|Fondriest Status Carb vs. Carb Level vs. Look 361||cw05|
Nov 16, 2003 8:11 PM
|I'm trying to decide between these framesets. Any experiences with them? Also, I have a couple of questions on the geometry of the them. For the Fondriest's, I would want the traditional horizontal top tube model, I usually ride a 60cm but the geometry on fondriest-usa.com lists a C-T seattube size of 62.5cm (the 58cm lists a C-T size of 60.5cm). Does this sound right? If so how is it a true 60cm frame? For the Look, the info on jensonusa.com lists a top tube length of 61.5cm (effective) for a 59cm frame vs. on competitivecyclist.com of 57.9cm top tube on a 59cm frame? What's the deal? I thought this was a standard geometry horizontal top tube frame, is it sloping? Lastly, I am a 6'3" 180lb. rider, any thoughts on how stiff this frames would be for me? Thanks for your time and responses.|
|apples and oranges....||C-40|
Nov 17, 2003 6:08 AM
|You neglected to note whether the 60cm that you ride is measured c-c or c-t. If you don't know, it's simple to take a c-c measurement.
To make a valid comparison, go to the manufacturer's websites to get the correct geometry information. The correct geoemtry charts are at www.lookcycle.com and www.fondriest-usa.com. It's easiest to compare c-c sizes when possible and ignore the seat tube length. The seat tube length is not very relevant to actual frame size.
Apparently, the 361 is no longer made, but I have the geometry chart. The frame measures 59cm c-c with a 57.5cm TT length, 72.5 STA and 177.5 head tube length.
The status carb measures 58cm c-c with a 58.5cm TT, 72.45 STA and substantially longer 192mm head tube length.
The size XL Carb Level has a sloping top tube, so the dimensions to compare are the 58.5cm TT length and 190mm head tube length.
The LOOK frame will require a 10mm longer stem with about 10 degrees more angle or 15-20mm more spacer to get the bars up to the same height as the Fondriest frames. Other than that, they will fit the same.
Nov 17, 2003 8:10 AM
|what made you narrow your search down to these three... price, looks, or what? These are no doubt nice bikes as I actually have both a Fondy and a Look, however I would be interested to see what your rationale and criteria are, expecially given C40's geometry information...
|60 cm C-T||cw05|
Nov 17, 2003 12:21 PM
|That's the size on my current commuter frame that I feel fits me well. My current race bike is a sloping top tube (Schwinn Fastback from before the whole bankruptcy debaucle) which is not a geometry that I like that much. I am on an XL and have never been able to get that comfortable (maybe too much saddle to bar drop?) vs. older 60cm (C-T) traditional horizontal top tube bikes that I have been very comfortable on. As far as the Carb Level being a sloping-type frame, fondriest-usa.com also has it listed as being available in the traditional geometry as well which is what I would be looking to get. Thanks for your detailed response C-40. So, C-40, does this mean I should get a 56cm Fondriest?
Funknuggets, the frame choices are based on basically three frames that I have admired in the past and now feel are good deals based on the current sales on them. Do you feel the Fondriest's are worth the extra $$ for $1250-1299 vs. $719 at jensonusa.com for the Look? I do hesitate to invest this much in a frame that I have never personally laid eyes on or ridden.
Thanks again from your interest and responses.
|not enough info...||C-40|
Nov 17, 2003 1:11 PM
|There's no way I can compare what you're riding now to the other frames without all the dimensions of the frame that you feel fits you well. It's also good to know the stem length, saddle height and desired saddle to bar height difference.
A 60cm c-t is in between a 58 and a 59cm measured c-c. I'd recommend measuring your current frame for it's c-c size and the head tube length. The STA would be nice too, but it's takes a bit of effort to measure. It's generally not difficult to predict the exact changes required to get one frame to fit like another, providing the measurements being compared are accurate.
I see no reason to rule out a sloping TT frame. As long as the STA, TT length and head tube length are the same, there will be no difference in the fit, compared to a frame with a horizontal TT.
The Carb Level is a perfect example. Both traditional and sloping versions will fit the same.
|more measurement info||cw05|
Nov 17, 2003 3:49 PM
|C40, thanks for your feedback. Unfortunately the commuter frame that I feel comfortable on is across town and not readily available for measurements. However, I did go to competitivecyclist.com and use his fit calculator which I pasted below. What I don't understand is how for say the 60cm Fondriest Status Carb that the seat tube C-T is 62.5cm with a C-C of 58, does this make sense? That seems like a big jump in length, which I can only assume is made up for with STA, is it really that extreme?
Lower Leg 23
Sternal Notch 60
Fit calculator output---
Seat tube range c-c 57.6 - 58.1
Seat tube range c-t 59.4 - 59.9
Top tube length 60.0 - 60.4
Stem Length 12.2 - 12.8
BB-Saddle Position 85.3 - 87.3
Saddle-Handlebar 58.8 - 59.4
Saddle Setback 5.5 - 5.9
Seatpost Type NON-SETBACK
Seat tube c-c 57.8
Seat tube c-t 59.6
Effective reach 73.8
BB-Saddle Position 78.5
|measure the bike...||C-40|
Nov 18, 2003 5:11 AM
|I take no stock in body measurements converted to bike dimensions. They are rarely accurate enough. An actual saddle height is better than an inseam measurement, for example.
As for the seat tube length of the status carb, if it's 58c-c, add 1.5cm to get to the c-t dimension (59.5). An additional 3cm does seem like a lot, but 2cm is quite common and some manufactuers do extend the seat tube even more to add support to the seat post. You should call Fondriest and ask is this is the case.
I don't understand your confusion with the seat tube angle (STA). The length of the seat tube has nothing to do with it's angle.