Cycling Plus Article which issue compares 2 sizes of bike
captaincaveman
Posts: 3
Hi all
I am now looking at buying my first decent road bike (been a muddy chap for a long time) I am considering either a second hand lightly used Pinarello Aluminium with Carbon seat stays and fittings fitted with 10 speed Chorus and Record kit or a new bike for around £1k, also looking at various LBS and got some test rides booked for Colnago, Willer and Look.
I have it settled that the ideal frame size for me is a 56 but the Pinarello is a 54, I doubt it will be much of an issue but trying to establish what might be the pitfalls of a slightly smaller frame. I know that bike fitting is a black art and it varies for us all, not going to start that debate here, however I do believe that passive bike fitting is a good starting point.
With this in mind I remember an brief article in cycling plus recently which I was hoping to read again, does anyone remember which Issue it was in please? I do remember it was not easy to find when I knew which issue it was :? I tried to see if it was on the website but have been unable to locate it.
Regards
CaptainCaveman
I am now looking at buying my first decent road bike (been a muddy chap for a long time) I am considering either a second hand lightly used Pinarello Aluminium with Carbon seat stays and fittings fitted with 10 speed Chorus and Record kit or a new bike for around £1k, also looking at various LBS and got some test rides booked for Colnago, Willer and Look.
I have it settled that the ideal frame size for me is a 56 but the Pinarello is a 54, I doubt it will be much of an issue but trying to establish what might be the pitfalls of a slightly smaller frame. I know that bike fitting is a black art and it varies for us all, not going to start that debate here, however I do believe that passive bike fitting is a good starting point.
With this in mind I remember an brief article in cycling plus recently which I was hoping to read again, does anyone remember which Issue it was in please? I do remember it was not easy to find when I knew which issue it was :? I tried to see if it was on the website but have been unable to locate it.
Regards
CaptainCaveman
0
Comments
-
The article I think you are refering to apeared in Cycling Weekly about a month ago.Last Months Cycling Plus had a very good article regarding bike geomerty but did not compare two sizes of bike.0
-
It was the 26th March edition - with a picture of Cav winning Milan-San Remo on the front cover. They took two Pinarello FP3's and compared the relative merits of "going large" and "staying small."
The conclusion was that "It depends on what you are after" and that "two different sizes adjusted to fit the same rider can affect the ride by a significant amount."
The smaller bike gave a livelier ride, promoting a racier feel that the aggressive rider might prefer. The larger ride was more stable , sturdier and subdued, suiting the rider looking for something more "reassured. Summarising, small for short rides and racing, bigger for longer rides / sportives.
BTW I have a 54cm Allez and a 51.5cm Pinarello. I was gobsmacked when, post bike fit, they said I needed a 51.5cm frame. But they were dead right. Frame size is only a starting point, you really need to comare the geometry.0 -
Mate, don't go for hard figures only!
Get in the saddle and ride a few miles.
Sure, if your ideal size in theory was 56, you wouldn't be happy with a 48, but 2 cm is hardly an inch!
Give it a go. A Pinarello frame with Chorus / Record is always worth a try, especially for the looks.1,000km+ a month, strictly road.0 -
Thanks for that, no wonder I couldnt find it in my back issues :oops: , I only borrow the occasional cycling weekly, usually off the chap selling the Pinarello.
I just wanted to be sure as I can not afford to spend £1k on something that is not right.
I am planning on taking it out for an hour on Wednesday.
Regards
CaptainCaveman0
