2cm too big - big problem?
Raptor
road bike in a shop, last year's model, discounted, one-of-a-kind, etc.
She wants it. Shop told her she needs a 54cm, bike's a 56cm.
I told her to pass on it because though she could lower the seat and put
a short stem on it, fit is crucial for a road bike. At least that's the
dogma I've come to know and love.
It's her first good bike, and she argued that she didn't know what good
fit felt like, so what's the problem with getting used to this one?
She shouldn't buy this bike, right? What's likely to happen to her if
she does and tries to spend many hours riding it?
(And since you've read this far, the salespeople I talked to when buying
my Lemond Tourmalet a couple months ago clearly said Shimano Tiagra is a
grade up from 105. My friend looks at the brochures and tells me it's
the other way around. Correct one of us while you're at it, please.
Doesn't much matter, because I love my new bike and its mainly Tiagra
group.)
--
Lynn Wallace
http://www.xmission.com/~lawall
Olympic experience: http://www.xmission.com/~lawall/olympics.html
Windows ME sucked so bad, I ditched Micro$oft for Linux.
Tim McNamara
Raptor <law...@xmission.com> wrote:
> Got this friend, she's kind of an impulse buyer. Saw this beautiful
> road bike in a shop, last year's model, discounted, one-of-a-kind,
> etc. She wants it. Shop told her she needs a 54cm, bike's a 56cm.
>
> I told her to pass on it because though she could lower the seat and
> put a short stem on it, fit is crucial for a road bike. At least
> that's the dogma I've come to know and love.
It's 2 cm. Less than one inch. Not a big deal- slightly larger is
usually easier to fit to the rider than too small. The only deal is
whether the bars can be gotten in the right position for her to be
comfortable, but a short reach stem (e.g 70 mm) often makes it just
right.
Pierre L
Can she straddle the top tube of that bigger bike with a least a bit of
clearance - say one or two centimetres? If so, there's a chance it might
actually be better, especially if she wants her handlebars high, same level
or higher than the seat. The top tube will be longer than the 54, probably,
but, the higher bars can compensate for that. The size also depends on the
actual length of her legs. Some shops will give you a size figure that's
just based on overall height - but two people of the same height can have
very different leg lengths.
Pierre
"Raptor" <law...@xmission.com> wrote in message
news:3CF6E734...@xmission.com...
Mike Jacoubowsky
she shouldn't buy it. The biggest issue will probably be with top tube
length. In general, women require shorter top tubes to fit a person of the
same height as a guy. This isn't just because women often (but not always)
have longer legs and a shorter torso & arms, but also due to issues having
to do with comfort when bent further over the saddle.
But I'm also curious how they came to the 54cm sizing, and also whether
we're talking a 54cm center-to-center or center-to-top measurement and how
tall she is.
To answer your other question, sorry, '105 is one step up from Tiagra. But
Tiagra works very nicely, so I wouldn't be very concerned about it (other
than the fact that you dealt with a salesperson who didn't know much about
road bike components).
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
http://www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
"Raptor" <law...@xmission.com> wrote in message
news:3CF6E734...@xmission.com...
David L. Johnson
than they would be comfortable with, in order to have more seatpost showing
like a real racer, or some such.
Whe should find someone who can give unbiased advice, tailored not just to her
size but her riding.
--
David L. Johnson
__o | Enron's slogan: Respect, Communication, Integrity, and
_`\(,_ | Excellence.
(_)/ (_) |
Qui si parla Campagnolo
road bike in a shop, last year's model, discounted, one-of-a-kind, etc.
She wants it. Shop told her she needs a 54cm, bike's a 56cm. >>
Got this friend, she's kind of an implulse buyer. Saw this beautiful pair of
shoes in a shop, last year's model, discounted, one of a kind, etc. Shop told
her she needs a size 6, shoes were a size 8.....
<< She shouldn't buy this bike/these shoes, right? >>
Right....
Peter Chisholm
Vecchio's Bicicletteria
1833 Pearl ST.
Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535
http://www.vecchios.com
Qui si parla Campagnolo
But it's not just 2cm in seat tube length, it's the difference in seat tube
angle and top tube length, when combined can make for a goofy fit at best....
Mark Hickey
>Tim-<< It's 2 cm. Less than one inch. Not a big deal- >>
>
>But it's not just 2cm in seat tube length, it's the difference in seat tube
>angle and top tube length, when combined can make for a goofy fit at best....
And let's not forget that riding a 2cm "too large" frame moves the
adjustment range of the bars up around 2cm. Fine if you need higher
bars, but if you need to drop 'em... you're out of luck.
Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame
Jon Isaacs
>road bike in a shop, last year's model, discounted, one-of-a-kind, etc.
>She wants it. Shop told her she needs a 54cm, bike's a 56cm.
>
>I told her to pass on it because though she could lower the seat and put
>a short stem on it, fit is crucial for a road bike.
The real issue here is what size is the right size for your friend. Sure the
shop told her she needs a 54cm seat tube and they might well be right, but some
shops are lots better at determining a proper fit than others. It is a mistake
to assume the shops word is gospel.
So forget what the shop said and....
I think the more relevent question ought to be:
What size is probably the right size for my friend?
Some questions that might help us make informed comment:
1. Did she ride the bike and if so how did it feel?
2. Cycling inseam length (crotch to floor)
3. Height
4. Cycling experience
5. Desired type of riding
jon isaacs
doc greg
Raptor wrote:
> She shouldn't buy this bike, right? What's likely to happen to her if
> she does and tries to spend many hours riding it?
>
Depends how everything else fits, especially the top tube length. There is a
tendency nowadays for smaller size frames. I should in theory ride a 54cm
but love my 57cm which has a relatively short 55.5cm top tube and a slightly
shorter than normal stem. I can still get two inches of handle bar drop
lower than the seat which is perfect for me. Anything more than this and I
get neck pain. This particualr bike fits me like a glove although I am sure
many other 57cm frames wouldn't.
Steve Palincsar
> vecc...@aol.com (Qui si parla Campagnolo) wrote:
>
>>Tim-<< It's 2 cm. Less than one inch. Not a big deal- >>
>>
>>But it's not just 2cm in seat tube length, it's the difference in seat
>>tube angle and top tube length, when combined can make for a goofy fit
>>at best....
>
> And let's not forget that riding a 2cm "too large" frame moves the
> adjustment range of the bars up around 2cm. Fine if you need higher
> bars, but if you need to drop 'em... you're out of luck.
>
Of course, everybody's assuming that the original assessment of the
correct size is in fact correct. We have little evidence this is so.
Many shops think putting a person on the _smallest possible_ frame they can
is "correct fit".
Tim McNamara
vecc...@aol.com (Qui si parla Campagnolo) wrote:
> Raptor-<< Got this friend, she's kind of an impulse buyer. Saw this beautiful
> road bike in a shop, last year's model, discounted, one-of-a-kind, etc.
> She wants it. Shop told her she needs a 54cm, bike's a 56cm. >>
>
>
> Got this friend, she's kind of an implulse buyer. Saw this beautiful pair of
> shoes in a shop, last year's model, discounted, one of a kind, etc. Shop told
> her she needs a size 6, shoes were a size 8.....
>
> << She shouldn't buy this bike/these shoes, right? >>
>
> Right....
Not quite. Shoes are not adjustable for fit, bikes are. Unless 54 cm
is the upper limit that will fit her, she should have no trouble
adjusting a 56 to fit her. And keeping in mind that many bike shops (a)
undersize bikes routinely and (b) often don't know how to fit a bike to
a female rider, the 56 may well be a reasonable buy.
Tim McNamara
"David L. Johnson" <david....@lehigh.edu> wrote:
> Whe should find someone who can give unbiased advice, tailored not just to her
> size but her riding.
Exactamundo!
Tim McNamara
vecc...@aol.com (Qui si parla Campagnolo) wrote:
> Tim-<< It's 2 cm. Less than one inch. Not a big deal- >>
>
>
> But it's not just 2cm in seat tube length, it's the difference in seat tube
> angle and top tube length, when combined can make for a goofy fit at best....
We're talking what, a 74 degree seat tube on most 54 cm frames and a 74
or a 73.5 on most 56's? Not enough of a difference to make a
difference.
Top tube length is another matter and could potentially be the deal
breaker, but don't forget that as the bars come higher they also come
back towards the rider. Most reasonably fit and healthy people are most
comfortable on road bikes when the bars are vertically within 0-4 cm of
the saddle height- that may well be easier on the larger frame.
What I think is that she should get the bike set up and test ride it to
see how it feels.
TomD
> road bike in a shop, last year's model, discounted, one-of-a-kind, etc.
> She wants it. Shop told her she needs a 54cm, bike's a 56cm.
>
> I told her to pass on it because though she could lower the seat and put
> a short stem on it, fit is crucial for a road bike. At least that's the
> dogma I've come to know and love.
>
> It's her first good bike, and she argued that she didn't know what good
> fit felt like, so what's the problem with getting used to this one?
>
> She shouldn't buy this bike, right? What's likely to happen to her if
> she does and tries to spend many hours riding it?
If the shop that told her she needs a 54cm is the same shop that's
offering the discounted 56cm, I'd be inclined to trust the shop's
judgement, and pass on the 56. After all, there's a certain incentive
for them to say "yeah, 56 is OK" and make a quick sale...
Maybe your friend could get an independent fitting at another place,
to remove all doubt.
Jon Isaacs
>offering the discounted 56cm, I'd be inclined to trust the shop's
>judgement, and pass on the 56. After all, there's a certain incentive
>for them to say "yeah, 56 is OK" and make a quick sale...
On the otherhand they might see her as a spending even more money
or
They may not really be competent to recommend the proper frame size.
jon isaacs
Pierre L
"Jon Isaacs" <joni...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020531155344...@mb-fp.aol.com...
We all know that everyone fits a range of sizes. Depending on how they
arrived at the 54 figure, and depending on how that 56 frame is measured,
which we also know can be any number of ways, I just would not discount the
possibility that this lady might fit both.
Pierre
TW406
David L. Johnson
>
> > >Saw this beautiful
> > >road bike in a shop, last year's model, discounted, one-of-a-kind, etc.
> > >She wants it. Shop told her she needs a 54cm, bike's a 56cm.
>
> needing a 54cm frame. Modern frame sizing recommendations are really small,
> historically speaking. Most people are better off with a bigger frame than
> what most shops recommend, often about 5cm bigger.
5cm? That is an overstatement, I think.
>
> Unless she is a racer with special needs, more than likely, if the shop
> said 54, 56 will be a better fit.
Unfortunately, that is my belief as well. Or, maybe that is fortunate, since
she wants that bike, right?
--
David L. Johnson
__o | Do not worry about your difficulties in mathematics, I can
_`\(,_ | assure you that mine are all greater. -- A. Einstein
(_)/ (_) |
doc greg
David L. Johnson wrote:
> > Unless she is a racer with special needs, more than likely, if the shop
> > said 54, 56 will be a better fit.
>
> Unfortunately, that is my belief as well. Or, maybe that is fortunate, since
> she wants that bike, right?
>
I don't know what it is about bike shops these days. With my 81 cm inseam my
theoretical size frame should be a 54 or 55 but I find my 57 really comfortable.
The last bike shop I visited told me they would "get me down into a 52". Why? I'm
fifty years old and don't race.
Bluto
> Got this friend, she's kind of an impulse buyer. Saw this beautiful
> road bike in a shop, last year's model, discounted, one-of-a-kind, etc.
> She wants it. Shop told her she needs a 54cm, bike's a 56cm.
>
> She shouldn't buy this bike, right? What's likely to happen to her if
> she does and tries to spend many hours riding it?
Can she stand over the bike with any crotch clearance _at all_? (I
assume the bike has a level top tube.) If so, then the bike can be
made to fit by choosing an appropriate stem.
The traditional size frame to get for a traditional road bike is
whichever one allows you 1/2" to 1" standover clearance. Up-to-date
bike sizing fashions and parts specifications mean she'll probably
need a shorter stem than what the bike is equipped with to achieve
correct fit using this method.
Chalo Colina
Raptor
buy it regardless. (Impulse buyer like I said - it was the right color,
discounted last year's model Raleigh. A good bike no doubt, just that
"fit" concern.)
Her riding experience is minimal, and she felt incapable of assessing
her own fit. In fact, I think she bought the bike mainly because I just
got my new road bike and love it, and told her. (I've got many years on
a road bike, but that was many years ago until my recent re-discovery.
I feel born again.)
She had some crotch clearance on the top tube. Before they lowered the
seat to the bottom and installed a shorter stem, she was stretched out.
After the tweaks, it looked okay to me. I think she'll be happy with
the bike, and also happy riding it.
The shop still tried to turn her to a different size, but applied no
hard sell tactics. Just trying to look out for her, they seem like a
good shop and I need to put them on my itinerary. (Canyon Sports in
SLC.)
VA guy
> my Lemond Tourmalet a couple months ago clearly said Shimano Tiagra is a
> grade up from 105.
they say she needs a 54cm, you still don't know what she needs. Find
someone who really knows something about bicycles. A bad fit and accepting
advice from the ignorant can ruin bicycling for her.
Pierre L
absolutely optimal. Also, there is no way that the seat would have to be
almost bottomed out if she has crotch clearance. That could only mean the
seat is way too low.
Pierre
"Raptor" <law...@xmission.com> wrote in message
news:3CF85210...@xmission.com...
Hamish Macbeth
"VA guy" <do...@mailme.net> wrote in message
news:tc6K8.723$NG1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Hey the bike looks a real bargin, get the bike, find a girlfriend to fit
:)
Matt Temple
I've always wanted to ask this question -- perhaps you or someone can
answer. Let's suppose that the top tube is actually too high, say
an inch or so -- how often do you straddle the top tube of a road bike --
I always stand with one foot on a pedal and the bike slightly to
the side of vertical. I've been road riding for 30 years and I've
never fallen onto the top tube. (I've landed on my mountain bike
more than once.). I'm not asking about top tube length here or
any of the variables that might make it hard to fit. Is the height
recommendation so thet the bars can be at the right height? Or is
it supposed to save the soft bits of your anatomy?
Matt Temple
--
=============================================================
Matthew Temple Tel: 617/632-2597
Director, Research Computing Fax: 617/632-4012
Dana-Farber Cancer Institute m...@research.dfci.harvard.edu
44 Binney Street, JF 314 http://research.dfci.harvard.edu
Boston, MA 02115 Choice is the Choice!
mhunt
on the wall so she looks cool, or is she buying something that she can
actually ride and enjoy? The paint job will grow less impressive over
time, but you can not change an inherently bad setup.
So, let me run you through what I would look for if I were going to be
helping this woman buy a bike.
So, first, what type of riding does she want to do? 10 mile rides
every now and then, or gung-ho 350 miles a week training schedule.
With the 10 mile rides every now and then, fit is less crucial (less
time on the bike) but I still wouldn't sacrifice the fit. If she is
fully gung-ho bout all this, fit is even more important. Bad fit
becomes more apparent with each mile you ride.
Secondly, how much money does she want to spend? Is she realistic
with what she is going to get with that money? It will be very hard
to find a full Dura-Ace, carbon fiber bike for 600 dollars.
Thirdly, everyone talks about standover height. Standover is a rough
estimate, at _best_. Frankly, I don't think that standover means
shite. My old bike fealt great and it was a great fit. However, I
was showing a good 3-4 inches of seatpost. Women, more often than
not, are going to be showing more seatpost then men (leg:torso ratio
higher, yadda, yadda, yadda). You can always raise or lower a
seatpost, raise or lower a stem, within reason of course. However,
unless you are good budies with frame builders, you are not going to
be able to change the top tube length. When fitting women (myself
included), I find that most women ride a slightly smaller size than
men of the smae hight due to differences in body proportions. Yeah,
you can change the stem, but change it too much, and you got a bike
that acts like a 'roided out racehorse going round turns, that isn't
much fun to ride.
So, the question is, can this bike be made to fit her? You have to
make a judgement call there, but remember, spending money on a
discounted bike that doesn't fit you and you won't ride is not a
bargain but a waste of money.
Please, don't let her be another one of my customers that comes in "I
bought this bike at XYZ and it was a great deal but it doesn't fit,
and I can't ride it, and now I need a new bike."
marian
Qui si parla Campagnolo
assume the bike has a level top tube.) If so, then the bike can be
made to fit by choosing an appropriate stem. >>
This is the mistake, either intentionally or thru ignorance, that many bike
shops make. Standover takes care of itself if the top tube LENGTH and seat tube
ANGLE are proper, not the other way around. To imply that if the seattube
length is right, the top tube LENGTH and seat tube ANGLE is correct is just not
right...
<< The traditional size frame to get for a traditional road bike is
whichever one allows you 1/2" to 1" standover clearance >>
Using this 'formula'. I should ride a 58cm Colnago BUT the seattube angle is
too slack by 1.5 degrees and the top tube length is too short by 2cm...I cannot
get the saddle back far enough for my femeurs and torso...
I should ride a 60cm, but don't have the 'clearance' you recommend..
Fits have to consider femur length, not just inseam...
Mark Hickey
>I've always wanted to ask this question -- perhaps you or someone can
>answer. Let's suppose that the top tube is actually too high, say
>an inch or so -- how often do you straddle the top tube of a road bike --
>I always stand with one foot on a pedal and the bike slightly to
>the side of vertical. I've been road riding for 30 years and I've
>never fallen onto the top tube. (I've landed on my mountain bike
>more than once.).
That's why it's not absolutely necessary to have an inch (2.54cm) of
standover clearance - though it's still a lot better having it than
not.
> I'm not asking about top tube length here or
>any of the variables that might make it hard to fit. Is the height
>recommendation so thet the bars can be at the right height? Or is
>it supposed to save the soft bits of your anatomy?
Both, really. The first is absolutely necessary, the latter optional
(though I'd never buy a bike without adequate SO clearance).
Pierre L
"Matt Temple" <m...@research.dfci.harvard.edu> wrote in message
news:3CFACB36...@research.dfci.harvard.edu...
>
> I've always wanted to ask this question -- perhaps you or someone can
> answer. Let's suppose that the top tube is actually too high, say
> an inch or so -- how often do you straddle the top tube of a road bike --
> I always stand with one foot on a pedal and the bike slightly to
> the side of vertical. I've been road riding for 30 years and I've
> never fallen onto the top tube. (I've landed on my mountain bike
> more than once.). I'm not asking about top tube length here or
> any of the variables that might make it hard to fit. Is the height
> recommendation so thet the bars can be at the right height? Or is
> it supposed to save the soft bits of your anatomy?
>
> Matt Temple
>
You only need to fall on the top tube once though! From that moment on, it
doesn't take much convincing about the advantages of having a bit of
clearance for emergencies. Other than that, I find it useful to be able to
stand over the bike in a variety of ways when I'm stopped.
Pierre
Pierre L
"Qui si parla Campagnolo" <vecc...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020603090812...@mb-fx.aol.com...
>
> << The traditional size frame to get for a traditional road bike is
> whichever one allows you 1/2" to 1" standover clearance >>
> Using this 'formula'. I should ride a 58cm Colnago BUT the seattube angle
is
> too slack by 1.5 degrees and the top tube length is too short by 2cm...I
cannot
> get the saddle back far enough for my femeurs and torso...
>
> I should ride a 60cm, but don't have the 'clearance' you recommend..
>
> Fits have to consider femur length, not just inseam...
>
> Peter Chisholm
> Vecchio's Bicicletteria
> 1833 Pearl ST.
> Boulder, CO, 80302
> (303)440-3535
> http://www.vecchios.com
I have the same problem (not able to get the saddle back far enough to be
able to even have the knee right over the pedal because of long femurs). Yet
a larger frame would have way too long a top tube, whether I could stand
over it or not). For me, the only solution was custom made.
Pierre
George F. Johnson
>I have the same problem (not able to get the saddle back far enough to be
>able to even have the knee right over the pedal because of long femurs). Yet
>a larger frame would have way too long a top tube, whether I could stand
>over it or not). For me, the only solution was custom made.
>Pierre
>
I'm a bit confused here. Isn't this a function of seat tube angle rather than
frame size?
George F. Johnson
Pierre L
> >From: "Pierre L" pier...@hotmail.com
>
> >I have the same problem (not able to get the saddle back far enough to be
> >able to even have the knee right over the pedal because of long femurs).
Yet
> >a larger frame would have way too long a top tube, whether I could stand
> >over it or not). For me, the only solution was custom made.
> >Pierre
> >
"George F. Johnson" <gfjoh...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20020603135116...@mb-cd.aol.com...
> I'm a bit confused here. Isn't this a function of seat tube angle rather
than
> frame size?
>
> George F. Johnson
Yes, but larger frames tend to have more relaxed seat tube angles than
smaller frames. So, a larger frame of the same model might be able to
accommodate a person with relatively long femurs better - but the top tube
is likely to be too long.
Pierre
Jon Isaacs
>doesn't take much convincing about the advantages of having a bit of
>clearance for emergencies.
I am sure falling on the top tube in the wrong way is not pleasant. However I
do not see that having an inch or so of standover height is going to make the
difference. The chances of landing so that both legs are stretched, the bike
is vertical etc seems pretty unlikely to me.
jon isaacs
Matt Temple
>
> You only need to fall on the top tube once though! From that moment on, it
> doesn't take much convincing about the advantages of having a bit of
> clearance for emergencies. Other than that, I find it useful to be able to
> stand over the bike in a variety of ways when I'm stopped.
> Pierre
The falls I've seen that looked particularly severe also looked like
1 inch or 2 inches of clearance wouldn't have helped, because the rider
fell onto the top tube and lost footing. No one who really
lands on the top tube also has the good fortune to land on both feet
and not fall forward as well, in which case an inch of clearance
doesn't get you much. But I buy the second statement. But since
I had motorcycles before bikes, the idea of having both feet on the
ground almost never occurred to me!
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
This is an age old specter, just like hitting the bar stem with the
crotch, which doesn't happen enough to worry about either. Some folks
even think "women's" frames are that way to protect female genitalia,
when in fact it was designed to allow women to ride with a skirt about
100 years ago when women "didn't" wear pants in public. That is still
its raison d'etre. It reminds me of tying and soldering spokes, a
leftover from generations ago without meaning, yet the saga continues
through idle repetition.
Jobst Brandt <jobst....@stanfordalumni.org> Palo Alto CA
Tom Nakashima
http://womenshistory.about.com/library/weekly/aa050900a.htm
-tom
<jobst....@stanfordalumni.org> wrote in message
news:R97L8.7934$3w2....@typhoon.sonic.net...
Pierre L
No matter who is right about this, why would anyone in their right mind, in
this day and age, buy a bike that is too big to straddle the top tube. It
just wouldn't make any sense. I mean, why even bother to argue this point?
Pierre
Benjamin Lewis
> No matter who is right about this, why would anyone in their right mind, in
> this day and age, buy a bike that is too big to straddle the top tube. It
> just wouldn't make any sense. I mean, why even bother to argue this point?
Just out of curiousity, what do you need to straddle your top tube for?
I'm not certain, but I'm pretty sure I never do this.
--
Benjamin Lewis
"Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra and then suddenly it flips
over, pinning you underneath. At night, the ice weasels come."
--Matt Groening
Tom Nakashima
elbows on the brake hoods.
-tom
"Benjamin Lewis" <bcl...@cs.sfu.ca> wrote in message
news:yy7olm9u...@css.css.sfu.ca...
Bluto
> chump-<< Can she stand over the bike with any crotch clearance _at all_? (I
> assume the bike has a level top tube.) If so, then the bike can be
> made to fit by choosing an appropriate stem. >>
>
> This is the mistake, either intentionally or thru ignorance, that many bike
> shops make. Standover takes care of itself if the top tube LENGTH and seat tube
> ANGLE are proper, not the other way around. To imply that if the seattube
> length is right, the top tube LENGTH and seat tube ANGLE is correct is just
> not right...
Once a frame is in the .5" to 1" clearance range, then a stem within
the range of normal will give appropriate torso extension for all but
the freakiest body types. Within that normal stem length range,
acceptable steering characteristics will be maintained.
As to seat tube angle, I must insist that it is only a matter of
taste, within the 67 to 80 degree range available commercially. Seat
angle has a bearing on handlebar height WRT the saddle, but to suggest
that there is a "right" seat angle for a given rider is the concept
which is in error here, Fit Kit notwithstanding. There may well be a
"sweet spot" in terms of racing results, but that is not the whole
measure of bike fit.
If there were a "right" seat tube angle, we would not have tri bikes,
recumbent bikes, prone bikes, or even cruisers for that matter!
Please note that I specified 1" standover clearance as "the
traditional method of sizing a traditional road bike". None of my
bikes follow this guideline; they all have more than the usual
standover clearance, because otherwise I would require a 70cm frame.
But I have achieved proper fit with every one of them. And not one of
them positions me the same as any other! They all have different
frames, bars, and purposes, so therefore my position on the bike
varies too.
> Fits have to consider femur length, not just inseam...
_Cranks_ should consider femur length. Frames have to address
standover clearance and upper body extension. To insist that frame
size is related to femur length and then to fit a "one for all" 170mm
crank is backwards, whether conventional practice or not.
Chalo Colina
Chuck Littig
bcl...@cs.sfu.ca wrote on 6/4/02 3:58 PM:
> On Tuesday, June 04 at 12:17 "Pierre L" <pier...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> No matter who is right about this, why would anyone in their right mind, in
>> this day and age, buy a bike that is too big to straddle the top tube. It
>> just wouldn't make any sense. I mean, why even bother to argue this point?
>
> Just out of curiousity, what do you need to straddle your top tube for?
> I'm not certain, but I'm pretty sure I never do this.
I have yet to find a way to ride my bike without straddling the top tube. I
guess I am just as curious as to how anyone rides without doing this.
Benjamin Lewis
> I have yet to find a way to ride my bike without straddling the top tube.
> I guess I am just as curious as to how anyone rides without doing this.
Yeah, but not with both feet flat on the ground. That was assumed.
--
Benjamin Lewis
Everything that can be invented has been invented.
-- Charles Duell, Director of U.S. Patent Office, 1899
Jon Isaacs
>As to seat tube angle, I must insist that it is only a matter of
>taste, within the 67 to 80 degree range available commercially. Seat
>angle has a bearing on handlebar height WRT the saddle, but to suggest
>that there is a "right" seat angle for a given rider is the concept which is
in error here
Wondering if you have ever ridden a bike with an 80 degree seat tube angle???
It can be quite an experience. The seat tube angle and the top tube length are
directly coupled so a bike with an 80 degree seat tube angle and a standard top
tube length will be quite a different ride than a similar bike with a 73 degree
seat tube angle.
Changing the stem length is only a partial solution and does not address the
issue of riding out of the saddle which is independent of seat position.
>If there were a "right" seat tube angle, we would not have tri bikes,
>recumbent bikes, prone bikes, or even cruisers for that matter!
These bikes fit differently and require different techniques to ride
comfortably. For example aggressive "tri bikes" require use of the aerobars,
other wise they are awkward and an uncomfortable. Climbing they require
maintaining a high output, bailing out to a low gear and climbing at a
reasonable pace is not comfortable at all.
Seat tube angle is important in determining position and weight balance.
jon isaacs
Jon Isaacs
>even think "women's" frames are that way to protect female genitalia,
>when in fact it was designed to allow women to ride with a skirt about
>100 years ago when women "didn't" wear pants in public.
Those "Mixte" frames do have a place today, for less flexible and less sure
riders they make mounting and dismounting easier.
Damon Rinard built a step-through bike for a friend of his so she could
continue riding. It is a mix of carbon fiber reinforced epoxy with a steel
rear triangle.
Here is a link:
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/rinard/betty.htm
Looks like quite an interesting bike and it only weighs 23 lbs. Bet there are
a lot of older people who could benefit from a bike like this.
Trek, are you listening???
jon isaacs
Jon Isaacs
>this day and age, buy a bike that is too big to straddle the top tube. It
>just wouldn't make any sense. I mean, why even bother to argue this point?
>Pierre
The reason to discuss this is because it can result in a better understanding
of what determines proper fit.
It is also important to understand that some fears like crunching oneself on
the Top Tube is not relevent to standover height.
Certainly for those of us who buy new bikes or have serious money to spend we
will not be riding bikes with no standover.
But there are many who are riding bikes that they just have and this can work
quite well.
I often see a student riding an older Raleigh aluminum bike, the frame is
probably a 63cm but seat is all the way down and I would guess he is in the 5
ft 7 inch range.
It works for him and the reason it works is that in normal riding, there is
never any need to straddle the top tube with both feet planted firmly on the
ground.
jon isaacs
Matt O'Toole
> This is an age old specter, just like hitting the bar stem with the
> crotch, which doesn't happen enough to worry about either. Some folks
> even think "women's" frames are that way to protect female genitalia,
> when in fact it was designed to allow women to ride with a skirt about
> 100 years ago when women "didn't" wear pants in public. That is still
> its raison d'etre.
"Women's" frames are still pretty handy when carrying a kid, making it much
easier to mount the bicycle without kicking the little one in the head.
Also, some people have trouble swinging their leg over a bike to begin with,
though once on they can ride just fine. A step through frame solves this
problem.
Surfers also like step through frames, because it's much easier to mount the
bike while holding a surfboard under one arm, particularly a big, heavy,
longboard. When I was in junior high school, a "women's" bike was the badge
of a real surfer.
Matt O.
Chuck Littig
bcl...@cs.sfu.ca wrote on 6/4/02 7:11 PM:
> On Tuesday, June 04 at 16:34 Chuck Littig <Ch...@littig.com> wrote:
>
>> I have yet to find a way to ride my bike without straddling the top tube.
>> I guess I am just as curious as to how anyone rides without doing this.
>
> Yeah, but not with both feet flat on the ground. That was assumed.
In the words of Felix Unger and others, "Never assume anything, when you do
you make an "ass" of "you" and "me" :-)
Bluto
> Bluto wrote:
> >As to seat tube angle, I must insist that it is only a matter of
> >taste, within the 67 to 80 degree range available commercially. Seat
> >angle has a bearing on handlebar height WRT the saddle, but to suggest
> >that there is a "right" seat angle for a given rider is the concept which is
> in error here
>
> Wondering if you have ever ridden a bike with an 80 degree seat tube angle???
> It can be quite an experience.
I'll have to take your word on that-- every bike I've had (excepting
choppers) has had between 67 and 73 degree seat angle. They all
worked fine, sitting or standing. It's easier to "post" on the
steeper end of that range; slacker angles make it feel easier to push
a tall gear while seated. Six of one...
> The seat tube angle and the top tube length are
> directly coupled so a bike with an 80 degree seat tube angle and a standard top
> tube length will be quite a different ride than a similar bike with a 73 degree
> seat tube angle.
Is this a real matter of 73 being better than 80, or just a matter of
preference? Because it is plain to me that, say, 69 degrees is no
better or worse than 73 degrees, just different. I will admit that I
have no pertinent experience with steeper angles, and that I was
projecting from the range I have observed.
> Changing the stem length is only a partial solution and does not address the
> issue of riding out of the saddle which is independent of seat position.
I find that a similar saddle-to-bars distance works for me whether
tilted 10 degrees downward or 45 degrees upward, or anything in
between. (A chopperesque position does indeed make it harder to stand
and pedal.)
Chalo Colina
The Pomeranian
I've always liked step-thru's for put-putting around town, and to the
park, and ... etcetera. I don't think one needs to be "old" to enjoy
it.
That's a neat betty bike by the way. I'd call the bike a "Townie."
The Pomeranian
>
> Jon Isaacs <joni...@aol.com> writes:
>
> >> You only need to fall on the top tube once though! From that moment
> >> on, it doesn't take much convincing about the advantages of having
> >> a bit of clearance for emergencies.
>
> > I am sure falling on the top tube in the wrong way is not pleasant.
> > However I do not see that having an inch or so of standover height
> > is going to make the difference. The chances of landing so that
> > both legs are stretched, the bike is vertical etc seems pretty
> > unlikely to me.
>
> This is an age old specter, just like hitting the bar stem with the
> crotch, which doesn't happen enough to worry about either.
I agree with Pierre and say that any more than once per lifetime is more
than enough.
That's why I don't see the reason to ride a "large" frame unless it is a
matter of economic hardship to obtain one that's "properly" sized.
A Muzi
> >
> >> No matter who is right about this, why would anyone in their right
mind, in
> >> this day and age, buy a bike that is too big to straddle the top tube.
It
> >> just wouldn't make any sense. I mean, why even bother to argue this
point?
> in article yy7olm9u...@css.css.sfu.ca, Benjamin Lewis at
> bcl...@cs.sfu.ca wrote on 6/4/02 3:58 PM:
> > Just out of curiousity, what do you need to straddle your top tube for?
> > I'm not certain, but I'm pretty sure I never do this.
"Chuck Littig" <Ch...@littig.com> wrote in message
news:B922B8B0.5F71%Ch...@littig.com...
> I have yet to find a way to ride my bike without straddling the top tube.
I
> guess I am just as curious as to how anyone rides without doing this.
I think what he meant was that we mount by stepping across into a pedal and
wait at a light with one foot in the toeclip. Or at least I rarely stand
flat-footed over my bike.
--
Andrew Muzi
http://www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April 1971
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
>>>> You only need to fall on the top tube once though! From that
>>>> moment on, it doesn't take much convincing about the advantages
>>>> of having a bit of clearance for emergencies.
>>> I am sure falling on the top tube in the wrong way is not
>>> pleasant. However I do not see that having an inch or so of
>>> standover height is going to make the difference. The chances of
>>> landing so that both legs are stretched, the bike is vertical etc
>>> seems pretty unlikely to me.
>> This is an age old specter, just like hitting the bar stem with the
>> crotch, which doesn't happen enough to worry about either.
> I agree with Pierre and say that any more than once per lifetime is
> more than enough.
Who said once per lifetime? How about so rare that in bicycle shops
few can recall ever having heard of such an injury. That fits the
description "which doesn't happen enough to worry about either."
> That's why I don't see the reason to ride a "large" frame unless it
> is a matter of economic hardship to obtain one that's "properly"
> sized.
How low is low enough? It seems we should all be riding bicycles
without top tubes by your assessment.
Pierre L
<jobst....@stanfordalumni.org> wrote in message
news:k8yL8.8868$3w2....@typhoon.sonic.net...
>
> > That's why I don't see the reason to ride a "large" frame unless it
> > is a matter of economic hardship to obtain one that's "properly"
> > sized.
>
> How low is low enough? It seems we should all be riding bicycles
> without top tubes by your assessment.
>
> Jobst Brandt <jobst....@stanfordalumni.org> Palo Alto CA
By some of you guys' assessments, we should all be riding high wheelers!
Hopefully, not too many bike shops are selling bikes that have zero crotch
clearance to unsuspecting newbies.
Pierre
Jenn van der Schee
since I saw a ladies bike like that.. Do they still make them?
Although some companies are getting smart and are making female
specific bikes with shorter top tubes, and I think Trek has a female
crank (??). Cannondale makes a pretty pink one! :)
I appreciate any bike with a shorter top tube so I don't feel as
though I am stretched right out. And I am tall!
:) Jenn
"Matt O'Toole" <ma...@deltanet.com> wrote in message news:<WZsL8.4333$nn1.1...@news1.news.adelphia.net>...
The Pomeranian
>
> anonymous writes:
>
> >>>> You only need to fall on the top tube once though! From that
> >>>> moment on, it doesn't take much convincing about the advantages
> >>>> of having a bit of clearance for emergencies.
>
> >>> I am sure falling on the top tube in the wrong way is not
> >>> pleasant. However I do not see that having an inch or so of
> >>> standover height is going to make the difference. The chances of
> >>> landing so that both legs are stretched, the bike is vertical etc
> >>> seems pretty unlikely to me.
>
> >> This is an age old specter, just like hitting the bar stem with the
> >> crotch, which doesn't happen enough to worry about either.
>
> > I agree with Pierre and say that any more than once per lifetime is
> > more than enough.
>
> Who said once per lifetime? How about so rare that in bicycle shops
> few can recall ever having heard of such an injury. That fits the
> description "which doesn't happen enough to worry about either."
It's an insurance policy with virtually no cost. There just isn't any
reason to ride a so-called "oversized" frame when a smaller one is
available far an identical cost. People don't purchase insurance
because they think they're going to need it. In fact, most don't need
it, that's why the insurance business "works."
That the risk is exceedingly small means very little because the cost of
the policy is a big fat zer0. The original question posed in the thread
has to do with getting a deal: in that specific case, the policy _may_
have a cost. But in general, there is no cost to the policy.
> > That's why I don't see the reason to ride a "large" frame unless it
> > is a matter of economic hardship to obtain one that's "properly"
> > sized.
>
> How low is low enough?
Let the individual decide -- it's their bike. Don't let a little
subjectivity stand in the way of riding a bike.
> It seems we should all be riding bicycles
> without top tubes by your assessment.
Okay, you nailed me. That's my "assessment."
Tim McNamara
The Pomeranian <lifti...@smellslikeakennel.com> wrote:
> It's an insurance policy with virtually no cost. There just isn't any
> reason to ride a so-called "oversized" frame when a smaller one is
> available far an identical cost.
For most people, the largest frame they can straddle flat-footed is
going to result in the most comfortable position.
All you need is about a centimeter clearance between genitalia and top
tube on a road bike. Assuming you have enough normal coordination to
keep your feet on the pedals, you'll have much more clearance than that
in practical terms.
If you can't keep both feet on the pedals- which seems to be an issue
for a number of nervous nellies in this thread- then you've got bigger
problems than frame size and should be riding a recumbent trike.
Tim McNamara
"Matt O'Toole" <ma...@deltanet.com> wrote:
> "Women's" frames are still pretty handy when carrying a kid, making it much
> easier to mount the bicycle without kicking the little one in the head.
> Also, some people have trouble swinging their leg over a bike to begin with,
> though once on they can ride just fine. A step through frame solves this
> problem.
Moultons were designed with this in mind as well, and have kept that
aspect of the design throughout production. My Birdy folder also has a
low top tube (knee-high) and a loooooong seat tube. For people with
restrictions in range of motion, bikes like this- or bikes like the
traditional Dutch roadster- can make the difference between riding and
not.
Pierre L
"Tim McNamara" <tim...@mac.com> wrote in message news:timmcn-
>
> For most people, the largest frame they can straddle flat-footed is
> going to result in the most comfortable position.
>
> All you need is about a centimeter clearance between genitalia and top
> tube on a road bike. Assuming you have enough normal coordination to
> keep your feet on the pedals, you'll have much more clearance than that
> in practical terms.
>
> If you can't keep both feet on the pedals- which seems to be an issue
> for a number of nervous nellies in this thread- then you've got bigger
> problems than frame size and should be riding a recumbent trike.
No nervous nellies. Nobody said more than a cm was needed, just that a
person should be able stand over the top tube of a bike when buying one, all
else being considered (such as top tube length). Some posters have been
aimlessly arguing that it isn't necessary to be able to clear the top tube.
Well of course, a bike can still be ridden like this, but what's the point
of advising people to buy a bike that doesn't fit (same people by the way,
who are the first to say that nothing matters except fit whenever anyone
asks about what bike size to buy).
Pierre
Benjamin Lewis
> No nervous nellies. Nobody said more than a cm was needed, just that a
> person should be able stand over the top tube of a bike when buying one, all
> else being considered (such as top tube length). Some posters have been
> aimlessly arguing that it isn't necessary to be able to clear the top tube.
> Well of course, a bike can still be ridden like this, but what's the point
> of advising people to buy a bike that doesn't fit
Who's doing that? People *should* obviously buy bikes that fit, and
standover height should not be used to determine fit. You don't ride your
bike straddling your top tube with both feet on the ground. In many cases
a bike that fits *will* have standover clearance, but it doesn't
necessarily have to.
--
Benjamin Lewis
On a paper submitted by a physicist colleague:
"This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." -- Wolfgang Pauli
Mark Hickey
>On Thursday, June 06 at 14:40 "Pierre L" <pier...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> No nervous nellies. Nobody said more than a cm was needed, just that a
>> person should be able stand over the top tube of a bike when buying one, all
>> else being considered (such as top tube length). Some posters have been
>> aimlessly arguing that it isn't necessary to be able to clear the top tube.
>> Well of course, a bike can still be ridden like this, but what's the point
>> of advising people to buy a bike that doesn't fit
>
>Who's doing that? People *should* obviously buy bikes that fit, and
>standover height should not be used to determine fit. You don't ride your
>bike straddling your top tube with both feet on the ground. In many cases
>a bike that fits *will* have standover clearance, but it doesn't
>necessarily have to.
But with all the choices out there, why in the world would you buy a
bike you can't stand over. True, you won't spend an awful lot of time
standing over the top tube... but it does happen.
For example, you're at a light, coasting to a stop. You unclip your
left foot and swing it down, and move your hips over to the left to
allow Uncle Harry and the twins some room. You're trying to look cool
to the two young blondes in the convertible to your left. That's why
you didn't notice that rock that kicks your front wheel to the left
just before you planned to come to a stop. Unfortunately, it also
causes the bike to start to fall... to... the... right.
Right about then is when you'll be wishing you had an inch of
clearance.
Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame
Tim McNamara
Benjamin Lewis <bcl...@cs.sfu.ca> wrote:
> On Thursday, June 06 at 14:40 "Pierre L" <pier...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > No nervous nellies. Nobody said more than a cm was needed, just
> > that a person should be able stand over the top tube of a bike when
> > buying one, all else being considered (such as top tube length).
> > Some posters have been aimlessly arguing that it isn't necessary to
> > be able to clear the top tube. Well of course, a bike can still be
> > ridden like this, but what's the point of advising people to buy a
> > bike that doesn't fit
>
> Who's doing that? People *should* obviously buy bikes that fit, and
> standover height should not be used to determine fit. You don't ride
> your bike straddling your top tube with both feet on the ground. In
> many cases a bike that fits *will* have standover clearance, but it
> doesn't necessarily have to.
I have a hard time picturing a bike that will properly fit the rider,
but which has a top tube so high that they can't straddle it. What
type of bike frame do you have in mind for this?
Pete Geurds
>I have a hard time picturing a bike that will properly fit the rider,
>but which has a top tube so high that they can't straddle it. What
>type of bike frame do you have in mind for this?
>
If your a vintage bike fan you become aware that some manufacturer's (Raleigh
to name one) would skip sizes. Frames in the lower and mid price range tended
to come in 21 1/2", 23 1/2", 25 1/2". (Note: The top of the line Raleighs would
go in one inch increments.)
Now some luck comes into play as to which size fits. I'm 6' 1", never have
bothered to measure my inseam. I know a 23 1/2" is too small* and a 25 /12" is
on the high end, I'm better off with a 24 1/2" frame, but oops there isn't one.
So I trade having minimal stand over for riding comfort. My fleet tends to have
shortish top tubes for their frame size so that is not an issue. Of course if I
ran into something that was 24.5" (approx. 62cm) and it had a 62cm top tube
that could be a problem!
* Too small means that a standard length road seatpost won't work, means a
riser stem is required, means I can't get the bar/seat height relationship
where I want.
Feel free to make up your own standards!
Pete Geurds
Douglassville, PA
Pierre L
"Pete Geurds" <raleig...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020607071311...@mb-ma.aol.com...
Boy, we really need to give up on this thread. What riding comfort can one
possibly gain by getting a frame that's too tall in the seat tube? Comfort
that can't be gotten in any other way, that is.
Pierre
Pete Geurds
>possibly gain by getting a frame that's too tall in the seat tube? Comfort
>that can't be gotten in any other way, that is.
The point is that I'm not buying new frames. I have to work within the
limitations of finding vintage bikes that I like and trying to make them fit.
Not everyone is going in, getting fitted properly and having the frame built to
suit.
The original post never really answered the question of whether or not the
shop's fitment was correct or they were a place that liked to fit SPF (smallest
possible frame);
2cm might well have been in range. 2cm increase in set tube length does not
automatically tell you anything about the top tube length.
There are shops in my area that do fit people on small frames and it looks
terrible, tall seatposts, long stems, way low bars. I can't see being fitted to
racer spec bikes if I'm not a racer, yet that is what happens in a lot of case
(I think).
I read somewhere that a lot of road bike sales involve racer fantasies.
Could be.
Pete Geurds
Douglassville, PA
Pierre L
Well, don`t look at me! I'm anything but a racer, and my road bike has about
1 cm clearance when I straddle it. I agree with you about too small frames,
but I just don't agree with those who posted it wouldn't matter if this lady
(friend of the original poster) ended up with a bike she couldn't straddle.
Some even suggested it might be preferable because she would be more
comfortable. That's going a bit too far, in my opinion. I can understand
your situation with specific vintage bikes though. I don't think even the
Rivendell people who favour larger frames (and I agree with that concept)
would want to sell someone a bike they couldn't even straddle.
Pierre
Dan Goldenberg
> I read somewhere that a lot of road bike sales involve racer fantasies.
> Could be.
>
showroom floor sold to recreational riders. Yes, I would say racer fantasies
has something to do with it.
Dan Goldenberg
Seattle WA
Pete Geurds
>Well, don`t look at me! I'm anything but a racer, and my road bike has about
>1 cm clearance when I straddle it. I agree with you about too small frames,
>but I just don't agree with those who posted it wouldn't matter if this lady
>(friend of the original poster) ended up with a bike she couldn't straddle.
>Some even suggested it might be preferable because she would be more
>comfortable. That's going a bit too far, in my opinion. I can understand
>your situation with specific vintage bikes though. I don't think even the
>Rivendell people who favour larger frames (and I agree with that concept)
>would want to sell someone a bike they couldn't even straddle.
Ok, if your setting on the top tube and your feet are dangling, yes that's too
big!
I'd still like to see that woman on the bike just to see how much room there
really was.
Pete Geurds
Douglassville, PA
David Damerell
[Crunching nadgers on the top tube.]
>>This is an age old specter, just like hitting the bar stem with the
>>crotch, which doesn't happen enough to worry about either.
In my experience the top tube landing happens exactly once. It's enough of
an object lesson that after that you'll always come off some other way...
>"Women's" frames are still pretty handy when carrying a kid, making it much
>easier to mount the bicycle without kicking the little one in the head.
I got kicked in the head like that by my father (who rides a gents frame)
once. :-(
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> flcl?
The Pomeranian
>
> In article <3CFF9FE7...@smellslikeakennel.com>,
> The Pomeranian <lifti...@smellslikeakennel.com> wrote:
>
> > It's an insurance policy with virtually no cost. There just isn't any
> > reason to ride a so-called "oversized" frame when a smaller one is
> > available far an identical cost.
>
> For most people, the largest frame they can straddle flat-footed is
> going to result in the most comfortable position.
How so? I doubt this is true. The most apparent reason is because
there are a range of frame dimensions on the market for each frame
"size."
> All you need is about a centimeter clearance between genitalia and top
> tube on a road bike. Assuming you have enough normal coordination to
> keep your feet on the pedals, you'll have much more clearance than that
> in practical terms.
I suppose we're talking about marginal differences. In any case, the
important time for the standover is not when riding, it's when
straddling the bike and wanting to move the bike around a bit underneath
you. This occurs while stopping for a moment and talking to riding
campanions, stopping at red lights and moving around, and moving around
at the start line of a race (and etcetera). It's a small matter, but I
think the marginal edge goes to frames that are not oversized. It is
simply easier to move the bike around underneath you, should you not
want to dismount.
There is also the marginal nard protection advantage. For my taste, I
wouldn't call 1 cm a "convenient clearance."
There doesn't seem to be an advantage to oversized frames -- at least I
don't know of any. The advantages of a properly sized frame are
marginal, but the added benefit can normally be had at absolutely no
additional cost.
> If you can't keep both feet on the pedals- which seems to be an issue
> for a number of nervous nellies in this thread- then you've got bigger
> problems than frame size and should be riding a recumbent trike.
I'm not referring to that type of individual. I rode a bike that was 5
cm too big for many years. I did get down the road on it without
difficulty. But I my current smaller frames better. I call my curent
road frames "properly sized" and the standover is 2 to 3 inches IIRC.
It sure isn't 1 inch or less. Fortunately, the trend of selling
oversized frames has long passed. People have better choices than they
used to in this regard.
Tom Nakashima
brought back memories for me. Years ago when the mini skirts were in
fashion, a gal advertised a road bike in the local newspaper. I called and
she gave me the details, except she didn't know the size of the bike, but
said she could straddle the bar...she was 5'8" tall. Thinking it might be a
good deal in my size, I went to look at the bike and brought along a tape
measure. When I got there, she was indeed about 5'8" and I measured the seat
tube at 59cm. I blurted out; "You can straddle the bar?" Not that I doubted
her in the least, but before I could say any more, she straddled the bar
with both feet (no shoes) on the ground, in her mini skirt with a little
room to spare, not much room, but believe me, there was clearance alright.
Cycling sure brings back a lot of good memories.
-tom
"Pete Geurds" <raleig...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020607131906...@mb-mt.aol.com...
Benjamin Lewis
> For example, you're at a light, coasting to a stop. You unclip your
> left foot and swing it down, and move your hips over to the left to
> allow Uncle Harry and the twins some room. You're trying to look cool
> to the two young blondes in the convertible to your left. That's why
> you didn't notice that rock that kicks your front wheel to the left
> just before you planned to come to a stop. Unfortunately, it also
> causes the bike to start to fall... to... the... right.
I always look cool naturally, so this is not an issue for me.
> Right about then is when you'll be wishing you had an inch of
> clearance.
My bike has approximately 0" of clearance, but I never noticed this until
this thread came up. I actually got the *smaller* of the two sizes my LBS
recommended with FitKit, too. I think I have a fairly long torso and arms.
--
Benjamin Lewis
The world is coming to an end ... SAVE YOUR BUFFERS!!!
Robert Strickland
designs similar to this. Not coincidentally, you see a lot of older men and
women riding these kinds of frames around town, day touring and even loaded
touring. It probably also has to do with Germany being a more
bicycle-oriented society but I'd still bet bicycle manufacturers could sell
a lot of bikes like these elsewhere.
Robert Strickland
"The Pomeranian" <lifti...@smellslikeakennel.com> wrote in message
news:3CFE9D5F...@smellslikeakennel.com...