Curious to know of anyone who has owned or tried the old s5 vs the new one? Did you fit on the same size?
I own the old S5 team in a 56 with a 100m stem/negative stem angle and fits great (saddle in front hole position). Read the new s5 is 15m less stack and possibly more reach on a 56.
For background, I fit fine on a 56 specialised Tarmac and 56 cervelo soloist (2008 model). My height is about 5’9’‘-5’10’’ (c 1753mm) and about 33-34in inseam (838mm). I have relatively short arms, normal torso, and longish legs for my height.
I would say that it is possible that the 2015 S5 might be a poor match for your fit needs.
As you mentioned it has longer reach and 15mm less stack.
That being the case, the 54cm would be even worse- it will be about 4cm less stack.
Maybe an S3 would be a better match?
I would say that it is possible that the 2015 S5 might be a poor match for your fit needs.
As you mentioned it has longer reach and 15mm less stack.
That being the case, the 54cm would be even worse- it will be about 4cm less stack.
Maybe an S3 would be a better match?
Unless he has a ton of spacers already he should be fine.
But it is longer reach so it will likely require an even shorter stem.
As I already said, it will work.
But I never suggest that someone purchase a new bike that is less than ideal.
Different if the bike is used, hand me down, etc. Doesn’t make sense to spend a bunch of money on a bike that is not ideal for ones fit needs (though people do this every day).
But it is longer reach so it will likely require an even shorter stem.
As I already said, it will work.
But I never suggest that someone purchase a new bike that is less than ideal.
Different if the bike is used, hand me down, etc. Doesn’t make sense to spend a bunch of money on a bike that is not ideal for ones fit needs (though people do this every day).
But the longer reach value is merely an artifact of them making the head tube shorter (15mm x sine 17 deg = 4.4mm). In other words, the steering axis is in the same place relative to the BB. If you put 15mm of spacers under the stem, you could use exactly the same stem and bars and the position of the hands relative to the steering axis would be identical. So, it doesn’t require a shorter stem.
@tom A - you are the s5 guru! And I based my current s5 into a Tri bike off your feedback! Been awesome.
I still have a 0.5 inch (~12.7mm) spacer on my current s5 under my bars with a 100m stem at -17 degree (bontrager stem). Looks like the new s5 would work. I may get the 2 hole seat post to get the saddle forward so the bike can definitely be used for tri’s.
Awesome tool - thanks everyone. Looks like the new s5 actually fits better with less negative stem angle. Might have to get a new seat post, but I think it’ll be awesome to have one (super) bike for all uses which really helps when living in a small London flat!
i actually ride a 2014 R3 (no spaces and 0 degree stem) and that fits me like a glove…but i love the new s5 and was wondering if a 56 cm would fit me the same or i would need 15 mm of spacers.
Do you know if saddle position is same on old s5 geometry and new s5
Old
Top tube Reach. Head tube
51. 531. 369. 134
54. 548. 378. 154
New
51. 535. 376. 117
54. 550. 384. 135
Reach seems to have changed by much more than top tube length
Is this solely due to shorter head tube and stack or is it seatpost angle ?
If stack I right in saying with same seat post measurement from Bb I should be more concerned with reach than toptube length ?
If 20mm spacers used to achieve same bar height how much does reach reduce by approx?
Do you know if saddle position is same on old s5 geometry and new s5
Old
Top tube Reach. Head tube
51. 531. 369. 134
54. 548. 378. 154
New
51. 535. 376. 117
54. 550. 384. 135
Reach seems to have changed by much more than top tube length
Is this solely due to shorter head tube and stack or is it seatpost angle ?
The head tube and “virtual” seat tube are roughly parallel, and the top tube measurement is a horizontal measurement. So even though the top of the head tube is shortened, the horizontal measurement between those 2 axes doesn’t really change.
If stack I right in saying with same seat post measurement from Bb I should be more concerned with reach than toptube length ?
Yes, which is a big reason why reach came into being. Top tube length is meaningless without knowing other variables.
If 20mm spacers used to achieve same bar height how much does reach reduce by approx? I gave you the solution to that in the post you responded to…the equation is right there Just substitute 20 mm for 15mm. 20mm x sine 17deg= 6mm…or, exactly the reach difference between the model years on the size 54 as you listed above. See?
(BTW, the 51 and below sizes have shallower head tube angles, so the calculation would use those appropriate angles.)
Just substitute 20 mm for 15mm. 20mm x sine 17deg= 6mm…or, exactly the reach difference between the model years on the size 54 as you listed above. See? 