My current Road setup is a C’Dale R1000 56cm. Works great…no issues with fit.
Just ordered the C’Dale Ironman 1 from my local shop. The guys there swear that I need a 54cm in this setup. It struck me as odd and I asked “are you sure?” and they were emphatic that this would be the right fit. BTW - they fitted me for the R1000.
Now I’m not so sure since I just read on the Geo specs for the Ironman 1 “if you ride a 56cm in a C’Dale Road geo you should choose a 56cm in the Aero geo”.
I’m interested in some feedback from the forum before I burn $4500 hard earned bucks.
Its not uncommon to ride a slightly smaller TT or Tri frame, even with the same manufacturer. Imagine rotating forward in your current frame and picture where your elbows would come to rest when properly fit. Odds are its a little short of the handlebars. My road bike has a 57 TT and my tri has a 52.5. Both feel great.
I ride a 52cm Cannondale road frame and a 54cm Cannondale IM 1 frame.
The sizing on the IM frames has nothing to do with the *name *of the size. For instance: The top tube length on Cannondale’s 54cm IM frame is shorter than the top tube on some manufacturer’s 52cm tri geometry frame.
I ride a 54 cm Trek 5200, I think the TT is around 54 cm with an 11cm stem. I am probably a bit too stretched out (I started in the Lemond era of long TT and kicked back seat angles). I am looking into a 54 cm IM1. Does this sound doable? I plan on checking it out before I buy of course, I am just wondering if I am on the right track. There is not a FIST certified dealer near me.
It says right in the C-dale literature to ride the same frame ‘size’ on the Slice frames that you ride on their road frame. I would imagine the smaller TT/Tri frame would have a very short top tube and head tube, requiring a long stem and a lot of spacers.
I ride a 54cm six-13 and a 54cm Slice. Both fit me dead on. I would question them as to their reasoning in recommending the smaller frame. If they can give you direct answers as to why that would suit your body better, then maybe they are seeing something that is valid.
Here are the dimensions of my 54cm Cannondale IM1 frame. Please note: These are *actual measurements, *not just dimensions from the Cannondale website:
Seat tube length, measure center of bottom bracket (without crank installed, so no angle created by the width of the bottom bracket spindle) to absolute center of top tube including seat post binder collar: 54.1 cenitmeters.
Top tube length measured from Center of seat tube through center of top tube to center of head tube: 52.2 centimeters.
Head tube total overall height, bottom to top: 114 millimeters.
In terms of fit and position, this bike is just slightly larger vertically (from the ground up) than my 51cm (size name) Guru Trilite but has a shorter top tube.
For reference I am 5’8&3/4" with an 83.1 cm inseam measured just now using the NECA fit stick inseam measuring device in stocking feet wearing blue jeans. I wear a size 9.5 Asics running shoe and size 41 Louis Garneau Air Carbon tri shoes on Time RXS pedals.
We were considering that with my wife, now she is in the market for a TT frameset. She is 5’2" and has a 48cm CAAD8 frameset that she had professionally fit with a 51.5cm top tube and a 65mm stem. The Slice 48 has a top tube length of 47cm, with a steeper seat angle of 78 versus 74.5. 4.5cm seems like a big difference? I am riding a 51cm effective top tube on my P2 and 53.5 on my 52cm CAAD 8. I know you want a shorter top tube on a tri/TT bike but that seems like a huge difference to me. The 50cm has a 49cm top tube length I dont know if this would be a better choice.