# Mark Cavendish downsizes his bike



## upstateSC-rider

The Manx Missile downsizes in search of more speed 



> Cavendish has moved from last year's 52cm frame to a 49cm one – the smallest size that Specialized offers despite standing at a decidedly average 1.75m (5ft 8in).


I'm just under 5'8" and one of my bikes is a 55cm and one a 54cm. 

I realize the smaller bike will have a lower stack height, as mentioned in the article, and stiffer, but crikey!!!!
Can't see how his knees won't hit the bars but more power to him.


----------



## Peter P.

I predict he will win fewer sprints this year due to an improperly fitting bike. Besides, Marcel Kittel is already muscling in on Mark's domain.

Just because Mark's fast it doesn't mean he's smart.


----------



## jlandry

He'll look like a bike-riding bear in a Russian circus.


----------



## woodys737

Noticed the saddle height BB-ct was 680mm. Does ct=center top of saddle because 680mm doesn't seem close. He's also riding 170mm cranks...


----------



## looigi

Peter P. said:


> ...Just because Mark's fast it doesn't mean he's smart.


He's a genius. At least he has said his IQ tested at the genius level. Of course geniuses don't always do what smart.

He can still have the identical fit (relative position of the crank, saddle and bars) on the smaller frame.


----------



## 55x11

looigi said:


> He's a genius. At least he has said his IQ tested at the genius level. Of course geniuses don't always do what smart.
> 
> He can still have the identical fit (relative position of the crank, saddle and bars) on the smaller frame.


yes, precisely, just more seat post exposed. Actually, 49 vs. 52 is only 19mm difference in horizontal top tube length, not 3 cm as one would assume from labeling. Interestingly, he keeps the same 120mm stem, but head tube is 20mm shorter on 49cm - perhaps the most important difference, geometry-wise. He is also going with 42cm handlebars instead of 44cm he used in the past. I think he is tweaking his position to be even more aero, against bigger sprinters.

But it also goes to show that the frame size is not as critical as many people think - you can achieve virtually identical positions with frames that nominally differ by 2-3cm or even sometimes more. Just compensate by stem size, seat post length, saddle and bar positions. For most of us the fitting margins are far less strict than for someone like Cav.


----------



## bikingmeditation

upstateSC-rider said:


> The Manx Missile downsizes in search of more speed
> 
> 
> 
> I'm just under 5'8" and one of my bikes is a 55cm and one a 54cm.
> .


What's your inseam? 55 seems big for someone your height. (Assuming a similar measurement to a 54-56 Venge)


----------



## The Human G-Nome

Something tells me this wasn't just some thought that popped in Cav's head, but rather a coach or fitter who knew what the hell he was talking about because he's probably paid to service and advise Quick Step. But never mind.. I forgot we were on RBR, where only experts post their expert advice. Someone like Cav with his limited experience and resources can't possibly know what the hell he's doing.


----------



## DZfan14

I predict that you will see more and more riders downsizing.


----------



## myhui

DZfan14 said:


> I predict that you will see more and more riders downsizing.


I am the same height as Cav, and I have been told right here on RBR that the 54cm frame I am riding is too small for me.


----------



## foto

55x11 said:


> yes, precisely, just more seat post exposed. Actually, 49 vs. 52 is only 19mm difference in horizontal top tube length, not 3 cm as one would assume from labeling. Interestingly, he keeps the same 120mm stem, but head tube is 20mm shorter on 49cm - perhaps the most important difference, geometry-wise. He is also going with 42cm handlebars instead of 44cm he used in the past. I think he is tweaking his position to be even more aero, against bigger sprinters.
> 
> But it also goes to show that the frame size is not as critical as many people think - you can achieve virtually identical positions with frames that nominally differ by 2-3cm or even sometimes more. Just compensate by stem size, seat post length, saddle and bar positions. For most of us the fitting margins are far less strict than for someone like Cav.


What you don't get on a fit-kit is wheelbase and cornering manners. Riding position is only part of the equation of a comfortable, well performing bike.


----------



## foto

jlandry said:


> He look like bike-riding bear in Russian circus.


fify.


----------



## expatbrit

myhui said:


> I am the same height as Cav, and I have been told right here on RBR that the 54cm frame I am riding is too small for me.


Are you as flexible, with similar saddle to bar drop? Same proportions? Same manufacturer sizing?

I'm 6'7 and on a 56cm, as fitted by the LBS. I don't feel cramped up, and the bars obscure the front hub on the hoods. 130mm stem, and saddle not even slammed back.

Mind you, it's a Ridley, so sized ... differently.


----------



## Dunbar

When he was with Sky I think he was riding a 50cm Dogma so a 49cm Venge makes perfect sense. He's got short legs after all and pros normally size down at least one frame size for a more "aero" position.

I'm 5'9" with a 32" cycling inseam and there's no way a typical 54cm frame could be described as too small for me.


----------



## jmorgan

On Bicycles, and.... what else is there?: Mark Cavendish bike fit: 2011 vs 2014

Have a look at this.

In summary, his position is the same, but the smaller bike has more trail which should make it handle better.


----------



## cda 455

O.K. Dumb question:

Since pro-tour bikes have to be a minimum weight; what is he trying to accomplish?


An even more stiffer bike with a smaller front triangle?


----------



## foto

cda 455 said:


> O.K. Dumb question:
> 
> Since pro-tour bikes have to be a minimum weight; what is he trying to accomplish?
> 
> 
> An even more stiffer bike with a smaller front triangle?


He's trying to beat Kittel.


----------



## Cinelli 82220

Dunbar said:


> When he was with Sky I think he was riding a 50cm Dogma


46.5 sloping with 120mm stem


----------



## cda 455

foto said:


> He's trying to beat Kittel.


O.K. Maybe I should have been more specific.

To achieve the intended goal; What is Cav trying to accomplish by going to an even smaller frame?


Since all pro-peleton bikes have a minimum weight requirement, reducing weight is probably not it.

Create a much stiffer frame via much smaller front triangle, perhaps?

Reduce drag by creating a smaller rider set-up via smaller frontal area?


----------



## Cinelli 82220

cda 455 said:


> Reduce drag by creating a smaller rider set-up via smaller frontal area?


His goal is to reduce his frontal area and become faster. He has always worked on this since his early days at the BCF cycling academy as a teenager.
Second goal is to make it harder for others to draft him.


----------



## cda 455

Cinelli 82220 said:


> His goal is to reduce his frontal area and become faster. He has always worked on this since his early days at the BCF cycling academy as a teenager.
> Second goal is to make it harder for others to draft him.


Ah; O.K.


Regarding drafting: Because he'll be a smaller object to draft behind making it basically a wasted effort?


----------



## Guest

I guess he knows what he is doing.


----------



## looigi

cda 455 said:


> ... Because he'll be a smaller object to draft behind making it basically a wasted effort?


Not wasted. Just a bit less beneficial. However, since his position on the bike is unchanged, the aero difference between the two sizes will be minute and the reduction in slipstream will be totally inconsequential, IMO.


----------



## ozzybmx

cda 455 said:


> what is he trying to accomplish?


Trying to punch the smallest hole through the biggest factor.


----------



## aclinjury

ozzybmx said:


> Trying to punch the smallest hole through the biggest factor.


this sounds a bit naughty


----------



## aclinjury

Some of you guys must have gorilla length backs!

I'm 5'7" and my effective top tube is 50.5 cm - 51 cm (using 100 mm stem).

Cavendish at 5'8" riding a 51.8 cm effective top tube with a 120 mm stem sounds fine to me.

OP,
man you're 5'8" and riding a 54cm - 55 cm?? Your back must be snake like! I can't even reach a 55cm top tube!


----------



## cda 455

aclinjury said:


> Some of you guys must have gorilla length backs!
> 
> I'm 5'7" and my effective top tube is 50.5 cm - 51 cm (using 100 mm stem).
> 
> Cavendish at 5'8" riding a 51.8 cm effective top tube with a 120 mm stem sounds fine to me.
> 
> OP,
> man you're 5'8" and riding a 54cm - 55 cm?? Your back must be snake like! I can't even reach a 55cm top tube!


I'm 6'-1" 


But my torso is long enough to reach a 64cm TT with a 110mm stem.

My frame size preference is 60cm to 64cm depending on the geometry.


----------



## Rashadabd

aclinjury said:


> Some of you guys must have gorilla length backs!
> 
> I'm 5'7" and my effective top tube is 50.5 cm - 51 cm (using 100 mm stem).
> 
> Cavendish at 5'8" riding a 51.8 cm effective top tube with a 120 mm stem sounds fine to me.
> 
> OP,
> man you're 5'8" and riding a 54cm - 55 cm?? Your back must be snake like! I can't even reach a 55cm top tube!


Ditto…. It would be interesting to see your fit. I am 5'6.5" and I have always been (correctly) fit on a size 51cm, 52cm, or size small or x-small bike depending on the manufacturer. I guess a guy at a shop did tell me recently that he thinks I will be a size 53 on a Bianchi Infinito CV, but I feel pretty confident he is wrong and that I will be a 50cm once we have a fit session. My first bike was a size 54cm Felt F Series and I loved the bike, but there was a lot of pain involved in our relationship. If it works though….


----------



## upstateSC-rider

aclinjury said:


> OP,
> man you're 5'8" and riding a 54cm - 55 cm?? Your back must be snake like! I can't even reach a 55cm top tube!


My inseam is 28" so my upper torso is on the long side, but more important than frame size is effective top tube length. I feel great on bikes with one about 54 cm or slightly longer.
But enough about me, this is about Cav and the err of his ways.


----------



## expatbrit

Brits don't err. They merely demonstrate eccentricity.


----------



## cda 455

woodys737 said:


> Noticed the saddle height BB-ct was 680mm. Does ct=center top of saddle because 680mm doesn't seem close. He's also riding 170mm cranks...


I wonder how Cav would do using 175mm cranks in a sprint?


From the time I was a little kid (6 Y.O.; 1971) growing up until about 3 years ago I used 175mm crank arms.

I started experimenting with crank length. First I rode with 170mm crank arms for about a year. It felt like a child's little tricycle cranks. I then mounted 180mm BMX crankset on my commuter bike. Man, that mere 5mm difference feels like 20mm! The leverage gained while mashing up a climb was/is very real! Daily commutes with them elevated my ride to a whole new level. A down side I found with said 180mm cranks is that after 3 hours I started feeling every revolution of the crank arms thereafter. By the last hour of the 6 hour ride, those 180mm crank arms felt like 250mm crank arms and I felt _every-single-crank arm-revolution_.

My next crank arm experiment will be with 172.5mm crank arms on 5 to 6 hour rides. Hoping that it won't feel like tricycle cranks yet by being shorter than my usual 175mm cranks I might benefit via more efficient energy use thereby maybe increasing my overall speed by 1 to 3MPH. We'll see.


----------



## myhui

Is this new, smaller frame Cav will be riding matched with 650c wheels instead of 700c wheels? With the smaller wheels, there is more room to make the frame stiffer via a longer head tube and shorter chain stays. The major compromise in geometry for a smaller frame with big 700c wheels is a head tube that is too short. Since Cav is a sprinter, using 650c wheels will improve performance since the moment of inertia is smaller for a smaller wheel.


----------



## Retro Grouch

Cav's bike frame is shrinking along with his wins.


----------



## 32and3cross

myhui said:


> Is this new, smaller frame Cav will be riding matched with 650c wheels instead of 700c wheels? With the smaller wheels, there is more room to make the frame stiffer via a longer head tube and shorter chain stays. The major compromise in geometry for a smaller frame with big 700c wheels is a head tube that is too short. Since Cav is a sprinter, using 650c wheels will improve performance since the moment of inertia is smaller for a smaller wheel.


No...


----------



## 32and3cross

Retro Grouch said:


> Cav's bike frame is shrinking along with his wins.


If your referring to yesterdays stage its pretty clear that Cav was leading Boonen out.


----------



## weltyed

aclinjury and i are about the same it seems. i am 5'7.5". i have a 52cm "classic geometry" frame and a 48cm ST / 50cm TT bike. the smaller bike, by design, is faster, but i am set up on it where i feel i can ride all day. problem is i DO look like a circus bear. the hair doesnt help. i am looking at throwing a leg over a few 52 and 54 bikes to see how those feel.

aside from gorilla proportions, what cav needs to be award of is toe overlap. that is my biggest issue with eth smaller bike. i know its not a big thing once you are actually riding, but before the stage, jra, he could trip on his front wheel. same after a race. some of those finish lines have little space for decelleration.


----------



## orange_julius

Sounds like he needs a custom geometry to get exactly what he wants. 

If I recall correctly, Pantani got Bianchi to weld a 57 head tube onto a 53 frame so that he could stay in the drops while climbing. The Manx Missile may need a 48 head tube on a 53 frame.


----------



## looigi

orange_julius said:


> Sounds like he needs a custom geometry to get exactly what he wants...The Manx Missile may need a 48 head tube on a 53 frame.


What would a shorter head tube buy him that a -17 or -20 degree stem wouldn't? If it was only lower bars, he could easily have achieved that with a different stem and spacer stack.


----------



## Guest

I was looking at the post above that compared his 2011 vs 2014 frames and his position on the bike looks the same to me. They added spacers under under the stem to bring the bike into his usual position.

The one thing that looks suspect is his bottom bracket to the top of the seat of 680mm is possibly a typo.


----------



## Local Hero

I wonder if he test rode the Amira.


----------



## looigi

Har! He does cry like a girl.


----------

