Goodbye sweetheart - farewell to a dead bike

Definitely some optical weirdness going on in the first photo.

Interesting to see how Cannondale have got it set up on their website - definitely more like what's being recommended:

Looks like moving from the 54 to the 56 will be perfect - only 1.5cm more in the length, but a slightly more relaxed seat-tube angle. Chances are you won't even have to swap for a 10mm shorter stem, with a bit of judicious saddle/bar/hoods jiggery-pokery.

I think the sizing on the Bowery is a bit of a red herring. They're trying to fit huge swathes of the population onto a handful of sizes. Obviously the whole compact frame/aheadset/post-mtb-scene-seatpost era helps with that, but it's always going to be a compromise.

I vividly remember the 90s, and the general trend for 'smallest size that's rideable' - did it myself - but in the long run, I've definitely reverted to the larger frame camp. The frame's something to hang the wheels and contact points from. It's the heart of the bike, and designers/builders go to great lengths to imbue their products with certain ride characteristics; and I think that as you move contact points further away from 'the heart', you water down those characteristics.

Well, you can't say I didn't try.

I went into Evans' this morning, and explained the advice that I'd been given, regarding trying a larger size frame (which I agreed with by the way). The chief mechanic and the salesperson both smiled broadly when I asked to try a 56cm Cannondale. I quickly saw why. Though only 2cm bigger, I was stretched out like Graham Obree, in the classic Superman position......except with sagging middle.

Nope. Too big. The 54cm is the right size, and Cannondale agreed that it may have been a frame defect, as the post had 18cm inserted into the frame.....and had always been so. Also, the crack was forward of the seatcluster, and where the hole appeared within the crack......the aluminium was as thin as paper.

On reflection, I don't remember anyone ever telling me that I looked as if the Cannondale was a small fit.....though someone had remarked at Southies once, that the Bowery looked a size too small.....till I mounted it. I shall persevere, and hope for no more frame issues; maybe a period of starvation might be nice.

Well, you can't say I didn't try.

I went into Evans' this morning, and explained the advice that I'd been given, regarding trying a larger size frame (which I agreed with by the way). The chief mechanic and the salesperson both smiled broadly when I asked to try a 56cm Cannondale. I quickly saw why. Though only 2cm bigger, I was stretched out like Graham Obree, in the classic Superman position......except with sagging middle.

I'm not convinced, the amount of seatpost you have out clearly shows you can go up a size. The saddle fore/aft position and stem length probably contributed to the stretched out feeling, and with a minor tweak would fit you properly.

This is probably beyond the scope of Evans shop floor staff though, if you have an unusual shape then go see someone who knows about bike fitting

I have to admit, that bowery is quite a nice looking beast :)

cough cough

GA2G, I've not met you yet, so can you help me put this into some sort of perspective. Are you a pretty long-leggetty beastie then, to be flashing those long seatposts so wantonly? And how much of this girth do you have exactly?

Take me, I'm no classic cyclist - 6'1, 16st but I only have a 32" inside leg, so I have a large frame and a really short seatpost. I wince at half the bikes I see on the forum.

My bike is also transport, so I carry a fair bit of weight most days - 30-50lbs, sometimes more. What about you - is there extra load from a backpack etc?

I don't don't know what the weight limit is for most frames but they make clydesdale mtbs for bigger boned guys don't they, and they're already pretty beefy frames as standard.

The frame's something to hang the wheels and contact points from. It's the heart of the bike, and designers/builders go to great lengths to imbue their products with certain ride characteristics; and I think that as you move contact points further away from 'the heart', you water down those characteristics.

Best thing I've read on here for ages, repped.

I cant really stand over my BJ (51) without lifting my heals slightly (yes I know a compact geo would be better). The standover rule, would make too big, but I have 12cm of seat post, and 11cm of stem. If anything I'd go 1/2" up in size.

. Also, the crack was forward of the seatcluster, and where the hole appeared within the crack......the aluminium was as thin as paper.

Sounds like the point at which the tube is butted.

Its worth considering that not every frame fits every rider. I can think of quite a few that would'nt fit me in any size.

ED: bugger cant seem to rep.

@Tea_Bee, I'm over 18 stone, and am just under 5' 9". And yes, my Timbuk2 is normally well laden. Do you feel sorry for the bike? You shouldn't. Its atheist, and as such, is beyond pity.

I found this example of a similar Bowery, which is NOT mine, but displays the same saddle height differential, compared to the top of the stem, as mine does.

It appears "normal" to have such an extension of seatpost, on this type of compact frame?

^also 1 size too small. 2 spacers removed, 20mm more seatpost in the frame, saddle more centred in rails (as seat-tube angle will be a little slacker on the next size up), possibly 10mm off the stem (but it doesn't look like it gets ridden in the drops, so probably unnecessary).

BMMF, I agree with you in principle, and I am (astonishingly to some) happy to improve my cycling knowledge and experience. Therefore, I am not against advice from yourself, or those with knowledge, like Courant.

I think with the Bowery, the size is probably right, but mostly because the odd lack of sizing forces convenient mismatching of rider to framesize.

I wondered though about the Capo. Maybe I could have made the 56cm fit, but that would have included reversing the angle of the stem (turning it upside down), and also having a much shorter version. But wouldn't that have moved my center-of-gravity even further back? I wouldn't have wanted this, as I feel I already have enough weight over the back tyre, and do prefer my slightly aggressive lean-forward positioning to remain in situ.

Weird though that the 56cm felt way so big to me. In fact, I felt the 54cm felt too big also, and had originally asked for a 52cm.....only to be talked out of it by the Evans salesperson a year ago.

that bowery is too small for the rider, no doubt about it ... BMMF is bang on.

Anecdote - I remember when I was very young, and first learned to play tennis....there was a right way and a wrong way to hit the ball. The wrong way is what is used now by Serena Williams, and the winners of nearly every ranked tournament, for men or women.

I've found that technical aspects of sport tend to have a malleable quality about them, in regard to individuals. I may always be wrong, and am still hoping to improve myself, but at the moment, my cycling experience is comfortable, and given my handicaps.....its still an honourable achievement.

I do understand where CycleSurgery are coming from

no way, it's a problem with the frame, it's not your fault they have to swap everything over. If you needed something changing on your TV under warranty, you wouldn't expect to pay for them to test it afterwards. Cheeky bastards.

GA2G, spend 10 mins doing this and post the results, as well as what they suggest re: frame/stem/etc measurements.

http://www.competitivecyclist.com/za/CCY?PAGE=FIT_CALCULATOR_INTRO

I wondered though about the Capo. Maybe I could have made the 56cm fit, but that would have included reversing the angle of the stem (turning it upside down), and also having a much shorter version. But wouldn't that have moved my center-of-gravity even further back? I wouldn't have wanted this, as I feel I already have enough weight over the back tyre, and do prefer my slightly aggressive lean-forward positioning to remain in situ.

According to the geometry specs, the stem would only need to be 1-2cm shorter (if directly swapping TT length for stem length), so no big deal.

You'd be able to achieve the same reach, and the same placement of weight with regards to the bottom bracket, by minor fore/aft adjustments to the saddle and so on. With your previous set-up, you actually had the saddle pushed almost all the way back on the rails, partly to add length/reach, and probably to 'virtually' slacken the seat-tube angle i.e. you'd be sitting no more over the rear wheel on the next size up, with a 0.5-1 degree slacker seat-tube, and the saddle pushed 10mm forward in the clamp. I still reckon a shorter stem might not have been necessary, especially with bars/hoods positioned and rotated accordingly.

Pifko, let me ask you something. When you have watched the Tour De France, don't you notice that there are some very different riding styles, and positions adopted on bikes, by these elete bunch of riders?

Some sit higher up, with the seatpost low in the frame. They gain oxygen intak space and lose aerodynamic advantage. Some position themselves in the "lowered", more aero position. But these are comfortable for these individuals. There is also much said about the proper cadence, yet there are pros that deviate from that, and have become profficient by using their own rhythm/style of cycling.

Though I'm sure you mean well, I'm not one to be forced or coerced into either square or round holes. Maybe I should start by losing weight, as that will have a more significant effect on my bike positioning than some people might realise. A 48inch waist reduced to a 44inch waist for example, would make a difference in the whole cycling experience. Though unlike Oprah, I won't starve myself for 4 months, just to get onto a a fashion magazine cover. I don't need the exposure.

Oh, waist is 48inches, and chest is 53-54inches. In proportion I'm afraid, even if though rather comfortably corpulent.

BMMF, I should go sit in a corner with a pointy hat?

;)

When I eventually get a (lawdelpuss) custom bike, I believe that my issues may then be resolved. It may be some time though.

I wouldn't worry too much. I've got 5 bikes - and the position is about the same on all of them:

• one bike is a size too small (huge discount at the time, but I wouldn't repeat that decision making process)

• two that are half a size too big and small respectively (which harks back to a post from smallfurry pointing out that some models just will not fit due to available geometries)

• two that are the right size, one of which fits like a second skin.

I probably don't need to say which are the best to ride ;)

I don't know nuthin, but I would be really suprised if the long seatpost had anything to do with the frame defect. It seems in the wrong place, and as long as you had enough post in the hole, I don't see the issue.

Re: sizing, if it works for you, then it works. You might have long arms and legs, in which case you will end up with a small frame and riser stem and bunch-o-spacers, and a size larger will stretch you out too much. If you are a heavvy dude, you will soon notice if all your weight is on your hands.

Are you saying being overly stretched out (which doesn't have to happen just because you have a larger frame) puts more weight on your hands?

I'm going to assume not, as it's not true. Being pitched too far forward over the bottom bracket with a too short/low stem causes that. Furthermore, smaller frame sizes have steeper seat-tubes, which increases the likelihood of this happening.

Pifko, let me ask you something. When you have watched the Tour De France, don't you notice that there are some very different riding styles, and positions adopted on bikes, by these elete bunch of riders?

Some sit higher up, with the seatpost low in the frame. They gain oxygen intak space and lose aerodynamic advantage. Some position themselves in the "lowered", more aero position. But these are comfortable for these individuals. There is also much said about the proper cadence, yet there are pros that deviate from that, and have become profficient by using their own rhythm/style of cycling.

Though I'm sure you mean well, I'm not one to be forced or coerced into either square or round holes. Maybe I should start by losing weight, as that will have a more significant effect on my bike positioning than some people might realise. A 48inch waist reduced to a 44inch waist for example, would make a difference in the whole cycling experience. Though unlike Oprah, I won't starve myself for 4 months, just to get onto a a fashion magazine cover. I don't need the exposure.

Oh, waist is 48inches, and chest is 53-54inches. In proportion I'm afraid, even if though rather comfortably corpulent.

If you did the fit caclulator you would notice that at the end they provide you with 3 (or 4) different fits for different riding styles...

'Eddy Fit', FTW :)

'Eddy Fit', FTW :)

Beth Ditto

Is the Capo a true track geometry bike? It looks to have a fairly high bottom bracket. If it is a track geo, then the rule of thumb that says 'go one size down from your road bike' should mean that 54 could well be correct for someone of 5'9''. However, that saddle height looks pretty high. I'm 6'2'' and I think your saddle may even be higher than mine (this is looking with the naked eye at the proportions of the distance from the top of rear wheel to the saddle). I think for someone of 5'9'' you definitely have your bike set up so that it looks like it's ridden by someone much taller.