Just got an s-works and shocked that I had my best fit on a XL… I was riding a 54cm p3 before.
I have the zero seat post with the saddle in the forward position riding at about 81 degrees a 110 stem and no spacers, it feels awesome. I am 5’11 and am just curious if these bikes were designed to be ridden steep? It seems odd that specialized would not make bikes for bigger riders.
How does specialized get their measurements? According to the chart the XL is a 59cm bike.
If you’re riding that steep, you’ll automatically need a bigger bike since you’re effectively shortening the top tube. I am actually a little taller than you (granted, I have long legs and a short torso, which causes me to ride a smaller bike), and I ride a 54cm. It should fit bigger riders (or, more specifically, guys with longer torsos) just fine as long as they’re not riding 81 degrees.
I have very long legs and a short torso also.
Im using a roadbike for my multi stuff, heres a question for you though. I ride a 58cm bike and im dead on at 6 even. how does the size difference relate to the type of riding. would i need a smaller bike to put clip on aerobars on or will i have way to much chest exposed on my current ride?
If that question is for me…I am not qualified to answer that question 
maybe someone else will chime in.
Yes, it was. I was asking because ive got 2 inches on you, but you rode a 53. i guess what im asking is, does the more extreme you go in angles, do you need a smaller frame? because the 54cm p3 is either specced very large or the transition is made super small.
I think ( and this is just a guess ) that specialized designed the bike with quickstep in mind and the UCI rules. If I were to ride my XL frame at 74 or 75 degrees it would be way too big.
But if you take a peek at Dans stack and reach table the XL is not a very big frame…its right between a 54 and 56 cervelo p2/p3c. I know I have a super long femur, but with my frame how it is set up now I am still smacking my elbows with my knees when hammering.
I would imagine that would add bigger frames in the future for taller riders (6 feet plus).
still curious though…
The stack is pretty tall on that bike compared to the reach…I’ll reserve judgement until we see pics of you on the bike. At 5’11"…I’m thinking the XL has a heck of a lot of stack to be riding very low in front. I’m 5’9", longish legs/shortish torso…and the M is right in my stack/reach territory.
I’m 5’10" and was on a 54cm P3C as well, riding it steep with a 100mm stem. I am surprised that you are on a XL Specialized. The Transition was on my short list, I was fitted for it and turned out that needed a Medium, riding it steep as well with a 100mm stem… it felt great and I almost went for it but got a better deal and was more comfortable on a Kuota Kueen K.
One thing we noticed Specialized did with the S-Works was they seemed to adhere to the “middle of the road” geometry at the seat angle when using a moderate top tube length. In other words, it seems as if the original molds were intended to make a bike with a moderate spread of top tube lengths when ridding about 76 degrees. That was the trend a few years ago and many of the non-triathlon specific brands, or general appeal high brands, seemed to buy into this “triathlon geometry but not quite triathlon geometry” shallowish/steep seat tube angle. This is a good arrangement for the very long femur and moderate to long torso rider.
The issue for some of the manufacturers may have become an eleventh hour realization that a lot of multisport athletes- probably way more than any of us initially realized- ride quite steep when their position is optimized. For many big bike companies there was a “perfect storm” of triathlon demand increasing while at the same time the level of sophistication among consumers and dealers increasing too. Bike shops were buying Retul, getting FIST certified, using fit bikes- they were starting to understand bike fit and starting to understand that the triathlete rank-and-file needed to be steep to be comfortable.
The issue was the level of fitting sophistication ramped up in about two seasons and the pproduct development cycle generally takes about that also- so the two were out of synch. Bike companies had designed moderately steep (76 degrees) while fitters and consumers were learning that sat steeper than originally thought (78 degrees plus). The industry hadn’t caught up in some cases, and the Specialized may be one case in point. Credit does go to Specialzed for them developing a seatpost arrangment that retroactively gave the bike a steep capability, albeit as an afterthought perhaps (I don’t know this for a fact). I suggest the ability to go steep enough for most triathletes may have been an afterthought because, when you do orient the bike in the steep configuration you do loose *a *lot of effective reach- you go steep it gets really short. A lot of weight also goes on the front wheel affecting steering. This throws sizing off.
Mean while, in the background a couple manufacturers who initially seemed to have absurdly long front ends suddenly started to make sense: You set their bikes up steep (78-81 degrees) and suddenly the *bike worked. *
**
The steering worked, the reach was appropriate, the size name sounded appropriate- everything converged. These were the guys who had done their homework on fit and geometry for the triathlete, made mistake prior and learned from them. Many of the otehr manufacturers have learned that people really do want to sit steep the hard way, and it has created a culture of forward position retrofit seat clamps that do make you sit steeper but shorten your effective reach so much you have to go to a much larger frame size.
It’s been an interesting evolution to watch. The advantage in this niche market of steep bikes may belong to the smaller specialty companies who can make changes totheir bike designs more readily than the really big companies who have to deal with juvenille mountain bikes and an entire line of bikes. It is easier to turn a speedboat than an aircraft carrier…
“the stack is pretty tall on that bike compared to the reach…I’ll reserve judgement until we see pics of you on the bike. At 5’11”…I’m thinking the XL has a heck of a lot of stack to be riding very low in front. I’m 5’9", longish legs/shortish torso…and the M is right in my stack/reach territory. "
Funny you say this…I rode a specialized transition pro for ironman arizona back in april (2008 model) in a size medium with an upturned 100m stem, but the bike was at about 75 degrees. The bike got stolen, but anyway…I fell for the ole trap of hey this bike will work for you…(Happened to be the only one they had).
This time I saw a F.I.S.T guy who went to one of dans schools. He had the same bike I wanted in a size medium large and XL, and I would venture to say he did not care what size I chose. After being set up all three bikes I chose the XL since I choose to ride at about 79 degrees.
The funny thing though is that the difference betweem the large and XL is not that much at all. An XL is, like I stated before, between a 54 and 56cm Cervelo.
But anyway Ill try and post some pics.
PS thanks Tom for the reply, very informative as always
One thing we noticed Specialized did with the S-Works was they seemed to adhere to the “middle of the road” geometry at the seat angle when using a moderate top tube length. In other words, it seems as if the original molds were intended to make a bike with a moderate spread of top tube lengths when ridding about 76 degrees. That was the trend a few years ago and many of the non-triathlon specific brands, or general appeal high brands, seemed to buy into this “triathlon geometry but not quite triathlon geometry” shallowish/steep seat tube angle. This is a good arrangement for the very long femur and moderate to long torso rider.
The issue for some of the manufacturers may have become an eleventh hour realization that a lot of multisport athletes- probably way more than any of us initially realized- ride quite steep when their position is optimized. For many big bike companies there was a “perfect storm” of triathlon demand increasing while at the same time the level of sophistication among consumers and dealers increasing too. Bike shops were buying Retul, getting FIST certified, using fit bikes- they were starting to understand bike fit and starting to understand that the triathlete rank-and-file needed to be steep to be comfortable.
The issue was the level of fitting sophistication ramped up in about two seasons and the pproduct development cycle generally takes about that also- so the two were out of synch. Bike companies had designed moderately steep (76 degrees) while fitters and consumers were learning that sat steeper than originally thought (78 degrees plus). The industry hadn’t caught up in some cases, and the Specialized may be one case in point. Credit does go to Specialzed for them developing a seatpost arrangment that retroactively gave the bike a steep capability, albeit as an afterthought perhaps (I don’t know this for a fact). I suggest the ability to go steep enough for most triathletes may have been an afterthought because, when you do orient the bike in the steep configuration you do loose *a *lot of effective reach- you go steep it gets really short. A lot of weight also goes on the front wheel affecting steering. This throws sizing off.
Mean while, in the background a couple manufacturers who initially seemed to have absurdly long front ends suddenly started to make sense: You set their bikes up steep (78-81 degrees) and suddenly the *bike worked. *
**
The steering worked, the reach was appropriate, the size name sounded appropriate- everything converged. These were the guys who had done their homework on fit and geometry for the triathlete, made mistake prior and learned from them. Many of the otehr manufacturers have learned that people really do want to sit steep the hard way, and it has created a culture of forward position retrofit seat clamps that do make you sit steeper but shorten your effective reach so much you have to go to a much larger frame size.
It’s been an interesting evolution to watch. The advantage in this niche market of steep bikes may belong to the smaller specialty companies who can make changes totheir bike designs more readily than the really big companies who have to deal with juvenille mountain bikes and an entire line of bikes. It is easier to turn a speedboat than an aircraft carrier…
Man alive. That’s a lot of words to say “I don’t know.”
All kidding aside, if you look at the stack and reach charts, it looks like the sizes alternate between “ride it steep” and “ride it moderately steep.” The XL is 1 mm larger in stack, yet 2 cm longer in reach.
“The XL is 1 mm larger in stack, yet 2 cm longer in reach.”
So what does that say to you? Ride it steep? or moderately steep?
It means that the XL is more accepting of a steep and low position than the L. Longer reach for a given stack means that the frame works for either longer torso riders or riders that prefer to ride steeper.