3000$$ for an Ultegra bike sounds pretty reasonable (with consideration to the frameset).

I'd pop on a pair of Look A5.1 Pedals and a pair of Jammer SL's and you've got yourself a pretty decent draft bike =)

We've had some on order but haven't received them yet. That I am aware of either no, or very few retailers have received them yet. I have seen them in person at the Interbike show. The first 51cm that comes through the door here is mine.

---

Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com

A 51? Tom, if you don't mind me asking, how tall are you?

Also, as soon as you get it, I'd love to read your bike review.

I'd like to ride one of these babies before buying it, but I doubt any of my local bike shops will get one.

---

- Steve
http://bailey.sts.winisp.net

I'm 5'9" tall and have a 51cm P3 650c and a 51cm Soloist Team as well as a brand new 49cm Look KX Light and a 49cm. Guru Trilite 650c. All perfect dimensions for my body.

---

Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com

Has anyone seen a lot of toe overlap/clip issues with 48 Soloist or in theory R2.5?

Tom, without getting too personal, do you have about a 30 - 31" inseam? I've noticed your Cervelo Top Tube lengths center around 530 (depending on fwd/not-fwd seat).

JW
Austin, TX

Well, my inseam is about 80 cm. If my memory serves me correctly. My saddle height is exactly 71.2cm with 175mm cranks and Shimano Dura-Ace SPD SL pedals using both the Shimano triathlon shoes and the Shimano road shoe (same sole thickness on both).

I'm glad you;re asking these questions. Hopefully it illustrates that most people are on the wrong size bike. One of the great luxuries I have owning a bike shop is, if I want a P#, I can buy three different sizes and measure each of them. Then, using my body dimensions, I can figure out which one will fit me best. I do that frequently. I bought four Gurus before I settled on the one with the appropriate dimensions. I also bought several Colnagos in different sizes to fins the appropriate geometry and dimensions. I don't put much faith in the manufacturer's published measurements. I frequently find they are either completely wrong by over a centimeter in several dimensions or, I am measuring thngs completely different. My new Look KX Light is an example of that. If I had gone by the dimensions on the website geometry chart I would have gotten a bike one full frame size too large. Once I received my frame, and havingin measured Norman Stadler's in Thailand, I understood how the dimensions worked. When I got my bike, a 49cm, it fit perfectly, feels killer and rides absolutely awesome. I love it. It is amazing how precisely it matches my body dimensions.

As I've said, bike fit is not rocket science. It is a skilled trade. As Gerard has said, he can fit on a 51cm P2K or a 58 P2K simply by manipulating the stem, post etc. But there is one size that will be "optimal", that is to say, fit the customer and interface with the road the best. That is the place we find when we work with someone. Sometimes it takes a lot of work.

People spend an enormous amount of money on a bike. Buying a $2500 bike is commensurate with buying an $80,000 car. It shouldn't be "pretty good". It should be perfect.

When people buy bikes on looks or by price they are subjugating fit and performance for other factors. If those other factors are higher on their priority list then they have made the right decision for them. but there is no doubt they are giving up some aspect of the enjoyment of a bike that fits them better.

For me, "form follows function". When I got done building my Look KX Light I stood back and said, "This bike is funny looking." Then I rode it. It fits so well and interfaces with my body so precisely I can't help but love it. I'm a happy Bikesport customer because I bought by the numbers and not from a test ride or because I thought the bike looked cool.

It really is all about the numbers.

---

Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com

So do you have a list of people lined up for your cast off bikes? If so put me on that list.

Happy New Year to all.

We broom our year-old employee bikes on E-Bay. If the people who buy them from us get the correct size (and we work them over the phone on that in addition to very detailed descriptions on E-Bay) they get a great deal, and we get our cash back out of the bike. Usually we get bikes at a substantial discount below wholesale for employee purchase. After using them for a year and taking good care of them we generally wind up making money on them selling them on E-bay. These are the bikes that get reviewed on our website most times also. Everybody wins. The manufacturer gets a review that, if the bike is good (we usually only review bikes we know will test well with a few exceptions)will help dealers all over the world sell them, the guys here are always on fresh equipment well maintained so they can speak with experience to our customers, and in the end someone winds up with a nice bike at a more than fair price. AS a seller, we love E-Bay, but I would never buy a bike on there personally. Too many opportunites for problems.

---

Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com

[reply]
I'm glad you;re asking these questions. Hopefully it illustrates that most people are on the wrong size bike.

(snip...)

It really is all about the numbers.[/reply]

With the risk of sounding stupid... is your remark sarcastic or straight up? And then was it the inseam length question or the toe-clip question that prompted the response? Or both?

I'm in agreement that it's all about the numbers; I'd like to buy several frames & find the optimal fit, but can't swing the $$. So,I look for as many sources of knowledge outside of my LBS who often wants me to get what's on the floor & who is unlikely to have small (48 in R2.5 & Soloist) for trying-out (Yes, they'd love to fit me on that 53 with a super-mini stem...)....

JW

"Well, my inseam is about 80 cm. If my memory serves me correctly. My saddle height is exactly 71.2cm with 175mm cranks"

Tom not questioning your reasoning but if we were to use the traditional LeMond formulas you'd be on a 53/54 cm frame and an approx. 70.6cm seat height.

The seat height formula is close enough. You'd usually ride a bit higher on a steep angle bike, but a 51 cm road bike frame seems about small according to the formulas. They would have you on a 53/54 cm frame. Also you're on longer cranks than most authorities suggest. The 170 mm crank is supposed to be perfect for the 30/31 inch inseam. Are you a masher? Just curious why you prefer your cranks longer than most authorities suggest.

My inseam is the same, although I'm an inch taller due to my torso. I also ride at your seat height, but find a 54 cm road frame and 170 mm cranks seem to suit me best.

80 x .883 = 70.64

80 x .67 = 53.6

I was also curious about this in that I am similar in build with a 31 inseam. I ride a 54 soloist 2002 model with a 54 top tube, I tried the 52.5 but I seemed awfully cramped on it and toe clip kinda scared me, so I have the 54 but the R2.5 and the soloist team 51 both have an advertised top tube of 53, and the 54's have a 54.5. I would probably first try the 51 also. Cerveloguy what size p2k do you have? Maybe sometime this year I will be looking into a P2K or the P3 but I want to stick with 700c tires and my reack measurements put me right in the middle of the 51 and 52

I would also find the 52.5 top tube on the 51 cm Soloist a bit confining. My road bike is a Giant TCR medium which has a 90 mm stem and an advertised 55.5 top tube, which is the same as the 55 cm Soloist. I think I might fit a 53 cm Soloist with 54 cm top tube a bit better on a road bike, but with the 90 mm stem on the TCR it seems fine. On the 53 cm Soloist I'd just run a slightly longer stem most likely.

The P2K seems to work best for me in 51 cm, although I'm convinced a 54 or 52 would work just as well with appropriate adjustments. If doing it again, I'd probably go 52 cm just for the 700c wheels. Nothing wrong with 650, but I already had decent 700c on the TCR so could have saved some $$ with a 52 cm.

I had 175mm cranks on an old road bike and swapped them over to 170mm feeling this size was more appropriate for our leg lengths. I *think* I noticed a difference but the TCR came standard with 172.5 and I couldn't really notice a difference with these and 170mm. I've now just swapped these out for a set of Stronglight 170mm compact 50/36 cranks. In fact. I've done so on both bikes. Won't know until spring until how well they work. I tend to be a spinner 95-110 when I ride so the 170's seem right.

Cerveloguy, I think you are questioning Tom's reasoning and so am I. I am also about 5'9 with a slightly longer inseam than Tom (83.25 with the "inseam measuring device" from Fit Kit). That means my torso is shorter than Tom's. I should have a 54 top tube with a 73 degree seat angle. Unless he has alligator arms, he should probably be on about a 54-55 top tube. Of course, seat angle is important as well in figuring that, but the R2.5 is 73 as well. (I've had mine on order for 4 months). Also, if I recall from Tom's other posts, he doesn't have very good flexibility and core strength (by his admissions) so the bars are going to be extremely low for him on a bike that small (stack-height) due to the shorter head tubes of those sizes and that will compromise his power and efficiency as well. Crank length is really a personal preference thing, but being that low on a road bike with long cranks is going to result in exceeding his hip flexor range of motion at the top of the pedal stroke as well I would guess.

Now, since I'm not a regular poster, I'll let you know a bit about me. I am a cycling and triathlon coach and a Serotta certified fitter. I've been fit numerous times by other fitters and we all get the same numbers for me. My core strength and flexibility are average. I'm not a fan of formula fitting like Lemond, but I think we're all scratching our heads Tom on how such small bikes fit your body so well. Can you post some photos of you on your road bikes? I ride a 55 Cervelo P3 and have a 54 R2.5 on order. I currently ride a Merckx road bike in a 56 but it's a little long (ebay special).

I'm in Cleveland Ohio, not far from you Tom. I'd love to get together and swap fit ideas sometime. I'm always looking to learn something new.

Scott Schnitzspahn

If looking good on a bike is any indication of good fit, than Tom is right on.Always wanted to copy that look.A bit on the aggressive side as I remember.
Cullen

"If looking good on a bike is any indication of good fit'

IMO, in order of priorities 1) comfort 2) power 3) aero. There is often a trade off between these. The most aggressive looking position may not be the most comfortable or powerful.

"Looking good" is relative of course and beauty is in the eye of the beholder. For a ROAD position, aerodynamics are not as important as biomechanical efficiency and power. If the bike is too low in the front, a rider will not be able to open their diaphram and breath, their hips will be rotated back and reduce power output, and there will be tension other places in the system that is inefficient. It takes a great amount of flexibility and core strength to reach a low aerodynamic position on a ROAD bike. Additionally, if a bike is too short (in length of the top tube), weight distribution will be off, causing instability in turns and descents, as well as hot spots on the hands, shoulders, neck, low back, etc.

So, based on Tom's height and inseam (really two somewhat insignificant measurements in choosing a size of bike) and the fact that he felt his core strength was inadequate after his last race, riding on a ROAD bike with a very short head tube would either require a lot of spacers and a riser stem or a trip to the chiro on a regular basis.

Now, not having seen Tom on one of the bikes pedaling against a decent load, not having met him ever, interviewed him about his riding style and injury history and goals, or evaluating his flexibility or core strength, these are all just assumptions. He may very well fit bikes that small quite well. His shop has a great reputation for fitting. Just seems too small to me based on my limited knowledge of Tom.

I am no fit expert and this is just a casual observation of what I am seeing out there, particularly with a number of pro road riders. There seems to be a trend to "smaller" frame sizes. Perhaps this is a result of the success of some of the companies who have been pushing the "compact" frames, Giant et al. For example Lance Armstrong is listed as riding a 58cm Trek. But there is no way that the approximatly 6' tall Armstrong is riding this size frame. The frame appears smaller and he has at least an inch of spacers stacked on top of the head tube. I have seen a number of other pro riders who are quite tall riding on "smaller" frames. There default size would likley be 58, but it is clear that the actual frame they are riding is smaller than that.

I am 6'2", with a long torso and I can ride either a 58 or a 56. The 56 is at the limit of being "to small", but feels better for some reason.

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

It looks as if the entire TDF field is riding frames a size or two smaller than recommended. Just look at the huge height difference between the seat and handlebars. Much more than on your average amateur roadie. Even more noticeable on some of the TDF TT bikes. They can get away with this but the rest of us not as flexible/powerful AG'er weekend warriors sure can't.

Actually, Armstrong does ride a 58cm Trek, but Trek measures their bikes differently to most other manufacturers. Trek measures to the top of the seat binder, which means that a 58 Trek is roughly equivalent to a 56 Cannondale, who measure to the top of the top tube. Also, Trek's tend to be very long in the top tube, which is why Armstrong may be riding down a size with extra spacers, so that he gets the top tube length he needs.

[reply]It looks as if the entire TDF field is riding frames a size or two smaller than recommended. Just look at the huge height difference between the seat and handlebars.[/reply]

Tyler is 5'8 or 5'9, and he was on a 54cm R2.5. So if anything, he was riding a frame a tad above average, as I would say the average height of regular customers with a 54cm Cervelo (R2.5 and Soloist have the same geometry) is 5'10.

---

Gerard Vroomen
3T.bike
OPEN cycle

I am 5'8" and ride your 54 soloist (2002) it has a 54 cm top tube not the 54.5. If I was to get a new bike I would probably try the 51 with the 53 cm top tube, probably fit me better than the bike I have now,

[reply]I am 5'8" and ride your 54 soloist (2002) it has a 54 cm top tube not the 54.5. If I was to get a new bike I would probably try the 51 with the 53 cm top tube, probably fit me better than the bike I have now,[/reply]

Actually your frame's geometry is identical to the 2004. You have a 73.5 degree seattube with a 540mm toptube, the 2004 has a 73 degree seattube with a 545mm toptube. Same thing, same cockpit length, same reach, whatever you want to call it.

If you put the saddle in the same set-back position from the bb, your reach to the handlebars will be the same on either frame.

---

Gerard Vroomen
3T.bike
OPEN cycle

And thats why I leave it up to the guru at the bike shop to put me on the right one :) His job is fit, my job is ride, no more guessing for me.