Does anyone have the stack and reach for all frame sizes on the Trinity Advanced? It doesnt look like the stack and reach database has been updated to reflect the addition of the Advanced to the lineup.
Does anyone have the stack and reach for all frame sizes on the Trinity Advanced? It doesnt look like the stack and reach database has been updated to reflect the addition of the Advanced to the lineup.
It’s very tricky to come up with the stack and reach for integrated front end bikes. We are still working on a “best practice” for how to do it…
I assumed thats why.
Is anyone riding a Trinity Advanced that can comment on how it fits relative to other manufacturers bikes?
I assumed thats why.
Is anyone riding a Trinity Advanced that can comment on how it fits relative to other manufacturers bikes?
They are ALL very small. Knowing how to normalize the top-tube, you can figure out the approximate reach. And if you look at the wheelbase, you’ll see that they are TINY. The “L” is probably a 54 or 55. I would say the sizes are, roughly, 50, 52, 54. So the biggest size is still REALLY small. It’s a very strange geometry - very tight sizes.
To bring this topic up again, would you call the Giant long and low or short and narrow?
Folks who sell them say it is absurdly long. Like unfittably long. The small is apparently like a 58 p3. That is second hand tho.
Not exactly first-hand info here either, but CAD and a few dimensions plus a couple assumptions backs up Rappstar’s response. I’ll also take advantage of our SC “down the middle” position in the S&R plots for comparison. None of what follows should be considered definitive, but rather a good guess.
At the frame-only level they seem longish in the Small size and then not to change much between the M&L. I get reaches for their S-M-L in the vicinity of 403, 419, and 424…which would correspond to our Medium (408) and Large (426). On a long-low Cervelo P3/P4 it’d be a 51 and 54. On a narrow-tall Scott you’re within mm of the M-L-XL.
Frame stack is where my model has the least fidelity because I have so little relevant info to go on from their website geo table. Then there’s the matter of their headtube ending below the level of the toptube. IMO, their stem system makes this figure the least relevant anyway…with an even lower option, the level-toptube version, and a riser version…so in the end, if this weren’t an X-Y frame you can kind of assume you would be able to hit a really wide range of basebar stacks anyway. Assuming you can handle the standover, which they do publish. At 31inches on the Small, they’re 1cm below our Large. They go up in 1.1in increments from there.
It’s the fixed stem reach and minimal pad reach range which probably lead to the secondhand feedback Rappstar is passing along re: long cockpits. If memory serves, there’s +/-10mm or so on the pad reach and the stem is considered 74mm, which when added to the frame reach on each size pushes the minimum pad reach out to around 475, 490, and 495. In SC-land you’re now in the range of Mediums with long stems all the way out to most XL combos.
So…how about long-tall…?
great feedback, very interesting. Trying to compare measurements, I thought the large would fit me or be close for stack and reach…I didnt even take into account the stand over height…that’s one TALL bike!
I get reaches for their S-M-L in the vicinity of 403, 419, and 424… and the stem is considered 74mm, which when added to the frame reach on each size pushes the minimum pad reach out to around 475, 490, and 495.
That jives with an estimate I made, by scaling a hi-res picture of the bike (known measurement of 622mm for the rim diameter). I assume their photo bike is a MEDIUM. I got ~500mm pad reach, ~575mm pad stack for the standard stem with zero spacers. Assuming it wasn’t at its minimum position, then your 490mm + 10mm = 500mm. You can go +40mm or -40mm on stack via the different stems, and up to +40mm again using pad/extension spacers.
I currently ride a Giant Advance road bike in a medium. I previously owned a Giant Trinity tri bike and was fitted on a medium as well. This year I was looking into upgrading to Giant’s Trinity Advance SL super bike and was actually fitted to a size SMALL. As stated in an earlier post, the reach is very long and was also told that fitting was an issue for some riders.
It’s a great bike if you fit the geometry.
Good luck.
I’m still not sure how the stack and reach data works for the nose cone bikes but I have been riding a Trinity Advanced for a year and here are my numbers. I’m 181 cm tall, run a 80 cm centre crank to seat height on all my bikes. I ride a M frame with the standard nose cone (there is a low and high also available). My seat height as mentioned is 80 cm, my distance to centre of the elbow pads from centre of the seat is 68 cm and the distance to bar end is 96 cm. I use a 6 cm pad stack for HIM’s and a 4.5 cm stack for TT’s. I have been running a Profile TriStryke seat moved forward quite a bit for HIM’s that puts the front of the seat 1 cm forward of the crank centre. For TT’s I run a Fizik Arione Tri2 carbon braided. I think overall the bike fits more like a Scott than anything else. I generally can’t comfortably ride a Cervelo P4 because the reach seems too long. When I tried a Shiv we had something like 10 cm of spacers under the pads so it seems lower in front. I love the Giant and I’m fast on it.
I have a Giant Trinity size M, some photos and info in this thread http://forum.slowtwitch.com/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_flat;post=3155600;page=2;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;mh=25;
I was riding a 54 P3 before moving to the Giant. I find the fit similar to the P3, I am in the process of changing the aero pad plates, will make some larger ones, same as what is on Timo Bracht Giant. Then I will be able to have more adjustment.