bartek. 

Oh I think there were some shortcuts in mine and your descriptions so we got some misunderstanding. I just focused on you "stem doesn't matter as frame" and I wanted to point that yeah, stem is a part of your final reach/stack so it matters same as frame (and handlebars that I didn't mention here in the last reply cause I just focused on the stem discussion).
However after your description of the 3D modeling I know that we think the same way. The only differnce is that I try to keep stem about 110-120 as this is what it's my (and general) sweet spot for handling. So I believe when picking up a new frame you should keep in mind both stem length and handlebars characteristic in mind as both matter as much as frame does (You gave a great example about different handlebars and how much they impact here, same to stems right?)

Anyway, I am really curious about this "your frame is too small". my seatpost length is quite low so for bigger frame I guess I would sit literally on the seat tube. And again about reach, I have 90mm here, so I can easily extend my reach up to 4cm (if 130mm is acceptable) which is fair enough to achieve my proper reach. Again, getting bigger size, I would have to go with shorter stem which can impact on handling. I could agree to "your reach/drop is too small" but this is not the same as saying that frame is too small as frame is only a part of reach etc. if there is other argument apart from reach for frame being too small, please explain it to me. I am really curious.
I remember that my LBS called Cinelli about sizing for me and they even said I should go with one size smaller frame but due to longer legs than torso one size bigger could be better (this is what I bought then).

PS. I wrote about it before but the current setup is also for crits and street riding so this is way I don't stretch my body that much as I do up to 3-4hrs sessions on this bike. So for velodrome only I would go with long stem or deeper handlebars etc.

queerpunk

No, I really disagree. This does not make sense. There is no rider in your equation. People have different dimensions, physiologies, and riding styles. You can't determine that something gives you a great balance in handling unless you're talking about for a specific rider. And plenty of people get good handling with smaller and larger stems.

bartek. 

As I said this is a generic length. Put here whatever you prefer. True. But still keep your "favorite" length of stem in mind when looking for a frame, as the stem matters as well.
For some reasons industry says 120mm is generic (I don't talk only about track bikes here). This is probably what fits well for most riders. It doesn't mean that personal choice can be different.

topflightpro

Your Cinelli looks too small to me too. Seatpost height isn’t one of the things I was looking at, rather, it was top tube length. You look cramped. If you’re already on a 120 - which I would say is Long despite your previous posts, and Yes, I run 120s in many bikes - then you will be going to a very long stem to lengthen things.

Regarding saddle position, I’ll bet if you compared the stack of the Cinelli to the Dolan or Look, you will find the Cinelli is much taller, meaning you would have more post extension on the Dolan or Look.

bartek. 

As I said the pictures are with 90, not 120. Let's add 3cm of stem (to 120mm) and I wouldn't be that cramped. Right?

Yes, it's true.

1incpa

The easiest thing to do is throw a longer stem on your bike and see how it feels.
Forget the "generic length" stuff, just get a length that works. I doubt you'd notice a handling difference between a 90 and a 140.
I'd try that before spending big bucks on a new frame.
PI

carleton

It's better to increase TT length than stem length to achieve more reach. Increasing your stem length to achieve more reach will change the position of your hands in relation to the front axle, which will definitely affect handing. Could improve it or impair it, but it will change. Increasing TT length will simply extend your reach and lower your back, but not change handling.

I have a long torso and short legs for my height. So, I need a "long and low" frame as opposed to a "square" frame.

Instead of thinking, "I need a 110 or 120mm stem", maybe think, "I need the stem that mates with these bars and puts my hands where I like them in relation to the front wheel."

EDIT:

But, as 1incpa states, it's easier to experiement with stem lengths to see what reach you need for your back and arm positions.

I need to make a video about this.

JimiMimni

A couple of notes for you:

Your body will change and adapt, based on what demands you place on it. So in the same way that you get stronger in the gym, or increase power on the bike, your body will adapt to your position on the bike. For example here's a personal anecdote:
The bike industry sells stems along a bigger frame/longer stem trendline. You're bucking that trend pretty hard being 176cm tall with a 90mm stem. Of course there are exceptions to this line! Indulge me another personal anecdote:
TL;DR You've probably changed your body enough that stretching yourself out more would be beneficial. Try new stems before you try a new frame.

P.S. I don't think your frame is too small, but that stem is nubby. I ran a 90mm stem on my old MTB with 70cm bars, just for the record. Try a 110mm, or 120mm stem before you buy a new frame. Also, the only reason I suggest a longer stem is the shape of your back in the profile shot. You look a bit bent from the side. All of that said, I'm not a fitter, and I don't know what your body is capable of, or how you feel on the bike right now. Just giving you my eyeball based feedback.

taras0000

Bartek, you may want to read this thread to see how stem and top tube length affect handling - https://www.bikeforums.net/track-cyc...be-height.html

pierrej

To go with what some others are saying, in my less than professional opinion I'd say that only the guy at the front is on a setup that actually fits him, BMC guy being too low and short

Baby Puke

If your saddle fore-aft is where you want it then I'd also agree that your frame is too small.

carleton

Get a cup of coffee and settle in for a long read. These 2 posts are very, very well written and elegantly explain more than I could on the matter of fitting for track:

https://www.momnium.com/relevant-track-bike-sizing/

https://www.momnium.com/relevant-tra...sizing-part-2/


Seriously, Jordan Thomas & Ken Ballhause deserve a lot of credit for these 2 posts. It should be required reading for people about to spend several thousands on a bike frame.

bartek. 

Once again, thanks for all answers. They are very valuable. I was on short holidays and tried to keep my head clear of this

Well, I would say, finally someone agreed with me. However, I can see most comments that frame is too small (even if some comments were based on 120mm stem of length with this is not true). It would be unwise to get one positive comment and forget about the others.

So, yeah. For sure flexibility of body changes during season and other training. I'm sure of it. Since I bought the Cinelli frame 2-3 years ago it was actually my very first bike. I went for fitting as I had some pains in my right leg. My fitter set the bike with 70mm +6 deg stem and I was sent to a medical specialist with information to come back in few months or later when my health will be fine again. It turned out to be fascia issues that was healed by the med later. After a year, I started to feel quite uncomfortable on the bike. First thing I did was flip floping the stem to negative angle and remove all spacers. It helped a lot. Then after few months I went to review my fitting and we replaced stem with the 90-6. The other things such as saddle/seatpost or handlebar were rather untouched.

Few months ago I bought a new road bike and did a fitting. I just checked and a difference between reach of track and road bikes is about 26mm. I have 110mm stem on my road bike, so here is where 20mm went. Due to more slacker seattube my seatpost is a bit more behind BB than on the track bike. Just a little. This could mean the remaining 6mm. Would it mean that my track bike fitting is rather like for road biking? Well, maybe but:
- you saw my pics, it doesn't look like a roadie position
- my current track bike is not fitted for being track only as I use it as crit bike and commuter as well
- i had the issues with my right leg, so maybe my hip flexibility is still not enough or fitter was worried about not pushing the limits due to past injury
- current drop between saddle and handlebars is 13cm for track bike and 9.2cm for road bike

Wow. Such a great articles! Thanks for sharing. I wish there is a third part about real fitting to track as these 2 posts are great but they are only related to general sizing and frames comparing. Still very valuable though.

This is actually interesting. For my track bike I have only 0.5cm difference between saddle and BB (and 3.8cm for the road bike but the road saddle is 0.5cm shorter). This is against UCI regulations. I cannot remember now why saddle was moved so forward but I remember it wasn't only about power transition but more likely due to too long top tube (!) or proportion of my body. I remember that my fitter mentioned about the UCI regulations and that I could be still allowed due to body geometry or something.

So indeed, I am not sure if this is where I want it, cause it would be good to keep to the regulations.
Also, I just checked an effective length from center of saddle to handlebars and it's longer for my roadbike! Well, maybe due to facts that nobody stays only in drops on roadbike and there is more drop from saddle to handlebar on the track bike. This could also be affected that my road bike was fitted only 6 months ago, so my body could be more flexible at the moment.

Anyway, quite important fact is, that both bikes have zero offset seatpost. Here again, the Look CR 564P has 3cm setback which has to be kept in mind.

Oh, this is very interesting thread! This (and the Momnium's posts) really well explained an idea of correct length of stem and how it depends on the head tube angle and fork offset!

Ok, so I'm attaching here some results on this. First of all, the guy in front of me is probably over 5cm in front of the axle, so I don't understand why @pierrej said he got a correct fit . I would also say that my contact points for hands are correct or slightly behind but still not that much as for Jason Kenny.

So this actually happened for a pretty short stem (90mm) and could be accurate. I found and couldn't find any more @carleton post in another thread why he doesn't like the Cinelli Mash as it was due to fact that the Mash is designed mainly for street with using short (!) stem with mtb risers. So yeah, maybe this is how this frame is.


So, jumping back to the main topic here. I am sure I can be more stretched now (both for body allowance and target of the new bike as track only). This is clear to me. As the setpost has 3cm setback, and probably I would have to move it backward anyway to meet the UCI regulations my reach will be shorten. The Look in Small size has slightly lesser reach (407.2 vs 415) but my butt will be moved back (and down) due to seatpost offset + UCI regulations. So to keep my current position I would need a way shorter reach (about 370?). In fact as the Look has 407.2mm I have a place to stretch myself and the frame would be "longer" for me than the current one. And as I have to go down on seatpost a bit (to move saddla backward) lower stack is also a good value to not add 50 spacers. As for handlebars I have 125/70 for now but will go with the Scatto 35/128/72 or Look 35/117/83 (I will decide while making a proper fitting on the frame).
I know that reach relies on distance from BB but only if the saddle position is fixed. In this case is not, please keep it in mind.
Is it good way of thinking? Or you still think that I need longer frame and should consider a Medium size?

taras0000

Bartek, I'll say this. You're only slightly shorter than I am, by 4cm, and you have a similar build to me (long torso, shorter legs). I rode a 54cm frames for a long time, and they were always slightly too short for me to get the position I wanted. I would often have a 120-130mm stem on my bikes. This was because I was sizing the frames based on the seat tube, not the top tube.

When I went with a frame that had a 56cm top tube, things got better for me. There wasn't as much weight over the front wheel, because the wheel was further forward. This improved the handling, as well as the comfort for me. I wasn't so scrunched up. Eventually I was riding a 57cm BT, and this bike had the perfect length top tube, BUT I wasn't flexible enough in the hips and hamstrings for the lower position. The head tube was so short that I was always trying new stems and couldn't quite get the fit dialed. This was before Reach and Stack were common measurements for frames. So the reach was perfect, but the stack was too short. Had Scattos been around then, I think they would've been my saving grace.

So think about your build. You will need a bike that is "bigger" than one that you size by your leg length. The seat tube can be adjusted much more, and with less effect on balance and handling than stem length. Moving your center of gravity up and down a few centimeters on the post only moves it a few millimeters fore/aft. But stem length is a direct 1:1 change of how the weight is centered on the bike. Sizing by reach is the best, followed by top tube length, then by seat tube as last.

bartek. 

Hi Taras,
I think you convinced me even more by accident ;-)

I have long legs, short torso. Not much but still. So my reach is more limited than yours + I am shorter by 4cm.
IMHO 4cm is a lot as manufactures when recommend sizing depending on height they give about 8cm difference in height for each size.

So assuming that your are about 56/57 size, I think I would need to downgrade from you as I am shorter by 4cm and my reach is shorter as well due to legs/torso proportion. The top tube for the Small size is 54.51cm. Sounds like a good measurement then.

carleton

Regarding:



That pic of Hoy has him out of the saddle.

Here is a better photo:



Also, your bars are at an angle. If you were to turn your bars square with the camera, they would be far behind the axle.

carleton

Also, bartek., since you have your bike at home, just use one of these as proof:



You will know for sure

I use a plumb line when I set up my bars (seriously)

Baby Puke

Bartek, if you like the position you have now, then by all means get a new bike with a short top tube/reach. But it seems like you asked for advice on your position here, and I think the consensus is you could benefit from a longer position, and hence a longer frame. Of course it's just advice, and you can take it or leave it.

pierrej

His bike is definitely too small for him like many people that ride track, but in the picture provided he appears to be the only person in a good position, not bunched up on a smaller bike or too low. Yes his stem looks long so he would definitely benefit from a longer bike but he's the best of a bad bunch respectfully

Edit: Also Kenny's position has changed a little from the red helmet pic from 2012, longer bike and hands over the axle on both the T5 and newer UKSi bike

carleton

Bartek, you should make sure to look at the bars from as close to a right angle as possible.

This is a textbook example of Parallax:



The rider in front may very well have his hands above or even behind the front axle. The angle of the cameraman makes his hands look further ahead.

carleton

Here's a better example from a series of frame grabs. Same rider, same bike, same stem

A vertical line up from the axle is RED. A vertical line down from the 2nd knuckle of the hand is GREEN.







Notice how the bars and hands seem to move forward of the axle based on where the bike is in relation to the camera. That's why it's important to keep the camera angle in mind when considering relative measures like this. Not to mention that the plane of the hands are not directly vertical of the axle. The hands are "up and over" from the axle...otherwise we'd be riding 10cm wide bars That difference is exaggerated in photos.

carleton

Which photo best represents what's going on with the hands and axle?

This one:



Notice that the bends of the bars are even with each other. In every other photo, the far side bend is either behind or in front of the near side bend.

Oh, and notice that her hands are directly over the front axle

Baby Puke

Bartek, if you could post a side view video of you riding rollers on your current bike that would give everyone the best look at where you are with your position.

bartek. 

??? Since when you move hands while sprinting/being out of saddle? Especially on track bike?


Ok. I have never introduced myself but... I am news photographer. I know what parallax is. In fact each picture you posted has this issue. I was actually aware of it but decided not to go with details as if you use bad samples I was sure you will not notice wrong angle on my picture

In fact, I used a spirit level for measurement but since I don't have more than 2 hands I took a picture without it cause it was easier to do it and I thought nobody will notice it ;-) Anyway, I just retried it with homemade "piece of proof". Again, the contact points are NOT behind the front axle.

I don't agree. You can't use the bars from a picture to judge it. They are not squared. In fact you can see BOTH bars. Take a look shadows. And... What I can notice on this picture is that parallax issue is bigger here than on any other previous pictures we talked about. She definitely doesn't have hands directly over the front axle. Take a look on horizontal lines in comparison to the red line and white vertical line. As you are aware about optical theory you should match pictures to your assumption

Oh. True. I will try to make it on weekend! I will just need to add a caption on the video with warning "my current position is for track, crits and commuting" so I couldn't be really stretched out here. This is why I need another bike

bartek. 

Even better :-) So keep in mind that television use wide lenses and there is another issue called...distortion So, seriously any picture we talked about is not good for judging about hands over front axles.

Anyway, I used the spirit level and diy plumb line. Both assured me that my contact points are over the front axle. I trust my eyes