :: 9
Weight :: 126 lbs
Foot size :: 11 USMens
Like I said, I tried a 58 cm Trek with smaller geometries and it seemed just a little too small. Even if this isn't an effective top tube(which means what:)?), could I not just use a longer stem and longer seatpost if necesary? From what I understand, the frame alone costs $1500, so I'm thinking even if it's a little too small, I'll either get a new post and stem, or sell it and get a different frame...maybe even make a little money on it.
Oct 30, 2002 5:17 PM
|126lbs and 6.2! damn!
anyways - be careful with sloping top tubes. There are two measurements - the effective length and the overall tube length. With sloping geometry the effective is usually shorter than the overall tube length.
The effective top tube length is the horizontal distance from the center of the head tube junction to the center of the seat tube.
see here for a pic
Overall tube length would be the actual length of the tube.
|buy the right size...||C-40|
Oct 30, 2002 5:31 PM
|If it's not a XL size, forget it. If your inseam measurement of 36 inches is a cycling inseam (not pants length), you should be looking at a 62cm c-t frame with a relatively short top tube (like Colnago).
You shouldn't even think about something as small as a 58cm Trek, which actually measures about 56cm c-t.
Also beware of bargains. If it's too good to be true, there may be something wrong with it. Don't buy a used bike for the parts. Just about any bike with a full year's use is only worth about 50% of original retail. The Cinelli wasn't over $3000 new, so it's only an average price, unless it's seen very little use.
If your weight really only 126?
|buy the right size...||Kunfoochi|
Oct 31, 2002 4:16 AM
|Thanks for the explanation...and yes, I weigh 126. Here's a picture of the bike, it looks pretty good to me. According to him, the wheels are new, and the frame is a 2002.|
|Sorry, here are the pics..||Kunfoochi|
Oct 31, 2002 4:18 AM
|Eck...here's the right picture||Kunfoochi|
Oct 31, 2002 12:31 PM