Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Fitting Your Bike
Reload this Page >

Thinking about fit during the pandemic

Notices
Fitting Your Bike Are you confused about how you should fit a bike to your particular body dimensions? Have you been reading, found the terms Merxx or French Fit, and don’t know what you need? Every style of riding is different- in how you fit the bike to you, and the sizing of the bike itself. It’s more than just measuring your height, reach and inseam. With the help of Bike Fitting, you’ll be able to find the right fit for your frame size, style of riding, and your particular dimensions. Here ya’ go…..the location for everything fit related.

Thinking about fit during the pandemic

Old 03-27-21, 12:42 PM
  #1  
ezmiller
Junior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 14
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Question Thinking about fit during the pandemic

I want to buy a frameset and built it up myself. So I am looking on ebay and elsewhere trying to find a frame. What makes me the most nervous is fit. I have tried a bunch of calculators out there to try to get a sense of what might be right for me. I have started to understand the significance of different measurements like reach and stack, etc. And I have tried to look at frames themselves and intuitively try to understand what a certain frame might feel like. But give my lack of experience these efforts seem as though they will remain approximate. I know that I could go to a bike fitter but I think this is a risk I cannot take during the COVID pandemic, at least until I am vaccinated.

My question, then, is how can I best take stock of what might be a good fit based on my measurements. What are the best tools out there to get a sense of a what a baseline fit might look like? What are the most importance measurement concepts to understand?

I had thought that reach and stack were some good concepts to understand, but I recently communicated with someone who was selling a vintage Olmo frame on ebay. I'd asked them for additional frame geometry details. They only provided the following details in their ad:
51cm (c-c) Olmo San Remoframe-set (52.5cm top tube) c. 80's Columbus SL lugged construction. Professionally refinished with period-correct decals. Braze-on cable guides, recessed brake caliper attachments, Olmo brand engravings, forged front and rear drop-outs. 27.2mm seat post
This didn't feel like enough to understand the frame's geometry. Perhaps because I'm new to this I don't know how to read the meaning of the details provided here. The response I got was:

Seat and top tube lengths are primary frame dimensions affecting fit. Italian stage racing frames of this period are quite similar. I generally recommend people get a frame somewhat larger than if they were a competitive cyclist so the bar and seat heights can be equal or even with bars a bit higher. Racing fit makes no sense for recreational riders.

This makes sense to me, except that I don't know how to understand the frame's geometry and potential fit from just the length of the top tube and the seat post. I'm guessing what they are saying is that that should give me a sense of how much of a racing frame this is? I.e. how much of a bent over and aerodynamic position I'd be in if I were dropped-down?

So combing my general questions above with this particular example, I'm wondering how I could apply some general principles to understand what this seller is saying and also how this frame might fit? Can anyone help educated a newbie? The forum won't let me post a link to the fame on ebay, but it's item id is #114611780974.
ezmiller is offline  
Old 03-27-21, 01:28 PM
  #2  
Iride01 
I'm good to go!
 
Iride01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 14,800

Bikes: Tarmac Disc Comp Di2 - 2020

Mentioned: 50 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6099 Post(s)
Liked 4,730 Times in 3,260 Posts
Fit calculators and everything I read about bike geometry and different fits didn't make any sense, rhyme or reason until I had quite a few thousand miles of experience riding at a high output level for someone addicted to the adrenalin rush and need for speed.

I think they'd be confusing to even the most intelligent of noob to the sport. If you aren't going to buy a bike already built, then buy a frame and put the same size stuff on it as the already built bikes and you'll be plenty close enough for your first guess.

After you ride that for a while, then you'll start to know and understand where those fit recommendations help you find and solve any problems you might have. They aren't what will give you a perfect fit the first try. They are only a starting point for you to adjust from there.

I really can't help you on the frame on ebay. That is way more than I'd ever pay for a used frame. You'll spend what a nice bike is trying to fix it up. 51 cm is pretty small if you are 6 foot tall.

Last edited by Iride01; 03-27-21 at 01:34 PM.
Iride01 is offline  
Old 03-27-21, 11:59 PM
  #3  
ezmiller
Junior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 14
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
@Irdie01 you wrote:

I think they'd be confusing to even the most intelligent of noob to the sport. If you aren't going to buy a bike already built, then buy a frame and put the same size stuff on it as the already built bikes and you'll be plenty close enough for your first guess.
​​​​​​The question is how can I even make sure that I get a reasonable fit? I've had to depend on the calculators to get an idea. They say, generally, 50-51cm (I am 5'7"). But given the variety of frames that meet this criteria, I end up needing more information about the geometry to get any understanding of what I am about to buy.

I guess what you are saying is that the understanding I am getting is just very unvery unreliable. Is there really no way to think about geometry? Some of the concepts do make sense. The "reach" measurement for example. I can see how some bikes that are generally listed as a 51cm frame have more or less reach and that could mean that I feel more or less bent over versus stretched out while riding.

On the other hand, when this ebay seller says the top bar and seat post measure are all I need to consider, I have no idea what to do with that information...





​​​​​
ezmiller is offline  
Old 03-28-21, 06:06 AM
  #4  
shelbyfv
Expired Member
 
shelbyfv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: TN
Posts: 11,453
Mentioned: 37 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3634 Post(s)
Liked 5,310 Times in 2,698 Posts
You've been a member for almost 8 years. Do you not already have a bike that fits? If so, use that as a guide. 51cm effective top tube on a road bike sounds about right for someone 5'7" unless you are oddly proportioned. Publishing stack and reach figures is a relatively new convention. Ebay sellers of vintage bikes are not likely to know those numbers. I'd suggest you sort out whether you want a bike to ride or just enjoy noodling with geometry. Both types of folks here on BF.
shelbyfv is offline  
Old 03-28-21, 07:36 AM
  #5  
ezmiller
Junior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 14
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by shelbyfv
You've been a member for almost 8 years. Do you not already have a bike that fits? If so, use that as a guide. 51cm effective top tube on a road bike sounds about right for someone 5'7" unless you are oddly proportioned. Publishing stack and reach figures is a relatively new convention. Ebay sellers of vintage bikes are not likely to know those numbers. I'd suggest you sort out whether you want a bike to ride or just enjoy noodling with geometry. Both types of folks here on BF.
I have a bike that I like quite a bit. Nothing fancy. But I don't have access to it right now. Pandemic dislocation. And I do like noodling about geometry. I think. But my interest is also practical. I know from experience that bikes can fit and feel very different. That won't be a surprise to anyone here obviously. It seems like geometry could help me understand what I'm getting. And also perhaps could be a way to compensate for not being able to compare with my existing bike.

Maybe here's a more specific question. This ebay seller said that the top bar and seat post lengths are the primary dimensions affecting fit. Can anyone here explain how to interpret these lengths? For instance, this 51cm Olmo frame has a top bar of 52.5cm and a 27.2mm seatpost. What if anything can I learn from those numbers?
ezmiller is offline  
Old 03-28-21, 08:31 AM
  #6  
masi61
Senior Member
 
masi61's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: SW Ohio
Posts: 3,672

Bikes: Puch Marco Polo, Saint Tropez, Masi Gran Criterium

Mentioned: 25 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1158 Post(s)
Liked 439 Times in 312 Posts
Originally Posted by ezmiller
@Irdie01 you wrote:



​​​​​​The question is how can I even make sure that I get a reasonable fit? I've had to depend on the calculators to get an idea. They say, generally, 50-51cm (I am 5'7"). But given the variety of frames that meet this criteria, I end up needing more information about the geometry to get any understanding of what I am about to buy.

I guess what you are saying is that the understanding I am getting is just very unvery unreliable. Is there really no way to think about geometry? Some of the concepts do make sense. The "reach" measurement for example. I can see how some bikes that are generally listed as a 51cm frame have more or less reach and that could mean that I feel more or less bent over versus stretched out while riding.

On the other hand, when this ebay seller says the top bar and seat post measure are all I need to consider, I have no idea what to do with that information...





​​​​​
That is a nice repaint on that frame. Note that it is 126mm rear spacing so if you intend to get it re-spaced to 130mm you will need to pay the additional fee. It is nice that he makes that service available and that he says it is done professionally. Personally, for a bike like this I would build up period correct wheels with 6/7 speed spacing and if I needed more gears I would use a triple crank up front.

As for the sizing, I agree that “stack” and “reach” are newer fit metrics and I am struggling to understand these. To me these two measurements are more like final measurements that take into account not only head tube length but also stem height, length and fork rake. You might ask the seller to take the head tube length and then write that number down and compare it to your existing bike’s head tube and then be thinking about what type of quill stem you fancy for the build.

There is plenty of sizing information for traditional road racing bikes available in older cycling guides such as Greg Lemond’s Complete Book of Bicycling which is the one I self taught myself on back in the early 80’s. The information he gave was relevant, was a bit ahead of its time in my opinion as he helped the rider not make the mistake of selecting too large of a frame.

In a nutshell, in Greg’s book he repeated his French coach’s fit method that involved determining your cycling inseam while standing against a wall in your socks with a book between your legs at the top of your crotch you take an accurate measurement in millimeters to the floor and write it down. This measurement is always longer than your pants inseam. I do remember that their saddle height formula was the product of cycling inseam x .883. I may get out the metric tape measure and analyze my main 2 road bikes to see how close they are to that ideal. It should be mentioned that Greg preferred a longer top tube so his frame top tubes were custom and never “square” where the seat tube center to center and the top tube center to center were the same number.

Once you have this measurement, you can determine a suggested frame size (he always used center to center seat tube) according to their formula. I have forgotten the formula but could look it up. I remember learning road cycling in the 70’s and how at 5’11” It was suggested by the bike shop that I get a 25” (!) frame. I rode many years on 25” frames and eventually gained the insight that this size was entirely too big. My Masi61 was going to be my racing bike and while it was better, it was also too big.

ezmiller I don’t know your age, your flexibilty, how competitive you are or if your upper body is proportional to your leg length. But you do. I would say that keeping a fit notebook and getting a metric tape measure might be instructive.

I feel that modern notions of bike fit can be very instructive for dynamically fitting yourself to a vintage bike. I started a thread last year called the non French fit where I argued that (classic & vintage) folks were missing out on many of the advantages of using what they formerly thought of as too small frames for themselves in favor of comfort bikes that to my sensibility did not have the climbing or comfort/handling traits I was after. For example: modern (long-ish) carbon seatposts give more compliance when they are raised closer to the limit line. My Ritchey Flexlogic 330 mm seatpost has tactile shock dampening advantages that are real, not imagined. Also, the same small frames bike is fitted with a 13cm stem which is a bit slow to respond to steering inputs at slow speed but at high speed descending the non-twitchy disadvantage becomes an advantage. Same with climbing while standing (using the smaller frame with longer stem) - using my upper body in the configuration, I’m able to train for and get better at standing climbing thanks to this tossable configuration.

If you decide that this Olmo could be made to work for you from a fit standpoint and then you set it up with traditional drop bars you could play around with shallow drop gravel bars and or/upward rise stems. Doing this with a classic like this might not make you popular with the C&V purists but for a rider that you plan to spend a lot of time on, you do what is necessary. Also, tastefully spec’ d seatpost/stem/handlebar combos can enhance the aesthetic of your ride instead of appearing garish or gangly....

Last edited by masi61; 03-28-21 at 08:38 AM.
masi61 is offline  
Old 03-28-21, 09:24 AM
  #7  
Carbonfiberboy 
just another gosling
 
Carbonfiberboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 19,500

Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004

Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3872 Post(s)
Liked 1,920 Times in 1,369 Posts
Have you used this calculator? https://www.competitivecyclist.com/S...ulatorBike.jsp
IIRC, it gives tube lengths.
__________________
Results matter
Carbonfiberboy is offline  
Old 03-28-21, 11:30 AM
  #8  
Iride01 
I'm good to go!
 
Iride01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 14,800

Bikes: Tarmac Disc Comp Di2 - 2020

Mentioned: 50 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6099 Post(s)
Liked 4,730 Times in 3,260 Posts
Basically the manufacturers know the size of frame that fits their customers. So go by that sizing if you have nothing better to go by. If this is an old vintage frame you can sometimes find that info in old catalogs that some have scanned and posted on the internet. Or some bike manufacturers have good archives that go far back and show that stuff.

As well you can look to see what components was originally on that bike. You might have to simply guess as to stem length and handlebar reach and drop. But you'll still come up with something that works.

Perfect won't happen though even if you are experienced. So don't dwell too much on exact formulas. The calculations and geometry info you get from various calculators and sites will be useful, but remember unless you are having a frame custom built to those measurements then you'll have to make concessions.

And that is where as a newb I had a problem with fit calculators. I was trying to find a bike that fit everyone of the measurement points it said. So just know that saddle height and your reach to the hoods will be the two most important things if this is a drop bar bike. Everything else is a minor issue.
Iride01 is offline  
Old 03-28-21, 11:45 AM
  #9  
philbob57
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Chicago North Shore
Posts: 2,331

Bikes: frankenbike based on MKM frame

Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 714 Post(s)
Liked 602 Times in 371 Posts
Computing stack and reach from a frame requires a lot more math than most bike sellers know.

I used to be 5' 7", and Competitive Cyclist recommends a 22" TT for me, so my legs are probably a little shorter than average. I know I feel cramped on a square 21" frame. I felt way too cramped on a 50 CM Gitane Gran Sport, but that was with C-T measurement. The 51 CM Olmo, measured C-C, is likely to be within the range that you'd like..

BITD, I think people followed the probably most common recommendation of 1"-2" between crotch and top tube. Then they actually took test rides and picked the bike that appealed most to them according to their own value system. Another common reco was (cycling) inseam minus 9"-10". For many people, the 2 recos same out the same. IOW, most cyclists didn't bother with the actual TT measurement, but TT came into how the bike felt on the test ride. I know I rejected San Rensho, Bassi, Rossin, and other Japanese bikes but liked British and French bikes. If memory serves, the standard Japanese and Italian bikes were square the last time I bought a bike (1981), and the Brits and French had longer TTs on their 54s (again, measured C-T).

If you measured yourself accurately, you can probably be comfortable and efficient on any diamond frame between 52 CM- 56 CM C-T (50-54 CM C-C), unless your proportions are much different from average. I agree that ST and TT are the most critical measurements. You can do a LOT of adjusting with stem, bars, and seatpost.

BTW, different materials and different builders produce frames that ride differently. Even if there were a single set of measurements that is best for you, and if you rode a dozen bikes with those measurements, you'd probably love some bikes and not others. IOW, obsessing over measurements is far from a sure way of finding a bike you like. At some point, you have to make a choice and hope for the best.

Last edited by philbob57; 03-28-21 at 11:51 AM.
philbob57 is offline  
Old 03-28-21, 01:07 PM
  #10  
shelbyfv
Expired Member
 
shelbyfv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: TN
Posts: 11,453
Mentioned: 37 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3634 Post(s)
Liked 5,310 Times in 2,698 Posts
Originally Posted by ezmiller
For instance, this 51cm Olmo frame has a top bar of 52.5cm and a 27.2mm seatpost. What if anything can I learn from those numbers?
I don't think you can learn much relating to fit by the size of the seatpost.

Last edited by shelbyfv; 03-29-21 at 05:47 AM. Reason: clarification
shelbyfv is offline  
Old 03-28-21, 04:17 PM
  #11  
Carbonfiberboy 
just another gosling
 
Carbonfiberboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 19,500

Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004

Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3872 Post(s)
Liked 1,920 Times in 1,369 Posts
Originally Posted by shelbyfv
I don't think you can learn much relating to fit by the size of the seatpost.
The top tube length is what I go by. Saddles can go up and down quite some distance, but stem lengths are not so variable.
__________________
Results matter
Carbonfiberboy is offline  
Likes For Carbonfiberboy:
Old 03-30-21, 12:32 AM
  #12  
ezmiller
Junior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 14
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
@masi61 thanks for the very instructive response. The mention of Greg LeMonde's book is nice. I will check it out. I think the simple rule of .883 x the inseam + the idea of a "square" frame as a baseline, which may not be what everyone wants is an interesting place to start from.

You said that you began to realize that you liked a smaller frame. Did you mean smaller in the sense of still "square" and so smaller in both the top tube and the seat tube, or did you mean not following Le Monde's preference for longer top tubes? Is the overall effect of the smaller sizing to sacrifice comfort for power/leverage?
ezmiller is offline  
Old 03-30-21, 03:41 PM
  #13  
masi61
Senior Member
 
masi61's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: SW Ohio
Posts: 3,672

Bikes: Puch Marco Polo, Saint Tropez, Masi Gran Criterium

Mentioned: 25 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1158 Post(s)
Liked 439 Times in 312 Posts
Originally Posted by ezmiller
@masi61 thanks for the very instructive response. The mention of Greg LeMonde's book is nice. I will check it out. I think the simple rule of .883 x the inseam + the idea of a "square" frame as a baseline, which may not be what everyone wants is an interesting place to start from.

You said that you began to realize that you liked a smaller frame. Did you mean smaller in the sense of still "square" and so smaller in both the top tube and the seat tube, or did you mean not following Le Monde's preference for longer top tubes? Is the overall effect of the smaller sizing to sacrifice comfort for power/leverage?
I did a fit experiment on a sloping top tube titanium framed "Veritas" road bike that I purchased a few years back that I knew was 2 sizes too small for me. I was going to sell it to a friend who is 5'8" for what I paid for it ($675) but he felt this was too much money so I stored it in my rec room for a couple years before it occurred to me that I should get a proper (tall) seatpost and a longer stem with a slight upward rise to it and try it out. I am 5'-11.5" tall and probably need a bike with a top tube length between 55 and 57 cm but this bike's top tube is 54.5. The seat tube is like 13 inches center to top ! Anybody who sees this would say it is a bit small for me. I can post photos of it. It is a pretty cool bike. This bike I do not believe adheres to a square frame baseline.

When I talked about Greg Lemond's advice it was mainly from the standpoint of using a smaller frame with at least a 12 cm or even a 13 cm stem and then establishing the proper saddle height. I am at work right now and can post an update later.
masi61 is offline  
Old 03-30-21, 06:15 PM
  #14  
ezmiller
Junior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 14
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by masi61
I did a fit experiment on a sloping top tube titanium framed "Veritas" road bike that I purchased a few years back that I knew was 2 sizes too small for me. I was going to sell it to a friend who is 5'8" for what I paid for it ($675) but he felt this was too much money so I stored it in my rec room for a couple years before it occurred to me that I should get a proper (tall) seatpost and a longer stem with a slight upward rise to it and try it out. I am 5'-11.5" tall and probably need a bike with a top tube length between 55 and 57 cm but this bike's top tube is 54.5. The seat tube is like 13 inches center to top ! Anybody who sees this would say it is a bit small for me. I can post photos of it. It is a pretty cool bike. This bike I do not believe adheres to a square frame baseline.
So the frame has a sharp downward angle on the top tube because the seat tube is short? Or maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean by a 13" seat tube...? But what was the result of the test? I take it it was positive, but in what sense?

Originally Posted by masi61
When I talked about Greg Lemond's advice it was mainly from the standpoint of using a smaller frame with at least a 12 cm or even a 13 cm stem and then establishing the proper saddle height. I am at work right now and can post an update later.
This makes sense to me in general, in terms of the implications -- more responsive on the climb, a little less responsive to turns, but steadier on downhills I think you said. I'd be interested in seeing how it looks for sure.
ezmiller is offline  
Old 03-31-21, 09:19 AM
  #15  
Iride01 
I'm good to go!
 
Iride01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 14,800

Bikes: Tarmac Disc Comp Di2 - 2020

Mentioned: 50 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6099 Post(s)
Liked 4,730 Times in 3,260 Posts
Originally Posted by ezmiller
So the frame has a sharp downward angle on the top tube because the seat tube is short? Or maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean by a 13" seat tube...? But what was the result of the test? I take it it was positive, but in what sense?
This sort of illustrates the problem of thinking size of bikes is seat tube length or some other frame dimension. Frame geometry and dimensions only matter when you know what other components are on that frame. The length of the seat post, the length of the stem, the reach of the handle bars. Other stuff too.

Frame geometry doesn't mean much for fit until you know what other stuff you are putting on it that will give you your actual position. It's the position of your contact points on the bike that matter. Where is your butt in relation the cranks and also your hands and how much lean do you want in your trunk. That is what matters for fit.
Iride01 is offline  
Likes For Iride01:
Old 03-31-21, 12:29 PM
  #16  
icemilkcoffee 
Senior Member
 
icemilkcoffee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,586
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1538 Post(s)
Liked 1,696 Times in 953 Posts
51cm is totally fine for 5'7". I am 5'8" and I ride this 52cm c-t Ironman (52 c-t = 51 c-c):

The stem is 90 or 100mm- I should probably change that to something slightly longer.

With all the straight or setback seatposts available and every height and extension quill stem available, you can make any frame fit really as long as it's in the ball park.
icemilkcoffee is offline  
Old 03-31-21, 02:47 PM
  #17  
masi61
Senior Member
 
masi61's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: SW Ohio
Posts: 3,672

Bikes: Puch Marco Polo, Saint Tropez, Masi Gran Criterium

Mentioned: 25 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1158 Post(s)
Liked 439 Times in 312 Posts
Originally Posted by ezmiller
So the frame has a sharp downward angle on the top tube because the seat tube is short? Or maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean by a 13" seat tube...? But what was the result of the test? I take it it was positive, but in what sense?



This makes sense to me in general, in terms of the implications -- more responsive on the climb, a little less responsive to turns, but steadier on downhills I think you said. I'd be interested in seeing how it looks for sure.


Veritas titanium compact road bike with Ritchey Superlogic Flexlogic carbon seatpost and Ritchey C220 WCS 13cm stem.

I like this bike and have ridden it over 5,000 miles since I fitted it to myself 2 years ago. It is a great climber and weighs less than 19 pounds. I plan on keeping it as my secondary road bike. My main training road bike is a better fit but not quite as exciting:



This bike fits me really well. The Thomson seatpost is stiff as is the aluminum frame. I have made the bike comfortable more from my choice of Challenge Strada open tubular tires with Vittoria latex tubes. I run the pressure lower at about 72 psi front and 80 psi rear which helps.

My new Wittson Illuminati titanium disc frame is still not finished. It also has sloping top tube geometry which is a fit evolution along the lines of these 2 other bikes:



There is still a lot of fitting to be done to complete this bike. Obviously the Columbus fork steerer is going to need to be cut down. The FSA “Plasma” integrated 12cm stem/42 center to center one piece cockpit should work out. Time to get cracking!
masi61 is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.