Looks like bike is small, thoughts?
#1
Newbie
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 2
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Looks like bike is small, thoughts?
Hi!
I was hoping to get some opinions about how the proportions of my bike look with respect to my body size.
It is a Cinelli Gazzetta 530 mm frame
I am 5'8", with what I think are average proportions. I bought this frame without doing enough research to realize that in fact the top tube length is a bit shorter than other frames of similar seat tube lengths (top tube is 520 mm while another bike I have with seat tube length 520 mm is T = 535 mm). I was sizing this frame based on how I was fitted for a previous bike at my LBS, which was based on the seat tube length and 'the crotch rule'. Of course this other bike I bought had different head tube + seat tube angles and top tube lengths.
I can't exactly pinpoint why, but I feel like I look small on the gazzetta frame. While in the cockpit my body gives me no obvious signs that it is too small/cramped, but I have never ridden more than 45 K at once on it.
Does it look small simply because of the track frame proportions (the top tube is shorter, the rake smaller, head tube angle larger, chain stays shorter) or do you think regardless that the frame may be too small for me? Or do you think it looks fine?
Thanks for the second opinion!
I was hoping to get some opinions about how the proportions of my bike look with respect to my body size.
It is a Cinelli Gazzetta 530 mm frame
HTML Code:
https://www.cinelli-usa.com/bicycles?id=gazzetta
I can't exactly pinpoint why, but I feel like I look small on the gazzetta frame. While in the cockpit my body gives me no obvious signs that it is too small/cramped, but I have never ridden more than 45 K at once on it.
Does it look small simply because of the track frame proportions (the top tube is shorter, the rake smaller, head tube angle larger, chain stays shorter) or do you think regardless that the frame may be too small for me? Or do you think it looks fine?
Thanks for the second opinion!
#2
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Bristol, R. I.
Posts: 4,340
Bikes: Specialized Secteur, old Peugeot
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 663 Post(s)
Liked 496 Times
in
299 Posts
It does look small in the photo. I'm one inch shorter than you and ride a bike with a 54cm top tube.
#3
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 2,067
Bikes: 84 Pinarello Trevisio, 86 Guerciotti SLX, 96 Specialized Stumpjumper, 2010 Surly Cross Check, 88 Centurion Prestige, 73 Raleigh Sports, GT Force, Bridgestone MB4
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 278 Post(s)
Liked 71 Times
in
56 Posts
Yes, it is too small. You should purchase bikes on effective top tube length primary and seat tube length secondary. Bikes with sloped top tubes the seat tube is nearly meaningless. The effective top tube length is the frame size for practical considerations.
#5
Senior Member
Average proportions for most men means your legs are shorter than your torso relatively speaking.
I'm an inch shorter than you and have two 52cm Ironman bikes. However I have the seatpost maxed out, longer cranks and since the top tube on the Ironman bikes are longer than most I used the stock stem. And it feels very comfortable. You can get used to almost any set up, but I think at the very least get a longer stem.
Cool bike btw, and comfort should take precedence over aesthetics. Personally I feel bike fit is usually sorted out on long rides of at least 50 miles.
I'm an inch shorter than you and have two 52cm Ironman bikes. However I have the seatpost maxed out, longer cranks and since the top tube on the Ironman bikes are longer than most I used the stock stem. And it feels very comfortable. You can get used to almost any set up, but I think at the very least get a longer stem.
Cool bike btw, and comfort should take precedence over aesthetics. Personally I feel bike fit is usually sorted out on long rides of at least 50 miles.
#6
just another gosling
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 19,527
Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3885 Post(s)
Liked 1,938 Times
in
1,383 Posts
IMO the TT + stem is the correct length when, with forearms level. your elbows are at least 1" in front of your knees as you pedal. Saddle goes up and down easily. TT length not so simple.
__________________
Results matter
Results matter
#7
Senior Member
I'm 5'9.5", and I ride a 52 Domane, but my torso is short, as are my femurs, by proportion.
That bike does look like the reach could be a little short. However, I'm not sure where the seat is, or if it's in the correct place for your length of leg (KOPS being the starting point for finding this.) Example: As I understood where my knee placement felt best for me, I ended up moving my saddle *forward,* though the reach was right, and putting on a longer stem to get everything to balance out. Might be that you may find you need to move your saddle *back*, which will lengthen the reach somewhat.
The thing is, it's always easier to make a bike fit "larger" than smaller, without adverse impacts on handling. At the very least, stems are cheap, just grab an appropriate and appropriately sized one off of Ebay and see how it feels.
That bike does look like the reach could be a little short. However, I'm not sure where the seat is, or if it's in the correct place for your length of leg (KOPS being the starting point for finding this.) Example: As I understood where my knee placement felt best for me, I ended up moving my saddle *forward,* though the reach was right, and putting on a longer stem to get everything to balance out. Might be that you may find you need to move your saddle *back*, which will lengthen the reach somewhat.
The thing is, it's always easier to make a bike fit "larger" than smaller, without adverse impacts on handling. At the very least, stems are cheap, just grab an appropriate and appropriately sized one off of Ebay and see how it feels.