Don't at least some of the teams, like USPS, claim their riders ride on stock frames? I have noticed many riders, when they are on a break, or hammering to bridge up, ride on the noses of their saddle, effectively steepening the angle they are riding at.

I saw a British magazine last year that had a technical article on the TDF bikes. Can't remember the name of the mag. It seemed that in the tour road section itself all riders were riding quite shallow, 72-74 on average. Most also rode shallow in the TT sections. Of course the rules tend to dictate this with having to place the seat 5 mm behind the BB. Some did ride TT steeper with special built "blunted end" seats and some rode forward on the tip on the saddle, but most rode the same config as in the road portion. At least that was the impression the article gave.

Didn't Steve Bauer ride 69-70?

The best I can come up with is a UK mag called Procycling which an articel before last yrs TDF featuring all the bikes of the teams racing. Problem is how many riders ride stock frames? Your best bet is going to be Gerard who has access to an entire team and all the bikes. Good luck. Would be a really interesting article.

---

__________________________________________________
Simple Simon
Where's the Fried Chicken??

Probably the most reliable method would be to try to take the measurements from good quality photographs in a magazine such as Cycle Sport. They have several large format pictures which might allow such measurements. It would be hit or miss as to which riders you got though. I'm not sure I would trust any published data from the teams or manufacturers. I don't mean to impugn anyone, I'm not saying no manufacturers can be trusted only that while some manufacturers are trustworthy, others might not be.

Tom, there is a guy at CU who is actually working with a whole bunch of roadies (Livingston is one of them) and I am sure that he would have this information if you were able to get in contact with him.

The name is Alan Lin I think. The other obvious person is Gerard.

There are 2 teams that I know of who "definitely" use stock frames, USPS and apparently CSC does as well, IIRC fronm one of Gerard's previous posts. Most other teams will use custom frames, but I don't imagine that the seat angles will stray too much from the 72.5 - 74 degree norm. most customisation will be within that range, and customising the TT length along with the handling characteristics, stiffness, etc. It's pretty easy to figure out what frame size each rider on USPS uses, the OCLV lug has a different profile in each frame size, and Trek has the geometry charts on their site. I've also seen photos on cyclingnews and other places of the teams bikes all lined up next to the team van, that will give you a pretty good idea of the saddle height and setback for each rider, along with the bar height and reach.

generally, I don't believe that the teams publish the geometry for their custom frames. That said, a few years back Cannondale had the frame dimensions for the Saeco team stencilled on the bikes themselves, I guess that was when their custom frame program was new and they were looking to push it. A look through some old magazines or photo archives on cyclingnews.com might help there, or a call to Cannondale.

whatever the frame you can play a lot with your seat and seat post and alter the geometry big time.

I only know of CSC. All are on stock Soloist, and the saddle position ranges from all the way forward on the rails (Julian Dean) to all the way back on the rails (Tyler Hamilton. Geert van Bondt). All with the head turned rearwards of course. As for sizes:

Piziks, Calvente: 51cm

Hamilton, Sastre, Sandstoed: 54cm

Kristensen, Peron, Blaudzun: 56cm

Hoffman, Eriksen, Soerensen: 58cm

Tafi: 61cm

Can't remember the other ones off-hand.

---

Gerard Vroomen
3T.bike
OPEN cycle

I seem to remember hearing that the bikes the pros used had lower bottom brackets, that is the height of the bottom bracket from the ground was lower. For safety, 'consumer' bikes had higher bottom brackets. Assuming I am right, why is/was this?

I have never heard this before, it definitely is not the case with CSC's bikes, and I wouldn't know why this would be the case. Good geometry is good geometry, I see little difference in how I would ideally set up a cat3 or Tyler Hamilton. Sure, if the cat3 is overweight, has a back problem and rides 30min a week it may be different, but most cyclists are at least semi-serious about riding if they consider a Cervelo. It may be different for $500 bikes, but if anything I would think that for safety they would lower the bb on those to allow the rider to get the feet on the ground more easily.

---

Gerard Vroomen
3T.bike
OPEN cycle

The safety issue was about pedal clearance. Even though the pros obviously lean in a lot more than mere mortals, they know how to, so they can have a lower BB.

You don't see any advantage to having a lower BB? Lower overall center of gravity? Just wondering.

Obviously, any advantage must be small, otherwise Lance and the CSC boys certainly wouldn't ride stock bikes.

Gerald, if you don't mind saying, who's decision was it to use stock frames, and why? Obviously it is easier/cheaper for you, but I am sure you would want them on the best bikes for each rider.

[reply] Gerald, if you don't mind saying, who's decision was it to use stock frames, and why? Obviously it is easier/cheaper for you, but I am sure you would want them on the best bikes for each rider.[/reply]

To be honest, the custom issue never came up. I think Riis checked out the geometry quite carefully, and must have seen that the 6 Cervelo sizes actually were more usable than the 12 sizes or so that he had last year. Don't forget that when you look at the cockpit sizes of the Soloist (or any other Cervelo) they are spaced out very consistently and logically, so there are no gaps between sizes where a rider could fall into and require a custom frame.

To me it is still mind-boggling that something as simple as basic trig can cause so many bike companies so much grief. And all because they focus on toptube lengths and mess up when they change the seattube angle from one size to the next. There is a thread a while back about how many sizes are needed to cover the range o cockpit lengths, probably 2-3 weeks back. I'm not sure what it was called.

---

Gerard Vroomen
3T.bike
OPEN cycle

[reply]There is a thread a while back about how many sizes are needed to cover the range o cockpit lengths, probably 2-3 weeks back. I'm not sure what it was called.[/reply]

OK, I found it and tweaked it a bit, it was a question of the 3-sized TCR vs. the 6-sized Soloist. Here it goes:

There are a few different issues.

1) For your position, all that matters is the placement of the bottom bracket, saddle and bars. You connect these points by using a frame, seatpost and stem, and you could (if for some strange reason you would want to) use any frame you like as long as you find the correct stem and seatpost to correct the strange frame choice. In other words, you can fit a 7' tall guy on a small frame if you can find a 20cm stem and a 2' seatpost. Of course the handing of this bike will be awful, but the positioning is not the problem.

2) The real issue is, once you have determined the correct "points in space" for the bb, saddle and bars, which frame, seatpost and stem connect these points the best with regards the the handling that is achieved on the final product. If Giant has three sizes (S, M, L) and Cervélo has six (48, 51, 54, 56, 58, 61) and if an S is like a 48, an M is like a 54 and an L is like a 58, then the following applies (NOTE: I'm not saying these sizes are identical, this is just an example):

a) If you fit a 48, a 54 or a 58, you will fit just as well on a Giant (S, M or L respectively). They are the same sizes, so there is no difference.
b) However, if your ideal size is a 51, a 56 or a 61, you don't have those options on the Giant and you will end up with a compromised position, with a stem longer or shorter than ideal. You would ideally need a Small/Medium, or a Medium/Large, or an ExtraLarge Giant, but they don't make those.

3) The final question is, how many sizes do you then need. Why 3 or 6 size, why not 1, 12, 24, or 48? That's obviously open to debate, but it comes down to "resolution". By moving around on your bike, you will be able to shift your center of gravity a cm or two. On a road bike it's a bit more than on a TT/tri bike. So if you shift around that much, there is no point having frames in sizes that only differ 5mm from size to size. Your weight distribution then shifts more by moving around than by changing frames. Since obviously moving around on the bike to the degree that we normally do is perfectly acceptable from a handling point of view, it is not necessary to have frame sizes that differ less than that. That said, having them differ by 5cm is too much. So somewhere in-between is what you want to achieve. Say the delta between the shortest and longest toptube that 98% of the population will need is 8cm, those 8cm can be covered by 5 sizes if you change the toptubes by 2cm each time. We make the delta a a bit less near the ends of the range, and that is why we end up with 6 sizes.

---

Gerard Vroomen
3T.bike
OPEN cycle

"If Giant has three sizes (S, M, L) and Cervélo has six (48, 51, 54, 56, 58, 61) ... if your ideal size is a 51, a 56 or a 61, you don't have those options on the Giant "

Agreed. I've measured my medium TCR and the size is fairly close to the Soloist 54. I ride a 54 so the medium TCR fits me quite well. However, I also doubt the claim that the three Giant sizes will fit all. It's to my understanding that half the Team ONCE riders are on custom frames.

Hi Cerveloguy,

Now I have a doubt... I have TCR Aero Small which I think is little bit longer than my Colnago Dream 54.... That is one thing that I don´t like in Giant... They seems to be made for people with longer Upperbody....

I tried to buy a Giant for my wife but because she is too short ( 1,56 cm ) it was impossible to fit the bike for her... and so I bought a beautifull Basso Coral ...

If you have a Medium Giant and you uses a Cervelo 54... What are the sizes of your Stems ???

In the Colnago I use 10cm ITM Millennium and on the Giant I use 9 cm Ricthey with a positive angle.

---

Luiz Eng

I said they were close in geometry and dimension but not exact.

The geometry for the 54 cm Soloist is listed on the Cervelo site as 54 cm effective top tube. For the medium Giant TCR it's claimed 55 cm on their site, which is exactly what my tape measure tells me. This is only a difference of 1 cm. That's close enough IMO that a correction with a 1 cm stem size difference will work either way for me whether I were to ride a 54 Soloist or a medium TCR. In fact the slightly longer top tube of the TCR would work likely be theoretically better for me because I have a longer torso compared to my legs. Using the Lemond formula based upon my inseam I should ride a 54 cm frame, but with my torso/leg ratio the slightly longer top tube of the TCR should be a bit more proportional for my torso, although as stated, I don't think a 1 cm stem difference be very noticeable. My TCR seems to fit me quite well and feels very comfortable, so I've seen no real advantage of swapping it for a Soloist. The advantage the Solist has over the similiar geometry compact frame TCR is that is available in twice as many sizes, six instead of three. However, I'm fortunate enough to fit one of the three TCR sizes (actually now four sizes with the new composite frames).

I actually don't own a Soloist, but a P2K which is an entirely different geometry bike.

As for the Colnago, one thing I've noticed about the Italian bikes is that often seem to have short top tubes. I have an old Italian steel 12 sp that is a 57 cm but has a 55 cm top tube, the same as my TCR.

Hey Gerard,
What wheel sizes are the CSC guys using on their TT rigs ( I assume all are using 700c on road bikes)?
I seem to remember you saying that we would see some 650s on team bikes this season...

MH

---

Tech writer/support on this here site. FIST school instructor and certified bike fitter. Formerly at Diamondback Bikes, LeMond Fitness, FSA, TiCycles, etc.
Coaching and bike fit - http://source-e.net/ Cyclocross blog - https://crosssports.net/ BJJ instruction - https://ballardbjj.com/

Two riders (Piziks and Calvente) have 48cm P3s, one rider (Sastre) has a 51cm and a 52cm P3, so one 650c and one 700c, just so he can try out some different things with his position.

---

Gerard Vroomen
3T.bike
OPEN cycle