Tollers
Guru
- Location
- San Francisco, California
I need some advice!
I'm considering a new frameset and at the top of my list is the new Wilier Gran Turismo. However, something about the geometry makes me a little uneasy.http://www.competitivecyclist.com/za/CCY?PAGE=BRAND_GEOMETRY&BRAND.ID=522
The small has what i think is a good effective top tube length, but i can't figure out how the seat tube c-c can be so short? 42.3 c-c sounds tiny considering it's 51.5 c-t
My Ribble, which is also a small has 42.1 c-c, but just 48.0 c-t. So, it sounds to me like the two are very similar sizes, however the GT seems to just have an extension at the seat post. Indeed, looking at the photos, the seat tube collar area seems really long.
Now, i can then compare to Izoard (see link)l which seems a lot more traditional and like my Scott CR1 in terms of geometry.45.1 c-c and 50 c-t sounds much more "normal" to me.
So.....what is the GT's geometry trying to achieve. I have the impression that it's a really small triangle made to sound bigger by the extended seat post and slopping TT. Would that seatpost mean i shouldnt need any seatpost showing in which case, maybe I should be thinking about size above. Am i worrying about nothing here and should i be focusing more on the effective tt length?
I know the best answer is "Test them", but sadly neither are available from any shop within hundreds of miles around here.
Also open to suggestions. Looking to build a dream bike that will mostly be used to 50 milers including a fair amount of climbing, but could also be used for an occasional century.
Mark
I'm considering a new frameset and at the top of my list is the new Wilier Gran Turismo. However, something about the geometry makes me a little uneasy.http://www.competitivecyclist.com/za/CCY?PAGE=BRAND_GEOMETRY&BRAND.ID=522
The small has what i think is a good effective top tube length, but i can't figure out how the seat tube c-c can be so short? 42.3 c-c sounds tiny considering it's 51.5 c-t
My Ribble, which is also a small has 42.1 c-c, but just 48.0 c-t. So, it sounds to me like the two are very similar sizes, however the GT seems to just have an extension at the seat post. Indeed, looking at the photos, the seat tube collar area seems really long.
Now, i can then compare to Izoard (see link)l which seems a lot more traditional and like my Scott CR1 in terms of geometry.45.1 c-c and 50 c-t sounds much more "normal" to me.
So.....what is the GT's geometry trying to achieve. I have the impression that it's a really small triangle made to sound bigger by the extended seat post and slopping TT. Would that seatpost mean i shouldnt need any seatpost showing in which case, maybe I should be thinking about size above. Am i worrying about nothing here and should i be focusing more on the effective tt length?
I know the best answer is "Test them", but sadly neither are available from any shop within hundreds of miles around here.
Also open to suggestions. Looking to build a dream bike that will mostly be used to 50 milers including a fair amount of climbing, but could also be used for an occasional century.
Mark
