Is shortening a stem worse than lengthening it?

Manc33

Is it always better to be on a smaller bike and pull out the seat post more, maybe make the stem 1cm or 2cm longer, as opposed to being on a bike too big and putting the seat post right down and making the stem a lot shorter?

I'm on a 57cm bike now @ 5'9.5" and I have the seat post on 0mm (none of the measurement part is sticking out) and I have also reduced my stem down to 50mm, from 110mm. I am still probably reaching about 1cm too far.

How did I ride such a bike for over a year? Had MTB bars on it - and it was a perfect fit! Now drops are back on, it has created like a 13cm reach problem. Thats about the distance from my steerer tube to the middle of the brake hoods. With MTB bars on that distance was literally nothing because the ends of the flat bars bent back slightly, so my hands used to pretty much be where the middle of the steerer tube was.

If I am on a 57cm now, would a 52cm be too small? It seems a 52 would be nearer my proper size.

The frame I want only comes in 48/52/57cm. :roll: Most people I see say they are on a 52 are usually about 5'7" or 5'8" but I am only 1.5 inches taller than that. Another at 5'7" said he felt stretched on a 50cm.

Between all the different torso and leg lengths and some LBS selling you a bike too small or big just to sell off old stock, its hard to find out what your size should be, without sitting on a bike in a shop anyway. Even if you do that and think "I have sat on a bike, I need a 52cm" another 52cm might be different and not fit.

My main question is about shortening stuff to make a big frame fit... thats worse than lengthening stuff to make a smaller bike fit? Don't wanna keep riding around with a 50mm stem.

rolf_f

I can't quite work out how the bike could have been a perfect fit with a 110mm stem and MTB bars when with a 50mm stem and drop bars your reach is 13cm too short. If you moved the drops back 13cm on top of the 6 you've already done by changing the stem, your bars would be nearly 20cm behind where they originally were. That's an insane amount!

TBH, short of getting a proper bike fit, I'd have thought your best bet initially is to post a picture of yourself on the bike so people can see what it all really looks like.

As for big vs small frame - it doesn't really matter which way you do it. If you can make a frame fit, then it fits. The problem is when you think it fits but it doesn't (eg mucking around with saddle setback to correct a reach problem).

kajjal

You need to get advice from a good local bike shop. Getting a bike that fits is the main thing. You may have to compromise on which frame / bike you get. Trying to make a bike which is far from the right size fit is expensive and frustrating.

I am almost 6ft7 but fit fine on a 62cm Bike due to having a longer body. Height is a starting point when choosing frame size.

Manc33

Rolf F wrote:

I can't quite work out how the bike could have been a perfect fit with a 110mm stem and MTB bars when with a 50mm stem and drop bars your reach is 13cm too short.

No, with a 50mm stem it isn't, I mean if left as it is, with drops and a 110mm stem, that creates a 13cm difference in reach compared to MTB bars, regardless of the stem, I mean keeping the same stem on.

With the 50mm stem it reduces that 13cm by 60mm, creating what would then still be a 7cm overreach.

Yeah I know what you mean about the saddle... I had it 1cm back, 2cm forwards... its about in the middle now.

I am getting that 52cm medium. :twisted:

I can go off inches quite easily if I think "That MTB I had aged 14 was an 18" frame" and now 52cm equals 20.5". It sounds about right then. As a 14 year old that 18" frame was perfect. Now I am what, three inches taller, maybe four as an adult, so a bike 2.5" bigger on the frame sounds about perfect to me. I honestly have no clue how I ended up buying a 57cm lol. :oops: Thats a 22.5" frame. :shock:

Kajjal wrote:

I am almost 6ft7 but fit fine on a 62cm Bike.

My dad was 6'0" and used a 60cm, but it was a touring bike. Still, thats what influenced me a lot in getting a 57cm, coupled with the fact that I already used a 56cm that seemed fine, but it had 3cm brake hoods (very old kit) not 7cm brake hoods and it had about a 60mm stem not 110mm, then also the saddle could have been pushed all the way forwards on it, taken individually these things don't matter but combined you're talking big differences like 100mm+.

bigflangesmallsprocket

Manc, I reckon you should have just carried on this conversation in the other related thread you started: http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=40042&t=12955949&p=18708950#p18708950. We already had an understanding of your probs, rather than you having to go over the same ground again . I'm glad you were persuaded to get a better fitting bike though.

You've already figured out that your reach is important. There's also seat tube length. And head tube height. Lots of choice these days so you can get something suitable using these as a guideline. Remember though what you mentioned in the other thread, about your frame size being misleading because of the sloping top-tube? Some sloping frames go by what the size WOULD BE, if the seat-tube went actually all the way up to where it would be if it had a flat top tube; some measure where the seat tube actually ends; some measure to where the seat tube meets the top tube. Confusing innit! You need to double-check whats-what so you don't get caught out again!

What bike are you actually planning on getting? Are you going to get fitted at a bike shop? When makers give recommendations for inside leg measurements, thats not for trouser inseam, thats for the tape pushed right up where the sun don't shine, so it matches the pressure you'd get on the saddle

Manc33

Its that one Planet-X are doing "Holdsworth Stelvio" for £350.

Its available in 48 (S), 52 (M) and 57 (L).





So a large is going to be too big for me more than a medium is going to be too small, although both are true, the large is too big, the medium is probably too small.

My reach now seems about right, maybe 1cm too much still, but my knees (lightly) hit the drops now when standing up, I can avoid it, but shortening the stem has caused it. If I move the saddle forwards 1cm that should fix the reach and won't affect my knees hitting the handlebars any more than it is now.

The 52cm frame I want has a 57cm (effective) top tube. The 57cm frame I ride now also has a 57cm (effective) top tube.

bigflangesmallsprocket

I agree about the top tubes on the Stelvio! I saw these chatted about elsewhere on here and had a gander at them. Blinding VFM, but strange sizing, with very long top tubes for the size, way too long for me!

Others may be best able to comment, but if you're flexible, then the small size, despite what is 'says on the tin' might be the right size! This is what I'm thinking:

The Head Tube length on the Stelvio is what you might actually find on both a standard middling size frame, or a 'relaxed' geometry small frame'. Relatively taller head-tubes are just becoming more popular on smaller frames, to suit us older less bendy folks. And, the website pic showing the steerer column shows plenty of steerer to play for adding spacers to raise your stem height. You'd want to confirm with Planet X how much steerer column you get though. Whether it's the right height for you will depend on how flexible you are and how much saddle to handlebar drop you're happy with.

Small size top tube is also unusually long for a supposed smaller rider, though it might not be too bad for the tall end of the 'small' guide, and a slightly long stem is preferable to a too short stem, it'll give you more to play with and a longer stem may help add slightly to effective bar height, cos the stem will be higher the longer it is..if you see what I mean? Might be an idea to try some of 52/53/54c ish (virtual size) bikes at a local shop, and take a ruler and do a sneaky check on their head-tube height. And longer stems and longer seatposts are sexier, everything else being equal. Shallow, but true 8)

Those frame angles. You DO NOT see those angles on small frames these days, those def look like the sort of angles you'd get on a mdmish frame. What I actually reckon is they didn't get any 'proper' small size ones made up, so their mdm, became their small...my only explanation!

I think anywhere else, that small would be advertised as a mdm, with a shorter 'aggressive' or 'sporty' head-tube height.

You might also want to ask them about max tire size the frame takes, and you should know there are no mudgaurd or pannier fittings, but you can get clip on mudgaurds for this type of bike.

Edited 11:30PM!

bigflangesmallsprocket

bikeradar review of a Stelvio with fancy kit http://www.bikeradar.com/road/gear/category/bikes/road/product/review-holdsworth-stelvio-12-46743/

You want the grey version.....you want the grey version....you want the....

me-109

The M has quite a long TT length as well, but is the size for you. Probably with a 90mm stem as a starting point.

Bozman

I'm roughly the same height as the OP, I was looking for a new frame a few months back and I found that a lot of frames have a long TT/short HT, I feel that it's becoming the norm unless you want sit up and beg sportive geometry.

Manc33

A while back people used to complain that the top tubes on those "cheap" Chinese carbon frames were too short. :roll:

So yeah you seem to either have to have it too short, or too long. No one makes a normal frame?!

China carbon - short top tube (53cm TT on a 52cm frame)
Triban 3 - long top tube (57cm TT on a 57cm frame)
Stelvio - long top tube (57cm TT on a 52cm frame)

A few people have said they sold their Triban 3 because of the reach.

Maybe I should have just got one of those Chinese ones but there's no comeback with those, well there is but sending a bike frame from the UK to China costs about £125 apparently. :shock: Thats nearly half the cost of the frame.

I never thought UK websites sold carbon frames at £350 but then I guess its just a side effect of it being 2014. 8)

bigflangesmallsprocket

That's why I suggested checking out other bikes first.

As has already been said manc, a bike fit first would be the best idea. Just a cheap quick basic one (from a proper bike shop, not from some random shop assistant in a store that happens to have a few bikes as well as other stuff) would put you in the ball-park of the right frame you need, you can worry about the nth of a mm adjustments later. You said you have a 57cm frame. I had a quick look on the Decathlon website trying to check your bikes geometry. All I could find was general recommendations on sizing, saying you'd fit into their 55-57cm range (your height put you slap bang in between sizes, so if you're less flexible or have a shorter reach that may explain why it feels too big). You say that you've virtually no seatpost showing on the bike, and even using a 5cm stem, it's still a stretch to the hoods. Road bikes are generally a bit more of a stretch that mtbs but are fine when positioned right on them, plus, regular stretching after rides will loosen you up and help you get used to the position. This is why you need a bike-fit, to double check that you're not making any wrong assumptions.

Another thing, if as you say, the seatpost is right down, have you moved the handlebars down as well? How are you getting your saddle height, are you trying to put both feet on the ground when you're in the saddle? This method gives you much too low a position. If your saddle is slammed down (and assuming it's set at the correct height for you) and you haven't moved the bars down, you could also be stretching upwards to reach the bar/hoods, with your handlebars way above your saddle! Try moving the stem right down so it's just above the head-tube, this could actually improve your reach and make you feel more comfortable, it could make all the difference. Having the top of the bars higher than your saddle can have a negative effect on how the bike feels, road-bikes aren't meant to fit that way, they're generally better level, at the most, or preferably lower, depending on your flexibility.

AND I seem to recall you saying you were catching your knees on the ends of the bar, if that's the case it could be that, (unless you've slammed the saddle forwards to try to adjust reach, which if anything will make your position feel worse, having everything out of sync), you shouldn't really be banging your knees on the bars when riding out of the saddle, it seems that your positioning is all over the place, yet another reason to get a bike fit.

And get your bike fit done quickly before they run out at Planet X, then come back to us with the numbers, or the bike shop, if they're willing, can help you make the choice, they SHOULD be the experts!

bigflangesmallsprocket

yup, it's me again! Something I've noticed about those Stelvio frames! As I said before, the geometry on the small frame is a bit shallower than on small frames generally. As a seat-tubes angles get shallower, this effectively lengthens the top tube. It's reckoned that for every degree this can lengthen the top-tube by approx 1cm (less so with head-tubes, as they're so short relatively anyway). So the small Stelvio has a seat tube angle of 73.5; that would make it more or less equivilant to a similar frame, with a (more commonly angled) seat-tube of 74 degrees, and top tube of 54.2. Hope that makes sense. Similarly, the head-tube is 72.5, rather than the more common on small, of 72. That would probably bring in the top tube to an equivilant of a rounded 54cm (which makes it less extreme than initial impressions). Same goes for the mdm frame if you were to compare it with other similar sized ones, you'd need to factor in the seat angles.

I've just found these measurements on a pretty old thread!

"Ok, solved the issue anyway, for those who may need this in the future:
B'twin Triban 3 size 54, seat tube 45cm, top tube (real) 53cm, top tube (virtual) 54cm;
B'twin Triban 3 size 57, seat tube 48cm, top tube (real) 55cm, top tube (virtual) 57cm."

Is your Triban seat-tube actually 57cm long, or is that the 'virtual' height, being ACTUALLY 48cm long? If it's 48cm long, there's no way your seat should be just poking out of the top of the seat-tube, it's waaayy too low!

rolf_f

Bozman wrote:

I'm roughly the same height as the OP, I was looking for a new frame a few months back and I found that a lot of frames have a long TT/short HT, I feel that it's becoming the norm unless you want sit up and beg sportive geometry.

Overall height is neither here nor there - the problems arise if your body proportions don't fit the norm.

All sportive geometry is is shorter TT, taller HT. It isn't 'sit up and beg' by definition (even if that is sort of how it is marketed) because how you fit it depends on your own geometry. If normal geometry is too long for you, then a sportive geometry is what you need. It won't result in any 'sit up and beg' because all you are doing is using a shorter frame which takes into account a shorter torso. The only way a sportive frame is going to be 'sit up and beg' is if you fit a normal frame but would prefer a shorter one. Ignore the definitions and just look at the numbers.

I fit a sportive frame but it is by no means sit up and beg for me - even with a couple of spacers in. I can just about knock the handlebars standing out of the saddle if I'm not careful but that is a fault of my shape rather than the fit - if you imagine someone with ridiculously long legs in proportion to overall height, they wouldn't be able to ride a bicycle at all even sat down as their knees would still hit the bars. Sometimes the fit can never be perfect. However, the OPs can be massively improved!

Monty Dog

It's no wonder people get confused about bikefit when Planet-X specify rubbish like a 547mm virtual toptube suitable for a 5'3" rider - what, a 5ft3" gibbon?

Manc33

My seat post has a reasonable amount sticking out but, it has 0mm to 70mm on the seat post and I have got it now on 0mm so, there's nothing of the "measurement" part sticking out. Even then, my feet are about 1" off the ground either side sat on the saddle and trying to touch the ground with my toes.

If anything I could lower the saddle, I know I can't raise it 5mm now without discomfort. The pedals add about 4mm as well, big chunky MTB pedals.

For some odd reason I have always had my seat about 3mm higher than the "just about reach pedals with heels" theory. When I raise 3mm above that, I feel like I am almost "jogging" on the bike, but without hips moving, its perfect like that. The saddle isn't there to be sat on but more to just keep you from falling backwards, although you are fully sat on it, not standing. You know when its right because you can pedal easier.

Yes my actual seat tube is way smaller than the virtual size, which is 57cm. With a spirit level, my top tube would "virtually" finish about half way up the seat post (sticking out part), so about 2" under the bottom rails of the saddle, while handlebar stem is about 1" lower than that with a tiny rise on it.

bigflangesmallsprocket

Manc, I think from previous posts, I've misunderstood your meaning. At least we now know whats what..I think! It's good though that your bars aren't sticking up in the air like a Harley .

From the previous thread where we were chatting, you said that you had your seat about about 1cm up, this gave the impression that what you meant was that you only had 1cm of seat-post showing, with the seat-post slammed nearly all the way down! I also have numbers on my seat-post, what these are for on mine is just to make height adjustments easier without having to get your tape-measure out all the time, those numbers aren't there on all posts.

So, if that's also the case with your seat-post, if your 0 starts near the bottom going up to 70 toward the top, the 0 should probably signify the minimum insertion of the post, meaning that you've got the seat-post as high as it can safely go, with a minimum amount of seat-post in your seat-tube.

There's a number of ways that people commonly measure saddle height. There is the heels on pedal method (which you used, but from what I'm reading, you may be a bit overstretched, which I'll come to...eventually :roll: ), which sort of puts you in the ball-park where you can adjust to comfort from there; with this method you should still feel planted on the bike with no hip movement with both heels down on the pedals and without feeling stretched. There's the 109% of inseam method, where you measure from the centre of the pedal to the top of the saddle in a straight line up the seat-tube, to mid-point along the saddle length; some might use 107% of inseam as a starting point instead to take flexibility into account and work upward from there. Some people will add the thickness of their shoes and pedals to this measurement, but it all depends on your flexibility. Or you could use .883% of your inseam, measuring from the centre of the bottom bracket, up to the saddle again; this method assumes you're using standard 170mm cranks (on a 57cm frame, you might have 172.5 or 175mm cranks, you can check by looking on the inside of the crank, the crank length should be stamped, or just measure it centre of pedal to centre of bottom bracket; and minus those 2.5 or 5mm from what the .883% equals). Theres also the Holmes method which is a bit more complicated, its all in here: http://www.bikeradar.com/gear/article/how-to-get-your-seat-height-right-14608/. With all these methods you need to take individual flexibility into account, some may actually need a fair bit less height, some more.

As for how far back you saddle should be, there's a lot of disagreement. Some swear by KOPS (it's easier if you just Google it, it's fairly straight-forward). Others say its just a load of cobblers and go just by feel. The important thing is that you feel reasonably balanced on the bike and comfy with how far back you're sitting. If you move your saddle backward or forward, you are also effectively lengthening or shortening the saddle height as you're changing how far your legs have to reach. I think the common way of doing this is to move the post up or down about 1mm for every 3mm forward or backward of the saddle, but it's down to feel really.

To measure your real inseam, you should stand up against a wall in your bare feet, feet about 8 inches apart. put a thickish book between your legs and push it up to approximate the pressure of a saddle, then measure the distance from the book top to the floor, do this a few times and get the average as there will probably be a slight difference each time you measure. You should actually have a bit of leeway when you're on the saddle so you can move round on the saddle. It sounds like you're stretched out about as far as you can go, with the 'almost jogging' comment suggesting you may actually be bouncing around a bit and over-reaching even though you don't feel as if your hips are moving; you should actually be able to pedal fairly smoothly at about 80/90+ rpm unless you're giving it a lot of welly! That you may also have your seat-post at maximum height (unless I've misunderstood again) even though you reckon the bike is too big, also suggests this, especially as the supplied seat-post should be suitably sized for the frame with a fair bit of lee-way. All of these methods will still only put you in a sort-of-right starting point, flexibility will play a big part; some will have their saddles a lot lower, others a bit higher, your saddle (and handlebar) position may also change as you get fitter. If you aren't especially 'bendy' then lowering the saddle slightly may also make it easier to reach the hoods.

After all that, if your saddle position really is quite high, this can overstretch you. Seat height is important for being efficient and comfortable, but if you have it too high, it will negatively effect how far forward you can reach: Your calves, hamstrings, glutes, back and shoulder muscles all get a stretch when you're on your bike, so if the saddle is too high, or you're relatively stiff and unsupple, then all these will prevent you from reaching forward properly. Try checking your measurements and have another go at getting your seat-height. If you find your saddle is actually set a little high, then lowering it may free you up to let you reach the bars more easily.

A different subject, money! I note you mentioned you're using flat mtb pedals; I understand that fancy road pedals and shoes may be a bit off-putting, with the thought of falling of your bike cos you can't get your shoes undone, being in your mind. But they're a lot easier to get in and out of than you think, especially if you practice indoors just clipping in and out, and then on a quiet bit of road before you use 'use them in anger'. BUT, on top of the frame, this will add a fair bit to the expense. When/if you get a new bike frame (I'm guessing you plan to swap everything over onto the new frame), you may also need to change other bits, which will add to the expense. You will probably have to get a new front gear mech. The Stelvio frame does not need a clamp to fix the mech to the frame, instead you get a special mech without a clamp/band, that just bolts straight onto a bracket on the frame. The seat-post may also be a different diameter, so you may need to change that, or buy a shim that will let you fit your current seat-post. As you apparently also have your seat-post at maximum height, it may be you'll need to get a new longer seat-post anyway, even if it is the correct diameter. You may need to get yet another stem, to change your forward reach to suit the frame. You'll probably need a new set of cables as the fittings on the Stelvio are likely to be slightly different. Then if you really get into it, you'll find yourself wanting proper cycling clothing. If you're putting it all together yourself, you're going to need a good bike maintenance book, some special tools, or if a bike shop will build it for you that might be a big ouch moment for your wallet! It all adds to the expense. Once you get into it cycling can be pretty expensive, as you're already finding out! Of course, Ebay bargains and internet shops are there to save you money, if you know what you're looking for.

And wheels. Looking for info on the Triban, I did read a lot of comments on the wheels giving up. Wheels are usually one of the first things people need to change, and you'll be looking at £100+ for anything like a nice pair that would begin to compliment the frame. You can ride use the current ones till they die, but I'd guess they won't last too long if you plan on a lot of riding in the winter.

Have you booked a bike fit yet? All this yakking is fine and we don't want you to spend money on the wrong bike, but you really do need a basic bike fit, anything we tell you you can be nothing more than an educated guess based on what you tell us.

The only reason I've had time for all this waffle and follow so closely is cos I've been off work with my back, and keeping myself entertained by foisting myself onto posts on here

diamonddog

Monty Dog wrote:

It's no wonder people get confused about bikefit when Planet-X specify rubbish like a 547mm virtual toptube suitable for a 5'3" rider - what, a 5ft3" gibbon?

^^This, the Pro Carbon Medium has the same effective tt length/seat tube angle and is for 5'8'' to 5'11 according to PX if I remember correctly.

bigflangesmallsprocket

Damn, well spotted Diamonddog! Going from the readings, the geometry for the medium Planet X frame and the small Holdsworth Stelvio are identical. I guess they just used the sizing guide given by Holdsworth without questioning it. The size guide for the Planet X frame, actually puts manc, at 5'9 and a bit..slap bang in the middle of the Stelvio Small!

The head-tube length though, that's specced for both small 'sportive' or 'fitness' type road-bikes, and for mdm standard frames, hence why I think he still should get a basic bike fit, so he knows if he can comfortably reach down that far; the 12.5cm height on the small Planet X frame would have done me a few years ago, but would kill me now!

Manc33

bigflangesmallsprocket wrote:

meaning that you've got the seat-post as high as it can safely go, with a minimum amount of seat-post in your seat-tube.

I have got it really low. On my seat post, 0mm is near the top and 70mm is towards the bottom.

bigflangesmallsprocket wrote:

this method assumes you're using standard 170mm cranks (on a 57cm frame, you might have 172.5 or 175mm cranks)

They are 175mm.

bigflangesmallsprocket wrote:

You will probably have to get a new front gear mech.

Still got a braze on Shimano R443 but, that was bought for use with the MTB shifters.

Despite what's on the internet, the cable pull isn't any different (in my case at least), what's different (when using a road front mech with MTB shifters) is the front gear change is stiff because a road mech has a shorter swingarm on the mech than a MTB one, plus a MTB one just won't fit on the bike, doesn't clear the rear tyre.

I think using the FD-R443 with the Claris shifters should work. In theory it should be easy to change gear.

Not sure if the R443 should exclusively be used with flat bar shifters or what, they make out it should, but cable pull didn't come into it when I did it, then again I was using MTB shifters from 1995.

bigflangesmallsprocket wrote:

The seat-post may also be a different diameter, so you may need to change that, or buy a shim that will let you fit your current seat-post.

I am sure its the same.

bigflangesmallsprocket wrote:

As you apparently also have your seat-post at maximum height...

Minimum height. :P

bigflangesmallsprocket wrote:

You may need to get yet another stem, to change your forward reach to suit the frame.

I have a 110mm, 90mm and 50mm available to use. 8)

bigflangesmallsprocket wrote:

You'll probably need a new set of cables as the fittings on the Stelvio are likely to be slightly different.

Agh, got them already. Shame because I only just put new ones in from the Claris kit. :roll:

bigflangesmallsprocket wrote:

And wheels. Looking for info on the Triban, I did read a lot of comments on the wheels giving up.

Yep, rear hub bearings have gone on mine, its all "lumpy" feeling. Probably only done about 1000 miles on it. Only even noticed that when I had the wheel off and held the freewheel and spun it.

Got a new wheelset that, although nothing like as robust, feels a better quality.

That wheelset is 1407g and only cost £190. The have held up up to now. :oops:

Thing is they are also hand built and arrived as true as it gets.

bigflangesmallsprocket wrote:

Have you booked a bike fit yet?

Pfffffffffffffff, no. :oops:

bigflangesmallsprocket wrote:

The only reason I've had time for all this waffle and follow so closely is cos I've been off work with my back, and keeping myself entertained by foisting myself onto posts on here

My back went in 2010 and I have still got to be super careful now. It went again in 2011 just getting a bottle of milk out of the fridge - I tend to bend over stuff with straight legs, need a bike stand really but I am absolutely skint now after buying the Stelvio.

I know one thing you forgot - grease for the bottom bracket, already got it. :twisted:

I only have two main concerns, the headset will come out of the Triban and go into the Stelvio and the bottom bracket shell on the Stelvio, if it is 68mm I will be alright, isn't that like a standard size 68mm?

Here's something I wondered, when you get a "frameset" has the fork got that star nut thing inside it? Is that star nut part of a fork, or part of a headset?

What is a headset comprised of? Two bearings for the top and bottom of the head tube, the top cap and the bolt for the top cap, everything else is part of the fork?

Just wondering if I have to buy that star nut thing and fit it in the fork lol. Hope not.

bigflangesmallsprocket

Well, you've cleared a lot of stuff up for us then manc Up to date now on the seat-post, finally .

Nothing wrong with 175 cranks as long as you're happy with them, very personal thing crank-length.

+ on the braze on, money saved! I'm not familiar with all the different Shimano stuff, I've just got basic Shimano mtb gears on my Carrera Subway, old 9spd Campagnolo Mirage/Veloce on the road-bike, but having different front mechs to play with is obviously a bonus for you then.

+ on the seat-post and stems then too!

Being nosey, I did have a butchers at some of your older posts yesterday to see if I could learn anything else; the wheels do look like a nice buy!

Worth keeping the old cable outers, they may actually come in handy. It looks like you're pretty sorted and well on your way!

Honestly hadn't considered grease re the b-b, the sealed ones I've had are the fit-n-forget ones; fiddling with my Q-factor for my dodgy knee, I tend not to have them in that long anyway.

You say you've already bought the Stelvio? Which size did you go for? If you have, then the reasons I was suggesting a bike-fit are mostly moot now, though, as long as you don't damage or try to build the frame up, you could still get the fit first, to help confirm suitability.

Getting the mdm, I was worried about you repeating your problems with the Triban, but was also concerned the lower head-tube height of the small might be too 'sporty'. There are actually bikes and frames out there now that feature the taller mdm size head-tube, with the shorter smll top-tube for this reason. Looking back at Diamonddogs post, that reinforces my suggestion that the 'small' was actually more of a real-world 'mdm', but I didn't want to push you there because of the head-tube issue, and be held responsible for you getting the wrong size frame :?

Sorry to hear about your back, manc. For some getting a bad back is like stubbing a toe, it hurts for a little while but then it's gone and forgotten, and they don't get what the fuss is for real sufferers. For others it's a bleeding pain that follows you round for life. That may also actually explain part of your reach problem; I've always had a relatively short reach, made worse by my back. I've just bought a second-hand Giant SCR3.0 frame, short reach, tall head-tube, to help just that issue. It's sitting in my living room looking at me, it's bloody killing me that I can't ride it!

Back to the Stelvio. I just made the assumption that it would come supplied with a headset fitted. It might be worth asking about and save you a hassle, they might do you a deal if you ask nicely, one can hope. I can't comment on the headset fit issue. I'm aware there are different sizes and types, but not up to speed on any of that, and not so far had to deal with any problems on a modern head-set; something to be aware of though.

EDIT: Missed your question. You're right, the headset is actually the bearings and associated fittings that go into the top and bottom of the head-tube, to support the forks in said head-tube. You may also get a part that actually slides down the steerer (fork) tube to sit on the top of the fork, this would be a lower guide/placement support for the lower bearings set (if you do buy a new headset, a top cap and star nut may come with it, check to confirm). If you get a top cap and star nut supplied, the star nut will probably not come pre-fitted. Your forks may have quite a long column for you to cut down to size to your own requirements, and then you'd fit the star nut to suit. Some frames do apparently come with a shorter steerer column fitted, presumably on more race oriented frames where it's assumed you'd have the bars right down low anyway; it's possible these might come with the star nut already in. You can buy the star nuts and top caps separately or as a set. More on that below, which I'd already written before this! Having already dealt with the stem, you probably already know the rings you use to position the stem at the height you want are called the spacers 8)

Same goes for the star nut. You may have to buy one, but they're cheap enough. Don't stick it in too far, I did that and it was a pain pushing the bolt in far enough to catch on the star nuts thread! I've also seen on't net, but not in person, alternative rubber bungs you can get instead of star-nuts, supposed to be easier on ali and carbon steerer columns. You might have to cut down the steering column, and get some spacers too. Obviously better to not cut enough off and leave a bit extra on top while you dial in, than to cut too much off and end up having to buy a whole new fork! That back of yours might make the decision for you, to leave a spacer or two on top of the stem, even if it looks naff, just in case your back goes again.

Manc33

Stelvio arrived today. Where the front mech goes it is smooth, there's no braze on thing mounted on it.

Will my seat tube just snap if I put a band mounted one on? :?

Frame: 1194g
Fork: 381g
Size: M (52cm)

Not bad not bad!

Bozman

Manc33 wrote:

Stelvio arrived today. Where the front mech goes it is smooth, there's no braze on thing mounted on it.

Will my seat tube just snap if I put a band mounted one on? :?

I have no doubt that it will and that's why they sell them so cheap.

Manc33

Bozman wrote:

Manc33 wrote:

Stelvio arrived today. Where the front mech goes it is smooth, there's no braze on thing mounted on it.

Will my seat tube just snap if I put a band mounted one on? :?

I have no doubt that it will and that's why they sell them so cheap.

lol

Well it was on sale at £580 and has had 40% knocked off to make it £350.

Seat post clamp says it is 36.6mm on the clamp, but a 34.9mm band mount front mech fits on it with just the same amount between the fixings as on my Triban 3, known to be 34.9mm - so maybe the seat tube on this carbon jobbie tapers to a 34.9mm around the front mech mount area, but is 36.6mm at the top.

Internally the seat tube appears to be a 31.6mm so I need a new seat post, or cheat and use a shim. :oops:

Inside of the seat post is metal where you fix the seat post in, phew.

Not even got around to the BB, headset or tyre clearance on the fork with my 25c Marathon Plusses. On my Triban 3 I had literally a hairs thickness of clearance, but then I did have the tyres @ 115 PSI.

I will just tighten the front mech extremely carefully.

Angel1

Thanks for the update on the Stelvio purchase Manc. Out of interest can you put down what the top tube measurements (centre of seat post to centre of headtube)? Planet x list the virtual top tube as 57cm but don't say how long the sloping tube is. It would be a useful reference point for me as I ordered the same frame in s/48. Thanks

Manc33

I put the frame next to my Triban 3 (which is a 57cm) and the top tube on the Stelvio (52cm) is the exact same length as the Triban.

Measuring the top tube center to center its 520mm. Thats along the tube, not virtual.

Its hard to tell if the top tube is sloping, the head tube seems to be at a right angle to the top tube, if so it must be a straight top tube then, not a sloping one?

As far as I can gather, I only need to get two things - an "expander bung" for the carbon fork steerer (star nuts are a no-no) and a 31.6mm seat post. I can live with that, £20.

Also I just read on carbon steerers you must have at least 1 spacer above the stem. Someone said Trek say it is mandatory for their warranty. Not that this is a Trek fork, just saying.

EDIT: Head tubes aren't vertical. :oops: So if the head tube is at a right angle to the top tube it means it is a sloping top tube. It also means the top tube slopes from horizontal at roughly the same angle as the head tube does from vertical.

bigflangesmallsprocket

EDIT: looking at your posts after receiving the frame, now you've got it you can double-check all the sizing concerns. DON'T go sticking stuff on it until you're happy with the size. If you damage the frame, even cosmetically, you may have a problem if you decide to swap it for a different size, or even if you decided neither one fits your needs and want a refund.

I wouldn't go sticking on the band-on mech until you're absolutely certain about the clamp-size, call Planet X first and confirm sizing. It might look okay, but if your band on is too small, it may pinch into the frame and stress it when it's tightened down. Bike Radar review does state 35mm seat-tube, on their example, so you should be okay, but better safe than sorry. Have to say I'm surprised at a band-on for a carbon frame, 'basic' or not. I'd have thought that the original price tag would have warranted one.

The size guide for the mdm does actually state 57cm virtual top-tube, so it will be the same as yours if you've measured yours correctly. The possibility of different seat-tube and head-tube angles between your two frames may make a slight difference to your reach though.

Now you've got the frame, you can actually check that head-tube length I've been banging on about and see how it actually compares to yours. If the head-tube is about the same length, and the effective seat-tube the same length, then you've basically bought the same size frame you already have (seat/head angles not-withstanding). And measuring from the fork end centre (centre of wheel axle) to head-tube top will also help, in case the fork crown thickness and fork tyre clearances are different which will also add/minus total height (in reference to potential saddle to handlebar drop).
.
With reference to Bozmans comment: I don't see why a clamp on will necessarily make the frame more liable to break. Surely the addition of a band-less mech option would necessitate having to thicken up this area to accommodate the extra stress placed on a relatively small area of the frame, whereas with a band-on mech, the stress would actually be more evenly spread around the seat-tube. Obviously, this assumes you're not overtightening the clamp, but the same could be said about overtightening the bolts on the band-less system

Manc33

Triban 3 "57" head tube: 65mm

Stelvio M "52cm" head tube: 42mm

So does that simply mean the steerer on my new fork has to be 23mm shorter than the Triban 3 steerer?

Gotta say I am impressed with the weight of this Stelvio fork at about 380g. Thats 200g lighter than my Triban 3 fork. A lot I think on an item that weight.

The frame is about 1200g. The whole thing then is under 1600g. My current Triban 3 frame and fork amounts to about 2600g. So I spent £350 and knocked off a kilo of weight. Can't wait until its built up but I ain't even touching it until I know I can do it all in one go, don't wanna be without a bike while parts get here I should have already got.

The seat tube on the Stelvio does appear to taper thicker towards the top. I put a band of paper on before and slid it up. It seems to be 34.9mm where the front mech goes on and is 36.6mm at the top, but takes a 31.6mm seat post. This shows how thick the seat tubing is at the top (5mm difference between the inner and outer seat post tubing so 2.5mm tubing thickness). Its reinforced with a metal tube.

I might as well do pics of it.










Stuck the camera lens right in the head tube for these, both ends... gotta show the ugly bits too








Just under the bottle cage mounts where front mech goes...




Same bit of paper near the top of the tube...

Primus84

I might be reading this wrong, but did you decide your bike was too big and then buy a new frame that is the same effective size?

bigflangesmallsprocket

Your head-tubes can't be that short! The head-tube is measured from where it rests on the fork, to the top where the headset or spacer would sit on the top of the tube.

EDIT: I think you're forgetting to add the 1, as Holdsworth frame is officially specced as 165 heat-tube! For that reason, I'm wondering whether you got carried away and mixed up your two frames, also getting your measurements the wrong way round. I'd double check! Anything else I add now can only be based on what you say.

I see what you're saying about the tapering, still, I'd wait and ring Planet X before committing. Just in case.

bigflangesmallsprocket

What I meant was, that I think you're forgetting to add the first 100mm of measurement when you typed in the sizes. 65 or 42 is less than a fistfull of head-tube.