Turbo Club - Meet Ups / Events

[<Tommy>]

@TurboTommy can I ask what size frame ur tarmac is as spesh website suggest a 56 for me and I thought u had a 56 and ur a fair bit taller
as I'm very tempted to get an sworks disc frameset think I ruled out ruled out the bianchi xr3 disc as it got band on front mech

Hi mate. My tarmac is a 61cm (I’m just shy of 6’4). I’m sort of in between sizes. I could of got a 58 too and had more spacers under a slightly longer stem. How tall are you Rob? Height is a factor but inside leg and arm length are more important really. As well as how much saddle to handlebar drop you want. That’s why geo charts are a bit of a mine field to be honest.

This website is ace:
https://geometrygeeks.bike/
Type in your current bike model and then select from size options. And then choose other bikes to compare geometry with. Stack and reach are the two most vital things on the chart. You can play around with the reach loads by changing your stem and handlebars. And stack by adding or taking spacers from under the stem. But you want to be in the same ballpark as your current bike unless you want to drastically change your position.

If you give me the name, size, and maybe year, of your current bike, I’ll have a look too if you like mate.

Also just to add make sure you’re registered on the site or it gives you false data on purpose.

 

[CXRAndy]

TurboTommy can I ask what size frame ur tarmac is as spesh website suggest a 56 for me and I thought u had a 56 and ur a fair bit talle

Tommy would like a hermit hunch over a 56cm top tube

 

[<Tommy>]

Tommy would like a hermit hunch over a 56cm top tube

My new bike is actually a 56. But Colnago have very odd measuring system. In reality I have 20mm more on the stem and 10mm more spacers to make it the same fit as my 61cm tarmac...

 

[rob01792]

I'm 5,10 and a bit currently defy adv pro 2016 medium only 10 mm spacer but I do feel its slightly on the small side
was thinking 56 with 100 mm stem but was abit off put as I thought for some strange reason u had a 56 but now I know u got 61 it makes me go more towards 56

 

[CXRAndy]

most bike size charts has 5'9"-6'0" for 56cm frames. I'm just tad short of 6'0 and have 3 bikes all 56cm top tube. Infact the top tubes are around 54 to 55.5cm in length but all classes as 56cm

 

[<Tommy>]

I'm 5,10 and a bit currently defy adv pro 2016 medium only 10 mm spacer but I do feel its slightly on the small side
was thinking 56 with 100 mm stem but was abit off put as I thought for some strange reason u had a 56 but now I know u got 61 it makes me go more towards 56

Rob I think the defy and tarmac are somewhat different. The tarmac being more aggressive, the defy being more relaxed. It’s a side note but I have a 100mm stem on my tarmac. And I wouldn’t want to go any shorter than that. Rob do you know if your defy is medium or medium/large? I have a feeling maybe it’s medium/large. Can you measure the seat tube from the centre of the bottom bracket to the seat post collar?

It does sound like you will be either on a 54 or 56dependingon how agressive you want it.it is worth comparing the frames though mate. I have a feeling for example that the head tube will be a little smaller on the tarmac.

most bike size charts has 5'9"-6'0" for 56cm frames. I'm just tad short of 6'0 and have 3 bikes all 56cm top tube. Infact the top tubes are around 54 to 55.5cm in length but all classes as 56cm

Andy frames are measure from the length of the seat tube not top tube. It’s an important distinction as some frames have a sloping geometry which makes this measurement deceptive.

 

[rob01792]

Rob I think the defy and tarmac are somewhat different. The tarmac being more aggressive, the defy being more relaxed. It’s a side note but I have a 100mm stem on my tarmac. And I wouldn’t want to go any shorter than that. Rob do you know if your defy is medium or medium/large? I have a feeling maybe it’s medium/large. Can you measure the seat tube from the centre of the bottom bracket to the seat post collar?

It does sound like you will be either on a 54 or 56dependingon how agressive you want it.it is worth comparing the frames though mate. I have a feeling for example that the head tube will be a little smaller on the tarmac.



Andy frames are measure from the length of the seat tube not top tube. It’s an important distinction as some frames have a sloping geometry which makes this measurement deceptive.

its a medium 545 top tube and it does feel slightly small what I can make out is between that and a 56 tarmac it about 18mm longer similar head tubes

edit saddle drop to bars is about 65 to70 mm bb to top of saddle 734

 

[<Tommy>]

its a medium 545 top tube and it does feel slightly small what I can make out is between that and a 56 tarmac it about 18mm longer similar head tubes

The thing about top tube length is that you can play about with it with a longer stem. I’d rather have a longer stem and be a bit more over the front wheel than have a shorter stem but longer top tube. This just personal preference but I find bikes less twitchy with weight over the front wheel. Rob I’ve got to run an errand but I’ll have a look at the charts in a bit. I’m no expert so not trying to make out I am! But maybe I can help a little.

 

[bridgy]

I'm 5,10 and a bit currently defy adv pro 2016 medium only 10 mm spacer but I do feel its slightly on the small side
was thinking 56 with 100 mm stem but was abit off put as I thought for some strange reason u had a 56 but now I know u got 61 it makes me go more towards 56

Rob, if it's any help to you at all, I'm 5'11, and my previous (now turbo) bike is a Defy in size M/L. I've recently changed to a Canyon Ultimate size medium which has a top tube* length of 55.6cm (100mm stem) and I find a perfect fit for me.

*As I think Tommy was meaning above, this is a horizontal measurement from headtube to seatpost

 

[Norry1]

Cheers mate. I’ve found my rider number via a screenshot I took at the time. I’m just wondering if I need to produce the original confirmation on the day to get my rider pack. Or if they’re going to send stuff out to us.

Norry on another note. Am I right in thinking you come into London a fair bit for work and stuff? If you fancy meeting up for a few laps of regents or Richmond Park myself and Bob could join you which might be fun.

Yes, most weeks I'm there for a day or two. Would be good to meet for Regent's Park laps. Only done them on a Boris Bike so far

 

[bridgy]

Does anyone know how the start works in the TOC Sportive? Is it a free for all, or do we get told to gather in specific areas of the start based on our expected speed which we put down when entering?

Also, we need to get a bit organised with regards meeting up on the day (or the day before) - we didn't exactly cover ourselves in glory with our attempts to meet up before the IOW ride!

I think we should set up a TOC Whatsapp group - would be better than posting stuff on here and easier to handle than a private message thread? I don't mind setting it up but I don't think I have anyone's mobile numbers, so those going could PM me their mobile, or if some of you already have each others mobile numbers you could start a group with what you have and I and anyone else going could PM you our numbers, so you can add us to the group....

 

[<Tommy>]

Rob, if it's any help to you at all, I'm 5'11, and my previous (now turbo) bike is a Defy in size M/L. I've recently changed to a Canyon Ultimate size medium which has a top tube* length of 55.6cm (100mm stem) and I find a perfect fit for me.

*As I think Tommy was meaning above, this is a horizontal measurement from headtube to seatpost

Bikes are measured via the seat tube not top tube Paul. That is to say a 56cm frame will have a 56 seat tube from centre of bottom bracket to seat post collar. Measuring frames from top tube length is very complicated as the angle of the top tube can varie so much. That’s why in general it’s much easier to talk about the overall stack and reach of a frame than any one measurement.

 

[bridgy]

Bikes are measured via the seat tube not top tube Paul. That is to say a 56cm frame will have a 56 seat tube from centre of bottom bracket to seat post collar. Measuring frames from top tube length is very complicated as the angle of the top tube can varie so much. That’s why in general it’s much easier to talk about the overall stack and reach of a frame than any one measurement.

I don't think that's right Tommy - not for the Tarmac or the measurement I'm quoting for the Ultimate anyway. The "56" size for the Tarmac refers to the horizontal length from headtube to seatpost (which they call toptube length), and is 56.5cm on a "56" frame. The medium size Ultimate is 55.6cm for the same measurement.

I know what you're saying about different angles of top tube making that measurement difficult to compare - this is why the measurement is a horizontal one, and not the toptube itself. The seat tube measurement varies a lot for the same reason - depends how sloping the top tube is. So the seat tube measurement from BB to seatpost collar is 522mm on an Ultimate size M, and 501mm on a Tarmac size 56 which is quite a bit different, but these are essentially the same size bike - you would just have more seatpost showing on a Tarmac.

Edit: see https://www.specialized.com/us/en/mens-tarmac-comp-disc/p/128851?color=239617-128851, and https://www.canyon.com/en-gb/road/ultimate/2018/ultimate-cf-slx-disc-8-0.html and scorll down for measurements

 

[<Tommy>]

I don't think that's right Tommy - not for the Tarmac or the measurement I'm quoting for the Ultimate anyway. The "56" size for the Tarmac refers to the horizontal length from headtube to seatpost (which they call toptube length), and is 56.5cm on a "56" frame. The medium size Ultimate is 55.6cm for the same measurement.

I know what you're saying about different angles of top tube making that measurement difficult to compare - this is why the measurement is a horizontal one, and not the toptube itself. The seat tube measurement varies a lot for the same reason - depends how sloping the top tube is. So the seat tube measurement from BB to seatpost collar is 522mm on an Ultimate size M, and 501mm on a Tarmac size 56 which is quite a bit different, but these are essentially the same size bike - you would just have more seatpost showing on a Tarmac.

Edit: see https://www.specialized.com/us/en/mens-tarmac-comp-disc/p/128851?color=239617-128851, and https://www.canyon.com/en-gb/road/ultimate/2018/ultimate-cf-slx-disc-8-0.html and scorll down for measurements

I know you may think it’s stubornesss in the face of overwhelming evidence but... I still believe the measurement they give is for seat tube length or a guideline to seatube length.... I’ve just googled it a fair bit and I can’t find any source that says the size, for example 56, relates to top tube, effective, or actual top tube. But multiple sources that suggest it relates to seat tube. It’s possible that with sloping geometry frames they take a measurement as being the effective seat tube rather than actual height. And different manufacturers have different methods. I know you have numbers that suggest it does relate to toptube length but they’re not consistent across the range. For example the 49 tarmac has a top tube that’s just inside 52cm.

Can you find anything online that states frame size description relates to top tube length? I can’t find anything to suggest the 56 tarmac is measured from effective top tube. And I’ve personally never heard a bikes effective top tube being the source of its sizing number. Like I say I know the numbers seem a lot closer to top tube length than the seat tube so this whole debate may make me sound a little silly... it’s just I’ve always taken the size of a bike to be seat tube length. And nothing I’ve just read tells me different (other than the actual measurements!) I never actually payed much attention to it to be honest because I think it’s not the most relevant thing.

Either way... I think this conversation at least goes some way in proving that stack and reach are much clearer and ultimately more important overall, when choosing a bike frame than any one measurement in isolation.

 

[bridgy]

I know you may think it’s stubornesss in the face of overwhelming evidence but... I still believe the measurement they give is for seat tube length or a guideline to seatube length.... I’ve just googled it a fair bit and I can’t find any source that says the size, for example 56, relates to top tube, effective, or actual top tube. But multiple sources that suggest it relates to seat tube. It’s possible that with sloping geometry frames they take a measurement as being the effective seat tube rather than actual height. And different manufacturers have different methods. I know you have numbers that suggest it does relate to toptube length but they’re not consistent across the range. For example the 49 tarmac has a top tube that’s just inside 52cm.

Can you find anything online that states frame size description relates to top tube length? I can’t find anything to suggest the 56 tarmac is measured from effective top tube. And I’ve personally never heard a bikes effective top tube being the source of its sizing number. Like I say I know the numbers seem a lot closer to top tube length than the seat tube so this whole debate may make me sound a little silly... it’s just I’ve always taken the size of a bike to be seat tube length. And nothing I’ve just read tells me different (other than the actual measurements!) I never actually payed much attention to it to be honest because I think it’s not the most relevant thing.

Either way... I think this conversation at least goes some way in proving that stack and reach are much clearer and ultimately more important overall, when choosing a bike frame than any one measurement in isolation.

I think you're absolutely right that seat tube length is the traditional way to measure a road bike, but this has become an almost meaningless measurement to use on compact frames with sloping top tubes.

I don't know what the 49, 52, 54, 56 etc sizes for Specialized actually relate to for sure (if they relate directly to anything!), but they have no relation at all to seat tube length, but they do have a vague relation to effective top tube, which is why I assumed this was what they meant (roughly!) by it. It's confusing, and probably why many manufacturers use S, M, L etc now instead. Cervelo for example size their bikes as 48, 51, 54, 56, 58, 61 which again vaguely relates to effective top tube (and a size 56 has 56.4cm effective top tube) but they don't even give a measurement for seat tube length on their geometry guide at all!

What it might be, is a bit of a tradition thing, where the size numbers now quoted relate to what an old fashioned racing bike with horizontal top tube would have been when measured by seat tube, and some manufacturers have just stuck to these size numbers, and it's just coincidence that they closely match effective top tube length? Bottom line is, check and compare the geometry, and compare more than one measurement as you say.
It's lovely to be back after not posting for a while and be straight into a deep discussion about frame size and geometry with you Tommy!