# Fuji Team / Moto Le Champion 49cm pictures?



## stuartmc (Jan 5, 2006)

I happen to fall right between a 49cm and 52cm frame on the Fuji Team SL or the Motobecane Le Champion ( both frames have the same geometry). Actually, my fit might be closer to the 49cm. Some non-compact 49cm bikes I've seen (measured C-T) have very short head tubes and the top tube and down tube seem to overlap too much to look good. I saw a picture on ebay of a 49cm Fuji Team SL frame (blue 2004 model) and it appeared to be very proportionate, but hey, can you really trust an ebay listing?

I was wondering if anyone has a Fuji Team or a Le Champion bike in a 49cm size and has a picture or two they could share. It would be much appreciated and help me make my final frame size decision.


----------



## JayTee (Feb 3, 2004)

stuartmc said:


> I happen to fall right between a 49cm and 52cm frame on the Fuji Team SL or the Motobecane Le Champion ( both frames have the same geometry). Actually, my fit might be closer to the 49cm. Some non-compact 49cm bikes I've seen (measured C-T) have very short head tubes and the top tube and down tube seem to overlap too much to look good. I saw a picture on ebay of a 49cm Fuji Team SL frame (blue 2004 model) and it appeared to be very proportionate, but hey, can you really trust an ebay listing?
> 
> I was wondering if anyone has a Fuji Team or a Le Champion bike in a 49cm size and has a picture or two they could share. It would be much appreciated and help me make my final frame size decision.



I hope you really aren't proposing that you'll make your choice based on the aesthetics of the photo. That 3 cm "gap" that you are "between" is a lot. I can't really believe, especially in terms of top tube length, that one of these sizes isn't a better fit for you?


----------



## stuartmc (Jan 5, 2006)

Actually, using three different "fit" programs, or methodologies, I do fall right between these frame sizes. It really is a tradeoff. The 52cm frame gives me a 15mm longer top tube that fits my longish torso better, but the downside is an additional 13mm in standover height. Now under normal circumstances, I would just go with the top tube fit and forget about standover height, but in my short-legged case, this height gives me about a 1/2" of negative clearance (ouch!) The 52cm has a very slightly longer wheelbase and one degree less seat tube angle. That may make a more stable ride and less "twitchy" handling - a plus for me.

The 49cm bike can be adjusted with a longer stem to give me a proper overall reach, but it also puts me in a more agressive posture with the seat height a bit higher relative to the handlebars than the 52cm frame. I'm not really a racer and being 47 my flexibility isn't quite as good as it used to be, so I'm a little concerned. The 49cm doesn't let me stretch out as much as my current Nishiki Altron frame (50cm with extraordinarily long top tube). Yet, the 49cm frame will be slightly lighter and perhaps slightly stiffer than the 52cm frame - something that is appealing to me since I'm a hill climber.

I could go on with other considerations pro and con for both frame sizes, but you get my point, it really is a toss up depending upon how I weight certain criteria. The aesthetic concern is a minor point, but it may just tip the scales if I really think the proportions of 49cm frame look really bad.


----------



## JayTee (Feb 3, 2004)

stuartmc said:


> Actually, using three different "fit" programs, or methodologies, I do fall right between these frame sizes. It really is a tradeoff. The 52cm frame gives me a 15mm longer top tube that fits my longish torso better, but the downside is an additional 13mm in standover height. Now under normal circumstances, I would just go with the top tube fit and forget about standover height, but in my short-legged case, this height gives me about a 1/2" of negative clearance (ouch!) The 52cm has a very slightly longer wheelbase and one degree less seat tube angle. That may make a more stable ride and less "twitchy" handling - a plus for me.
> .


Actually, STA is not going to change the handling of the bike. The "slightly longer wheelbase" is unlike to make the bike handle less twitchy if you compensate with a much shorter stem. Stem length is going to have a significantly more dramatic effect on handling than a teeny-bit longer wheelbase. 

If the 52 is right in the TT but doesn't give you the standover clearance you want (although 1/2" is enough, and will be even a little more in cycling shoes), you may want to consider compact geometry and thus chuck both of the frames you are looking at.


----------



## stuartmc (Jan 5, 2006)

Thanks for the reply. I don't have 1/2" clearance with the 52cm. It is 1/2" taller than my maximum inseam length, so the family jewels are crushed if I do an emergency two foot landing. I am pretty much convinced that the 49cm is the way to go. Just wanted to see what it looked like. I have been reassured that the ebay picture I have of the frame is really a 49cm., so all is good. Thanks again.


----------



## JayTee (Feb 3, 2004)

stuartmc said:


> Thanks for the reply. I don't have 1/2" clearance with the 52cm. It is 1/2" taller than my maximum inseam length, so the family jewels are crushed if I do an emergency two foot landing. I am pretty much convinced that the 49cm is the way to go. Just wanted to see what it looked like. I have been reassured that the ebay picture I have of the frame is really a 49cm., so all is good. Thanks again.



Good luck. Definitely, if you can't stand over it, it should be out of the running.


----------

