I am looking at purchasing a C50, Time VXR, or a Look 585 in the near future. In talking with a friend, he mentioned that he had heard that the Europeans prefer their bikes to fit with a proportionally longer stem than the American fit style (ie, stem the length of 130mm or so, but most American manufacturers usually set up their bikes with something like this; 56cm top tube, and a 100mm stem) Any thoughts on how the bike would handle differently with each approach?

Thanks!

There's a great article on Colnago fitting here http://www.bikesportmichigan.com/reviews/colnago.shtml that discusses the sizing philosophy for some european builders. In my expereince this would apply to Colnago, Merckx and Look. They're generally building frames more around the issues of balance and weight distribuiton. The result is a shorter top tube ala Merckx or Colnago. Popular Amercian brands like Cannondale, Serotta and Litespeed usually have longer top tubes. In my experience it comes down to personal preference. I like the fit and feel of a frame with a slacker seat tube, shorter top tube and longer stem. That's why I own a tri of Merckx. I

I've from the States but London based for the last 6 years traveling extensively throughout Europe seeing non-pro and pro riders and what they ride. Fit is fit, regardless of location. I agree about your balance comment but that applies globally. If anybody tells you different, they're talking out of their.........

That Bike Sport Michigan article is so misguided it's not even funny. Not a shred of truth or accuracy in it. The guy makes a trivial 1cm change in frame size, makes a stem length change that makes no sense and then thinks the smaller frame's geometry is a miracle, even though he's comparing frames made of entirely different materials.

Colnago frames for instance, have relatively long top tubes in the smaller sizes and shorter top tubes in the larger sizes, IF you know how to properly account for differences in the seat tube angle.

There are no "generalizations" that are accurate regarding european frames. Every brand has it's own philosophy.

Some manufacturers like LOOK now have several different geometries for their road frames. Some still have their traditional 72.5 degree STA across the board, while other have steeper STAs.

Trek has some of the longest top tubes of any brand. You can compare many other brands and not find much more than a 1cm difference in the TT length for a given size.

Each bike brand, and typically models, have a sizing philosophy (intentional or otherwise). These philosophies are not country or region specific. You have to look at a given bike, not which country it comes from. Those who attempt to categorize bike fit by just looking at TT length, or stem length, or HT angle, etc. are "correct within an order of magnitude" which is also known as "wrong."

Each bike brand, and typically models, have a sizing philosophy (intentional or otherwise). These philosophies are not country or region specific. You have to look at a given bike, not which country it comes from. Those who attempt to categorize bike fit by just looking at TT length, or stem length, or HT angle, etc. are "correct within an order of magnitude" which is also known as "wrong."

There's a load of crap in that article. C40 and Kerry have touched on some of the false logic but there's a lot more.

One of the most glaring mistakes is that custom bikes will handle worse than a stock, off the rack bike. What kind of crap is that? It is pretty easy for anyone to fit a stock bike but at the same time, it is hard for a stock bike to be balanced perfectly. That's what a great custom bike does: it takes a perfect fit and frames those points of contact correctly within the wheelbase so that the balance is exactly the way it needs to be in order for the bike to respond in the manner the owner wants.

Not taking sides here or even expressing an opinion on the particulars of the debate, other than to say the guy who wrote the article (Tom Demerly) is highly respected as a triathlon bike fitter in the triathlon world.

I'm not smart enough to agree with or contradict C-40 (who has proven he knows his stuff), Kerry Irons (ditto) or Sherpa23 (who appears to be not only nostril deep in the high end of the industry but also swimming in the deepest end of the gene pool). They each clearly and obviously know much more than I.

Not taking sides here or even expressing an opinion on the particulars of the debate, other than to say the guy who wrote the article (Tom Demerly) is highly respected as a triathlon bike fitter in the triathlon world.

I'm not smart enough to agree with or contradict C-40 (who has proven he knows his stuff), Kerry Irons (ditto) or Sherpa23 (who appears to be not only nostril deep in the high end of the industry but also swimming in the deepest end of the gene pool). They each clearly and obviously know much more than I.


I never contradicted his fitting technique, only his logic. Maybe the end results of his fits are great (although I don't know of any "fitting algorithms") despite the flaws in his logic.

Below (in quotes) are excerpts from the Bike Sport Michigan article and my comments on them, below.

?Colnagos are tricky to fit. They seem to have shortish top tubes and their seat tube measurement methodology is a little odd. It takes experience with Colnagos to fit Colnagos.?

The statement above is totally wrong. The TT length is relatively long in the small sizes, partially due to the steep seat tube angle (which increases the effective TT length). In the small sizes, the TT is longer than the frame size. As the frame size increases, the TT length becomes less than the frame size and the STA decreases, further shortening the TT.

The seat tube measurement is not ?odd?. It?s hard to believe that anyone with 23 years in the bike business isn?t smart enough to read a geometry chart which clearly includes the traditional center to center frame size. The chart also includes the traditional setback dimension (that determines the frame?s seat tube angle). Traditional Italian builders never cared about seat tube or head tube "angles". They worked entirely from the linear dimensions of setback for the seat tube and front-center for the head tube. That?s why some Italian frames have odd fractional seat tube and head tube angles, the angles are merely calculated for the consumer.

?In 2001 I bought a Colnago CT-1 Titanium and Carbon frame. I originally bought the 53cm. size with a 53.5 cm. top tube. This frame actually measured 53cm., along the seat tube to the bottom of the seat post binder collar (or seat clamp). The total measurement center to absolute top of collar was 53.9 cm. The measurement center of bottom bracket to center of top tube was 51cm. (traditional c. to c. measurement). According to all of my calculations, and using traditional bike fit algorithms, this bike would fit. It did not. It was too large. The frame, although excellent, felt sluggish and boxy, as though it was unresponsive. The center of gravity was too high. I didn't have the standover height I needed for aggressive accelerations and climbing. The bike didn't feel compact and nimble. It's important to realize this was no fault of the frame, it was my fault for ordering one size too large. This illustrates the tragedy of missing your frame size by just one centimeter. My position on the bike was correct: Saddle height, reach, handlebar drop, saddle setback, etc. The bike wasn't correct underneath me.?

All I can say about the statement above is that the author believes in fairy tales. The idea that having the top tube 1cm lower would turn a ?sluggish, boxy, unresponsive? bike into a compact and nimble climbing machine is a real joke. I?ve made the same change from a 55cm C-40 to a 54cm and the difference was purely cosmetic. I had 1cm more seatpost showing and changed the stem angle from 80 to 84 degrees to place the bars at the same height. Other than that, the bikes performed about the same.

?The top tube of the bike was 4mm (that's millimeters) shorter. On the CT1 53cm I was using a 120 stem with no spacers underneath and had trouble getting a really good, low position in the drops (not that I use it that much anymore, nice to have though when you're struggling to not get dropped). On my new 52cm. Dream Plus I used a 130mm stem also with no spacers under the stem.?

The statement above is also in error. Although the geometry chart shows the 53cm frame to have a 53.5cm TT and the 52cm frame has a 53.1cm TT, the length is not measured from the same place relative to the bottom bracket. The 52cm frame has a steeper 74.5 degree STA, which makes the effective TT length approximately 53.7cm, 2mm longer, NOT 4mm shorter. The author still decided to use a 10mm longer stem. He either suddenly decided, after years of riding, that he wanted a longer reach, or moved his saddle forward 12mm and didn?t realize it. The author also states that he couldn?t get the bars low enough on the larger 53cm frame. An ?expert? fitter who doesn?t know what head tube length and stem angle it takes to produce a particular bar height, BEFORE the bike is assembled has a greatly exaggerated opinion of his abilities. I guess he never thought of changing from an 80 degree stem to a 73.

"Colnagos are designed to use an offset seatpost and a long stem that hangs the rider's weight over the wheels, not over the frame, which results in a short wheelbase and fast handling. The bike is planted. They just handle, like a Ferrari. The weight bias is perfect. That is how Ernesto Colnago intended them to be ridden."

The statement above is real baloney. Virtually all frames are designed to use an offset seatpost. Using a longer stem does not hang the rider?s weight ?over the wheels, not the frame? (what the heck does that mean?). Changing the stem length has an extremely minor effect on the bike?s weight distribution. Lowering the stem (changing the angle of the torso) has a greater effect on weight balance and changing the saddle fore/aft position has an even greater effect on weight balance. Colnagos also have long front-center dimensions (slack HTA), longer wheelbases and large amounts of steering trail to create stable, but NOT fast handling bikes.

?Colnagos are typically a bit eccentric in assembly. The threaded surfaces come from the factory very rough and all surfaces must be tapped, chased and faced thoroughly before any component installation. It is critical that every Colnago dealer owns a full compliment of frame prep tools with sharp edges and is fully skilled in their use.?

The statement above is more crap. The frames may have paint overspray in the threads and head tube, but nothing more. The two frames I?ve owned required chasing the rear derailleur mounting threads with an M10 x 1mm tap and chasing the barrel adjuster threads with a standard M5 tap. I also carefully scrape the paint from the top and bottom of the head tube and the right face of the BB shell. About 10 minutes worth of work and the bike is ready to assemble.

I agree with C40, Sherpa, Keryy etc etc as well.

To the best of my knowledge and I would really like to know as well...

IS the issue here how a bike is measured as opposed to the "fit"? If so, Kerry has it because each company has their own idea etc etc

Either way you slice it, (and trust me, with this much of a stinky loaf, there is alot to slice) I have yet to have seen a "euro" measured bike etc etc? :)

After reading Demerly's article, I think that he has shifted entire body forward and rotated everything towards the front of the bike. I've seen a few tri guys who prefer to be quite far forward in their position, way forward than what road riders usually position themselves relative to the BB. He's primarily a tri fitter and a tri guy, so that probably works for him.

What is also interesting is the quote from the Colnago dealer about Colnago bikes ;-).

That this would cause such heated discussion. I suggested the article because it is a point of view that somewhat agrees with my own experience of fitting Colnagos and some other Euro brands. I can't speak for how confused or deluded the author is, but my interepertaion when reading it was that he was trying to convey that there are some differences in fitting brand to brand. As a tall guy, I'm more tuned into the sizing quirks that Colnago has at that end of the range; shorter and dropped (Frueller) top tube are two that come to mind.

I do agree with C-40 that it's unlikely that the 1cm difference in frame size made that much difference in feel, but on the other hand, I've always felt better on a frame that was on the smaller side rather than larger. Maybe it is just your imagination, but let's fact it, most of this stuff is high subjective and even worse, highly suggestible.