# KG 486 SL Jalabert!



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 2001)

*KG 481 SL Jalabert!*

Hola! I'm joining the ranks with a 481 SL. Zero miles, need a front derailleur so the first ride will probably be tomorrow.

Has anyone ridden this bike? There is no information anywhere so I've had to rely on the feedback available on the 381.

The frame is absolutely stunning. Craftsmanship and paint is first rate. The shaped carbon tubes are impressive.

The plan is to dump my Colnago CT1 for this bike. The first week of riding should confirm that.

francois


----------



## Dave Hickey (Jan 27, 2002)

francois said:


> Hola! I'm joining the ranks with a 486 SL. Zero miles, need a front derailleur so the first ride will probably be tomorrow.
> 
> Has anyone ridden this bike? There is no information anywhere so I've had to rely on the feedback available on the 381.
> 
> ...


Perfect build........ The 481SL is a beautiful frame. I have the 381 Jalabert. Without a doubt, the best riding bike I've every owned....


----------



## 6was9 (Jan 28, 2004)

*U mean KG481...*



francois said:


> Hola! I'm joining the ranks with a 486 SL.


This would be KG486:


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 2001)

Thanks!! I edited my post.

francois


----------



## orange_julius (Jan 24, 2003)

*Welcome to the club!*

Looking forward to reading a review/comparison with your old CT1!


----------



## spookyload (Jan 30, 2004)

What size is yours? I have the exact same thing hanging on my workstand in mid build in size 53. Same paint job and all. Will post some pics too probably by Sunday when I get a chance to finish it. I am so stoked to get it on the road.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 2001)

orange_julius said:


> Looking forward to reading a review/comparison with your old CT1!


Here's a quick preview... the 486 SL frame in size 51 is virtually identical in size to my CT1 in 53cm.

Some other specs:

Frame Weight: 3.08 lbs or 1398 grams
Fork Weight: 327 grams
Seatpost: 191 grams

francois


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 2001)

spookyload said:


> What size is yours? I have the exact same thing hanging on my workstand in mid build in size 53. Same paint job and all. Will post some pics too probably by Sunday when I get a chance to finish it. I am so stoked to get it on the road.


51 cm. I'm 5'8 with 30 inseam. You?

This frame has the same top tube length as my 53 cm. Colnago.

francois


----------



## spookyload (Jan 30, 2004)

I am 5'9" with a 31" inseam. The top tube length of 54.5 was the deciding factor for me. I have a very short torso and was more concerned with getting the right top tube length than seat tube length as I use a Cinelli RAM and can't change the stem length with ease. I am currently on a Kestrel with a 54.5 top tube. I have never understood why they don't measure frames by the top tubes. Who cares where the seatpost is as long as the top tube measurement is right.


----------



## orange_julius (Jan 24, 2003)

*More than just top tube length*



spookyload said:


> I am 5'9" with a 31" inseam. The top tube length of 54.5 was the deciding factor for me. I have a very short torso and was more concerned with getting the right top tube length than seat tube length as I use a Cinelli RAM and can't change the stem length with ease. I am currently on a Kestrel with a 54.5 top tube. I have never understood why they don't measure frames by the top tubes. Who cares where the seatpost is as long as the top tube measurement is right.


Most bike fitting systems start with making sure that you have the correct knee-over-pedal position. If you have steeper STA, chances are that you will have to push your saddle further back or use a seatpost with setback to get it right. Once you do so, your reach will change, compared to if you had a bike with a laid back geometry. Add to this the fact that the height of your stem also changes your reach, irregardless of your top tube length. I wondered about this out loud a while back and I think now that the seat tube length is the quantity that is less effected by design parameters such as STA and HTA.... 

I have a LOOK with a 72' STA and now a Cyfac with a 73.5 STA, and despite the different in top tube length (the Cyfac has shorter top tube), the adjustment necessary to get the knee-over-pedal position correct basically nullified this difference. I had expected needing a longer stem but that is now not necessary. 

I don't know what Kestrel you have but is the STA the same as with your LOOK?


----------



## spookyload (Jan 30, 2004)

No, The STA on the Kestrel is 74, on the look it is 72.5. I have the seat back as far as it would go on the Kestrel, so the relaxed angle will help on the look frame.


----------

