# Question about geometry of a 2003 Felt F50



## sgalante (May 5, 2009)

Hopefully someone here (maybe SuperDave) can answer this question. Several years ago, I rode what I believe was a 2003 Felt F50 bike. It was a brand new at the shop that no longer carries Felt brand bikes. It was such a great bike, Kinesis Frame, pretty much fully equipped with Ultegra triple parts. What I am wondering, is if someone has the specifics on the frame geometry for that bike in a 52cm frame. I absolutely loved the ride of that bike, and can kick myself for not ordering either that or the F35R model above it. That's my problem, always waiting for when I had a little more money. Now 7 years later, I would like to buy the closest thing I can to that bike. I know most of it was fit, but I just loved the way that bike handled. Now that I'm 50, I'd like something with a compact crank. I'd consider a Carbon frame also.

In effect, I'm asking was the geometry back on that bike, closer to an F or a Z dimensionally? Which current bike geometry wise is the closest? I now have a Felt dealer I really like here in Rochester, NY.

Here is a picture if that helps (not sure of the size in the picture)

View attachment 204117


Thanks in advance for your help.

Steve


----------



## Superdave3T (May 11, 2009)

sgalante said:


> Hopefully someone here (maybe SuperDave) can answer this question. Several years ago, I rode what I believe was a 2003 Felt F50 bike. It was a brand new at the shop that no longer carries Felt brand bikes. It was such a great bike, Kinesis Frame, pretty much fully equipped with Ultegra triple parts. What I am wondering, is if someone has the specifics on the frame geometry for that bike in a 52cm frame. I absolutely loved the ride of that bike, and can kick myself for not ordering either that or the F35R model above it. That's my problem, always waiting for when I had a little more money. Now 7 years later, I would like to buy the closest thing I can to that bike. I know most of it was fit, but I just loved the way that bike handled. Now that I'm 50, I'd like something with a compact crank. I'd consider a Carbon frame also.
> 
> In effect, I'm asking was the geometry back on that bike, closer to an F or a Z dimensionally? Which current bike geometry wise is the closest? I now have a Felt dealer I really like here in Rochester, NY.
> 
> ...



What size did you ride? Some of the sizes have changed quite a bit, others are nearly identical to the original "FELT" geometry. You'll almost certainly be on a F-series or AR series bike as they are the most similar, depending on size.

The last Ultegra triple equipped bike we made was the 2010 F75 T sold in some mountainous regions/countries of the world like Austria, Switzerland, Italy, etc...
The F75 T with Ultegra triple wasn't sold in the USA. We currently sell the "FA" frame that you could build with your own choice of components, or opt for the F75, a Kinesis made carbon/alloy frame with full carbon fork and Shimano's latest 10 speed drivetrain featuring 105 shift/ders. There are carbon options of course as well, but the F75 is the closest in price and ride quality to the old F50.

-SD


----------



## sgalante (May 5, 2009)

SuperDave, 
It was a 52cm. Do you happen to have the full geometry chart for those bikes, similar to the ones that are on the website? Like the one below. I'd just like to be compare all the numbers from the standard 2003 bikes.

View attachment 204174


As I said, I'm not really as concerned with the having a Shimano Ultegra triple anymore, nor am I as price conscious. I am actually thinking about going with a SRAM Red or Force compact setup, so if it works out that the FA or even F frames are the closest in geometry, I may just end buying an F3 or AR4 and change out the cranks. Possibly just build up an FA frame. 


Thank you.


----------



## Amfoto1 (Feb 16, 2010)

The Sram groups you are considering are super, IMO. 

I've been using a 2009 Force with compact crankset (50/34), which with the right cassette will give you close to the range of a full size triple, with a whole lot less weight. 

I'd probably buy Force before Red again, I just think there's simply not enough difference and in some ways Force seems better to me... I just see very little add'l weight savings or quality increase going to Red. In fact, some Force bits are actually lighter and the front der might even give a little better shifts (Note: the Red FD may be improved for 2010... I don't really know). 

Actually the best value of all is probably the Rival with the carbon levers. 

Some known "issues"...

I've seen a few problems with the carbon cranks... Sometimes a misalignment, other times the spindle coming loose from the spider. Not a common problem, but enough to warrant checking and watching out for. 

Sram uses a unique EXO bottom bracket. AFAIK, they are the only manufacturer with two different internal diameter bearings (i.e., two different diameters on the spindle, side to side). Not a big deal though because BBs including some aftermarket/upgrades, are widely available for Sram. Pretty much all other manufacturers' EXO type BB are interchangeable, though, I think. 

The Sram front der takes a little more fiddling than most to get set up. Not a big deal. Once it's set up, it works great. 

Some might tell you that the Sram cassettes and chains are noisier shifting. I don't find that to be true once everything is in adjustment, then well and properly lubed. (Am using Chain-L these days.) I've got 1070 cassettes and 1090R chains on two bikes right now, the one already mentioned and another which is otherwise running compact Ultegra 6600 (except for Sram chainrings).

You will see both OG and PG cassettes for Sram. One stands for "Power Glide", the other for "Open Glide". I'm not sure which is older and really haven't been able to tell any difference. 

None of these things are big enough "issues" to keep me from going with Sram again. In fact, some are really non-issues that I mention because you might read or hear about them when shopping. I think Sram is great stuff overall, and have been glad to see the other two biggest manufacturers having to step up their game to answer the additional competition. If building up a bike bit by bit, I might choose a different crankset, but I'm using a 2009 Force crank right now without any problems... and all the other bits are excellent.


----------



## sgalante (May 5, 2009)

*SuperDave - Did you happen to find the 52cm geometry*

SuperDave,

I know you are busy, but did you happen to find the geometry specs for that 2003 F50 in the 52cm size. Just want to make sure before I order my 2011, when they become available here in Rochester, NY.

Thank you in advance.

Steve


----------



## Superdave3T (May 11, 2009)

sgalante said:


> SuperDave,
> 
> I know you are busy, but did you happen to find the geometry specs for that 2003 F50 in the 52cm size. Just want to make sure before I order my 2011, when they become available here in Rochester, NY.
> 
> ...


Steve,


Sorry for the delay. The new 2011 bikes will not have an identical geometry or fit:

2003 Alloy F50:	52cm ************reach 400 ******stack 517	
54cm ************reach 398 ******stack 526	

2011 Alloy F: 51cm reach 379 stack 523	
54cm reach 386 stack 536	
2011 Carbon F: 51cm reach 381 stack 514	
54cm reach 389 stack 526	

If the 52cm was your preferred fit, I'd suggest the new 54cm size. I think you'll find the new shape handlebars and hoods to modify your placement in the cockpit +/-1cm depending on equipment.


----------



## sgalante (May 5, 2009)

SuperDave,

I am really not sure what stack and reach are or how they relate to the normal dimensions I see in the charts like I showed above from the current website. I am more used to looking at the angles, and top tube length and such. Hopefully, I can either figure what those numbers you gave me equate to, or find an old copy of the catalog (unfortunately, the current Felt dealer in town wasn't a dealer that far back, the one that was, is no longer a Felt dealer.)

Thank you,

Steve


----------

