jyl

I am interested in your thoughts about the "fit" of road racers, today versus yesterday, and how much can be learned from this for non-racers.

Comparing the bikes, today's race bikes look to me almost like like womens' or kids' bikes. They are usually 50 to 54 cm "seat tube" and the top and down tubes almost meet on the head tube. This is for riders typically in the range 5'8"-5'10". The stems are long, 120mm. The saddle to bar drops range from 7cm to 13cm. Of course, they are carbon fiber. The race bikes from 30 years ago are larger (seat tube measurement). The stems are, I think, shorter. I think the saddle to bar drops were usually smaller. They were steel.

When I look at the riders on their bikes, the "reach" for today's racers seems a bit shorter. I'm referring to where their head and shoulders are, relative to where their hands are. But, despite the significantly different bike dimensions, I can't say that the riders' touch points look so vastly different from today to 30 years ago.

What do more experienced and informed eyes see?

I'm interested because I have a bike that I've always felt was too small for me. It is a 52" 1990s Cannondale. I'm 5' 11" with a long torso. On the hoods, the front hub looks well forward of the bar tops. I've thought about fitting a 120 mm stem in place of the 100 mm on there now, and I'va also thought "why try to make a too-small bike work?" But looking at current racer pictures makes me wonder, maybe the bike might not be too small after all? I'm not a racer, but I do wear lycra and hammer (with my itty bitty little hammer) sometimes.

Riders of today

I picked the top three in the Tour Down Under, going on now, and then a smattering of other top riders, mostly if I could find good side-on photos of them, seated on their road bikes.


Ritchie Porte 5' 8"
And the specs of his bike
https://www.bikeradar.com/us/road/gea...-think2-39614/


Cadel Evans 5' 9"


Simon Gerrans 5' 7"


Chris Froome 6' 1"
And the specs of his bike
https://www.bikeradar.com/us/news/art...-think2-37547/


Mark Cavendish 5' 9"
And the specs of his current bike
https://www.bikeradar.com/us/road/gea...s-venge-39539/


Jens Voigt 6' 2"
And the specs of his bike
https://www.bikeradar.com/us/road/gea...m-issue-39588/

Riders from ago

I picked a handful


Greg LeMond 5' 9"?


Bernard Hinault 5' 8.5"?


Eddy Merckx 5' 11"?


Laurent Fignon

RoadTire 

Ya, how is it that all these new racers get their tires to look so small too. All the old school bikes seem to be all wheels.

jyl

That has to be the deeper rims, and the all-blakc rims and tires, making the wheels look more compact.

I wonder if the different frame materials is playing tricks on my eyes. Maybe the top and down tubes of the current bikes are not that much closer together at the head tube, it is just that the tubes are so much fatter so they look much closer.

jyl

I notice that the current riders have so much saddle to bar drop, that when they are flat-backed in the drops, their arms are still quite straight, maybe a 30 degree bend at elbow. The '80s riders have their arms distinctly bent (60-90 degree bend at elbow) when they are flat-backed in the drops.

Nick Bain

Higher and longer reach, they are bending their elbows in order to get their torso into the same essential possition as todays riders.

jyl

Looking harder at these pictures, I'm drawing imaginary vertical lines through the center of the riders' heads. They seem to all intersect the top tube just a bit behind the headset, except for Hinault and Fignon who are really hammering on the rivet. So now I am wondering if today's racers really are using shorter (virtual) top tubes after all.

chaadster

I think modern race bikes have shorter wheelbases than the vintage ones.

jyl

I went looking for some extreme examples of big rider-small bike in today's peleton.

Andre Griepel 6' 0"

Specs of bike including 140 mm stem
https://www.cyclingnews.com/features/...ah-fast#glance

bikebreak

The surprise here to me is I am riding the same ETT as a 6 foot racer. I am 5'6" and a few mm.

I am running a 90mm stem instead of 140, and my position looks much more like Bernard Hinault than any of the recent racers.

I hear racers use smaller bikes to get a shorter head tube, which lets them get lower. They can get away with this because they are very flexible compared to weekend warriors.
Seems to me they are also all running seat posts with extra setback to compensate for the steeper seat tube angles on small bikes.

LucyDuncan

Perhaps you all experienced riders could help me with this:

I am new to road bikes but have biked a lot on mountain bikes.


Now I am trying to decide which the following road bikes to buy:

TREK Domane 4.5 50cm
TREK Domane 4.3 47 cm




The major difference is the size of the frame.


Both 50cm and 47cm fit well with me. But the shop assistant
highly recommended me to go with 47cm since that will be comfortable
even with the longest ride. Right now I tried them; both fit well
for trying short distance. The stretch difference between them
is about 1 cm.
but he said it makes difference for my back in long rides above 20 miles.
(I wish I could try to bike that long to tell the difference)




I am 5'2". I prefer the bigger frame. But he thinks the 47 cm fits me
better in longer rides. HE is positive from his own experience.


Is that true for your racers by 1 cm? Thank you.


L.

Angry_Monkey

I've been thinking about the same issues.
Yesterday (1986 & 1988):
Size was determined by standing over the frame and lifting the bike up into your... ah, you-know-whats. The wheels should clear the ground by 1"
The stem should be 1" below the saddle.
Saddle height was set so there was just a slight bend in the knees when in the pedals properly, and the pedal at the lowest position possible.

I'm 5' 9" and that resulted in a 23" or 57cm (I had to round down a little, as I don't think a 58cm size was available for my frame).

Today:
It seems that frames are smaller, but compensate with longer seat posts and/or stems. Which messes with the old lift the frame into your you-know-whats approach. And there seems to be a trend to a smaller equivalent frame size (I'm considering a 55cm by yesterday's reckoning).
Seat height is set by setting to that the leg is straight when you place the balls of your bare feet over the pedal spindle and cranks are in the lowest position.
Stem drop below seat seems to be in limbo... ♪♫How low can you go...♪♫.
I have also read that UCI standard state the saddle nose can be no less than 5cm behind the BB center line. And handle bars can extend no more than 15cm in front of the center of the front axle. Including geek-bars, which must be horizontal.
Triathlon (Non-UCI) seems to be no holds barred - I'm not even sure they require to have two wheels.
Tri bikes have a forward (non-UCI) saddle position to be more sprint friendly.

In short it looks like the contact points (Pedals, saddle, and bars) are in the same relative position, but everything in between has shrunk, making the bike look much smaller. The ticker Aero tubes and aero wheels just seem to make the bikes look even smaller.

Please feel free to add to/correct what I know about road bike fit. I want to know the pro/cons of the options before I go to the LBS for proper fitting.

~Monkey~

P.S. Take a look at the old fat tubed Al Cannondales of yesterday for a hybrid appearance.

elcruxio

I don't know about back in the day but in today's racing body angles are of most importance with rider comfort. An uncomfortable rider is a rider who is not producing maximal power for perceived effort.

Some basic angles:
torso/arm 90 degrees
elbow 30 degrees on hoods
openish hip angle
knees at 15-30 degrees at bottom of stroke. 30 is more comfortable and prevents injury when 15 maximizes aerobis efficiency
etcetcetc.

basically some angles are given and some require tweaking depending on the rider.

the funny thing though is our fixation on saddle height. Some people claim a few mm makes a huge difference on their performance. My mtb saddle goes up and down constantly and I don't even know the height anymore. But I change the height relative to current conditions. I do not notice a performance difference on my mtb even if the seat is 1cm high or low.

And I do think this approach should be more prevalent in the road community. How cool would it be to have a elevator post on a road bike which would instantly give you a higher saddle position for climbs, a much lower for descents and two to three positions on the flats. If setback could be set the same way it would be awesome. I certainly do get times when I feel stretched at the beginning of a ride and cramped at the end of it.

I hear Merckx used to twiddle his saddle height constantly mid race. Why don't we do that nowdays but instead believe the human body is somehow set to the pro fit we got by a millimetre. We're not machines people. Too many take this speccing fit way too far anyways

Darth Lefty 

The compact handlebars and long hoods have to have a role in this too. More time in the hoods means shorter, lower bike?

xtrout1

Great thread. How about the difference between 27" wheels and 700's of today?

fietsbob

your yesterday extending back to before WW2 ...

you will see they had much lower angle seat tubes and longer chainstays ..
as did the consumer bikes then.




630-622 .. Its 8mm of diameter , 4mm of radius,

racers used "28"inch sew ups glued to the rims .. way different than the 27" tires of the 60s.

the 700c wired on tires /rims were to be swappable with Race wheels ..

fietsbob

compact bars are accommodating the much longer bodies of the current brifters,

that had to get longer to include the shifting mechanism inside them..

jyl

Some of the modern riders (e.g. Gerrans, Voight) seem to have so much saddle to bar drop that the hoods position is almost like the hooks position of the older riders. I think they can have a flat back in the hooks with straight arms, or on the hoods with moderately bent arms. If you're a rider who is in the wind for a long time - Jens is a breakaway specialist, for example - maybe you want to be able to spend hours in a flat back position with little arm effort.

Others have a more moderate saddle to bar drop (e.g. Cavendish). He is a rider who stays in or behind the peleton most of the stage, then sprints at very high speed in a very low position where he'd want his arms deeply bent for control and power.

Or, maybe I'm just making it up, and actually their individual positions are simply a matter of personal preference and flexibility.

I like LeMond's stance, such a flat back but he looks comfortable.

soma5

I grew up with Lemond's recommendations. Saddle slammed back as far as it could go on a setback seatpost. More modern fit technology calls for certain angles between bones to maximize power output. I had a modern, complete fitting done recently and my saddle went up and forward, my handlebars came back and up. Interestingly, I produce measurably more power in my new position and I am a little faster in my 20-minute test. The promise is that I will be a little faster after 60 miles or more, like at the end of a road race. I'm not sure but I will find out.

Crescent Cycle

I just want to point out that 120-140mm quill stems were not uncommon in the pro peloton, and the saddle to the hoods and saddle to the drops hasn't gotten that much lower. The biggest difference is probably the distance from the saddle to the tops now that horizontal ramps and compact drops are common.

Saddle to the bars is measured from saddle to top, but hoods are now level with the tops instead of an inch lower, and drops are an inch closer to the tops as well. How often are these guys on the tops of the bars? Enough to make a valid comparison using saddle to bar tops drop as a metric?

fietsbob

Saw a vid on the TV at the Tavern .. Dubai time trial . , yea real low bars ..


It would be too uncomfortable for me . as an Old geezer . I'll watch You young Bucks bend way over like that .

I'm just a Tourist, after all .

elcruxio

We have to remember that for a taller rider a stem length of 120mm is quite normal. Even 140mm is quite ok. The slowness of steering caused by a longer stem is offsetted by a steeper head tube angle than smaller frames.

I've many times wondered why some (Zinn) feel large frames are somehow slow steering or less agile than their smaller counterparts. Many high end road bikes start with a head angle of 71 at the small end and end up at 74 with the largest size. Steeper ha means quicker handling.

this is not to say someone has an advantage against a different sized rider due to frame size differences. But at least in my opinion it is smart to use a longer stem with a steeper HA to reach towards optimal handling

Crescent Cycle

Interesting data point here. Both a 48cm traditional and a 43cm(?) compact geometry fail for me. Standover height isn't at the top of the seat tube, but rather at the middle in front of the saddle. At least in my size, head tubes seem to have gown taller, compensating for any drop in the seat tube.

That's wrong and I've never seen anyone do that. Whatever shop does that is very questionable.

Racers probably had more than 1" of drop back then, and they used the drops a lot more. You also gain an extra inch of drop when you move to compact bars if you keep the hoods and drops at the same height.

Sadly no. Recumbents and velocars are banned in 99% of them.

With elbow pads you can support more weight on your arms. There's various arguments as to why a forward seat has performance benefits, but people in a triathalon really shouldn't be doing sprints.

As I mentioned before, long quill stems weren't unusual for pros. What has changed is pros mostly use stock geometry frames rather than custom frames. That means they need something short, they go down to the framesize that can give them that, often stack. It's easier to lengthen everything else and adjust upward.

Angry_Monkey

Oops, my bad, I didn't catch it, I named the wrong tube - stand over was at the TOP tube, not the seat tube.

I must be getting old - getting my tubes all messed mixed up. Just be glad I'm not your doctor!

~Monkey~

Angry_Monkey

Some where, some one is playing with the height adjustment of their office chair wondering if they can duplicate that in a seat tube.
And our car seat have had that set back position thingy licked for decades.

Any engineers looking for a winter project??

~Monkey~

Duane Behrens

Through trial-and-error, I've managed to make an old 49 cm Nishiki (1980), quite comfortable to ride . . . seems about the same as my 56 cm carbon Tarmac. I'd like to know the critical dimensions that have made this so. Floor to seat? BB to seat? Seat post to bars? My guess is there are some few standard key measurements that would tell me how this happened. I'm just not sure what they are. There's probably a thread or link that nails it, just haven't found it yet. Thanks for any help. DB