Still thinking about the corratec

cubext
cubext Posts: 47
edited September 2013 in Road buying advice
I am looking at a corratec
I notice that the head tube length on a 60cm frame is only 180mm , Does this make it a more aggressive frame?? if so it may be a bot too much of a drop for me as my legs are long and my seat will by fairy high...Will putting angled stem on reduce this effect? How much can this height be increased by to reduce this aggressiveness without ruining the ride?

Comments

  • rolf_f
    rolf_f Posts: 16,015
    You already posted a thread on this - it would be better to post again in that one rather than cluttering the place up with duplicate threads which a lot find a bit irritating.

    Your question also makes no sense. More aggressive than what? If something is 'more something' then you need something else for it to be more than. It's a big frame though so 180mm sounds pretty aggressive to me and with long legs you really probably need a shorter frame - something marketed as a Sportive frame will probably suit better.
    Faster than a tent.......
  • Rolf F wrote:
    You already posted a thread on this - it would be better to post again in that one rather than cluttering the place up with duplicate threads which a lot find a bit irritating.

    No I dont think I have!
    Rolf F wrote:
    Your question also makes no sense. More aggressive than what? If something is 'more something' then you need something else for it to be more than. It's a big frame though so 180mm sounds pretty aggressive to me and with long legs you really probably need a shorter frame - something marketed as a Sportive frame will probably suit better.
    Clearly my post makes a little sense as you have postulated that '180mm sounds pretty aggressize'
    I guess what i mean is this is a short head tube, based on the fact that i could raise up the bars by adding spacers and an angled stem this is surely limited by the length of the fork steer tube and ride quality.
    Something marketed towards a sportive frame sounds like great advice!
  • Whether or not it will be too aggressive for you depends not only on your relative inseam length, but also your absolute inseam length, your height, arm length... In addition, there are other aspects of the frame geo to consider, notably stack and reach (which many manufacturers don't list, but which you can get some idea of by studying ST length and angle, effective TT length and HT angle). Have you got a reference point, i.e. a bike with known geo, and experience riding it? This would be the best place to start...

    I used to have a 60cm road bike which a HT of 20.4cm which I found too aggressive for day-long rides, but I'm almost 6'7" and have an inseam length of 98cm. In my search for a new bike I use the old geo to narrow down my choices.
  • rolf_f
    rolf_f Posts: 16,015
    cubext wrote:
    Rolf F wrote:
    You already posted a thread on this - it would be better to post again in that one rather than cluttering the place up with duplicate threads which a lot find a bit irritating.

    No I dont think I have!

    I could have sworn this was you! http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=40042&t=12940884&p=18528760#p18528760

    Me - I'd start with head tube height vs virtual top tube length. If you get that right, the rest of the bike will probably be OK for you. But I'd be completely open minded about what you end up with - your choice is limited by your proportions and it is much better to buy the bike that fits rather than force the bike you'd like to fit you. You can muck around with spacers and angled stems but you might find you need a few of the former even for the best of fitting frames and the latter is a desperate solution!
    Faster than a tent.......
  • Oh my gosh your absolutely right. Personally I thought this content would have been off topic but nevermind. Terribly sorry to clutter the place up. Thank you for being so informative .
    Head tube height vs virtual top tube length chiefly is my main concern of which I am concentrating on.
    Thank you once again.
  • WAC
    I'm sorry you don't believe in miracles