Author Topic: Getting the fit of (n, n+1...) right  (Read 499 times)

Rhys W

  • I'm single, bilingual
    • Cardiff Ajax
Getting the fit of (n, n+1...) right
« on: October 03, 2009, 11:32:31 am »
Ever since I've had more than one bike, I've tried setting them up as close as possible, assuming that I've got a pretty good position on my most-used bike. This usually means setting the saddle height the same, getting the right stem length, and consideration of the top tube length. The last one is particularly important - with a long torso and short legs (for my height), I discovered a long time ago (by accident) that I was comfortable stretched out on a long top tube.

 Anyway, this weekend I've put away my best bike and got out my winter trainer. I posted photos of them here, and I wondered just how close they really are. Even though the photos were taken on different days, I cropped them to features in the background, then overlaid them in GIMP. Not as scrupulous as I'd like, but way better than holding them up side-by-side and squinting. I was surprised as to how close they really are:

 What's striking is how close the frame geometry is for a "52cm" Colnago and a "54cm" Pinarello - it illustrates my point that it's the top tube length that's the most important measurement. The fork offset of the Pinarello (blue) could be marginally smaller (or it could be an illusion caused by raked/straight forks). It does have slightly quicker steering than the Colnago (which has a pretty shallow head angle I believe). I'm impressed by how close the bars and lever hoods are, but I do need to check the saddle heights. I think I have it close to the comfortable max on the Colnago, but even accounting for an extra winter layer, I could raise the winter bike's saddle 2-3mm. Where's my tape measure...