|
So looking for a new bike
I don’t understand the impact of the different frame sizing parameters, I’m hoping someone could help me understand.
I’ve been riding a Gunnar Roadie, nice light steel frame setup with Campy 10, Easton carbon fork and bars. I am now 70 comfort wise I don’t really have any complaints. The first 8 years or so I suffered from moderate pain in the wrists, elbows, and Some numbness in my hands after about 40 miles. I have been hitting the gym, with improved core strength I no longer have those issues. I’m 5’10 175 lbs and have a 30” inseam. I have lowered the stem height 10mm from this picture and think I could go easily another 2 or 3. My issue with my current bike is that it is very quick handling and I don’t feel as comfortable with its handling characteristics as I used to. I’ve been thinking an endurance or gravel bike setup for mostly road or packed gravel is where I want to go. The Gunnar is a 56cm I’ve been looking at mediums going forward. I have compiled stats from the frames I’m interested in. I plan on building it out with SRAM Force etap 2x12 compact crank disc. Will probably pick a carbon wheel set 35mm. I will get a pro fit once I build it. given what I’ve said so far which frame might provide the best starting point. Current ride https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...c545fc521.jpeg Frame Stats https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...d85c988ca.jpeg . |
I generally just go to a frame that has the same effective top tube as what I ride and am comfortable on currently. I have a carbon road bike and a Cannondale Topstone gravel, both have a 56 ETT. The bar on the carbon sits maybe an inch lower than on the gravel but I'm fine with it, stems are generally in the 100mm range. My steel tourer is a 55 ETT bike and uses a 12cm stem, thus on all 3 bikes the "reach" from center of saddle to middle of bar is about the same 67-68 cm. If and when I get a new carbon road, I will get a ETT bike in the 55.5 -56 cm range and adjust with the stem.
|
You say you aren't as comfortable with the riding characteristics currently. Did they actually seem to change when you lowered the bars or is this just old age balance issues starting to rear their ugly head for you? If you recently dropped the bars from almost level with the saddle to where it is in the pic, then it might take some getting use to. So maybe just a perception thing for your handling that you'll get over in a few hundred miles.
The trail of your bike is the same as the 56cm Tarmac I currently ride. And likely the head tube angle is about the same. I like sporty handling characteristics though. Perhaps you don't. For me sporty handling means I can maneuver quickly around pot holes or other road hazards seen at the very last moment or when another in front of me does something totally unexpected. The other bikes with more trail might be less sporty feeling. But it's hard to say without actually trying them out for a ride. If you normally keep a large bend in your elbows, then a shorter reach or top tube length might be desirable. But if you are use to just a little bend in your elbow, then a longer top tube or reach stretching you out more is probably desirable. Which is about what your current bike is. |
Originally Posted by Iride01
(Post 22716440)
You say you aren't as comfortable with the riding characteristics currently. Did they actually seem to change when you lowered the bars or is this just old age balance issues starting to rear their ugly head for you? If you recently dropped the bars from almost level with the saddle to where it is in the pic, then it might take some getting use to. So maybe just a perception thing for your handling that you'll get over in a few hundred miles.
The trail of your bike is the same as the 56cm Tarmac I currently ride. And likely the head tube angle is about the same. I like sporty handling characteristics though. Perhaps you don't. For me sporty handling means I can maneuver quickly around pot holes or other road hazards seen at the very last moment or when another in front of me does something totally unexpected. The other bikes with more trail might be less sporty feeling. But it's hard to say without actually trying them out for a ride. If you normally keep a large bend in your elbows, then a shorter reach or top tube length might be desirable. But if you are use to just a little bend in your elbow, then a longer top tube or reach stretching you out more is probably desirable. Which is about what your current bike is. I will be trying out the Giants since we have them at the shop where I work but no Times near my size. . . |
I think gravel bikes might be designed for less twitchy steering, so would endurance bikes. Maybe look at those primarily.
|
Originally Posted by Shadco
(Post 22716460)
no it’s old age balance issues the bar drop hasn’t had any effect. It’s that I feel I have to always pay complete attention and can’t relax at all.
I will be trying out the Giants since we have them at the shop where I work but no Times near my size. . Here are the Geometry Geeks numbers of the Gunnar and on the Giant Revolt in M & ML sizes. https://geometrygeeks.bike/compare/g...1-2022-m-long/ Given the differences in head angle and trail, the handling should be noticeably diff. An M revolt has the same stack as the Gunnar (in 56), so saddle to bar drop setup should be quite similar. Reach on the Revolt is 1.4 cm shorter, but easy enough to adjust with stem choice, and you might like the shorter reach. Tire width will also have an affect on 'handling', wider giving just a bit less responsive, less twitchy, handling. Your Gunnar looks like it has 23s, just my visual perception - and the chainstay length doesn't look like it could handle much more than 25 - which won't be a real diff. The longer rear triangle on the Revolt will certainly allow some choices in tire type and width - which gives more options for performance/handling. All this doesn't mean there is some set 'apparent diff' that one can count on. Really, you should ride an assortment of bikes to get a real feel for what they offer and what suits your wanted performance. I picked the Revolt because it offers the greatest variation/difference from your Gunnar. Ride on Yuri EDIT: the other seemingly small thing which will affect 'handling', is bar width. Given the same stem length and bar 'reach' (not overall reach, bar reach is the distance of the bar bend forward of the rear axis along the bar width). A slightly wider bar with the same stem length will be discernibly less twitchy. If you currently have a 42, try a 44, or 46. This also has it's effect on 'posture', and how flexible you are for shock absorption and handling. Sometimes greater width allows better shock absorption and improved handling; but often it just promotes more rigid A-framing and increased shock thru arms to shoulders and neck... depends on the rider... |
Originally Posted by Steve B.
(Post 22716498)
I think gravel bikes might be designed for less twitchy steering, so would endurance bikes. Maybe look at those primarily.
. |
Originally Posted by cyclezen
(Post 22716537)
Head angle and trail will make a diff. in handling, and to some extent, wheelbase. But wheelbase has more impact on uphill (and downhill) handling and weight distribution.
Here are the Geometry Geeks numbers of the Gunnar and on the Giant Revolt in M & ML sizes. https://geometrygeeks.bike/compare/g...1-2022-m-long/ Given the differences in head angle and trail, the handling should be noticeably diff. An M revolt has the same stack as the Gunnar (in 56), so saddle to bar drop setup should be quite similar. Reach on the Revolt is 1.4 cm shorter, but easy enough to adjust with stem choice, and you might like the shorter reach. Tire width will also have an affect on 'handling', wider giving just a bit less responsive, less twitchy, handling. Your Gunnar looks like it has 23s, just my visual perception - and the chainstay length doesn't look like it could handle much more than 25 - which won't be a real diff. The longer rear triangle on the Revolt will certainly allow some choices in tire type and width - which gives more options for performance/handling. All this doesn't mean there is some set 'apparent diff' that one can count on. Really, you should ride an assortment of bikes to get a real feel for what they offer and what suits your wanted performance. I picked the Revolt because it offers the greatest variation/difference from your Gunnar. Ride on Yuri EDIT: the other seemingly small thing which will affect 'handling', is bar width. Given the same stem length and bar 'reach' (not overall reach, bar reach is the distance of the bar bend forward of the rear axis along the bar width). A slightly wider bar with the same stem length will be discernibly less twitchy. If you currently have a 42, try a 44, or 46. This also has it's effect on 'posture', and how flexible you are for shock absorption and handling. Sometimes greater width allows better shock absorption and improved handling; but often it just promotes more rigid A-framing and increased shock thru arms to shoulders and neck... depends on the rider... Revolt is and has been high on my list. There are a lot of packed gravel and some loose in my area that I would like to ride but not on 25s. There isn’t really a Revolt that matches up groupset wise, I would probably choose the advanced 0 with full 11 speed grx non di over the rival in the lower spec 1. I’m going to test a revolt and defy over the next week or so. PS thanks for that link |
Some of those new gravel bikes have really slack head tubes. I become suspicious of any road bike with a trail figure exceeding 60 mm. Your Gunnar is at the short side of the spectrum, so I can see why you find it twitchy.
But off the top of my head, I'd steer you toward any of the standard "endurance" bikes--Trek Domane, Specialized Roubais, Cannondale Synapse,or Giant Defy. Of the bunch that I've ridden, I'd say the Defy handled the most like a normal bike. And if the current Scott Addict series (not the Addict RC) handles anything like the second generation CR1, that would be my choice. For me, the CR1 really hit that "disappears underneath you" sweet spot. As for size, use your current reach or top tube length as a guide. With Trek you might want a 56. With the brands that run larger, a 54. I'm betting a M/L Defy would be too big. |
Originally Posted by oldbobcat
(Post 22716753)
Some of those new gravel bikes have really slack head tubes. I become suspicious of any road bike with a trail figure exceeding 60 mm. Your Gunnar is at the short side of the spectrum, so I can see why you find it twitchy.
But off the top of my head, I'd steer you toward any of the standard "endurance" bikes--Trek Domane, Specialized Roubais, Cannondale Synapse,or Giant Defy. Of the bunch that I've ridden, I'd say the Defy handled the most like a normal bike. And if the current Scott Addict series (not the Addict RC) handles anything like the second generation CR1, that would be my choice. For me, the CR1 really hit that "disappears underneath you" sweet spot. As for size, use your current reach or top tube length as a guide. With Trek you might want a 56. With the brands that run larger, a 54. I'm betting a M/L Defy would be too big. . |
Originally Posted by Shadco
(Post 22716850)
Thanks, can’t do a trek or specialized, I don’t like their business model.
|
The Defy is a very stable road bike. Totally dependable on fast descents. But it is still a fast road bike and you may well prefer a slacker gravel geometry. The Look 765 looks interesting. They make a gravel and endurance spec with the same frame.
|
Originally Posted by PeteHski
(Post 22717233)
The Defy is a very stable road bike. Totally dependable on fast descents. But it is still a fast road bike and you may well prefer a slacker gravel geometry. The Look 765 looks interesting. They make a gravel and endurance spec with the same frame.
Setup with Campy Record Mechanical Disc Campy Shamal Wheels Look Carbon Seatpost with Selle San Marco Open Fit Dynamic Saddle narrow. Easton E100 bar 42mm c to c Look LS3 Stem Look Keo Max 2 carbon pedals Black Supacaz Kush tape Still waffling on tire Pic with build stem waiting on the proper one. https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...4273d2511.jpeg |
If you want to revitalize the Gunnar, consider finding a 40mm trail fork. Your current 54mm of trail is considered slightly low-trail of neutral, while 40mm of rake will get you to a "stable at speed" 59mm of "high" trail. Lower trail bikes are great for low speed handling, but get a little vague on downhills. 54 was a slightly unusual choice for an American frame builder.
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:28 AM. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.