The World's Fattest Man with no bike! aka - find hippy a new bike aka - Just get ( fill in blank )

Or I could get a correctly sized frame with components allowing it to handle like it's supposed to. :)

Sure, that's obviously the dream. Seems like you're struggling a bit to find something with a low enough stack though. Was just wondering why you discounted that option. Personally don't think I'd notice the difference in handling between a high-stack frame with a -17 and a low-stack frame with a -7 but you certainly ride a lot more than me

It's not necessarily the handling, but if you're having to drop stuff below the front end of the bike you can run into other issues - especially with all the shit hanging off my bars (aerobars, lights, USB charging, etc). It also makes for a more aero setup. It just makes more sense to me to get the frame right so I don't need any problem solver stem arrangements. My warranty frame is already in that boat being >30mm too high. It's going to be flogged to death as a winter trainer though so I'm not too fussed.

How about a CAADX in 58cm: 397mm/580mm, effective top tube 575mm. Pretty roady, wide tyres, just probably not the most durable frame out there and not sure it can take racks and such

https://static.evanscycles.com/production/pdf-media/sizing-table/Cannondale%202016%20CaadX%20Geometry.pdf

I think not big enough tyre clearance. Their other model bike fits I think. Synapse. Diverge. Datum. Cervelo R3.

It clears a 35mm apparently. SuperX has 1cm too much stack.

I might've been thinking about the CAAD12.

that is exactly what i do with that frame.

@hippy i don't think it really makes it much more aero. with that hta a -17 stem looks almost flat. fwiw i haven't had any problems dangling all manner of fred shit off of mine. an added benefit (actually) is that you can have more tire clearance for hanging a big handlebar bag off the front.

It must make it more aero - you've got a frame that's, say, 700mm bottom to top versus one that's say 750mm bottom to top. With the taller one you then still have a stem on it but it's -17 or whatever to get rider back into position. The taller frame is always going to have a greater frontal area. I've never used a handlebar bag. I try and get most of my stuff on the frame or out the back rather than on the bars.

I did run a -17 once before on the old Kinesis 4S but that was because I went from my 'normal' position to my midfoot position which required a 20mm drop of the bars and I was already pretty slammed.

The steeply angled stem makes fitting stuff like feedbags or GPS mounts to it a pain.

i am not so sure. if the stem on the smaller frame is not such that it makes the stem parallel with the ground then you have rise, and if you are in the same position, roughly the same frontal area.

you can also reduce stack i'd say by about 5-10mm via headset changes. i've had a shitty slamthatstem.com cover on mine for a while (i think the stock headset cover adds about 10mm) and have ordered cane creek's slamset which ought to work similarly.

If your stack (at the bars) and BB drop is the same between the two frames then theoretically the frontal height is exactly the same. As long as the sum of the stem angle + headtube angle isn't greater than 90°.

Not that that makes it a good idea necessarily

You only have rise if you've got quite a small frame, like my old TT bike, which again was adjusted to going from a 10mi/25mi TT setup to something I could race 24hrs on - with a massive riser stem.
The reasons I sized up on the old Kinesis was to increase the internal triangle for storage capacity and lengthen the frame to ride midfoot with less toe overlap. If I did the same with this warranty bike it'd be a foot taller because it's got a massive front end for tyre clearance. Then I'd definitely need a dropped stem.

yea exactly. and i believe that is the case here.

If you've used a dropped stem and the frame is higher than the bars?

The reverse, you only have a stem in the air, not more frame. If it's in the air at all.

Anyway, the frame is here so it's irrelevant. I'll be riding a 55.5 Tripster AT soon.

Like I said with a head tube angle and stem angle that sum to 90° the stem would be perfectly parallel with the ground. So frame would still be lower than the bars when accounting for the steerer.

But anyway, nice frame, I'm jealous. Wish I could afford one myself. Are you not still looking for a second frame then?

A stem close to parallel with the ground or slightly tilted up is best for my application. Yeah for a race bike, unless I run out of time, I'll be looking for something faster than this adventure bike. I don't need an adventure bike for TABR, just a road bike with 28mm clearance, room for my framebag and my aerobars, Di2.
The Tripster is technically cheaper for me since it's free due to warranty and replacing a frame that was cheaper when I bought it. I've been without my bike for 3 months though so 'nothing is free'. :S

I've been confused for this whole thread because I thought you wanted an adventure bike with clearance for 28s...what you really want is an adventure bike and then something comfortable but racey for the TABR, correct?

You must be new here.jpg

All forum crowd sourced solution threads are perma-derailed by page 2. No one knows what this thread is about and hasn't for last 6 pages.

He doesn't want an adventure bike; he's just got a Tripster AT.

but hippy is still fat right?

I think he's after some sort of long, low-stack, racy cargo bike. Only thing that'll take the weight.

here it is; plenty of room for stomach bulge

1 Attachment

I'm getting both. Initially I was looking for one bike - like a Synapse - a race bike to replace the 4S. Since they're warrantying the 4S with the Tripster I don't need a crazy clearance, winter trainer with mudguard - that is now the Tripster. I do still need a race bike though which can get away with smaller clearances but needs to be better fitting, cope with the framebag, etc.

Especially not me.

I ride bikes?