I currently have a Specialized Allez (triple) and think I want to move up to the Ruby Comp. Those of you who have that bike, what do you think? Is it a good bike for the price? Any input is appreciated.
Printable View
I currently have a Specialized Allez (triple) and think I want to move up to the Ruby Comp. Those of you who have that bike, what do you think? Is it a good bike for the price? Any input is appreciated.
Are you shorter than 5'5" with shorter than 30" standover height?
I'm 5' 5.5" with a 30 in. inseam. I recently test road, briefly, a Specialized Ruby Pro and it was really nice. The Specialized rep recommended a Ruby Comp since it was more inline with my price range. My LBS is a Specialized dealer. When I bought my Allez all they did for fit was check standover height. They only tried one bike on me. So, I'm a little leary of going back to them - at least until I know which bike to get. I do like to support the shop since they are the only one we have. So I'm trying to find out as much as I can before I buy. Plus they give free tune-ups for a year if you buy from them. I guess it really showed that I was a newb the first time so they just stuck me on a bike. It works pretty well but I have some minor pains that I'm starting to think are due to fit. Anyhow...just looking for some input.
The only reason I mention this is because i was at a bike shop last week that happened to have a Ruby Comp on the floor and I tried it out of curiousity.
I am 5'5" with a 30" pbh (pubic bone height).
The bike was marked "Women's L" (with a Specialized sticker on the frame) for Large and under that it was marked 54cm.
The top tube was several inches below my crotch when standing over it, and when sitting on the bike my knees were WAY bent too much- too much even for higher saddle height to fix I'd say. The reach to the bars seemed fine, but the bike felt overall substancially too small for me. I asked about the size, and the LBS guy said it was women's Large and if I wanted anything larger I would have to go to a Specialized "Roubaix" bike instead of the Ruby Comp (not sure of spelling there). Now I don't know if he was telling me some bs line or not, maybe they DO make Ruby comps larger than that. But I thought i'd just pass this experience along, and especially since you and I seem to be EXACTLY the same size. Don't let anyone sell you a bike frame that doesn't fit to begin with. Other stuff and details can be tweaked, but frame size cannot.
I ride a 54cm Rivendell by the way, which feels like a much bigger bike to me than this 54 RubyC. All bike brands have different geometrys and need to be actually tested by yourself in person.
Where do you live? I would be a bit hesistant if they put you on a bike that didn't fit. Does your Allez fit?
How much does a Ruby Comp run? It is comparable to my bike, I just haven't priced one.
Looking at the Specialized site, I see that they do offer the ruby comp in both 54 and 56cm sizes. The 54 seemed a bit small for me, and I am your exact height and pubic bone height. You should at least try a 56cm as well if you are going to shell out that kind of money. Get the LBS to check out your leg/knee positions in particular. You do NOT want knee pain and problems due to not being able to straighten your leg enough while riding.
Another note- the Specialized "Roubaix" is a man's bike and I notice that the top tube length is substancially longer for the very same size bike compared to the Ruby comp women's bike they make. So if you are also proportioned like me you might want to consider avoiding that longer reach on their man's Roubaix bike. I have a non women's specific Rivendell and I've had to do some tweaking to make the reach more comfortable, and it may well be impossible to get it perfect.
I thought PBH and standover were not exactly the same, except for Rivendell's method of measuring?
My inseam (not the same as PBH, obviously) is about 30", I'm 5'6, and when I tried out a Ruby, I needed a 51 cm. A lot of this is just fit preference.
I am also 5.5 1/2 and just got a new (used) Ruby in a 51. I have a very short upper torso and this bike fits great now that I've changed the stem to a 75.Quote:
Originally Posted by xeney
I'm interested in this topic as being a shortie 5'2" I find my Giant compact frame (a medium) too big, even with the shortest stem possible (can't recall, maybe a 75/70?) Trouble with a small frame is the wheels need to be 650's as they just look stupid with a 700's on a small frame and the think I like about the Ruby is the narrower bars and the shorter reach to the brakes. I have upper back issues if I ride too long, too often.
It might be a pipe dream at the moment but just considering it. Moving overseas soon, so not sure what to do!!
Midlife- I have a Cannondale Synapse and it fits great for me, I am also 5'2". The frame is 47 cm and I have long legs and a short torso. Unlike my last bike, I can actually shift and brake easily from the drops. My bike has the 700 wheels and it took me a while not to look at it as out of proportion. I do love that I can now steal my husband's tubes instead of having my own. My guess is the manufacturers use 700 wheels on the higher end bikes because there is more variety of quality rims? I haven't done the research on that though.
As for the back issues, that seems like a fit problem. Although my shoulder blades ache on long rides too. I think it is more the way I ride, I tend to really grip the hoods and the kiss of death- lock my elbows. I have to be aware of my own position on the bike, I am my own worst enemy. :o
The Ruby has 700 wheels, so it wouldn't fit your criteria if you cannot stand the 700's.
Aggie_Ama, I don't think my Allez fits me as well as it could. I feel I am too stretched out. But I am having slight knee pain in the front which means my seat needs to be moved back a bit. That would stretch me out even more. I test rode a Ruby Pro at a Specialized Bike Demo and it felt good without even being fit to me...other than saddle height. It's more than I want to spend $3900 whereas the Ruby Comp is $2200.
I want better components than are on my entry level Allez and a lighter bike. I feel like the Ruby would fit my needs and that I wouldn't want to go out and buy a better bike in a couple of years. Plus I want to go from a triple to a compact double. I've checked the gearing and they are almost the same at the high and low ends plus they are better spaced in between with no big gaps. Plus I would have to do less double shifting. I just want to get a great fit.
That's what worries me though. My LBS didn't do a fit other than standover height on the first bike (actually 2 bikes) a mtn bike and a road bike. This would be my 3rd bike from them and with this kind of money I'm not sure if they will fit me correctly. But I do want to support the local shop.
My carbon Cannondale bike is in the same price range as the Ruby Comp, so IMHO the Ruby is a good bike for the $$. Come to Austin, you can get a Ruby Comp for less than you are saying and a good fitting. Maybe even a 2006 Ruby Expert for only $2499 if you are the right size. :D
On the fit, I would walk in and be very blunt. Tell them you want to support them, but you will not buy a bike with out a quality fit. A $2000+ bike is not something you should have to settle on, if they can't do a quality fit I would drive to another shop. Maybe they don't know how to do a good fitting? :eek: Mine measured standover height before putting me on the trainer but then he spent 45 minutes watching me pedal, tweaking the seat height and then replacing we saddle and redid the whole thing.
I bet you can get a recommendation for Houston, Dallas, San Antonio and I could give you two for Austin. Of course you might be in El Paso or Lubbock- I just saw Texas! :p
Aggie_Ama, Austin is about an hour away from me. Can you give me the names and addresses of two good shops? Hopefully close to I35 since I don't know my way around Austin. Although I can follow a map...
I'm going to my LBS shop today to see what they have. I do want to check out some other shops and see how they approach me. My only experience is at my LBS. I don't want to rush into this like I did on my first two bikes.
I think it means you need to raise the seat UP more, not move it back.Quote:
Originally Posted by li10up
You can't have 700c wheels on a really small frame because then your toes hit the front wheel too often when you're turning or cranking up steep hills...the dreaded "toe clip" syndrome. 26" or 650B wheels will not make you slower- they'll just be better proportioned for your frame's size and your body size. Better fit will result in more efficient riding. I suspect that any women who is 5'3" or less might be better off on a bike with wheels smaller than 700's.
li10up- I will pm you the two that I think have service that is good. I bought a bike from one, but not the one that carries Specialized.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lisa S.H.
I have 700 wheels on my new 47 cm bike and after almost 400 miles have not managed toe overlap once. I do not race and therefore am not cornering super tight, but I do climb a lot of pesky steep hills.
Specialized and now Cannondale have worked very hard to eliminate this problem. The owner of the shop I bought my bike at was impressed when I asked him about the toe overlap and we couldn't create it in the shop. The other problem is if you can't go custom you may have to take the 700 wheels. I didn't want 700 wheels, but I wanted carbon and custom was not in the budget. :(
Amanda, that's amazing that you don't have toe clipping on your bike! I wonder why that is. I am 5'5" and ride a 54cm frame with 700 wheels and I do have toe clip happen, but only when I'm doing like tight figure 8's in a parking lot or doing an emergency turn/stop or something. I guess all bikes geometrys also come into play. But there is a certain overall truth that if you take two 700 wheels and bring them closer and closer together (as in putting them on a smaller and smaller frame with a shorter and shorter top tube), there will simply be a point where toe clip becomes a real problem.
Of course, your bike and my bike have different geometry, so compare them as 47cm and 54cm isn't really accurate, as our seat tubes probably have different angles and thus different lengths, etc. etc.
Honestly, I am quite shocked myself. I had come to accept that I couldn't afford custom and manufacturers weren't going to offer the frame I would want and 650's on a stock bike. I figured I would just have to manage the toe overlap. I am not sure if it is my riding style, shoes, pedals or the bike. The only review I found of my bike before I bought it mentioned the toe overlap. Maybe I just haven't done it yet. :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lisa S.H.
I think Caligurl said she doesn't have the problem on her Ruby either? I believe there was a debate about the elimination of the toe overlap making it not handle as well. Since I don't race, I don't notice this. My Synapse does everything I ask of her without complaining. :)
Of course one other downside of a tiny frame- I have to use the smaller water bottles!
If I raise the seat up then I will be rocking too much from side to side. From everything I've read if the front of your knees hurt then your saddle is too far forward.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lisa S.H.
Hey, I'm sure you must have way smaller feet/shoes than I have (size 9 1/2 "ski feet") so that must help you avoid toe clip too! ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Aggie_Ama
Li10up wrote:
If I raise the seat up then I will be rocking too much from side to side. From everything I've read if the front of your knees hurt then your saddle is too far forward.
Lit10,
That's not what I have read, but oh well, much has been written! ;) It IS true that if you start to rock when you raise your saddle higher, then it's probably as high as it should go.
One detail to consider- I believe the front knee ache is "most commonly" the result of leg staying too bent on the downstroke. One thing I found is that I used to catch myself pedaling with my toes pointing downward a lot- and that caused my heels to be higher, resulting in slight bent leg syndrome. I had to work hard to keep correcting this in myself and keeping my feet flatter (more horizontal) while riding- and i think that has paid off finally in a more efficient pedal stroke that is better for my legs and knees as well. It's something you might want to check to see if you are doing it too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lisa S.H.
WRONG! http://www.smileycons.com/img/emotions/218.gif my 48 ruby pro has 700c wheels and i don't have toe overlap.... (you were correct aggie_anna! http://www.smileycons.com/img/emotions/85.gif)
as far as handling.... i've had no problems with handling my ruby! she's a dream to ride!!!!!!
i can still carry 2 water bottles on my frame! i have t to use side entry cages... but that's ok... they are curvy and pretty and look great on ruby!!!!! (and they are the large red polar bottles!)
i did have to get a shorter stem and a different saddle *sigh*..... the jett was just a HORRIBLE seat for me! so purdy... but sooooooooooooooo not for my tukis!
specialized has done a LOT of work on women's bikes... that's one company that doesn't just paint it pink and call it womens!!!!!
as for custom.... i'm so glad i didn't let that twit make me a bike like i orginally planned... she insisted i needed 650's and i was adament i didn't want them.... so i ended up with ruby..... i'm SO glad now i didn't go custom!!!! (or at least that i didn't go custom with the twit! lol!)
Well I don't know what Specialized is doing but it must be something to do with tube angles. If I was to take my Rambouillet 54cm and make it a 48 instead with 700 wheels, there would be major toeclip going on (unless maybe I got tiny feet to match it). Since you had to shorten the stem, maybe that indicates they are not shortening the top tube all that much, which would then explain the non clipping. But then they'd have to be making the bike shorter height-wise to accomodate the shorter rider of 5'2". Maybe they are moving the head tube lower down to increase standover height and allow for shorter riders? Fascinating to speculate, wish I was more knowledgable to figure it out through bike geometry charts. I bet DebW could. ;)
I think Cannondale put the bottle holes in stupid places, I use side entry but can't get a big polar bottle in the lower cage. Well I can, but it is awkward to remove. I can still carry two smaller polar bottles though, so it isn't the worst thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by caligurl
We have some major thread drift going on here. I don't even think the starter of this topic needs a small frame!
Caligurl... why do you need the side entry cages? I have a 48cm and I use two top-loading ones. Can't remember the brand, but I'll have to take a close look.Quote:
Originally Posted by caligurl
+1 on the no-toe-overlap!
Lisa, that was kind of the whole point of the Ruby's design. It has a special fork that takes care of the toe overlap problem while allowing a shorter cockpit:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/tech.php?.../specialized06Quote:
One striking and welcome addition to the family is the women's-specific, semi-monocoque carbon fiber Ruby line. Specialized touts the Ruby as the highest-level frameset currently available with women's-specific geometry, including a shorter top tube, head tube extension, and a shallower head tube angle coupled with a carbon fork with greater trail. This produces the short cockpit dimension required for women's typically shorter torsos but without the toe clip overlap issues.
I wish I could afford one! But I am so in love with the red color on the pro that I could not settle for one of the more affordable versions. Call me shallow!
i can't get the large polars in or out of a regular.... but my side entries are gorgeous.... so i don't mind! and i can't/won't use the smaller bottles!Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluetree
Cali- Can you post a picture of the cages you use? I really want to use at least one tall polar bottle, maybe new cages would solve this?
I thought that having a fork with greater trail made for sluggish handling? I could be wrong, but this is what I remember.Quote:
Originally Posted by xeney
Emily, whose little road bike has 650c wheels AND toe overlap, but it fits! :D
Aghhh!!.....brain hurting!!!!!!!! :eek: :eek:
This is correct, its actually a combination of having a fork with too much rake, AND a slack head tube angle, that combine to give a bike with too much trail that causes the sluggish handling. BUT YMMV. I know lots of women ride these bikes and LOVE them, but when I test rode bikes like that I didn't like the handling.Quote:
Originally Posted by emily_in_nc
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aggie_Ama
http://caligurl.com/bikergurl/wp-con...uby/_ruby7.jpg
here it is with the old style tall polar bottles in the cages....
http://caligurl.com/bikergurl/wp-con...sep2/gmr20.JPG
Knee pain can be the result of both of the scenarios brought up in this thread. If the knee is too bent during the down stroke, you will get pain, if the knee is too far forward over the toes in the 3 o'clock position, you will also get pain. There are also other causes of knee pain such as cleat position and good old muscle imbalances.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lisa S.H.
Because seat posts are angled backward, when you raise them, you also move them back. So raising the seat will also increase the distance between the pelvis and the bottom bracket, fore and aft. Usually what I recommend is finding the correct seat height first, then correcting for fore and aft position of the saddle based on where the patella lines up above the toes in the 3 o'clock position.
Seat height should take into account your habitual ankle postion during your pedal stroke. IMO, it is not good enough to measure with the heel on the pedal at the bottom of the pedal stroke, as many shops do. This is a static measurement and there is nothing static about pedaling.
I ride a 2000 Allez pro. I bought it when most companies did not have WSD frames. It is also a little too big for me. However, it is a beautiful frame and I can't afford a new bike at the moment. I have tweaked out this bike really well by changing saddle, seat post, stem and going to fully adjustable aero bars. Now, apart from not having proper top tube clearance, I am a happy camper. The moral of the storey is that bike fit is important, and if you are buying new get the best fit you can. But, if it comes down to it, you can also do a lot with a frame that isn't perfect that will make it fit you well.
The Specialized bikes have very steep seat tube angles (76 degrees) on the smaller bikes. On their 54 cm frame the seat tube angle is 74 degrees.
Cannondale has the 75 degree seat tube angle on the Synapse but they don't make it any smaller than 47 and its interesting to note that on their 40 and 44 cm frames they still use 650c wheels.
Caligurl, I'm getting the feeling that a lot of the small custom builders will not put 700c wheels on a small frame. Some won't bother making a 650c wheel frame.
I didn't push the issue but I suspect that Serotta would not have built my 48 cm custom frame for 700c wheels.
I wonder about a 74 degree seat tube angle on a bigger frame because my 48cm frame has a 74.5 degree seat tube angle. It just seems like a bigger frame should have a slacker seat tube angle.
I think the steeper seat tube angles are how Specialized is getting around the toe overlap issue. I wonder if the rider's center of mass is then compromised?
Interesting. The seat tube angle on my 54cm Rivendell (non woman-specific) is 72.5 degrees (with 55cm long TT). It has 700 wheels. But if you want the next size down (52cm frame with 53cm long TT) they then put on 26" wheels. The 52cm frame still keeps a 72.5 degree ST angle.
Years ago, mid nineties, the trend was to shorten the tt on small mtn bike frames but not to change the seat tube angle. When Cannondale came out with the Compact frame (1st WSD frame on 650c wheels) they decided to steepen the seat tube, as well as shorten the tt and change the head tube angle.
So I wonder if Rivendell stayed with the shorter tt, slacker seat tube for a reason or if the design worked for them and they never changed it?
Many small mtn bikes have the slacker seat tube angles and in 04 I had a hard time finding one to fit because I need the steeper seat tube. I think that why so many small women like the Titus mtn bikes.
Not sure if this answers or not, but:Quote:
Originally Posted by Kathi
Rivendell has always favored a more "relaxed" geometry for several reasons. Mainly, they believe thier bikes should be comfortable to ride for long distances. So to attain that goal...they makes their bikes with a slightly more long-low geometry than typical road bikes, because they feel that is a more comfortable ride for long happy hours in the saddle. They like the handlebars to be about the same height as the seat, for a less bent over rider position. In their belief that one should be able to ride on rough roads as well as smooth, and touring through bad weather if necessary, they build in clearance to be able to put fenders and/or fat tires --up to about 38mm wide.
In that case a Rivendell would not work for me. I'm a perfect example of why the 1 size fits all philosophy doesn't work, even with bicycle fitting.
My old mtn bike has a 72.5 degree seat tube angle. When I ride it I'm mostly on the nose of the saddle. With a zero degree seatpost and my saddle all the way forward I still can't get centered on the bike. If I sit on the saddle the way I'm supposed to I can't don't get good power on the pedals. If I move forward on the saddle to get centered on the bike, I'm on the nose.
On my bikes with the steeper seat tube angles I have no issues of where my body is. Someone told me one time that the body seeks a neutral position on the bike. The only way I can get that position is with a steep seat tube angle.
That's why generalizations can't be made about women's fit, we're all different
and that's why some women have problems with WSD bikes, they don't fit the standards that bike companies have come up with.
I'm supposed to go for a fitting on Thursday to get my Allez to fit better and then they can transfer those to a new bike.
Since I don't understand what you all are saying I'm wondering if I should even go forward with buying a new bike. If I'm going to plop down $2000 bucks for a new bike shouldn't I be better informed? Relaxed geometry vs. agressive...top tube angles, etc., etc. ....I'm lost.
Find out the credentials of the fitter. If they have had training from a company, ie Serotta, then trust them. If they just read a book find someone else. My LBS in Cincy had experience eyeballing people but he missed the short arm, short femur issue and was fitting me like the guys. The more you know about fit the better off you are.
I just posted these on another thread but are a good start. It shows the kind of things a good fitter looks for.
http://womenspecific.com/daily-feed/...r-next-bicycle
http://womenspecific.com/cycling/35/...women-specific
Also, Andy Pruitt's book "Complete Medical guide for Cyclists" is a good source on bike fit.
Well, I've had to postpone my bike fit until next Tue. I've read the links that were given me and feel like I'm a little more informed. Sounds like what my LBS is going to do is just a basic fit - even if I buy a new bike from them that's all I'll get unless I want to fork over some $. Seems like they shouldn't charge for a fit if I buy a bike...esp. a $2000 bike! IMO.
I'd like to get your opinions. The Specialized Rep recommended a Ruby Comp for me. Granted she didn't do anything more than just look at me and ask some questions. So, I'm 5' 5.5" and 165 pounds (working on that :( ). I want to improve my speed - currently avg. about 15 mph on rolling terrain on a 20 mile ride. I want to be able to keep up with the guys on the club rides without one of them having to come back to me or them waiting on me, and I want to improve on my climbing. I also want to start incorporating longer rides - perhaps 40 to 50 mile rides on a Sat. or Sun. I also want to ride a couple of tours each season. I've done 2 metrics but I want to do an imperial century (is that the correct term?). This will be my 3rd season of riding.
So, knowing all that do you think a Specialized Ruby Comp would be a good bike for me? It's carbon. Am I too heavy for a carbon bike? Will I have to baby it going over RR tracks, etc?
If big 6 footer racing guys can ride carbon you should not worry... really they build airplanes out of the stuff - its not as fragile as everyone would like to think. The thing is if you do damage it then there isn't anything you can do to fix it, but you don't have to worry about pot holes/RR tracks cracking the frame. Even when big George broke his bike last year at Paris Roubaix it was an aluminium steerer that broke not the carbon parts of the bike and that was from riding it after he'd already crashed.Quote:
Originally Posted by li10up