As a shorter rider, I’ve committed to only buying custom frames to get the size and handling I need. If I’m spending a few thousand on a bike, it better fit me like a glove.
Sorry for being late to the game but ... Unless you are buying a custom frame with 650c front wheel (I've seen custom frame with a 650c front and 700c rear combo !?!?) and something like a 150mm crank your argument doesn't hold water. A custom frame can't solve any of the issues because you are limited by toe overlap created by the front 700c wheel, fork length, head tube minimal height and stem thickness. Considering how all major manufacturer have for away from the road 650c/tires, it's very limited in terms of the choice. Another solution is 650b wheels for gravel/endurance bike.
A few decades ago, We often recommended building frames for 650c tubulars or clinchers and occasionally a slopping top tube to improve stand over. Unfortunately, customers weren't ready to accept small wheels, large gap behind the seat tube and definitely not the slopping top tube. Rider's are more open to change these days and I think manufacturers could test customer response by first offering aluminium bikes with 650c wheels, again. I'm old enough to remember small bikes had 26 x1.1/14 wheels and medium + had 27 x 1 1/4
for a few months now i've been trying to convert a 571 tt frame from the very late nineties to 622. it's just a silly project, i know. we didn't have any 571 forks, so it was very hard to tell the original geometry. finally i did the calculations. the head angle is 71° and the seat angle is 79°. the top tube is 530 mm long and has -3°, so it's originally a low-pro setup. the best thing we can do is to lift the front a bit, so we can have 69°¸head angle. the problem is that the bb will be very high, comparable to a mountain bike, at 310 mm. so if it doesn't wok, at least we had some fun experimenting there.
In Asia where many people are less than 170cm, Pinarellos are actually popular because of number of available sizes in the smaller spectrum. Most people don’t even have a choice between XS & S (like myself), because S is simply too big. (be it stack too tall or reach too long)
Excellent video. One thing not mentioned is 650b wheels. These can get rid of many of the problems you mentioned, however it severely limits your wheel and tyre choice. For example no pirelli, no goodyear, no Vitoria, michelin etc as to most brands 650b is mountain bike only. For me on 650b road I basically have the choice of Gravelling SK or GP500 STR. That is it.
This was very useful, thanks. As someone who is 170cm with average inseam, it’s amazing how many smalls are actually too tall to standover. I am 26, very flexible and very athletic so I also find I’m limited about how low I can go on a small but then have more toe overlap on a extra smalls ( but from doing cx and mtb, I believe that to be a skill issue but something I still think about)
A few years ago they would fit 650c wheels to small and extra small frames, to overcome some of the problems you have discussed. Obviously 650 wheels are out of fashion, much like rim brakes..... Don't get me started on that one🙄 Threaded bottom brackets are coming back into fashion, so who knows what else might???😂
I'd like to add that the trail figure on small sized bikes can be altered via fork rake. It's possible to maintain a fairly consistent trail across the sizes by increasing fork rake as the head tube angle slackens in smaller bikes, thereby somewhat preserving handling characteristics. Increasing fork rake tends to move the front wheel away from the rider, which has a similar effect as slackening head tube angle, which further reduces toe overlap issues. I think the reason why some manufacturers don't do this is simply because of cost: because it's much cheaper to have a single mold for a fork rather than 2 or 3 across the size range, which is a shame, because smaller riders are shortchanged by this. Specialized, Cannondale, BMC, Liv (but not Giant, oddly) and Look are brands that do this off the top of my head. I do strongly agree that there should be a wider range of crank lengths and bar widths in the market, and that it's only possible to make bikes so small with wheels so big until compromises need to be made.
Others have mentioned 650b wheels, but 650c used to be an option when aero and TT bikes meant getting the front lower. This seems like a more suitable option in terms of size because it's a smaller diameter than 650b, but there are extremely few options to buy, and I'm sure you can't get good tires for 600c even if you can get the wheels. I think it will take a combined collaborative effort from the biggest bike brands, Giant, Trek, Specialized, Canyon, along with a couple of wheel and tyre partners like Pirelli and Continental to commit to making equivalents of their best low rolling resistance tyres in the 650c size, and wheels that have equivalent wide rims and aero profiles to the 700c versions. There's so much inclusivity virtue signalling from corporations, but here is is something actually useful they could do, and given low tech nature of bicycles, and the vast size of the market in Asia I'm surprised it's not already been tried to make more accommodations for small riders, but I think it's important that small cyclists are able to access equal equipment with equal marginal gains to average size riders. Side note to all of this, the UCI could probably help to by overhauling the regulations concerning bike shape and geometry to properly accommodate both small and tall riders - Conor Dunne on GCN mentioned the size 61 and above don't have complete aero profiles because e.g. the seat tube cannot follow the wheel in the largest sizes due to regulations. Maybe the minimum weight limit should be lowered for the small sizes as well. At least cranks are easy to solve, Appleman and a few others sell cranks that are available in 100mm and 135mm lengths.
I find toe overlap to be a minor problem. It only matters when turning very sharp (and slow therefore). I have a 56 with 175mm cranks, foot size 46 and cleats all the way back, so i was very worried at first, but never had a risky moment.
I have a bit over overlap about 2 cm, still it is annoying, it was not present on my previous gravel bike, but it was too long and a pig at slow speeds, new one is a racy gravel bike and feels much better over all…
I ride smaller frames than industry recommends for my size + cleats pretty far back. Only drawback of the toe overlap is the fact that my crispy white cycling shoes are sometimes marked. Never found it to be a big issue otherwise.
I'm really pleased you posted this video with these insights, and also simultaneously frustrated and angry about the status quo with small bikes. My PT is 4'11, so she is just about able to find rideable bikes despite the narrow range of choice, but my closest friend is 4'8" (142cm) and it seems to be nigh on impossible :/ It's not just being able to find something fun to ride, there is a lack of good options to just have an independent means of transport because she can't drive either. Her parents got her an e-bike, but she's too scared to ride it because she doesn't feel safe after a bad experience which probably would've been avoided had she had more control. It really bothers me that the only bikes that would fit are children's bikes, and while I some people would say that is an option so just do that, it's not just insulting and patronising, it's very upsetting. People who are this small are frequently infantilised, mistaken for children, and even fetishised for their size, so the harm to mental health is real. I really want to see the bike brands make bikes for small adults first, and market them as suitable for children second.
168cm tall but have a high ape index (long arms and legs - short body). Standover is not a problem but I like a lower top tube so I can move the bike around under me, when standing on the peddles (Giant - mike Burows and compact frame geo, best thing ever). Toe over lap is the problem that I always have to work with, and a light front end - wheel that wants to slide out and dump you on the floor, this comes from I believe the slack seat angles that pull you back away from the middle of the bike. You just have to live with it as being short is always a compromise if you wish to run 700c wheels, I do not like 650b as they just do not roll (feel) as quick.
I'm one of those riders with small bikes, and I will say that I've never seen an xs with a 172 crank on it. For folks with knee issues, that size crank may cause more knee issues if they are not able to get the knee over the pedal axle. I had a ti frame custom built for many years ago, and had a fit before I ordered it. It was indeed the most comfortable bike that I've ever had. I did tweak handlebar and stem over the years, but truly was very fortunate. I also had a couple of other fairly high end road bikes at the time, and although they were indeed comfortable... still nothing was quite the same as the ti bike. As someone who has had 5 knee surgeries, that distance from seat to handlebar and knee to pedal axle were crucial for me, and might not be quite as important as someone else.
Really weird reading that 170 cm tall people complain about bike related problems. I'm 163 cm, and I have to found the hard way that there is nearly no endurance road bike available for me. Nearly. You don't mention it in the video, but smaller wheels (ETRTO 584 mm - 650b) solve pretty much everything according to frame geometry. Sadly, only Canyon takes that seriously. Standover height is no problem at all, by the way, totally irrelevant as they are way below my inseam length (77 cm). As I learned, the most important thing is the top tube effective length, which is around 510 mm in my case.
When I first heard Canyon uses 650B wheels in their 2XS and 3XS road frames (and XS gravel frames), I thought it was a terrible idea. Now that there are enough tire choices in 650B, maybe that idea is not that bad after all!
A good example of this is Ridley sizing, I'm 5'8", their website and most people would say Small is my size, but Ridley's geometry are on the larger side, so I discovered Extra Small worked for me and I have playing around with different size stems, from 130 to 110mm where I am now as I grew older.
As a short rider, 5ft 4 inches, I truly appreciate this video. Your attention to detail for us short cyclists is amazing. If I lived in England I would buy my next bike from you.
Short cranks don't just alleviate issues with toe overlap, it also means the leg has to extend a little less and that means the seat can be placed higher, so more saddle to bar drop can be achieved. I'm a 166cm small rider with an inseam height of only 74cm, which had me come to similar conclusions like mentioned in this video. I had to go through quite a few frames until now that I'm actually riding a size XS Time ADH, which is finally a bike that fits me. I'm also running a longer than (for me) usual stem. Another thing I want to try now is using a 0-offset seatpost, as I'm currently running a 25mm-offset one. I think there are some potential gains, in the power as well as the comfort department.
Interesting and very well explained. I'm a bit surprised that stand over seems to be such a primary focus in sizing these days. I believe it's always been important for kids bikes and inexperienced/less confident riders but had no clue it was a primary concern for everyone.
Thank x alot Paul, exellent explanation... having worked as a bike fitter formally I really can judge and apreciate your great job on every subject you're adressing... only thing I really regret is beeing more than 1200 km away from you and your fantastic bike shop. Looked for your geographic position in UK and our location in the middle of Germany near Frankfurt/M. .....😢 ...sorry that I cannot find any dealer with your knowledge, intention and mindset more near to home...please keep on going that way and thanks again....
Agree, standover is impotent especially for X/XS frames. Unfortunately Time does not mention it on there website and it’s although not mentioned in the video. As a potential Time customer I would be highly interested..thanks!
As usual, great content as you are addressing issues that are very common but no one seems to talk or educate about. Isn't the same true for very large bikes? Affected myself with 1,95m and 96cm inseam. Fitting, Seatpost length, stems, spacers, drop saddle to bar, crank length and how this all affects ride characteristics. What would the the solution? Different wheel sizes and more options and education?
Great video. Trying to decide about bike geometry for new custom bike for my wife. There are so many compromises to make and very hard to make final decision without trying to ride many smallest bikes available, so many funky decisions by bike brands in XS and XSS sizes. She founds that vintage bikes from 70-80s feels the best in terms of handling and cornering at high speeds, but they are little too long for her (minimum top tube lenght on vintage bikes is 51 cm). Some modern stock bikes that she tried feels so weird and they are almost all also too long except Pinarello X.
What an absolutely brilliant and useful piece. Very thought provoking Thank you. I ride a small Defy but am on the borderline with a medium. Did i make the right decision? Intrested in your views on 650 wheels. Keep them coming.
The XS bike’s slack HTA would have been fine with a fork offset of 55mm. It would have reduced the trail to 58mm using their settings. This is important because Time is being really traditional here and assuming a tire size of 23C. A really slack HTA and high offset do affect wheel flop slightly, but that isn’t a concern unless you’re getting to chopper levels of slackness.
Very informative video. If you think it's challenging riding a XS frame, I ride a TIME XXS frame 😄 Also, when looking at the reach, keep in mind that the actual reach is also affected by the seat tube angle. The reach is only measured from the head tube along the top to where the imaginary line of the BB intersects it perpendicularly. For example, if you have 2 bikes that have the same reach but different seat tube angle, the bike with the slacker seat tube angle will make you extend more to reach the bars (even though both bikes have the same reach).
Being 160cm I really appreciate you taking the time for such a thorough and compreehnsive insight on this matter. I have been competing for a while now, and I am looking for a new bike. Does anyone have sugestions of brands that take this aspect into consideration? Thank you.
Some good points, but :) 13:00 - a longer front-centre (slacker head angle) and higher trail on an xs bike make the bike more stable, which nicely counter-acts a short stem. This is the idea of progressive/forward geometry bikes such as Santa Cruz Stigmata v4, etc. May feel unfamiliar first, but you adjust and it works. On the contrary, a short front/slacker head & lower trail on an s bike combined with a short stem will make the bike way too twitchy - so it’s hard to agree with your take that that’s better handling-wise
The stigmata is a gravel bike. You would never ride it like a road race bike. Put a short stem on that and ride seated up a hill and you will have to fight the steering to stay in a straight line.
This! As long as wheel flop is not an issue, more trail is indeed needed to counteract the effects of a short stem combined with a narrow(er) handlebar. To achieve this without having toe overlap issues, you need a slack head angle combined with a higher fork offset. So while the video touches really valuable points, in my view, the take on trail and stem lenght was off.
@@Mapdec you are referring to the flop - which is indeed an issue on a very slow uphills (less than 5 km/h or so). As someone who often rides 20+ % grades, both uphill and downhill, on bikes with various geometries, I would prefer being more concentrated on an uphill, risking a sudden stop from 5 km/h, than having to deal with a jittery bike on a 90+ km/h downhill - with all the associated risks of losing control there :)
@@dropbaran now apply that ‘flop’ you describe to a flat fast corner in a peleton of riders. You will need to reduce speed, stay more upright and take a wider turn.
@@Mapdec oh no, the wheel flop is an issue only present at very low speeds. I noticed that you deleted my below comments with the links to my in-depth blog posts on the matter - which I don’t get as that’s just a blog, and I have no agenda there other than share my knowledge that requires more words than what fits into a comment here - but you can still find the blog in my youtube bio and then read the first three posts. Btw, that’s been reviewed, and agreed with, by the head engineer at a prominent bike manufacturer. You may agree or disagree, but it’s always good to explore others’ opinions imo. Peace!
On one of my old steel bikes (with steel forks) I welded new front drop-outs 25mm further back to increase the trail and make the bike more stable. Actually the words "less unstable" would be a better choice because it was the most evil handling bike I'd ever ridden bar a Raleigh Chopper! I'd swap stability for sharp handling any day of the week.
Yep. I have all the mentioned issues. 😅 The positive angle of your stem gets you the impossible task of finding a negative angle integrated handlebar. My garmin is a bit shy of pointing upwards. Not aero at all. 😢
I'm 5'11 with 29in inseam and I rid XXS 44cm frame with 130 mm stem and I've had a a professional fit. XXS 44cm frames should be fitted with 650b wheels, to reduce toe overlap.
If a competent shop or fitter has chosen that set up for you, please find another shop..in my experience, you should be on a 52 or larger frame.. at times like this, please do not focus entirely on standover height..
Not as silly as it seems considering the inseam. I’m 5’6’’ (1m69) with 30 in (75 cm) inseam, which I think is already relatively small for my size. A size S feels a touch too big, I don’t have enough seatpost sticking out the 50 cm seat tube. If you’re 6 ft but with incredibly short legs and arms, and happen to be incredibly flexible and need to ride with the torso parallel to the ground to be comfortable then this setup makes sense.
@Antoine_Frs I am also 5'6" tall with a slightly shorter inseam 29". My ideal frame is a 50-52 cm with a top tube of 54-55 cm. I find that a bike with a short top tube and a 130 mm rides a bit strange. I have had a few Colnago's, Miyata, Vitus 992, Giant Cadex.. my favorite all-time bike was a Gianni Motta Personal..a great ridding bike..all these bikes are classic parallel top tube bikes.. my current bike is a bespoke steel bike 52cm ST( center to top) and a 56cm TT with a 90 mm stem..quil as it allows me to adjust the bar height..
It's too bad no brands bother with smaller wheels on their smallest sizes. 584/571BSD wheels would help a lot to get the toe overlap issues in check, and allow for neutral handling. You'd expect the gearing to change slightly to compensate for the smaller diameter, but it's possible.
Very good content, but there are two topics where I cannot fully agree with you, Paul. From my own point of view (being a 173 cm guy, so I consider myself as being short - at least in terms of bike sizing for some brands, haha), the standover height and toe overlap are not that important. That's only my personal opinion of course. With the high standover you can always lean your bike on one side to lower the top tube between your legs (and make it a habit). As for toe overlap - yes, that was a little bit scary when I experienced that for the first time (coming from MTB where it never was a problem, for obvious reasons). But it also can be easily avoided with couple of simple techniques (avoid the front foot to be on the opposite side you are turning into). So, it is again just a matter of making riding habits. Of course, I'd rather not have to deal with these two problems, but let's not make a big deal from that. Peace!
When the rider is light in the upper body a slacker head angle helps to add 'geometric weight' so the front wheel doesn't disappear in the corner. It works quite well across sizes since small bikes are ridden by small women usually and big bikes are ridden by big men with weight in the shoulders and those bikes have steep angles to lighten the steering which they need to compensate for the extra body weight on the bars.
Proper riding position on a road racing bike is with the upper body being supported primarily by the core muscles and not on the arms. Arms only resting lightly on the bars for handling. What you describe is precisely the reason why so many riders get numbness in their hands, shoulder and elbow issues.
@@82vitt I agree that there should be no weight on the hands. The centre of gravity for small women and big men is still in a different place between the wheels, though.
Another great video. Interesting about the stem length, as on a mountain bike, at least on a enduro bike you want a short stem for direct steering. But I guess that won't work as well on a road bike due to the awkward position the rider is in. On a MTB you have the freedom to have direct steering a wide bar, and steer easier. A road bike is a compromise for going fast on the road. I've never tried it. I will likely not buy a road bike.
Toe overlap is not just the preserve of those with small frames... I had a Trek Domane in a 58 (!) and still had overlap problems. Unlike any other bikes I've had. Seems like careless design rather than there being a good reason, but am happy to learn otherwise. Peak Torque had a similar problem not long back IIRC.
I’m building up a Look 765 Gravel RS, Size Small. I wanted something stiff, fast but with more endurance geometry, comfortable and bigger tire clearance. I’m putting a 70mm stem on it, and now you’ve got me second guessing the handling… 😆😒 Damnit.
I dont blame "the industry " for much, but the reduction in available wheel sizes is a real shame for smaller riders. None of these bikes should have 700c wheels.
Historically junior bikes in the past had smaller wheels. I appreciate getting tyres etc is limited, but isn't this the best solution? I think elite rider and ex GCN Emma Pooley experimented with smaller wheel sizes like 650c.
First world problem sizing , for example I’m 171 cm or 5.7 ft and a half just thought I’d get the .5 in , I ride a tarmac sl7 in small , seat height at 695 from centre of bb but have a terrible time with reach , my bike came with 90mm stem and 75mm reach bars , straight away I changed this too 100mm stem but still it was way too short , I’m now at 120mm and somewhat happy . I was in between sizes but wish I went for the 54 instead of the 52 . Short legs and long upper body 🤦♂
My question. How many bike frames out in the world are exactly the same, just with a different brand name on them? SL8 and New Van Rhysel ? Being 2.i can think of.
Really interesting and informative, even though at 178cm it doesn't apply to me. I've come to road from mountain biking, so I always look at reach. But is the top tube measurement actually more relevant for a road rider since you spend more time in the seated position?
Very well explained, thank you! I will think about that in a search for road bike. Because I feel that I am always somewhere between XS and S frame. As others have mentioned, 650b wheels looks more appropriate to smaller frame and people. But the offer of tires and wheels in 650b is way smaller than for 700c😐
My wife is 4’10”. Bike fitting is a nightmare. Ultimately sacrificed the 700c wheels and went for 650B on her road bike. Now the issue is finding good (reasonable price) carbon wheels at the 650b size. Any recommendations?
Something this video didn't touch on is the controls i.e. how do small and tiny hands cope with brake levers and shifters? I remember this was a big problem for me as a child, I could only brake my first road bike with the lever extensions that ran parallel to the tops, and by the time I out grew the bike I still barely able to brake from the drops. Presumably electronic shifters are much easier, but what are the best options if you can't afford electronic? What are the best brakes with shortest reach for tiny hands?
Toe overlap isn't dangerous. Your mind logs it and doesn't do it. Tens of thousands of older bikes do it along with many of us with huge feet that run mid foot (ish). Emma Pooley famously went to 650b, no mention here, perhaps not available from that manufacturer?
Begs the question why 650b/650c/27.5" wheels are not more popular now than ever with the adoption of disc brakes, considering the vast amount of S and XS frames sold in massive markets like China. Surly's been doing it for years on some of their frames, even went down to 26" for the smallest frame sizes.
@@Mapdec if one can hold 90rpm gearing is available plenty now to counteract the wheel difference. If that cadence is not really attainable or it's a casual rider, don't really need to worry about all that math as it wouldn't make a difference anyway. However, the riding experience in both cases would be absolutely spectacular compared to the penny farthings they ride now. What do you mean by fairness?
@@cosinus_square oh. You don’t loose much weight with 650, but you do loose some momentum. You also travel less distance for the same gear, but that gear still needs a similar amount of force to be applied to the pedals. So, a rider on 650 might accelerate faster, but would need a higher power output to maintain the same speed as a similar rider on 700. To achieve the same gear inches, they would need to be in a higher gear, and as you know, those gears are harder to push. You might have experienced this in MTB when your mates got 29er before you.
Good video. My frameset's head tube angle is 72.5° and came with a -6° stem. Could you do a video specifically about the changes in handling if the stem was swapped to a -12° stem and a -17° stem?
brilliant video! beeing a small rider myself I found here all the pittfalls of buying a small frame :) What is your suggestion about swapping cranks from 165mm to 160? I am 5'6'', it was a game changer for me swapping it from 172mm and I have no issues with 165, but was thinking about goins even shorter. Thanks!
I find climbing with slack HT angle on road bikes really obnoxious since the front tends to wander about so much...feels a lot worse to ride than the trade off of twitchy handling on descents.
As an asian rider with no money. I uhhhh bought an 47cm elves falath and im 5’4. Hey im flexible anyways and i dont have money for extremely expensive performance bikes 😂
9:37 bar clamp centre relative to headset bearing is irrelevant to handling. The system only knows the axis, trail and where the rider load is applied.
You can restrict your steering angle a bit like a knock block, or by internal cables, Lots of ‘depends’ to consider. It’s why I didn’t go into too much detail
Very small and very large bikes are a total bodge geometry-wise. Smaller bikes (50cm and below) need smaller wheels. MTB has moved through 3 in pursuit of gains - it’s not hard…
I know this video isn't TIME-specific but I'm wondering: how small a rider will the XS ADHX and ADHX 45 actually fit, given the relatively high standover height? I was told 76cm for the ADHX 45. But I'd love to be proven wrong!
@@Mapdec I have a 75cm inseam and would fit easily over the xs ADH. But am I correct that I would NOT fit over the xs ADHX 45, even though that bike's geometry is otherwise more suited to its purpose? Thanks in advance, great video!
Maybe someone help me with a problem thst I struggle. I live in the Alps and I also do mountain biking and I love the descending on my small Gravel bike Bombtrack Al 2017 (witch is a cross bike and it's nimble, and I like that) The problem that I have with my bombtrack is that around 60/70kmh it's starting to be terifing, I'm guessing a longer bike will help me with that. So for my next bike I'm considering a M size but then what can I do with the reach as my current S bombtrack is almost at the limit on the reach with a 70mm stem. I tried a 60mm stem but it feel very weird because the bike has also a slacker head angle, and a bigger trail. I want a bike that it's can fit my size (165) feel nimble in the corners or on gravel, but also able to hit those speeds on descending in the alps.
Very slack head angle and very short stem is the default configuration on most mountain bikes, so what makes it not scary for those? is it purely the 700mm - 800mm bar width that makes the difference? or is there something else going on with the overall geometry?
Good question. On MTB you will descend standing, with weight further forward and yes, with wider bars. If you have tried climbing on a slack MTB with short stem you will know exactly how hard they are to keep in a straight line.
@@Mapdec Not something I've tried, my MTB was an ancient 90s era model when I had one. Really would love to get something modern (both road and MTB) but it probably won't ever happen at this point.
dare to ask... Loving your content and fell in love with Time and want to custom paint and build an ADH'23. But now it turns out I'm in between sizes... :-( I have some issues with my neck and can not go too long or to low. Size M is on the low side(needing all the spacers) and L is too long (shorter stem: 70/80mm). What to do now?!? wait for the new fluidity or take the gamble with a sub-optimal frame. What wil be the consequence for the ride feel if I have an M with a lot of spacers or a L with a short stem (hitting the bar with my knees while out of the saddle?) hope you have some tips or advice to help me with this dilemma.
thanks for the reply, helps with the decision. But ADHX has the same geometry chart, in which way would it help? Unfortunately live in the Netherlands, otherwise I would have dropped by yesterday...! @@Mapdec
@@rubenkuperus8318 I’ll try and make a YT short with the 2 frames side by side. The ADHX has a longer fork than is compensated for by the head tube. It’s not a massive difference. But if you need to run a lot of spacers on the stearer tube the lower BB and longer WB of the X would help with a more upright position
I'm 4'11 and the biggest problem is stack height. Often times the stack is 20mm-30mm to high. I bought a Trek domane al recently and was surprised that the geometry was almost identical to my tarmac sl8.
the solution is smaller wheels. I don't see a reason why 26" wouldn't work. you'd have to lift the bottom bracket up, but in terms of rolling resistance, there's no difference.
No cool TPU tubes for 650b narrow wheels. Also only Schwalbe and Continental make road tires in that size, no Pirelli, Goodyear and all the rest of the ever growing selection available for 700 wheels, big trade off
I wish i had talked about it now. There are gear issues that make things unfair. with a smaller wheel you travel less distance for the same gear ratio, meaning to travel the same speed you need to pedal faster or push harder, there is also the implication of momentum and acceleration.
XS in Time was 53 top tube. So not that small... It's my frame exactly, and I'm 177 cm, albeit most of it are legs. 80 mm stem and Pro Vibe Aero Pursuit (equivalent of 11 cm stem and normal reach handlebars for me) and that's perfect bike setup in terms of weight balance. It's also good because with my monkey arms on a smaller frame I can have my stem low enough.
Modern carbon bikes are basically cookie cutter, manufacturers, want to keep production limited to 5-7 sizes, and keep the geometry, very similar. All they care about is selling more bikes. Endurance vs race geometry is nonsense proper bicycle geometry depends on the rider’s anatomical needs. The bicycle industry tends to neglect the needs of smaller riders. Most cyclists, need to just get a bike fit by a reputable fitter, and stop trying imitate, professional cyclist, and stop trying to fit yourself.
Agree, standover is impotent especially for X/XS frames. Unfortunately Time does not mention it on there website and it’s although not mentioned in the video. As a potential Time customer I would be highly interested..thanks!
As a shorter rider, I’ve committed to only buying custom frames to get the size and handling I need. If I’m spending a few thousand on a bike, it better fit me like a glove.
Sorry for being late to the game but ...
Unless you are buying a custom frame with 650c front wheel (I've seen custom frame with a 650c front and 700c rear combo !?!?) and something like a 150mm crank your argument doesn't hold water. A custom frame can't solve any of the issues because you are limited by toe overlap created by the front 700c wheel, fork length, head tube minimal height and stem thickness.
Considering how all major manufacturer have for away from the road 650c/tires, it's very limited in terms of the choice. Another solution is 650b wheels for gravel/endurance bike.
A few decades ago, We often recommended building frames for 650c tubulars or clinchers and occasionally a slopping top tube to improve stand over.
Unfortunately, customers weren't ready to accept small wheels, large gap behind the seat tube and definitely not the slopping top tube.
Rider's are more open to change these days and I think manufacturers could test customer response by first offering aluminium bikes with 650c wheels, again.
I'm old enough to remember small bikes had 26 x1.1/14 wheels and medium + had 27 x 1 1/4
for a few months now i've been trying to convert a 571 tt frame from the very late nineties to 622. it's just a silly project, i know. we didn't have any 571 forks, so it was very hard to tell the original geometry. finally i did the calculations. the head angle is 71° and the seat angle is 79°. the top tube is 530 mm long and has -3°, so it's originally a low-pro setup. the best thing we can do is to lift the front a bit, so we can have 69°¸head angle. the problem is that the bb will be very high, comparable to a mountain bike, at 310 mm. so if it doesn't wok, at least we had some fun experimenting there.
In Asia where many people are less than 170cm, Pinarellos are actually popular because of number of available sizes in the smaller spectrum. Most people don’t even have a choice between XS & S (like myself), because S is simply too big. (be it stack too tall or reach too long)
Asians also have very short legs and longer upper body.
Excellent video. One thing not mentioned is 650b wheels. These can get rid of many of the problems you mentioned, however it severely limits your wheel and tyre choice. For example no pirelli, no goodyear, no Vitoria, michelin etc as to most brands 650b is mountain bike only. For me on 650b road I basically have the choice of Gravelling SK or GP500 STR. That is it.
I think Schwalbe also makes road tire in 650b, also in 26 version (junior road bike).
Vittoria and Schwalbe do 650b tires
This was very useful, thanks. As someone who is 170cm with average inseam, it’s amazing how many smalls are actually too tall to standover. I am 26, very flexible and very athletic so I also find I’m limited about how low I can go on a small but then have more toe overlap on a extra smalls ( but from doing cx and mtb, I believe that to be a skill issue but something I still think about)
A few years ago they would fit 650c wheels to small and extra small frames, to overcome some of the problems you have discussed.
Obviously 650 wheels are out of fashion, much like rim brakes..... Don't get me started on that one🙄
Threaded bottom brackets are coming back into fashion, so who knows what else might???😂
this video definitely well addressed the big problem with bike sizes and geometry, well done
I'd like to add that the trail figure on small sized bikes can be altered via fork rake. It's possible to maintain a fairly consistent trail across the sizes by increasing fork rake as the head tube angle slackens in smaller bikes, thereby somewhat preserving handling characteristics. Increasing fork rake tends to move the front wheel away from the rider, which has a similar effect as slackening head tube angle, which further reduces toe overlap issues.
I think the reason why some manufacturers don't do this is simply because of cost: because it's much cheaper to have a single mold for a fork rather than 2 or 3 across the size range, which is a shame, because smaller riders are shortchanged by this. Specialized, Cannondale, BMC, Liv (but not Giant, oddly) and Look are brands that do this off the top of my head.
I do strongly agree that there should be a wider range of crank lengths and bar widths in the market, and that it's only possible to make bikes so small with wheels so big until compromises need to be made.
Others have mentioned 650b wheels, but 650c used to be an option when aero and TT bikes meant getting the front lower. This seems like a more suitable option in terms of size because it's a smaller diameter than 650b, but there are extremely few options to buy, and I'm sure you can't get good tires for 600c even if you can get the wheels.
I think it will take a combined collaborative effort from the biggest bike brands, Giant, Trek, Specialized, Canyon, along with a couple of wheel and tyre partners like Pirelli and Continental to commit to making equivalents of their best low rolling resistance tyres in the 650c size, and wheels that have equivalent wide rims and aero profiles to the 700c versions.
There's so much inclusivity virtue signalling from corporations, but here is is something actually useful they could do, and given low tech nature of bicycles, and the vast size of the market in Asia I'm surprised it's not already been tried to make more accommodations for small riders, but I think it's important that small cyclists are able to access equal equipment with equal marginal gains to average size riders.
Side note to all of this, the UCI could probably help to by overhauling the regulations concerning bike shape and geometry to properly accommodate both small and tall riders - Conor Dunne on GCN mentioned the size 61 and above don't have complete aero profiles because e.g. the seat tube cannot follow the wheel in the largest sizes due to regulations. Maybe the minimum weight limit should be lowered for the small sizes as well.
At least cranks are easy to solve, Appleman and a few others sell cranks that are available in 100mm and 135mm lengths.
I find toe overlap to be a minor problem. It only matters when turning very sharp (and slow therefore). I have a 56 with 175mm cranks, foot size 46 and cleats all the way back, so i was very worried at first, but never had a risky moment.
I have a bit over overlap about 2 cm, still it is annoying, it was not present on my previous gravel bike, but it was too long and a pig at slow speeds, new one is a racy gravel bike and feels much better over all…
I ride smaller frames than industry recommends for my size + cleats pretty far back. Only drawback of the toe overlap is the fact that my crispy white cycling shoes are sometimes marked. Never found it to be a big issue otherwise.
@@super8hell That is actually true. My right shoe gets some marks from starting sometimes, too. Only applies to non-black shoes, though.
@@SrFederico exactly that.
Pedal striking the ground when pedaling through a corner is much more common and dangerous
I'm really pleased you posted this video with these insights, and also simultaneously frustrated and angry about the status quo with small bikes. My PT is 4'11, so she is just about able to find rideable bikes despite the narrow range of choice, but my closest friend is 4'8" (142cm) and it seems to be nigh on impossible :/
It's not just being able to find something fun to ride, there is a lack of good options to just have an independent means of transport because she can't drive either. Her parents got her an e-bike, but she's too scared to ride it because she doesn't feel safe after a bad experience which probably would've been avoided had she had more control.
It really bothers me that the only bikes that would fit are children's bikes, and while I some people would say that is an option so just do that, it's not just insulting and patronising, it's very upsetting. People who are this small are frequently infantilised, mistaken for children, and even fetishised for their size, so the harm to mental health is real.
I really want to see the bike brands make bikes for small adults first, and market them as suitable for children second.
Yeah. I have quite a few customers sharing these problems. EBikes are really not being made in small sizes.
@@Mapdec Hmm... Maybe an American issue? I live in Japan and its full of tiny ebikes.
168cm tall but have a high ape index (long arms and legs - short body). Standover is not a problem but I like a lower top tube so I can move the bike around under me, when standing on the peddles (Giant - mike Burows and compact frame geo, best thing ever). Toe over lap is the problem that I always have to work with, and a light front end - wheel that wants to slide out and dump you on the floor, this comes from I believe the slack seat angles that pull you back away from the middle of the bike. You just have to live with it as being short is always a compromise if you wish to run 700c wheels, I do not like 650b as they just do not roll (feel) as quick.
I'm one of those riders with small bikes, and I will say that I've never seen an xs with a 172 crank on it. For folks with knee issues, that size crank may cause more knee issues if they are not able to get the knee over the pedal axle. I had a ti frame custom built for many years ago, and had a fit before I ordered it. It was indeed the most comfortable bike that I've ever had. I did tweak handlebar and stem over the years, but truly was very fortunate. I also had a couple of other fairly high end road bikes at the time, and although they were indeed comfortable... still nothing was quite the same as the ti bike. As someone who has had 5 knee surgeries, that distance from seat to handlebar and knee to pedal axle were crucial for me, and might not be quite as important as someone else.
I love you channel so much! Thank you for your precise work!
Glad you enjoy it!
Really weird reading that 170 cm tall people complain about bike related problems. I'm 163 cm, and I have to found the hard way that there is nearly no endurance road bike available for me. Nearly. You don't mention it in the video, but smaller wheels (ETRTO 584 mm - 650b) solve pretty much everything according to frame geometry. Sadly, only Canyon takes that seriously. Standover height is no problem at all, by the way, totally irrelevant as they are way below my inseam length (77 cm). As I learned, the most important thing is the top tube effective length, which is around 510 mm in my case.
When I first heard Canyon uses 650B wheels in their 2XS and 3XS road frames (and XS gravel frames), I thought it was a terrible idea. Now that there are enough tire choices in 650B, maybe that idea is not that bad after all!
its good for fitting, but raises gear ratio issues. I should have talked on that matter in hind sight
@@Mapdecit allows for higher gears, so the problem is reduced. Just something to consider
A good example of this is Ridley sizing, I'm 5'8", their website and most people would say Small is my size, but Ridley's geometry are on the larger side, so I discovered Extra Small worked for me and I have playing around with different size stems, from 130 to 110mm where I am now as I grew older.
As a short rider, 5ft 4 inches, I truly appreciate this video. Your attention to detail for us short cyclists is amazing. If I lived in England I would buy my next bike from you.
Thank you
Short cranks don't just alleviate issues with toe overlap, it also means the leg has to extend a little less and that means the seat can be placed higher, so more saddle to bar drop can be achieved.
I'm a 166cm small rider with an inseam height of only 74cm, which had me come to similar conclusions like mentioned in this video. I had to go through quite a few frames until now that I'm actually riding a size XS Time ADH, which is finally a bike that fits me. I'm also running a longer than (for me) usual stem.
Another thing I want to try now is using a 0-offset seatpost, as I'm currently running a 25mm-offset one. I think there are some potential gains, in the power as well as the comfort department.
What crank length did you end up going with? I just purchased some 160mm cranks, hoping for some improvements coming from 170mm cranks.
@@Aspireonthego I'm also running 160mm cranks now.
@@marcbuchel4873 right on, thanks. Stoked to get them swapped on.
Interesting and very well explained. I'm a bit surprised that stand over seems to be such a primary focus in sizing these days. I believe it's always been important for kids bikes and inexperienced/less confident riders but had no clue it was a primary concern for everyone.
Love this video!! I might not buy my first new bike for a few years but your channel has helped me feel more confident in buying the right bike
Thank x alot Paul, exellent explanation... having worked as a bike fitter formally I really can judge and apreciate your great job on every subject you're adressing... only thing I really regret is beeing more than 1200 km away from you and your fantastic bike shop. Looked for your geographic position in UK and our location in the middle of Germany near Frankfurt/M. .....😢 ...sorry that I cannot find any dealer with your knowledge, intention and mindset more near to home...please keep on going that way and thanks again....
Agree, standover is impotent especially for X/XS frames. Unfortunately Time does not mention it on there website and it’s although not mentioned in the video. As a potential Time customer I would be highly interested..thanks!
As usual, great content as you are addressing issues that are very common but no one seems to talk or educate about. Isn't the same true for very large bikes? Affected myself with 1,95m and 96cm inseam. Fitting, Seatpost length, stems, spacers, drop saddle to bar, crank length and how this all affects ride characteristics. What would the the solution? Different wheel sizes and more options and education?
OMG! I'm at 6:00 and he still hasn't mentioned Hambini in this video, love must have wrinkles
Great video. Trying to decide about bike geometry for new custom bike for my wife. There are so many compromises to make and very hard to make final decision without trying to ride many smallest bikes available, so many funky decisions by bike brands in XS and XSS sizes.
She founds that vintage bikes from 70-80s feels the best in terms of handling and cornering at high speeds, but they are little too long for her (minimum top tube lenght on vintage bikes is 51 cm). Some modern stock bikes that she tried feels so weird and they are almost all also too long except Pinarello X.
What an absolutely brilliant and useful piece. Very thought provoking Thank you. I ride a small Defy but am on the borderline with a medium. Did i make the right decision? Intrested in your views on 650 wheels. Keep them coming.
Thank you. There are pros and cons to 650
Very interesting thanks for posting😊 Pete
The XS bike’s slack HTA would have been fine with a fork offset of 55mm. It would have reduced the trail to 58mm using their settings. This is important because Time is being really traditional here and assuming a tire size of 23C. A really slack HTA and high offset do affect wheel flop slightly, but that isn’t a concern unless you’re getting to chopper levels of slackness.
All the handling stuff you are saying are very right.
Very informative video. If you think it's challenging riding a XS frame, I ride a TIME XXS frame 😄 Also, when looking at the reach, keep in mind that the actual reach is also affected by the seat tube angle. The reach is only measured from the head tube along the top to where the imaginary line of the BB intersects it perpendicularly. For example, if you have 2 bikes that have the same reach but different seat tube angle, the bike with the slacker seat tube angle will make you extend more to reach the bars (even though both bikes have the same reach).
Same fork for all sizes - that is the reason for most geometry problems.
Being 160cm I really appreciate you taking the time for such a thorough and compreehnsive insight on this matter. I have been competing for a while now, and I am looking for a new bike. Does anyone have sugestions of brands that take this aspect into consideration? Thank you.
Some good points, but :) 13:00 - a longer front-centre (slacker head angle) and higher trail on an xs bike make the bike more stable, which nicely counter-acts a short stem. This is the idea of progressive/forward geometry bikes such as Santa Cruz Stigmata v4, etc. May feel unfamiliar first, but you adjust and it works. On the contrary, a short front/slacker head & lower trail on an s bike combined with a short stem will make the bike way too twitchy - so it’s hard to agree with your take that that’s better handling-wise
The stigmata is a gravel bike. You would never ride it like a road race bike. Put a short stem on that and ride seated up a hill and you will have to fight the steering to stay in a straight line.
This! As long as wheel flop is not an issue, more trail is indeed needed to counteract the effects of a short stem combined with a narrow(er) handlebar. To achieve this without having toe overlap issues, you need a slack head angle combined with a higher fork offset. So while the video touches really valuable points, in my view, the take on trail and stem lenght was off.
@@Mapdec you are referring to the flop - which is indeed an issue on a very slow uphills (less than 5 km/h or so). As someone who often rides 20+ % grades, both uphill and downhill, on bikes with various geometries, I would prefer being more concentrated on an uphill, risking a sudden stop from 5 km/h, than having to deal with a jittery bike on a 90+ km/h downhill - with all the associated risks of losing control there :)
@@dropbaran now apply that ‘flop’ you describe to a flat fast corner in a peleton of riders. You will need to reduce speed, stay more upright and take a wider turn.
@@Mapdec oh no, the wheel flop is an issue only present at very low speeds. I noticed that you deleted my below comments with the links to my in-depth blog posts on the matter - which I don’t get as that’s just a blog, and I have no agenda there other than share my knowledge that requires more words than what fits into a comment here - but you can still find the blog in my youtube bio and then read the first three posts. Btw, that’s been reviewed, and agreed with, by the head engineer at a prominent bike manufacturer. You may agree or disagree, but it’s always good to explore others’ opinions imo. Peace!
Absolutely blov8jg this content. So informative
Loving😂
Very insightful coverage of the issues for smaller riders.
On one of my old steel bikes (with steel forks) I welded new front drop-outs 25mm further back to increase the trail and make the bike more stable. Actually the words "less unstable" would be a better choice because it was the most evil handling bike I'd ever ridden bar a Raleigh Chopper! I'd swap stability for sharp handling any day of the week.
Yep. I have all the mentioned issues. 😅
The positive angle of your stem gets you the impossible task of finding a negative angle integrated handlebar. My garmin is a bit shy of pointing upwards. Not aero at all. 😢
Darimo?
@@82vitt They don't work with anything but 80s style round bars. How do I know this? I have an expensive paper weight because I didn't check first...
Canyon in fairness fit 650b wheels to their smallest bike for reason
I'm 5'11 with 29in inseam and I rid XXS 44cm frame with 130 mm stem and I've had a a professional fit.
XXS 44cm frames should be fitted with 650b wheels, to reduce toe overlap.
Nearly 6ft riding a 44cm frame wtf 😂
@@archieman123 it looks like a circus performance.
If a competent shop or fitter has chosen that set up for you, please find another shop..in my experience, you should be on a 52 or larger frame.. at times like this, please do not focus entirely on standover height..
Not as silly as it seems considering the inseam. I’m 5’6’’ (1m69) with 30 in (75 cm) inseam, which I think is already relatively small for my size. A size S feels a touch too big, I don’t have enough seatpost sticking out the 50 cm seat tube. If you’re 6 ft but with incredibly short legs and arms, and happen to be incredibly flexible and need to ride with the torso parallel to the ground to be comfortable then this setup makes sense.
@Antoine_Frs I am also 5'6" tall with a slightly shorter inseam 29". My ideal frame is a 50-52 cm with a top tube of 54-55 cm. I find that a bike with a short top tube and a 130 mm rides a bit strange. I have had a few Colnago's, Miyata, Vitus 992, Giant Cadex.. my favorite all-time bike was a Gianni Motta Personal..a great ridding bike..all these bikes are classic parallel top tube bikes.. my current bike is a bespoke steel bike 52cm ST( center to top) and a 56cm TT with a 90 mm stem..quil as it allows me to adjust the bar height..
It's too bad no brands bother with smaller wheels on their smallest sizes. 584/571BSD wheels would help a lot to get the toe overlap issues in check, and allow for neutral handling. You'd expect the gearing to change slightly to compensate for the smaller diameter, but it's possible.
Very good content, but there are two topics where I cannot fully agree with you, Paul. From my own point of view (being a 173 cm guy, so I consider myself as being short - at least in terms of bike sizing for some brands, haha), the standover height and toe overlap are not that important. That's only my personal opinion of course. With the high standover you can always lean your bike on one side to lower the top tube between your legs (and make it a habit). As for toe overlap - yes, that was a little bit scary when I experienced that for the first time (coming from MTB where it never was a problem, for obvious reasons). But it also can be easily avoided with couple of simple techniques (avoid the front foot to be on the opposite side you are turning into). So, it is again just a matter of making riding habits. Of course, I'd rather not have to deal with these two problems, but let's not make a big deal from that. Peace!
When the rider is light in the upper body a slacker head angle helps to add 'geometric weight' so the front wheel doesn't disappear in the corner. It works quite well across sizes since small bikes are ridden by small women usually and big bikes are ridden by big men with weight in the shoulders and those bikes have steep angles to lighten the steering which they need to compensate for the extra body weight on the bars.
Proper riding position on a road racing bike is with the upper body being supported primarily by the core muscles and not on the arms. Arms only resting lightly on the bars for handling. What you describe is precisely the reason why so many riders get numbness in their hands, shoulder and elbow issues.
@@82vitt I agree that there should be no weight on the hands. The centre of gravity for small women and big men is still in a different place between the wheels, though.
Another great video.
Interesting about the stem length, as on a mountain bike, at least on a enduro bike you want a short stem for direct steering.
But I guess that won't work as well on a road bike due to the awkward position the rider is in. On a MTB you have the freedom to have direct steering a wide bar, and steer easier.
A road bike is a compromise for going fast on the road. I've never tried it. I will likely not buy a road bike.
Toe overlap is not just the preserve of those with small frames... I had a Trek Domane in a 58 (!) and still had overlap problems. Unlike any other bikes I've had. Seems like careless design rather than there being a good reason, but am happy to learn otherwise. Peak Torque had a similar problem not long back IIRC.
I’m building up a Look 765 Gravel RS, Size Small. I wanted something stiff, fast but with more endurance geometry, comfortable and bigger tire clearance.
I’m putting a 70mm stem on it, and now you’ve got me second guessing the handling… 😆😒
Damnit.
Don’t worry: a 70 mm stem is more than adequate for that bike
I dont blame "the industry " for much, but the reduction in available wheel sizes is a real shame for smaller riders.
None of these bikes should have 700c wheels.
Interesting, definitely learnt some stuff from this!
Maybe the reintroduction of 650 for road bikes should happen?
Historically junior bikes in the past had smaller wheels. I appreciate getting tyres etc is limited, but isn't this the best solution?
I think elite rider and ex GCN Emma Pooley experimented with smaller wheel sizes like 650c.
What about smaller size wheels? This would allow to better scale down the frame size and keeping the proportions.
If you're 5'5 and under look at the top tube length. look for something around 51 - 51.5.
They do do XS in TCR and Defy. Just not in UK. Here in India its available.
oh interesting.
@@Mapdec not that much smaller tho. TCR Xs has 376 reach. Defy might be around 370 ish...if i remember correctly.
For the really small sizes of Giant bicycles, you need to look at Liv.
First world problem sizing , for example I’m 171 cm or 5.7 ft and a half just thought I’d get the .5 in , I ride a tarmac sl7 in small , seat height at 695 from centre of bb but have a terrible time with reach , my bike came with 90mm stem and 75mm reach bars , straight away I changed this too 100mm stem but still it was way too short , I’m now at 120mm and somewhat happy . I was in between sizes but wish I went for the 54 instead of the 52 . Short legs and long upper body 🤦♂
That’s was really useful thank you 😊
My question. How many bike frames out in the world are exactly the same, just with a different brand name on them? SL8 and New Van Rhysel ? Being 2.i can think of.
for sure there is giant tcr in XS with top tupe lenght around 520mm. TCX is a gravel bike.
Really interesting and informative, even though at 178cm it doesn't apply to me.
I've come to road from mountain biking, so I always look at reach. But is the top tube measurement actually more relevant for a road rider since you spend more time in the seated position?
Very well explained, thank you! I will think about that in a search for road bike. Because I feel that I am always somewhere between XS and S frame. As others have mentioned, 650b wheels looks more appropriate to smaller frame and people. But the offer of tires and wheels in 650b is way smaller than for 700c😐
you need to consider your gears with 650. to go the same speed you will need to pedal harder or faster.
@@Mapdec yeah, good point as always 🙂
how tall are you? I'm 5'4 and use a 51.5 top tube length.
My wife is 4’10”. Bike fitting is a nightmare. Ultimately sacrificed the 700c wheels and went for 650B on her road bike.
Now the issue is finding good (reasonable price) carbon wheels at the 650b size. Any recommendations?
pretty sure you can still get firecrests in 650
The problem is that there are no good road bike tires in 650b :(
She currently has Schwalbe Pro One on the 3x small Canyon with 650b wheels. Not the greatest but better than having a poorly fit bike.
Continental Grand Prix 5000 comes in 650b. A bunch of others as well
@@johnrodgers6049 50 EUR on BF for GP5000 in 650B? Just rip off
Something this video didn't touch on is the controls i.e. how do small and tiny hands cope with brake levers and shifters? I remember this was a big problem for me as a child, I could only brake my first road bike with the lever extensions that ran parallel to the tops, and by the time I out grew the bike I still barely able to brake from the drops.
Presumably electronic shifters are much easier, but what are the best options if you can't afford electronic? What are the best brakes with shortest reach for tiny hands?
This is still a problem in kids bikes. A few brands are trying. The effective and adjustable stuff is on products out of price reach of young riders.
Canyon 3XS has 350 reach. Pearson size 1 has 334 or something.
is that the model with 650 wheels?
@@Mapdec The canyon is. The pearson isnt.
Toe overlap isn't dangerous. Your mind logs it and doesn't do it. Tens of thousands of older bikes do it along with many of us with huge feet that run mid foot (ish). Emma Pooley famously went to 650b, no mention here, perhaps not available from that manufacturer?
I think only Canyon offer it. I can’t find any others.
Begs the question why 650b/650c/27.5" wheels are not more popular now than ever with the adoption of disc brakes, considering the vast amount of S and XS frames sold in massive markets like China. Surly's been doing it for years on some of their frames, even went down to 26" for the smallest frame sizes.
Gear ratios, torque, fairness
@@Mapdec if one can hold 90rpm gearing is available plenty now to counteract the wheel difference. If that cadence is not really attainable or it's a casual rider, don't really need to worry about all that math as it wouldn't make a difference anyway. However, the riding experience in both cases would be absolutely spectacular compared to the penny farthings they ride now. What do you mean by fairness?
@@cosinus_square oh. You don’t loose much weight with 650, but you do loose some momentum. You also travel less distance for the same gear, but that gear still needs a similar amount of force to be applied to the pedals. So, a rider on 650 might accelerate faster, but would need a higher power output to maintain the same speed as a similar rider on 700. To achieve the same gear inches, they would need to be in a higher gear, and as you know, those gears are harder to push. You might have experienced this in MTB when your mates got 29er before you.
I
If you achieve the same gear inches, there's no difference in the gear.. Or have I missed something?
@@peterwillson1355 to achieve the same inches, you need a higher gear, a higher gear requires more torque to turn it.
I saw Ridley has a XXS SL frames the other day...
9:45 I don't see what top bearing height has to do with handlebar height? Those 2 don't seem related at all, or influence handling.
Depends on frame. Often restrictions due to cables or an actual bump stop
Good video.
My frameset's head tube angle is 72.5° and came with a -6° stem. Could you do a video specifically about the changes in handling if the stem was swapped to a -12° stem and a -17° stem?
Just be careful to check how your cables run and any frame interference.
brilliant video! beeing a small rider myself I found here all the pittfalls of buying a small frame :) What is your suggestion about swapping cranks from 165mm to 160? I am 5'6'', it was a game changer for me swapping it from 172mm and I have no issues with 165, but was thinking about goins even shorter. Thanks!
I wouldn’t go out of your way to swap, but for you me next bike or upgrade it’s worth considering.
I find climbing with slack HT angle on road bikes really obnoxious since the front tends to wander about so much...feels a lot worse to ride than the trade off of twitchy handling on descents.
Yes. This can be an issue too.
I am curious what you think about Factor. They are very expensive but we don't know much about their RnD and QC. Thank you.
Marketing company.
As an asian rider with no money. I uhhhh bought an 47cm elves falath and im 5’4. Hey im flexible anyways and i dont have money for extremely expensive performance bikes 😂
EXCELLENT thank you.
You are welcome!
9:37 bar clamp centre relative to headset bearing is irrelevant to handling. The system only knows the axis, trail and where the rider load is applied.
You can restrict your steering angle a bit like a knock block, or by internal cables, Lots of ‘depends’ to consider. It’s why I didn’t go into too much detail
Very small and very large bikes are a total bodge geometry-wise. Smaller bikes (50cm and below) need smaller wheels. MTB has moved through 3 in pursuit of gains - it’s not hard…
All ride 29 nowadays, 27.5 is almost dead.
I know this video isn't TIME-specific but I'm wondering: how small a rider will the XS ADHX and ADHX 45 actually fit, given the relatively high standover height? I was told 76cm for the ADHX 45. But I'd love to be proven wrong!
What do you want to know?
@@Mapdec I have a 75cm inseam and would fit easily over the xs ADH. But am I correct that I would NOT fit over the xs ADHX 45, even though that bike's geometry is otherwise more suited to its purpose? Thanks in advance, great video!
Maybe someone help me with a problem thst I struggle. I live in the Alps and I also do mountain biking and I love the descending on my small Gravel bike Bombtrack Al 2017 (witch is a cross bike and it's nimble, and I like that) The problem that I have with my bombtrack is that around 60/70kmh it's starting to be terifing, I'm guessing a longer bike will help me with that. So for my next bike I'm considering a M size but then what can I do with the reach as my current S bombtrack is almost at the limit on the reach with a 70mm stem. I tried a 60mm stem but it feel very weird because the bike has also a slacker head angle, and a bigger trail. I want a bike that it's can fit my size (165) feel nimble in the corners or on gravel, but also able to hit those speeds on descending in the alps.
Very slack head angle and very short stem is the default configuration on most mountain bikes, so what makes it not scary for those? is it purely the 700mm - 800mm bar width that makes the difference? or is there something else going on with the overall geometry?
Good question. On MTB you will descend standing, with weight further forward and yes, with wider bars. If you have tried climbing on a slack MTB with short stem you will know exactly how hard they are to keep in a straight line.
@@Mapdec Not something I've tried, my MTB was an ancient 90s era model when I had one. Really would love to get something modern (both road and MTB) but it probably won't ever happen at this point.
dare to ask... Loving your content and fell in love with Time and want to custom paint and build an ADH'23. But now it turns out I'm in between sizes... :-( I have some issues with my neck and can not go too long or to low. Size M is on the low side(needing all the spacers) and L is too long (shorter stem: 70/80mm). What to do now?!? wait for the new fluidity or take the gamble with a sub-optimal frame. What wil be the consequence for the ride feel if I have an M with a lot of spacers or a L with a short stem (hitting the bar with my knees while out of the saddle?) hope you have some tips or advice to help me with this dilemma.
Go M. The stearer comes uncut. We can try and make that look ok. Also consider the ADHX. Come and try.
thanks for the reply, helps with the decision. But ADHX has the same geometry chart, in which way would it help? Unfortunately live in the Netherlands, otherwise I would have dropped by yesterday...! @@Mapdec
@@rubenkuperus8318 I’ll try and make a YT short with the 2 frames side by side. The ADHX has a longer fork than is compensated for by the head tube. It’s not a massive difference. But if you need to run a lot of spacers on the stearer tube the lower BB and longer WB of the X would help with a more upright position
43mm fork rake on the size XS is not really acceptable.
I'm 4'11 and the biggest problem is stack height. Often times the stack is 20mm-30mm to high. I bought a Trek domane al recently and was surprised that the geometry was almost identical to my tarmac sl8.
the solution is smaller wheels. I don't see a reason why 26" wouldn't work. you'd have to lift the bottom bracket up, but in terms of rolling resistance, there's no difference.
It’s because a smaller wheel travels less distance for the same gear.
@@Mapdec sure but I don't see many female pelaton riders needing a 60T big ring. or am I thinking wrong?
@@oftankoftan they wouldn’t. It would be a disadvantage. You would need more power. There would also be race support issues
Gear ratios are gear ratios....
Unfortunately the market didn't support 24 inch wheels. The solution to most of these problems.
650B wheels.
00:50 but do you really need to fit 700c wheels? Why not 650b? 26in for xxs?
It might come down to availability of parts. Very few shops carry a variety of 650 tires and tubes due to limited demand.
I'm not sure that's still an issue. Continental and schwalbe both produce good quality 650b tyres. Same for rene herse.
No cool TPU tubes for 650b narrow wheels. Also only Schwalbe and Continental make road tires in that size, no Pirelli, Goodyear and all the rest of the ever growing selection available for 700 wheels, big trade off
I wish i had talked about it now. There are gear issues that make things unfair. with a smaller wheel you travel less distance for the same gear ratio, meaning to travel the same speed you need to pedal faster or push harder, there is also the implication of momentum and acceleration.
But is that an issue for the average rider who will likely have gears spare?
3 mins in the video, but can't stand to ask, wtf they are not using 650b wheels?
There are pros and cons. A few brands have tried over the years. It never really catches on.
You are comparing defy to a tcx cross bike not a tcr.
XS in Time was 53 top tube. So not that small... It's my frame exactly, and I'm 177 cm, albeit most of it are legs. 80 mm stem and Pro Vibe Aero Pursuit (equivalent of 11 cm stem and normal reach handlebars for me) and that's perfect bike setup in terms of weight balance. It's also good because with my monkey arms on a smaller frame I can have my stem low enough.
no its a 51.3 top tube length. I use a 51.5 top tube length and I'm 5'4
@@joed7185 Ahhh, that makes sense. I have a 2018 Scylon, and XS has 53 cm top tube. They came to their senses then :D
There shorter women racers who train on 26" wheels & race on 700c wheels bc of support
TCX != TCR
ruins the (good) point of the whole video :
I think I misspoke TCX once and then referred to the TCR throughout. The chart is the TCR.
@@Mapdec It reads "Giant TCX Advanced Pro 2" on the geo chart
Modern carbon bikes are basically cookie cutter, manufacturers, want to keep production limited to 5-7 sizes, and keep the geometry, very similar. All they care about is selling more bikes. Endurance vs race geometry is nonsense proper bicycle geometry depends on the rider’s anatomical needs. The bicycle industry tends to neglect the needs of smaller riders. Most cyclists, need to just get a bike fit by a reputable fitter, and stop trying imitate, professional cyclist, and stop trying to fit yourself.
Agree, standover is impotent especially for X/XS frames. Unfortunately Time does not mention it on there website and it’s although not mentioned in the video. As a potential Time customer I would be highly interested..thanks!