WSD Bike choice - the choice is made.

[paul]

After doing Waterfall on her flat-bar, Margo and I are looking for a road bike (for Margo).

We have looked in some local shops, but very few have much WSD stock.
Then I saw a very nice looking Cube brand bike on line at Chainreaction. Alloy frame, Ultegra and Fulcrum wheels for less than $1800, inc delivery.

Has anyone any experience with the Cube brand?
http://www.chainreactioncycles.com/Mode ... elID=30570
Specs are:

Frame - Alu Superlite 7005 Double Butted, WLS-Geometry
• Colour - White Red Print
• Forks - Dedacciai Black Blade Carbon
• Headset - FSA Orbit Z semi-integrated.
• Stem - FSA OS190
• Handlebars - FSA Vero Compact
• Rear Derailleur - Shimano Ultegra SL
• Front Derailleur - Shimano Ultegra SL 3-speed, clamp 34.9mm
• Shifters - Shimano ST-R700 Ergo 10-speed
• Brakes - Shimano Ultegra SL
• Cranks - FSA SL-K Light Megaexo Carbon 52x39x30T, integrated BB
• Cassette - Shimano Ultegra 12-27T, 10-speed
• Chain - Shimano Ultegra
• Wheel set - Fulcrum Racing 5 Evolution
• Tyres - Schwalbe Ultremo R Kevlar 23x622
• Seatpost - RFR Prolight 31.6mm Setback
• Saddle - Fi'zi:k Vitesse
• Weight - 8.5Kg

Paul

[Rainbow]

What seems like a bargain can often be wasted money if it doesn't fit the bill...

I would recommend you googling "bike fit calculator". When I did this, I learnt so much about myself and realsied what was most comfortable and what my bike-fit limitations were. There really is no compromise on comfort, and bikes are made for men. Oh, and when measuring, use the "measure 3 time, cut once" approach.

Rainbow

[Stuart]

Pardon my ignorance, what does WSD stand for? Apart from that I reckon that buying a bike without having ridden it is fraught with danger.

I would follow Jess's advice and look to a fit calculator and visit quite a few shops and have a ride on some bikes. As Jess said, most bikes are made for men so also consider the few brands available in Aus that are especially made to fit women (Orbea, Trek, Pinarello, Giant, Cannondale - I'm sure there's more) . Then you'll know which one is best for her. This is born of experience from trying to get a bike frame to fit a 153cm tall women (hi Jo!)

[weiyun]

WSD - Women Specific something.

It's used to designate frames with so called "womens geometry". But just bear in mind that not all women are the same and many will have a better fit with regular geometry.

Otherwise many have had successes with mail order bikes, though detailed knowledge on personal geometry is critical to that success. Those frames are typically made in East Asia like most LBS frames ie. No better and no worse.

[Toff]

Strongly agree with the recommendation that you only buy a bike online if you have already ridden the bike, know the geometry and know that it will be comfortable. The most important part of the setup is getting the frame geometry right, and this is more than a little tricky, especially with short women and the issues that arise with making a small frame accomodate 700C wheels.

If you choose to get the Cube bike, don't forget there will be GST (10%) and import duty (5%) on that bike, so expect to pay an additional $320 for that bike if you include a Customs admin fee of ~$50...

If you are not familiar enough with a bike that you need to ask about it on a forum, I would stongly advise getting someone who knows about bike fit to confirm setup before you spend any money. This involves sitting on an adjustable frame jig thingy, not sitting on an actual bike. Only once the measurements have been taken from the jig do you need to worry about looking for the bike itself. A "bike fit calculator" can be used as a proxy for a physical setup on a frame jig thingy, but just about every bike shop has the proper equipment...

It's been mentioned before, but I'll say it again... DHBC gets sponsorship from several bike shops in our area, and it's generally preferred if we can at least give those shops the opportunity to get our business before we rush off to some overseas store that offers no service.

In this case I think the need for a proper setup and fit make the local bike shop a much better value proposition than the cheap overseas bike.

[timyone]

I buy bikes from shops
Peter Bundy is heaps good, he has done me amazingly ood deals, turn up there with one of us and it helps

[Toff]

Or just say you're DHBC. That's usually enough with Peter Bundy. He often doesn't charge me anything for small jobs! And Jim is so good at fitting people, he doesn't need to put them on the jig. Jim looked at me and said "53". He was spot on. I ride a 53cm road frame.

[weiyun]

Or just say you're DHBC. That's usually enough with Peter Bundy. He often doesn't charge me anything for small jobs! And Jim is so good at fitting people, he doesn't need to put them on the jig. Jim looked at me and said "53". He was spot on. I ride a 53cm road frame.

Putting Steve Hogg out of business!

[geoffs]

Putting Steve Hogg out of business!

lol
I really doubt that! bookings are now most probably up to April!
Seriously though the WSD is a bit of a myth. If you have a look at the brands that offer these bikes such as trek, the geometry is exactly the same as the mens but smaller sizes are offered.
The only WSD bit that might be part of the deal would be a saddle with pink writing and narrower handlebars.
Make sure that the bike shop will change parts to suit.
have a look at a shorter reach hbar like 3T's ergonova

[orphic]

lol
I really doubt that! bookings are now most probably up to April!

It's true. I tried to get in for an emergency touring bike fitting before Tassie - no chance!

Regarding the WSD thing - I found that regular geometry fit me much better. That, and I don't like pink...

[Toff]

Putting Steve Hogg out of business!

I would like to think that if you told Steve you were DHBC he would look after you too, as much as any of the other DHBC friendly shops in our area.

[geoffs]

yes he does and sometimes there are cancellations which get people in earlier. However queue jumping would mean hat someone else would have to be bumped. this doesn't happen and i'm sure you wouldn't like it done to you.

a comment on the cube, seriously good parts but he frame mustn't be as light as would expect for db 7005 tubing

we have yet to have a problem with fulcrums and they seem to be a very reliable wheel

[Stuart]

WSD - Women Specific something.

According to the web it's Women's Specific Design. I'd say buy one you like - and as I really know SFA about bicycles I'll bow out now

[paul]

Thanks for all the feedback.

My understanding of the women's frame dimension is that the top tube is shorter because women have proportionally longer legs. Also narrower bars with a tighter curve and a women's specific seat.

Our preference would be to buy from a local shop. We have visited a couple and the service has not been great. "Bike fitting" has been some bloke looking a Margo and saying "Recon about an X" With X being anything from 50 to 54 cm, depending on what is in stock. No inside leg measurements taken, nothing.

My steel Cecil Walker Audax bike was made to measure, so I know about the benefits of a good fit. But if the bike shop can't offer service, why not save a $1000 and buy on line?

But we might give Peter Bundy a go.

Paul and Margo

[weiyun]

According to the web it's Women's Specific Design. I'd say but one you like - and as I really know SFA about bicycles I'll bow out now

I deliberately used "something" in lower case, that is, something I don't quite know. As GeoffS said, WSD is a bit of marketing gimmick.

[weiyun]

My understanding of the women's frame dimension is that the top tube is shorter because women have proportionally longer legs. Also narrower bars with a tighter curve and a women's specific seat.

True to an extent. But there are ways to accommodate that with the common compact frames of today. As also suggested by GeoffS, the main issue is the availability of frames in smaller sizes. Frame size jumps below 50cm are always quite large for most general models.

[paul]

I have just helped Margo in doing the fit calculator on www.competitivecyclist.com. I can see why the boys in the bike shop might have been a bit shy to get the tape measure out.



Measurements
-------------------------------------------
Inseam: 83
Trunk: 60.5
Forearm: 33
Arm: 63
Thigh: 60.5
Lower Leg: 53.5
Sternal Notch: 142
Total Body Height: 172


The Competitive Fit (cm)
-------------------------------------------
Seat tube range c-c: 53.8 - 54.3
Seat tube range c-t: 55.4 - 55.9
Top tube length: 52.1 - 52.5
Stem Length: 10.6 - 11.2
BB-Saddle Position: 71.6 - 73.6
Saddle-Handlebar: 50.6 - 51.2
Saddle Setback: 5.5 - 5.9


The Eddy Fit (cm)
-------------------------------------------
Seat tube range c-c: 55.0 - 55.5
Seat tube range c-t: 56.6 - 57.1
Top tube length: 52.1 - 52.5
Stem Length: 9.5 - 10.1
BB-Saddle Position: 70.8 - 72.8
Saddle-Handlebar: 51.4 - 52.0
Saddle Setback: 6.7 - 7.1


The French Fit (cm)
-------------------------------------------
Seat tube range c-c: 56.7 - 57.2
Seat tube range c-t: 58.3 - 58.8
Top tube length: 53.3 - 53.7
Stem Length: 9.7 - 10.3
BB-Saddle Position: 69.1 - 71.1
Saddle-Handlebar: 53.1 - 53.7
Saddle Setback: 6.2 - 6.6

[Toff]

Right, well based on those measurements, I am a better fit for a "WSD" frame than Margo is. I have an 81cm inseam (measured with bike knicks on, of course), and I ride a 53cm frame.

You should be aware that the measurements given for all 3 fits you just posted are for traditional geometry frames, not compact frames. In my experience, bike manufacturers make it as hard as possible to get the information you need to determine whether their various frame sizes are close to the size you need. Theymay provide one measurement, such as a virtual seat tube length, or a virtual top tube length, but you need BOTH. In my experience, you need to take a tape measure to the bike, and possibly a protractor too. Then you do some trigonometry...

I am sure bike frame manufacturers do this deliberately so people will kick up less of a stink when the manufacturer tries to squeeze every body shape into just 4 frame sizes, instead of the 30 or so frame sizes we used to get before compact frames were jammed down our throats.

Incedentally, I have a bike frame which has a 56cm seat tube, and a 55cm top tube (both c-c). It's a bit big for me, so I was going to sell it. However, I can ride it this weekend on Saturday Slowies if Margo wants to have a go on it.

[Rainbow]

My goodness! I don't think I've met Margo, but we certainly have a common situation...

Because of my long legs, I got my frame made custom for me by Peter and Jim Bundy. It will be ready in the next week so I can flash it off to everyone.

I will also be at slowies if you want to chat about WSD bikes.

[weiyun]

You should be aware that the measurements given for all 3 fits you just posted are for traditional geometry frames, not compact frames.

What's the basis for this statement?

For compact frames, because of the lower top tube towards the seat tube, crouch clearance is almost guaranteed, so the critical measurement for frame selection becomes the virtual top tube length. This is in contrast to traditional frames where one has to be concerned on 2 parameters rather than 1 ie. Both seat tube and top tube lengths. Whether compact/semi-compact frames fits one's taste is a completely different matter, and I know you (Toff) have a bias for traditional diamond frames.

[christian]

From those measurements I'd say get a bike with a 53cm top tube and run lots of seat post and possibly lots of spacers on the head tube if you don't have a really flexible back. But since it looks like you aren't going to fit the standard geometry I'd want to test ride the bike before I brought it. Burwood Cycleworld lets you take the bikes for a spin, they let Tim takes his new one out twice and I took one of mine out twice, just tell them you are with DHBC.

[Toff]

What's the basis for this statement?

For compact frames, because of the lower top tube towards the seat tube, crouch clearance is almost guaranteed, so the critical measurement for frame selection becomes the virtual top tube length. This is in contrast to traditional frames where one has to be concerned on 2 parameters rather than 1 ie. Both seat tube and top tube lengths. Whether compact/semi-compact frames fits one's taste is a completely different matter, and I know you (Toff) have a bias for traditional diamond frames.

Look at the measurements that Paul posted. They are clearly measuring traditional geometry. Show me how to build a compact frame where the top tube is shorter than the seat tube. You start moving into funny bike territory if you do that.

On a separate note... Yes I favour traditional geometry and for good reason. That's not my point here. The point I was making is that compact frames require many riders to make compromises so that frame manufacturers can save money producing fewer models. Many people will fit on a compact frame, and won't notice any difference compared to a traditional frame. They are the lucky ones. In my case, my optimal frame size (in traditional geometry) is pretty much half way between what most compact frame manufacturers sell as their medium and large models. If I choose a medium, I need a very long stem, and more seatpost setback than I like. If I choose a large, I need a really short stem, and my seat needs to be way too far forward. Compact frames just don't work for me. I dare say one company's medium might be equal to another company's large, and there may even be compact frames which are half way between medium and large (possibly marked as either a medium or large), but to know whether such a compact frame will fit me properly, I need to know the virtual top tube length, and the virtual seattube length, so I can compare the compact frame with the traditional geometry which I know works. The trouble I have is that very few compact frame manufacturers provide the lengths and angles I need to make this comparison. In fact they don't even provide the data I need to calculate the virtual lengths using basic trig. I can only surmise that they are being obtuse for sinister reasons.


One more thing. Just looked on Peter Bundy's website. He's away until Monday 25 Jan, so I wouldn't make any special trips before then.

[weiyun]

Look at the measurements that Paul posted. They are clearly measuring traditional geometry. Show me how to build a compact frame where the top tube is shorter than the seat tube. You start moving into funny bike territory if you do that.

It doesn't matter. For a compact frames, as long as the virtual top tube measurement is suitable (eg. Per Competitive's recommendation), there'll be plenty of adjustments available with a suitably selected seat post for leg length.

And if one look at all the small frames out there these days (sub 50cm), most if not all are using compact geometry, often aggressively compact. Otherwise it's just too hard and will require lots of people going with custom frames. As far as I can see, the more compact the frame is, the less the concern with seat tube length. At the end of the day, bike fitting is all about 5 points of contact and handling of a frame that can provision those contact points without overly exaggerated stems and seatpost setback.

[paul]

Once again, thanks for all the feedback, and for the offers of test rides.

I agree that the manufactures' specs are not much help, because of the compact vs traditional geometry issue.

Margo and I are away this weekend. I am riding the Alpine Classic and Margo will be giving out buns at Falls Creek. But we would like to continue the discussion next week.


PS. The measurements confirmed my own observation, my wife has lovely long legs.

[Toff]

It doesn't matter. For a compact frames, as long as the virtual top tube measurement is suitable (eg. Per Competitive's recommendation), there'll be plenty of adjustments available with a suitably selected seat post for leg length.

And if one look at all the small frames out there these days (sub 50cm), most if not all are using compact geometry, often aggressively compact. Otherwise it's just too hard and will require lots of people going with custom frames. As far as I can see, the more compact the frame is, the less the concern with seat tube length. At the end of the day, bike fitting is all about 5 points of contact and handling of a frame that can provision those contact points without overly exaggerated stems and seatpost setback.

That really is an over-simplification of things. It's much more complex than that.

A bicycle also has 2 contact points with the ground, and is articulated about the head tube, giving an axis for balance and steering. This axis is typically tilted just rearward of vertical, and small adjustments in the head tube angle can substantially alter steering due to the effects of precession from the front wheel. The rear of the bicycle is mainly controlled through adjustments in roll, which changes yaw, whereas the front forks- handlebars and wheel can move to apply roll, yaw, and even a bit of pitch adjustment concurrently. The pitch adjustment will depend on how much head tube angle the frame has.

The wheelbase will affect stability. The fork's angle, offset, and consequently trail will affect responsiveness. The length of the stem will affect the steering moment, and therefore also have an effect on responsiveness.

Then there is the question of weight distribution, which is affected by seat setback, and both height and length of stem. Whilst all bikes have the bulk of the rider's weight over the rear tyre, the frame size will affect the wheelbase, which in turn affect the stability, and even the traction of the bike in steep turns.

On a frame which is too big for me, I find I cannot get my weight out from the inside of the frame to where I want it to be - over the rear wheel. Well, not far enough to accomodate fast aggressive cornering, so whether it is perception or reality, I am not as fast around bends on a big frame. On a frame that is too small, the problem is actually the same. Too much of my weight is over the front wheel for me to feel I have the traction I need to get around a corner. Yes, I can push my weight right back, but on a small frame, (which would require a long stem), I am then positioned so that my outside arm is at full stretch just to execute the turn. Again, the compromise in position results in slower cornering that doesn't feel right.

Frames for short women which don't reduce the wheel diameter are always going to be compromise frames. The toe overlap is a real problem unless a long top tube with a short stem is chosen, or a steep head tube angle is chosen. Both dimish the bike's handling. The rider could choose to move the saddle right forward, giving ample reach to the bars without makng the stem too short, but then this will decrease the ability to put weight over the rear wheel when needed (e.g. descending.) Even worse, the positioning of the feet forward relative to the bottom bracket may result in power and efficiency loss. I might add that the problems faced by short riders are the same whether a traditional or a compact frame is chosen. These problems nearly all go away though, if you simply reduce the wheel diameter.

So yes, it is entirely possible to have a bicycle upon which a rider can sit cofortably all day long, with all their contact points perfectly aligned - but which can fall short in the matters of steering responsiveness, stability, or even safe toe overlap.

Traditional geometry solved these problems many decades ago. Modern compact geometry adds nothing to the situation. What compact geometry does add are a whole bunch of new ways to get mis-fitted. I work very close to a bike shop that sells nothing but compact frames from no more than 3 manufacturers. If I knew nothing about bike setup and went to buy a bike from that shop, I would end up with something that would not fit me properly. I wonder how many new riders have been to that bike shop and now have bikes sitting in their garages unused because they either don't feel safe, or don't feel comfortable on their compromise bikes?

[weiyun]

That really is an over-simplification of things. It's much more complex than that...

The KISS principle is good, or one really shouldn't DIY but go straight to Steve Hogg to spec that custom bike and components.

The fact is, different people prefer stems/bar/seat posts/cranks of various sizes, it's meaningless to talk about the one frame if one wants to go to that nth degree for handling dynamics, then one needs much more than just arguing over a compact vs traditional frame.

And the fact is, millions of people around the world have been successfully fitted to compact/sub-compact frames including ladies and top end pros performing in TdF and other major races. Arguing traditional geometry to be the best solution is but a subjective view by the traditionalists.

[mikesbytes]

If you wash it too much it will shrink and then you will need to be refitted.


Jokes aside, what the discussion here as highlighted is the difficulty of getting the right fit. The calculators will give you the base measurements and after that its personal preference.

Personally for a first time road bike buyer, I'd go to a good LBS

[paul]

The choice is made. Bianchi alloy C2C from Renegade.
Medium men's frame. Compact cranks and bars.

[Karzie]

Nice choice. Traditional, Italian.... but what are 'medium' measurements? After having to follow Chris and Weiyun's detailed advisories, I demand real numbers here!

[timyone]

oh no way, you got a bianci? you could have come to my shop!!
(great looking bike i love it

[weiyun]

Bianchi geometries are listed in their PDF doc.
http://www.bianchi.com/common/products2 ... s_Road.pdf

Warning: 14Mb download.

[Karzie]

Bianchi geometries are listed in their PDF doc.
http://www.bianchi.com/common/products2 ... s_Road.pdf

So would that be a B4P 1885 AS 540 or a 520?

Surely not a 560...

[weiyun]

So would that be a B4P 1885 AS 540 or a 520?
Surely not a 560...

The bike in question is in the C2C range, and the specific model appeared to be via Nirone 7 alu-cf model, so we can't use 1885's geometry. Interestingly, published geometry data does not match the S/M/L sizing framework as stated by Paul. As a matter of fact, I have not known Bianchi to use SML sizing in their road range. With reference to my Bianchi, I suspect the frame chosen here is a 50cm frame.

[paul]

I was a bit slack with posting the details of the bike. Especially after such a vigorous exchange of views. It is a 55 cm frame. The geometry is:



Specs are http://www.bianchi.com/en/products2010/ ... Y0B31.aspx

It hasn't been out much because of the wet weather.

Paul