|About the USPS bikes||fracisco|
Jan 27, 2003 11:44 AM
|From this picture on cyclingnews.com, the setup that the USPS riders use make the Trek carbon frame look like a compact. Do 'everyday' riders on Trek 5XXX series frames have as much seatpost exposed, or this the result of pros wanting as small a frame as possible, and being flexible enough to have a large drop from saddle to bars?
(link http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos/2003/jan03/USPS_train/P1010012_1.jpg )
(another one here: http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos/2003/jan03/USPS_train/P1010014_1.jpg )
|re: About the USPS bikes||DougSloan|
Jan 27, 2003 11:50 AM
|I don't think it has anything to do with compact geometry or wanting as small a frame as possible. I think it concerns having the saddle to handlebar drop that works for the particular riders, with aerodyamic positioning being important (like taking a pull at 35 mph?).
"Everyday" riders likely aren't as flexible or as strong as pros, plus it's not nearly as important for them to get that much drop and be aerodynamic, as they aren't taking too many pulls at 30+ mph.
|It's a function of the........||Len J|
Jan 27, 2003 11:57 AM
|stock OCLV geometry.
Trek measures there sizes from the center of the BB to the Seatpost colar. So a size 56 has a seattube measured Center of BB to Center of TT of only 52 cm while it has a TT of 56 CM. This means that, compared to a "Square" normal size 56 (with a 56 cm TT & 56 Cm ST) the Top tube is 4 CM lower on an OCLV. Unless you have short legs relative to your Torso, you either end up with a hugh drop to the bars or many spacers.
|..yup, too long TTs are the culprit...||Spunout|
Jan 27, 2003 12:01 PM
|But apart from that fred Lance and his stack of spacers ;) the pros do ride a deeper drop.
Watch a Belgian classics video with them riding across the cobbles into a gale off of the North Sea, and you'll appreciate the drop!
|How does this compare to Lemond geometry? (nm)||Uprwstsdr|
Jan 27, 2003 1:34 PM
|How does this compare to Lemond geometry? (nm)||Len J|
Jan 27, 2003 2:26 PM
Click on geometry to see the sizing
|One comparison.||Len J|
Jan 27, 2003 2:36 PM
Seat tube C to C 54 Cm (58 ceter to seat colar)
Top Tube length C to C 57.2 Cm
Head Tube Angle 73.8 Degrees
Seat tube Angle 73.0 Degrees
Seat tube C to C 57 Cm
Top Tube length C to C 57.5 Cm
Head Tube Angle 73.5 Degrees
Seat tube Angle 72.5 Degrees
The lemond has a slacker geometry which (assuming the same KOP position) shortens the effective Top tube compared to the Trek. All other things being equal, the drop to the bars will be less on the Lemond.
|re: About the USPS bikes||FrankDAfish|
Jan 27, 2003 1:52 PM
|Whats with the bontrager rims with 3x lacing.|
|..training wheels, everybody has a budget! nm||Spunout|
Jan 27, 2003 3:38 PM
|'Everyday rider' trek fit||AllUpHill|
Jan 27, 2003 4:52 PM
|I bought a 58cm trek frame for a "normal" fit. As you can see, not a whole lot of post, saddle forward on the rails, and an 11cm stem.
I could have opted for a 56cm and taken the "pro" fit approach ... 12-13cm stem, 20% more post and the saddle slammed back.
|'Everyday rider' trek fit||Fez|
Jan 27, 2003 7:02 PM
|That looks like an OK fit. The smaller one would have had an obscene amount of post showing. And you prob would have to resort to a nice stack of spacers.|
Jan 28, 2003 5:20 AM
|moving the saddle fore or aft on the rails to work out reach to bars issues is not the way to fit a bike. As many have said, getting your saddle position right is probably the single most important thing you can do and then play with the stem (or get a different frame) to work out the reach issues. Moving the seat for or aft from your most comfortable / efficient position can mess up your pedalling mechanics, your weight distribution on the bike, and (maybe most importantly) your comfort level.