My fit will work on both a M and L (Speedmax). Am I correct in thinking I should default to the larger size for a few reasons…(1) longer wheelbase provides more stability (2) seat post further down the seat tube provides more structural strength than higher up (3) room for more stack in the future when father time tells my back it’s time to get higher up.
Of course Canyon says medium when I input my height (72") and inseam (34"). They don’t even rec’d the L until your min measurements at about 73.5" and 34.5" so I’m a little confused on this one. Maybe they are thinking I’m going to be running the included 170 cranks and that would change my fit numbers to not work on the L seat height? FYI…my seat height is 790 with 155 cranks so 10mm from the floor of the size L seat post.
These are just my semi-educated assumptions of course. Hoping those with more fit knowledge and understanding can chime in.
How much stack and reach is “left over” on each size?
Whats the difference between slammed and your stack and whats the difference between max reach and your reach?
I’d look into getting the size where my fit is towards the middle of the range.
I’ll ignore the dig, but still don’t see the fit numbers. And if you got a fit, what size did the fitter recommend? Why are you trying to figure it out if you paid a professional?
My fit will work on both a M and L (Speedmax). Am I correct in thinking I should default to the larger size for a few reasons…(1) longer wheelbase provides more stability (2) seat post further down the seat tube provides more structural strength than higher up (3) room for more stack in the future when father time tells my back it’s time to get higher up.
Of course Canyon says medium when I input my height (72") and inseam (34"). They don’t even rec’d the L until your min measurements at about 73.5" and 34.5" so I’m a little confused on this one. Maybe they are thinking I’m going to be running the included 170 cranks and that would change my fit numbers to not work on the L seat height? FYI…my seat height is 790 with 155 cranks so 10mm from the floor of the size L seat post.
These are just my semi-educated assumptions of course. Hoping those with more fit knowledge and understanding can chime in.
When I look at where you’re at in the fit boxes for most people I recommend heading into the middle of the box. Now there are times when I recommend being closer to the Rt hand side or the bottom or top of a box, yet without knowing you, how you ride etc, the safe bet is the fit box where you fit with the most adjustment left for stack and reach should you decide you want to add or subtract either. For instance someone is a really fast rider, say 2:10 or faster for 90k. Then I might recommend the smaller size with more stack between the basebar and elbow cups to further potentially improve aerodynamics. Conversely let’s say you’re riding 3h for 90k then I might suggest a larger size since a larger aerodynamically shaped headtube will typically be faster than a lot of stack between basebar and elbow cups.
If you have your Pad XY or stack/reach numbers from your fit then you can look at their geometry charts and see where your numbers are.
Appreciate it Brian. I’m a 2:30 90K bike. I actually have both a M and L Speedmax (last generation) and fit numbers work on both. I started on the M and just felt better on the L with the same numbers. For some reason, with the same fit numbers, I just felt like I was riding a “small” bike.
My thought on going with the L over the M for this newest Speedmax was the ability to add plenty of stack as the years tick off and my back naturally wants me to be less slammed.
As long as both are well within the allowable seatpost length, I’d tend towards having more seatpost exposed, it’ll provide some additional compliance and be more comfortable. Technically maybe stronger to have less seatpost exposed, but if both are strong enough it doesn’t really matter.
As long as both are well within the allowable seatpost length, I’d tend towards having more seatpost exposed, it’ll provide some additional compliance and be more comfortable. Technically maybe stronger to have less seatpost exposed, but if both are strong enough it doesn’t really matter.
Totally didn’t think in that direction. That makes sense. A little more seatpost exposed would proably give the extra flex gaining some undercarriage comfort
I recall Dan saying once that he recommended the smaller size for road bikes and the larger size for TT bikes. Weight being the driver for road and aerodynamics for the TT, but that was before everyone was using super high pedestals.
I don’t have any insight on the Speedmax, but my biggest concern on my next bike purchase is going to be reach. My current bike simply doesn’t have enough, so I would be going to size simply to ensure I have sufficient reach.
Are we talking about the Speedmax CF SLX/CFR here and with the default 65 or with the longer 85 mm stem?
In most cases with your saddle height I often opt for the Large.
The problem with the M is that when you move your armpads forward to have enough reach those integrated aerobars get really short even when fully maxed out and even in the largest length.
The Speedmax CF 2024 will soon have some additional parts available that add to the fit range
Red dots are the existing range of positions on a single frame size,
Blue are the additions
More like a general reply to the thread… It is quite frustrating that most of the current bikes have so limited range of adjustability, especially in terms of reach. For example the lower tier canyon, which has a proprietary stem and aerobar spacers attached to the base bar → very limited range to adjust reach. That particular bike also happens to be one of the most “short and high” in terms of geometry, which means many folks need to ride a bike basically one size too large for them, in order to get enough reach. Well, I guess, as such, this might be a good or a bad thing depending on your taste, but it is sad that the bike basically does not have the adjustablity that you could make the decision based on your own preferences if you are between two sizes.
It really wouldn’t be difficult to make the bikes such that there would be practically unlimited adjustability for the reach; non proprietary stem, flippable pad clamps, long enough (&trimmable) extensions… These easily give like 5-7 cm more room to play with, which should solve vast majority of the “I’m between two sizes” -problems.
Appreciate it Brian. I’m a 2:30 90K bike. I actually have both a M and L Speedmax (last generation) and fit numbers work on both. I started on the M and just felt better on the L with the same numbers. For some reason, with the same fit numbers, I just felt like I was riding a “small” bike.
My thought on going with the L over the M for this newest Speedmax was the ability to add plenty of stack as the years tick off and my back naturally wants me to be less slammed.
I would say two things. I’m 180cm and don’t have my fit coordinates off the top of my head, but a M works almost perfectly for me. Even with the 85mm stem, I could probably use a few more mm of reach than what the M makes possible. As from the pro positions on the current Speedmax, you can see the bike runs a little short given how many pro riders who use a riser that moves the pads forward.
Second thing…I think Canyon is expecting to release a new Speedmax this September? I got my current gen Speedmax January 2020 so it’s probably due for a new version if you want to ride one more season on your current bikes.
Appreciate it Brian. I’m a 2:30 90K bike. I actually have both a M and L Speedmax (last generation) and fit numbers work on both. I started on the M and just felt better on the L with the same numbers. For some reason, with the same fit numbers, I just felt like I was riding a “small” bike.
My thought on going with the L over the M for this newest Speedmax was the ability to add plenty of stack as the years tick off and my back naturally wants me to be less slammed.
I would say two things. I’m 180cm and don’t have my fit coordinates off the top of my head, but a M works almost perfectly for me. Even with the 85mm stem, I could probably use a few more mm of reach than what the M makes possible. As from the pro positions on the current Speedmax, you can see the bike runs a little short given how many pro riders who use a riser that moves the pads forward.
Second thing…I think Canyon is expecting to release a new Speedmax this September? I got my current gen Speedmax January 2020 so it’s probably due for a new version if you want to ride one more season on your current bikes.
Good point. I only have 1 race this year so it’s probably best to see what comes out in the fall/winter and hopefully more options here stateside. Really would be nice if we could order like those across the pond being able to customize your order.
It really wouldn’t be difficult to make the bikes such that there would be practically unlimited adjustability for the reach; non proprietary stem, flippable pad clamps, long enough (&trimmable) extensions… These easily give like 5-7 cm more room to play with, which should solve vast majority of the “I’m between two sizes” -problems.
It really is quite difficult when you have a variety of competing priorities.
Separate stem and bars are great for external routing, but once you want to hide everything having them separate doesn’t mean much and the strength and cable paths of one piece are superior.
Flippable brackets are being worked on, but it’s non trivial to also have the required tilt range and keep everything clean
Longer extensions becomes a problem for passing testing that bounces a mass at the end of the extension, trying to solve that with the flippable brackets.
As it is, the range of adjustment that the bars already have means there is a massive overlap in sizes, you can see that it’s possible to have a choice between S & L.
The target that I am working towards (and Canyon is too, because I shared info) is 120mm of pad x range from the aerobars. As that is what is required just to meet the morphological variation among humans, let alone position style variation. As you can see, the addition of a reach extender takes the current range to 105mm. The challenge is to build that into the system without requiring extra parts and to be backwards compatible with existing basebars.
How ever you put it, the fact is that it is not uncommon that people don’t get enough reach on a bike that would otherwise be a good size for them. What comes to solving the issue being “easy” or “difficult”, as you also say, there are other competing priorities when in designing a bike / cockpit. And maybe this is what the market wants - integration & cleansiness over optimal fit…? When I was buying my current bike, I prioritized adjustability and opted for cervelo p series frame. I have a 100 mm stem, PD neosonic brackets and zipp vukashift extensions (with sram force), and have practically an infinite range to play with. Cleansiness is not “superbike good” but not bad either. So all the parts are there, it is just a matter of prioritizing something else.
It really wouldn’t be difficult to make the bikes such that there would be practically unlimited adjustability for the reach; non proprietary stem, flippable pad clamps, long enough (&trimmable) extensions… These easily give like 5-7 cm more room to play with, which should solve vast majority of the “I’m between two sizes” -problems.
It really is quite difficult when you have a variety of competing priorities.
Separate stem and bars are great for external routing, but once you want to hide everything having them separate doesn’t mean much and the strength and cable paths of one piece are superior.
Flippable brackets are being worked on, but it’s non trivial to also have the required tilt range and keep everything clean
Longer extensions becomes a problem for passing testing that bounces a mass at the end of the extension, trying to solve that with the flippable brackets.
As it is, the range of adjustment that the bars already have means there is a massive overlap in sizes, you can see that it’s possible to have a choice between S & L.
The target that I am working towards (and Canyon is too, because I shared info) is 120mm of pad x range from the aerobars. As that is what is required just to meet the morphological variation among humans, let alone position style variation. As you can see, the addition of a reach extender takes the current range to 105mm. The challenge is to build that into the system without requiring extra parts and to be backwards compatible with existing basebars.
