What frame...sorry

LegendLust

neeb wrote:

golfergmc wrote:

The addict is a 56 and the streamer is 58 but I think cube are on the small size. The addict is spot on for size and reach but would like it to bet a bit more comfortable and fitter said I am right on the limit of it in terms of spacers and ideally would need a bike with a taller head tube to cut down on the spacers.

Based on that your size on the cervelo r5 would also be a 56, but the reach would be about 5mm shorter with the same size stem (the top tube length is only 1mm shorter at 564mm on the cervelo compared to 565mm on the Addict, but as the addict has a 73.3 degree seat tube angle and the Cervelo is 73, the reach is a little longer on the Addict once you have the saddle in the same position relative to the BB). The headtube is 13mm longer on the cervelo, so that would suit you. With the saddle in the same position relative to BB and the same offset on the seatpost (don't know if the latter is the case) you would have the saddle 3 - 5mm further back on the rails with the cervelo.

Basically, the cervelo would seem a tiny bit shorter as well as being a bit higher at the front.

The cervelo has a steeper head tube at 73.5 as opposed to 73. Can't find out what the offset is on the Addict, but if it is 43mm (same as the cervelo) the trail on the cervelo would be a little less and the bike might feel a tiny bit more responsive/twitchy in the steering, but possibly not enough to notice. Otherwise the bikes are not dissimilar, both have short chain stays and likely quite short wheelbases so probably would feel similarly sporty. Don't know about comfort - I get the impression both bikes are on the harsher side but the Scotts in particular seem to have a reputation for this.

To the OP. Why bother with all this faff when, as has been suggested, you can get a custom, made to measure frame built and fitted to you?

drlodge

LegendLust wrote:

neeb wrote:

golfergmc wrote:

The addict is a 56 and the streamer is 58 but I think cube are on the small size. The addict is spot on for size and reach but would like it to bet a bit more comfortable and fitter said I am right on the limit of it in terms of spacers and ideally would need a bike with a taller head tube to cut down on the spacers.

Based on that your size on the cervelo r5 would also be a 56, but the reach would be about 5mm shorter with the same size stem (the top tube length is only 1mm shorter at 564mm on the cervelo compared to 565mm on the Addict, but as the addict has a 73.3 degree seat tube angle and the Cervelo is 73, the reach is a little longer on the Addict once you have the saddle in the same position relative to the BB). The headtube is 13mm longer on the cervelo, so that would suit you. With the saddle in the same position relative to BB and the same offset on the seatpost (don't know if the latter is the case) you would have the saddle 3 - 5mm further back on the rails with the cervelo.

Basically, the cervelo would seem a tiny bit shorter as well as being a bit higher at the front.

The cervelo has a steeper head tube at 73.5 as opposed to 73. Can't find out what the offset is on the Addict, but if it is 43mm (same as the cervelo) the trail on the cervelo would be a little less and the bike might feel a tiny bit more responsive/twitchy in the steering, but possibly not enough to notice. Otherwise the bikes are not dissimilar, both have short chain stays and likely quite short wheelbases so probably would feel similarly sporty. Don't know about comfort - I get the impression both bikes are on the harsher side but the Scotts in particular seem to have a reputation for this.

To the OP. Why bother with all this faff when, as has been suggested, you can get a custom, made to measure frame built and fitted to you?

Just what I was thinking. Steel may not be the OPs choice, but my custom built and painted 953 with Campy SR and hand built wheels fully kitted out was under £5k. I dare say I'll still be riding it in 25 years time, unlike these plastic throwaway bikes :shock:

neeb

LegendLust wrote:

To the OP. Why bother with all this faff when, as has been suggested, you can get a custom, made to measure frame built and fitted to you?

Someone still needs to "faff" to make sure it fits him...

LegendLust

neeb wrote:

LegendLust wrote:

To the OP. Why bother with all this faff when, as has been suggested, you can get a custom, made to measure frame built and fitted to you?

Someone still needs to "faff" to make sure it fits him...

true! But at least it would be a professional who knows how to 'faff' properly!

neeb

LegendLust wrote:

neeb wrote:

LegendLust wrote:

To the OP. Why bother with all this faff when, as has been suggested, you can get a custom, made to measure frame built and fitted to you?

Someone still needs to "faff" to make sure it fits him...

true! But at least it would be a professional who knows how to 'faff' properly!

Some custom bike fitters will perform a proper bike fit, but many won't. Some will plug a bunch of measurements (leg length, thigh length, arm length etc) into a program and get a frame geometry out the other end, but this is often next to useless and isn't a proper fitting. In the lack of a full bike fitting, the best way to get a frame that fits is to duplicate the geometry exactly of a bike that you already know fits you.

Custom frames are great, but most people who aren't at the tail-ends of the normal distribution and already know their fit can get a frame that fits perfectly off the peg, IF they understand the geometry and are prepared to look around and find a model/size that works for them.

You don't need to be a professional to work out whether a frame will fit you or not from the geometry providing you already know the geometry of a frame that does fit you.

meesterbond

golfergmc wrote:

Can you let me know how you get on and what would be the better bike for general usage.

Sure no problem.

This thread should descend into an argument about the merits of custom builds shortly so shouldn't be difficult to find.