Ridley sizing
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 36

Thread: Ridley sizing

  1. #1
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    236

    Ridley sizing

    I was looking at the Excalibur and looked at the geometry chart and was surprised. I am 6 feet tall, and my last 2 bikes were a 2005 Bianchi 928 carbon Centaur in 58 with a 120 stem. My last bike was a 57 Orbea Onix with a 100 mm stem. Which size would work best ?? I am thinking that I am between a medium and a large. I dont race, not planning on it either.. I do group rides sometimes, but ride solo more. I don't want a super aggressive riding position, but I dont want a Giant OCR feel either. If it helps, both bikes I mentioned were fitted by the same guy, and I always felt more comforable on the Bianchi. What are your thoughts on sizing? Thanks everyone!!!!

  2. #2
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    966
    Its best to go on virtual top tube length and Heat tube height so perhaps try to dig up the geometry table for a size 58. 2005 928 carbon and then compare to Ridleys. For example the current 928 Carbon has a virtual top tube length of 575 mm for a size 58 and a HT height of 170 mm ... on that basis the Large Excalubut ould be the closest with a virtual TT length of 570 mm and a head tube of 190 mm - the biggest difference woul be on the HT which means if you used the same stem as on the old bike your bars would be sitting 2cm higher which of course can be overcome by using 2cm less spacer, flipping the stem or using a more aggressive stem that is unless you want your bars higher for greater comfort anyway... you will also need to account for hidden/internal headsets as they reduce your overall stack height by 1-2 cm. If confused just post the dimensions (TT & HT) of your old frame as well as the stem angle and I will get back to you.
    A writer cannot serve today those who make history, he must serve those who are subject to it - history's victims ..... Albert Camus

  3. #3
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    236
    Thanks, I looked at the 2005 Bianchi specs and they dont state head tube length. The top tube is 570 virtual, the angles of the head and seat tubes are both 73 degrees, and the top tube slopes 4 degrees. Seat tube was 550 it says. The stem was a 120 mm with a 6 degree drop. The Orbea I had had a 570 mm virtual top tube and a 182 mm head tube. I had a 100 mm stem and it had a 5 or 6 degree drop. Both bikes fit well, but I was more comfortable on the Bianchi I guess. I appreciate your help a lot, thanks!!!!

  4. #4
    Cycling induced anoesis
    Reputation: PJ352's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    13,005
    Quote Originally Posted by Snopro440
    Thanks, I looked at the 2005 Bianchi specs and they dont state head tube length. The top tube is 570 virtual, the angles of the head and seat tubes are both 73 degrees, and the top tube slopes 4 degrees. Seat tube was 550 it says. The stem was a 120 mm with a 6 degree drop. The Orbea I had had a 570 mm virtual top tube and a 182 mm head tube. I had a 100 mm stem and it had a 5 or 6 degree drop. Both bikes fit well, but I was more comfortable on the Bianchi I guess. I appreciate your help a lot, thanks!!!!
    If you really want to know the HT length on the Bianchi, measure it. If you can't measure in metric, tell us the length in inches and we'll convert it. Don't include the lower and upper cups of the headset, just the HT.

    Also, do you have access to a Ridley? If so, I can give you some measurements to take on the Bianchi to compare, otherwise it'll be more of an estimation based on the measurements of both bikes.

    Lastly, if the Bianchi fits better, forget using the Orbea to compare things. It'll just serve to confuse you.

  5. #5
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    1,297
    I'm 6'1" with a 34 inch riding inseam and long-ish arms. All three of my Ridleys have been/are now mediums. Excalibur, Damocles and now a Helium. I ride a 120 stem and Deda deep bars (long reach and drop). A large Ridley would be too big for me.

    The virtual TT on a medium Ridley is 56.5cm. My cockpit measurement (tip of saddle to center of bars) is 56.5cm. My position is comfortable and can be aggressive when I get in the drops.



    Here's my Helium...

  6. #6
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: velodog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    8,365
    I've been riding a 58cm De Rosa for a bunch of years. I just last year got a large Excalibur and have been happy with the fit.
    I thought that I should have gone with the medium until I was fitted and still argued the point with the guy who fitted me. He was right.
    I'm not a racer but ride to maintain my fitness so I do push it.
    I am 6' maybe 6'1" and wear a 32" inseam.
    If I remember right the virtual top tube is 58.5 and I have been running a 110mm stem. I may try a 120 stem this season. The seat tube is I think 59cm to the top.
    I have posted a photo on another thread somewhere and if I can find it somewhere I will post it here so's you can have a look see.

  7. #7
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: velodog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    8,365
    I think that I've got a photo of the lge Excalibur loaded.

  8. #8
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    236
    I can't measure the head tube on the bianchi because I sold it 2 years ago, I wish I had thought to measure it for the future because I liked the fit.. Oh well. Anyone else have thoughts? I really appreciate your help fellas!!

  9. #9
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    1,297
    Quote Originally Posted by velodog
    I think that I've got a photo of the lge Excalibur loaded.
    It may "fit" you, but it doesn't fit you. The fact that your seat is jacked all the way forward and nosed down a good inch are indicators that the frame is too long across the top tube.
    You are making up the difference but shoving your saddle forward and riding a 110mm stem, thus turning the bike into the medium you should have bought.

  10. #10
    Cycling induced anoesis
    Reputation: PJ352's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    13,005
    I think the best thing is for you to get a bike fit with a bike shop that has a fit cycle. Your measurements will be taken, then you'll ride the fit cycle and those measurements applied, along with tweaks to make you more comfortable. At that point, using Ridley's geometry table, you'll be able to make an educated decision on the size you require because you'll have the fit cycles measurements for reference. You may not want to spend the extra money on a good fitting, but in the long run, you'll be happy you did so.

  11. #11
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    236
    I have found out the head tube length on the Bianchi, it was 154. Does this help some? My shop will do the fitting, I dont mind spending the cash, but it would seem I could get an idea based on my favorite frame and figure which frame to order that way, then get the stem and seat/post set from there. Thank you guys!!!
    Adam

  12. #12
    Cycling induced anoesis
    Reputation: PJ352's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    13,005
    Comparing the geometries of the two bikes, and from what you've said about your preferred riding position, I'm pretty confident the medium Ridley is your size. Because you gain almost 2 cm of HT length, you'll either be positioned higher than on the Bianchi or you can use less spacers to equalize your position on the bars.

    Check the numbers below and remember, TT and HT lengths are more important than ST length (as long as the post stays in the 'safe zone'). I'd still double check the fit with your bike shop.

    Bianchi:
    Seat tube = 550
    TT (virtual) = 570
    HT = 154

    Ridley Excalibur (M):
    Seat tube = 540
    TT (virtual) = 565
    HT = 175

  13. #13
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    236
    You guys rock, thank you!!!

  14. #14
    Cycling induced anoesis
    Reputation: PJ352's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    13,005
    Quote Originally Posted by Snopro440
    You guys rock, thank you!!!

  15. #15
    kytyree
    Guest
    I fail to see why the picture of Velodog's bike (without a rider on it) indicates that his bike does not fit.

  16. #16
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: velodog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    8,365
    I think that it boils down to Personal preferance.
    With a diamond frame you can typicaly get them sized in 1cm increments, maybe two depending on the manufacturer. Top tube sized accordingly.
    With a sloping frame it's maybe five sizes, xs to xl. As the frame grows the seat tube gets slacker.
    So, it seems that there are two choices to making a frame fit, a smaller frame with the seat pushed back and spacers under the 73*stem or a larger frame with the seat pushed foreward and fewer spacers under the 84* stem.
    You pays your money, you make your choices.

  17. #17
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    1,297
    Quote Originally Posted by velodog
    I think that it boils down to Personal preferance.
    With a diamond frame you can typicaly get them sized in 1cm increments, maybe two depending on the manufacturer. Top tube sized accordingly.
    With a sloping frame it's maybe five sizes, xs to xl. As the frame grows the seat tube gets slacker.
    So, it seems that there are two choices to making a frame fit, a smaller frame with the seat pushed back and spacers under the 73*stem or a larger frame with the seat pushed foreward and fewer spacers under the 84* stem.
    You pays your money, you make your choices.
    True dat...

    BUT, if you are racing, go far the smaller option. I've always found that a bike that's too big is like driving a truck into a turn.

  18. #18
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    97

    Agreed

    Quote Originally Posted by backinthesaddle
    True dat...

    BUT, if you are racing, go far the smaller option. I've always found that a bike that's too big is like driving a truck into a turn.
    Our team just got a bunch of Ridleys through their team program and I can fit on an XL or L and went with the L Helium for that very reason.

  19. #19
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    966
    Snopro ... I second the medium too. Your Bianchi probably had a standard headset so you have to add something like 15 - 20 mm to it when comparing to bikes with integrated headsets such as ridley so 175 HT would be the better option - and 5 mm difference in TT length would mean that you will have to move your saddle back by 5 mm or opt for a slightly lower stem - 80 (ITM do them) which would make your reach slightly longer.
    A writer cannot serve today those who make history, he must serve those who are subject to it - history's victims ..... Albert Camus

  20. #20
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    401
    Given the same seat angle, frame size and seat position shouldn't effect each other. If you are moving your seat forward to adjust reach, that's the wrong approach. Knowing the reach I want, my frame size decision comes down to headtube length with a TT to get the reach I want. I have long legs and shorter body, so I tend to go up one size and use a shorter stem to get my target seat to bar drop. I'm just over 6 ft and ride a L Excalibur.

  21. #21
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    1,297
    Quote Originally Posted by lamazion
    Given the same seat angle, frame size and seat position shouldn't effect each other. If you are moving your seat forward to adjust reach, that's the wrong approach. Knowing the reach I want, my frame size decision comes down to headtube length with a TT to get the reach I want. I have long legs and shorter body, so I tend to go up one size and use a shorter stem to get my target seat to bar drop. I'm just over 6 ft and ride a L Excalibur.
    The only flaw in that thinking is the fact that the seat angles aren't the same for M and L Ridley frames. The are 73 and 72.5, respectively.
    If you are fitting your bike by using headtube length and saddle/bar drop, you're doing it wrong. Going up a size and being forced to ride a short stem is going around your ass to get to your elbow. On either bike your drop would be the same. You may be forced to ride a few spacers under your stem (Gasp! The horror!) and you will show more seatpost/seatmast, but the end result is the same, except for the fact that the smaller bike will handle properly.

  22. #22
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    236
    I ended up ordering a bike.. I was given a honey of a deal on an Orbea Orca so I jumped on it.. I think that I can work with the fit to really get it dialed in. I liked the Ridley, but I have never even seen one, and I was not 100 percent sure of fit on it. Either way, I think I would have been happy. I appreciate your info, I am glad that there are folks here to help out like you all do!!

  23. #23
    Cycling induced anoesis
    Reputation: PJ352's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    13,005
    Congrats on your purchase, Snopro. Good luck with your new ride!

  24. #24
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    401
    Quote Originally Posted by backinthesaddle
    The only flaw in that thinking is the fact that the seat angles aren't the same for M and L Ridley frames. The are 73 and 72.5, respectively.
    If you are fitting your bike by using headtube length and saddle/bar drop, you're doing it wrong. Going up a size and being forced to ride a short stem is going around your ass to get to your elbow. On either bike your drop would be the same. You may be forced to ride a few spacers under your stem (Gasp! The horror!) and you will show more seatpost/seatmast, but the end result is the same, except for the fact that the smaller bike will handle properly.
    I mentioned the seat angle because it is important to consider in fit. While you feel strongly about going as small as possible, for some people, that is not always possible to get a good fit. With the Ridley Large, I currently run with 3-4cm of spacers and the stem flipped up to get the saddle drop that works for me. After riding the larger and smaller size, I went with the one that fit me. I have no issues with the handling of my bike.

  25. #25
    Cycling induced anoesis
    Reputation: PJ352's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    13,005
    Seeing as this has evolved into a general discussion about bike fit, irregardless of brand, there are a couple of points worth mentioning.

    If moving up/ down a size and adjusting bars/ stems/ saddles works, then that's great. But focusing only on the apparent problem (too short of a reach, too low, etc.) may lead to the incorrect position on the bike - specifically the rider may no longer be centered, relatively speaking. And no matter what size frame you end up with, too far back OR too far forward adversely affects handling. I, for one, would not ignore KOPS, at least as a starting point.

    I'm not against making adjustments for fit, but in a sense I guess I'm more a purist, in that I believe a bike (size/ geometry) either fits or it doesn't. You can't make it work.
    Last edited by PJ352; 02-08-2008 at 03:57 PM. Reason: additions..

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

THE SITE

ABOUT ROADBIKEREVIEW

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2020 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.