# 481SL vs. 585 sizing question



## jimbonnet (May 9, 2005)

Considering trading up from 481sl to 585. I currently ride a 57cm 2004 481sl with 110 stem and not much seatpost showing. For those familiar with the ergopost2 its at number 2. Bike was fit and it rides well, I like the sizing. Ive never ridden a sloping top tube frame. Im considering the size Large 585. The top tube is shorter than the 481, but a setback post would fix this. On the other hand, the XL frame measures alot like the 481SL. I assume the XL frame is for a much larger guy. Thoughts?

I am 5'11.5" btw.

Cheers guys-
Jim


----------



## peterpen (May 5, 2004)

Really need more info - are you running any spacers under your stem? which setting is your Ergopost clamp in (ie, is your saddle forward, middle, or back?) 

The XL 585 matches the 57 481sl pretty closely - and it isn't compact geometry. (Look uses a shifting slope so small sizes have more TT slope and the XL has none.) But, due to the steeper STA, the effective TT length of the L 585 might be a closer match. A lot depends on how set you are in your position and whether you are at any extremes (ie, you must have the 17.5cm HT of the XL because you already run 3cm spacers under your stem, etc. etc.) Also consider that with the slacker (73 v. 74) HT of the 585, you might want a smaller frame with a shorter wheelbase to compensate somewhat for the increased trail.

Decisions, decisions! Do a RBR search for some posts on STA re: effective TT length by C-40 (guy is a bit of a pedant but appears to know his stuff - and he turned me on to Looks in the first place - thx C-40!) Then compare the geometry tables side by side, look at your current set up and decide what can/ can't change. 

Of course you should try and demo one (Veltec is doing another round of demo days http://veltecsports.com/look_555-585.htm) but they may not have both sizes and chances are the setup won't be identical to yours. FWIW, I rode a 53 cm 481SL for a month (loved it!) and now am on a 51cm 585 - I love it even more.


----------



## jimbonnet (May 9, 2005)

peterpen said:


> Really need more info - are you running any spacers under your stem? which setting is your Ergopost clamp in (ie, is your saddle forward, middle, or back?)
> 
> The XL 585 matches the 57 481sl pretty closely - and it isn't compact geometry. (Look uses a shifting slope so small sizes have more TT slope and the XL has none.) But, due to the steeper STA, the effective TT length of the L 585 might be a closer match. A lot depends on how set you are in your position and whether you are at any extremes (ie, you must have the 17.5cm HT of the XL because you already run 3cm spacers under your stem, etc. etc.) Also consider that with the slacker (73 v. 74) HT of the 585, you might want a smaller frame with a shorter wheelbase to compensate somewhat for the increased trail.
> 
> ...



My ErgoPost was in the middle position, I was running 2cm of spacers under the stem but was prepared to take out one one the .5cm spacers and cut the fork before the frame needed to be replaced. I dont think I was running at extremes but a smaller frame might suit me better.. I got the frame at wrench science and put a call to them for assistance. I'm taking the frame to veltec today and I'll ask them as well what they think.

Thanks for your response, I'll look for the posts you refer to.

Cheers-
Jim


----------



## C-40 (Feb 4, 2004)

*The XL....*

The head tube length would be better, since it's 5mm taller than a 57cm 481. The TT length of the 585 is 6mm longer, after compensating for the slightly steeper seat tube angle. If you already use a short stem, then this frame may require an even shorter stem.

The XL or a 57cm really seems too large for someone of your height, unless you have very long legs and a short torso.

It's better to select a smaller frame and use a longer stem with more rise to get the handlebars up to height. Also if you're not riding competitively and have more of a recreational fit on your bike, the 585 is a big waste of money. The 461 would be more appropriate.


----------



## jimbonnet (May 9, 2005)

C-40 said:


> The head tube length would be better, since it's 5mm taller than a 57cm 481. The TT length of the 585 is 6mm longer, after compensating for the slightly steeper seat tube angle. If you already use a short stem, then this frame may require an even shorter stem.
> 
> The XL or a 57cm really seems too large for someone of your height, unless you have very long legs and a short torso.
> 
> It's better to select a smaller frame and use a longer stem with more rise to get the handlebars up to height. Also if you're not riding competitively and have more of a recreational fit on your bike, the 585 is a big waste of money. The 461 would be more appropriate.


Thanks for your input.On the 481sl I was running a 110 ITM stem. I do have fairly long legs so that is why Wrench Science set me up on the 57cm 481sl to begin with. I think the bike fit pretty well and was comfy on long rides and during races.

I called WS and made a special trip to veltec to discuss fitting on the 585. Veltec and WS suggested the 57cm 585 due to its top tube length being close to the 481, among other things like head tube length on the 585. I just sent another email to veltec asking more questions about fitment. I was set on the XL, but will see what they say. I suppose if I get the large then I'll need to get a longer stem as the 56 top tube is shorter than the 57 toptube on the 481sl. Or does the angle change negate the need for a longer stem?

I agree with you that I dont want to get something to large. I am concerned that the headtube on the large bike is way shorter than the XL. I dont want to have to run 40mm of spacers up there to get setup correctly. 


take care
-jim


----------



## C-40 (Feb 4, 2004)

*the fit difference...*

If you're using an 80 degree ITM stem, then it's no wonder you need a lot of spacer. If the stem is an 80 degree with a 3.5cm steering clamp height, it will position the bars more than 1cm lower than a common 84 degree stem. To get the handlebars up to the same height as the 481 with 1.5cm of spacer and the ITM stem, all you need is an 84 degree stem with 2cm of spacer on the size large frame. Alternately, you could use a one size longer, flipped 84 (96 degree) with no spacers, or a 90 degree with 1cm of spacer.

Although the TT of the size L is 1cm shorter, the reach is NOT 1cm less. Since the STA is a steeper 73.75 degrees, the difference is only 3mm, once the saddle is moved back 7mm to the same position, relative to the BB. Just by moving the saddle back 3mm (relative to the BB), the size L would have the same reach as the size XL.


----------



## jimbonnet (May 9, 2005)

C-40 said:


> If you're using an 80 degree ITM stem, then it's no wonder you need a lot of spacer. If the stem is an 80 degree with a 3.5cm steering clamp height, it will position the bars more than 1cm lower than a common 84 degree stem. To get the handlebars up to the same height as the 481 with 1.5cm of spacer and the ITM stem, all you need is an 84 degree stem with 2cm of spacer on the size large frame. Alternately, you could use a one size longer, flipped 84 (96 degree) with no spacers, or a 90 degree with 1cm of spacer.
> 
> Although the TT of the size L is 1cm shorter, the reach is NOT 1cm less. Since the STA is a steeper 73.75 degrees, the difference is only 3mm, once the saddle is moved back 7mm to the same position, relative to the BB. Just by moving the saddle back 3mm (relative to the BB), the size L would have the same reach as the size XL.


This specifically is the ITM SuperOver 80* 110 length stem. I was running 30mm of spacers on the 481SL. I could have taken out 10-15mm and still been comfy Im sure. I just didnt want to get off my bike to have the spacers removed and the fork cut 

Veltec has come back today after the questions I posed this morning and does also reccomend the Large as you do... I think there was a misunderstanding that I wanted to use my existing stem and just bolt my parts to the 585. So the XL was picked because it more closely matched the 418sl.

Im going to go with the large and try to find an 84* stem as you specified above, then play with the spacers.

Jim


----------



## C-40 (Feb 4, 2004)

*bar height...*

A couple of things to keep in mind when making adjustments to bar height. Don't make too big of a change at one time and keep in mind that lower the bars by 1.5cm also moves the bars forward by almost 5mm. When the arms are at a 45 degree angle, lowering the bars has a similar effect on torso angle as lengthening the stem by an equal amount.

I've been experimenting with changes in reach and bar height this year, after many years with the same height. I lowered mine 5mm and increased the reach by 5mm, for an effect similar to using a 10mm longer stem. I tried another 5mm lower and felt fatigued after a 50 mile ride and uncomfortable in the drops on a mountain descent. I got low enough that looking up on the descent strained my neck a bit. I'll ride the less extreme position for at least another month before trying anything lower again.


----------



## jimbonnet (May 9, 2005)

C-40 said:


> A couple of things to keep in mind when making adjustments to bar height. Don't make too big of a change at one time and keep in mind that lower the bars by 1.5cm also moves the bars forward by almost 5mm. When the arms are at a 45 degree angle, lowering the bars has a similar effect on torso angle as lengthening the stem by an equal amount.
> 
> I've been experimenting with changes in reach and bar height this year, after many years with the same height. I lowered mine 5mm and increased the reach by 5mm, for an effect similar to using a 10mm longer stem. I tried another 5mm lower and felt fatigued after a 50 mile ride and uncomfortable in the drops on a mountain descent. I got low enough that looking up on the descent strained my neck a bit. I'll ride the less extreme position for at least another month before trying anything lower again.


Thanks for you help again. I ended up ordering the Large size frame. I can not find stems in 84* however, looked at easton, deda, itm as those would be the brands I'd go with. deda is 82,easton and itm are 80. I'll keep looking.

thanks again-
Jim


----------



## ipaul (Feb 16, 2004)

*Ritchey*

Look at the Ritchey stems, such as the Comp. Most are 84 (-6) degree, however they do have a 73 so be careful.


----------



## C-40 (Feb 4, 2004)

*not looking...*

Nearly all Ritchey, Easton, FSA and Syntace stems are 84 (-6) degree.

http://www.ritcheylogic.com/stems.htm

http://www.eastonbike.com/COMPONENTS/stem.road.ea70 forged.html

http://www.coloradocyclist.com/comm...FNBR=621&CRPCGNBR=621&TextMode=0&CI=1,225,501


----------



## jimbonnet (May 9, 2005)

C-40 said:


> Nearly all Ritchey, Easton, FSA and Syntace stems are 84 (-6) degree.
> 
> http://www.ritcheylogic.com/stems.htm
> 
> ...


Was looking at carbon stems and didnt notice the aluminum stems were in the 84* range. Thanks. Im going to go ahead and try my itm stem and bar before plunking down even more cash for a new setup.

Cheers-
Jim


----------



## jimbonnet (May 9, 2005)

Ended up getting the Large frame. Running the same stem 110 itm with a setback selcof post seat pretty neutral on the rails, 2cm of spacers. bike feels pretty close to the 481. Am going to research a different stem(less drop)and lose the spacers eventually.

thanks for the help.
jim


----------

