TTL: The key measurement in sizing

I don't know why manufacturer size ali bikes and carbon bikes and ti
bikes by the seat tube length. Steel bikes were sized by the seat tube
length to relate them to the rider's height and weight without making
the frame any heavier than need be. The stiff non-ferrous materials
can take big seatpost and stem extensions. So the important dimension
for bike fit becomes the one that regulates the angle of the torso,
and that is top tube length. I have found that on almost any bike
except road bikes, seat tube height is, within reasonable margins,
irrelevant, but top tube length variations of only two centimeters
between bikes of otherwise near-identical geometry can make or break
the comfort and therefore the long-term utility of a bike. Somewhere
between 4 to 6 cm in top tube length on most bikes, fit to some
predetermined ideal torso angle becomes difficult or impossible and
you have to move up or down a size or start looking at different
geometries.

Andre Jute
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/B...20CYCLING.html

On Apr 29, 2:41*pm, Andre Jute wrote:
I don't know why manufacturer size ali bikes and carbon bikes and ti
bikes by the seat tube length. Steel bikes were sized by the seat tube
length to relate them to the rider's height and weight without making
the frame any heavier than need be. The stiff non-ferrous materials
can take big seatpost and stem extensions. So the important dimension
for bike fit becomes the one that regulates the angle of the torso,
and that is top tube length. I have found that on almost any bike
except road bikes, seat tube height is, within reasonable margins,
irrelevant, but top tube length variations of only two centimeters
between bikes of otherwise near-identical geometry can make or break
the comfort and therefore the long-term utility of a bike. Somewhere
between 4 to 6 cm in top tube length on most bikes, fit to some
predetermined ideal torso angle becomes difficult or impossible and
you have to move up or down a size *or start looking at different
geometries.

Andre Jutehttp://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE%20%26%20CYCLING.html

Yes, as well as head-tube length, or more specifically stack-height.

Joseph

On Apr 29, 4:01*pm, "
wrote:
On Apr 29, 2:41*pm, Andre Jute wrote:



I don't know why manufacturer size ali bikes and carbon bikes and ti
bikes by the seat tube length. Steel bikes were sized by the seat tube
length to relate them to the rider's height and weight without making
the frame any heavier than need be. The stiff non-ferrous materials
can take big seatpost and stem extensions. So the important dimension
for bike fit becomes the one that regulates the angle of the torso,
and that is top tube length. I have found that on almost any bike
except road bikes, seat tube height is, within reasonable margins,
irrelevant, but top tube length variations of only two centimeters
between bikes of otherwise near-identical geometry can make or break
the comfort and therefore the long-term utility of a bike. Somewhere
between 4 to 6 cm in top tube length on most bikes, fit to some
predetermined ideal torso angle becomes difficult or impossible and
you have to move up or down a size *or start looking at different
geometries.

Andre Jutehttp://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE%20%26%20CYCLING.html

Yes, as well as head-tube length, or more specifically stack-height.

Joseph

Nah, stack height is just another parasite foisted on cyclists by the
entire racing-fashion-onesizefitsallmakeitcheaperandchargemore
paradigm and the wretched A-head stems that came with it. A
traditional quill stem can be any height, angle and extension you
require; it solves a lot of problems without even breaking sweat.

BTW, without pretending it is a scientific measurement -- I didn't
even get the scales out --, I did once weigh an 80s Atax (I think, it
was off an early upmarket Peugeot bike) A-head stem in one hand
against the fully toollessly adjustable quill stem of my luxurious
Gazelle Toulouse (whose makers would you sue you for libel if you
called them weight weenies) -- and got a shock. The "sports" stem was
obviously heavier than the entire Gazelle adjustable assembly. It's a
crock that the A-head and its stem saves any significant weight; it's
purpose is to let manufacturers make a onesize bike, to make the
fittings more cheaply, to sell a second unit, the stem, to which a
mystique and therefore a boutique price can be attached, in other
words not for the benefit of the rider but for the glorification of
their bank accounts. I'm surprised that Tom Sherman doesn't ride the
ass of the bike manufacturers, and especially their components and
aftermarket adjuncts, every day for their greed.

Andre Jute
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/B...20CYCLING.html

On Apr 29, 6:04*pm, Andre Jute wrote:
On Apr 29, 4:01*pm, "



wrote:
On Apr 29, 2:41*pm, Andre Jute wrote:

I don't know why manufacturer size ali bikes and carbon bikes and ti
bikes by the seat tube length. Steel bikes were sized by the seat tube
length to relate them to the rider's height and weight without making
the frame any heavier than need be. The stiff non-ferrous materials
can take big seatpost and stem extensions. So the important dimension
for bike fit becomes the one that regulates the angle of the torso,
and that is top tube length. I have found that on almost any bike
except road bikes, seat tube height is, within reasonable margins,
irrelevant, but top tube length variations of only two centimeters
between bikes of otherwise near-identical geometry can make or break
the comfort and therefore the long-term utility of a bike. Somewhere
between 4 to 6 cm in top tube length on most bikes, fit to some
predetermined ideal torso angle becomes difficult or impossible and
you have to move up or down a size *or start looking at different
geometries.

Andre Jutehttp://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE%20%26%20CYCLING.html

Yes, as well as head-tube length, or more specifically stack-height.

Joseph

Nah, stack height is just another parasite foisted on cyclists by the
entire racing-fashion-onesizefitsallmakeitcheaperandchargemore
paradigm and the wretched A-head stems that came with it. A
traditional quill stem can be any height, angle and extension you
require; it solves a lot of problems without even breaking sweat.

BTW, without pretending it is a scientific measurement -- I didn't
even get the scales out --, I did once weigh an 80s Atax (I think, it
was off an early upmarket Peugeot bike) A-head stem in one hand
against the fully toollessly adjustable quill stem of my luxurious
Gazelle Toulouse (whose makers would you sue you for libel if you
called them weight weenies) -- and got a shock. The "sports" stem was
obviously heavier than the entire Gazelle adjustable assembly. It's a
crock that the A-head and its stem saves any significant weight; it's
purpose is to let manufacturers make a onesize bike, to make the
fittings more cheaply, to sell a second unit, the stem, to which a
mystique and therefore a boutique price can be attached, in other
words not for the benefit of the rider but for the glorification of
their bank accounts. I'm surprised that Tom Sherman doesn't ride the
ass of the bike manufacturers, and especially their components and
aftermarket adjuncts, every day for their greed.

Andre Jutehttp://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE%20%26%20CYCLING.html

A-Headset is way better than you make it out to be. Stiff bar, and
easy to adjust without any big wrenches. Who cares about weight, it's
just stonger. The dumb thing is when people cut off too much steerer!

But even quill stems have a limited adjustment range, so stack-height
needs to be taken into consideration. Not only for being able to get
the bars high enough, but also low enough! Think about that crazy cafe
racer hour record bike!

By stack-height I mean the overall height range of where the bars can
be placed relative to the bb or seat. Not just how much steerer is
showing.

Joseph

Andre Jute wrote:
[...]
Nah, stack height is just another parasite foisted on cyclists by the
entire racing-fashion-onesizefitsallmakeitcheaperandchargemore
paradigm and the wretched A-head stems that came with it. A
traditional quill stem can be any height, angle and extension you
require; it solves a lot of problems without even breaking sweat.

I do not always agree with JB, but he is correct he
http://sheldonbrown.com/brandt/threadless-headset.html.

BTW, without pretending it is a scientific measurement -- I didn't
even get the scales out --, I did once weigh an 80s Atax (I think, it
was off an early upmarket Peugeot bike) A-head stem in one hand
against the fully toollessly adjustable quill stem of my luxurious
Gazelle Toulouse (whose makers would you sue you for libel if you
called them weight weenies) -- and got a shock. The "sports" stem was
obviously heavier than the entire Gazelle adjustable assembly. It's a
crock that the A-head and its stem saves any significant weight; it's
purpose is to let manufacturers make a onesize bike, to make the
fittings more cheaply, to sell a second unit, the stem, to which a
mystique and therefore a boutique price can be attached, in other
words not for the benefit of the rider but for the glorification of
their bank accounts. I'm surprised that Tom Sherman doesn't ride the
ass of the bike manufacturers, and especially their components and
aftermarket adjuncts, every day for their greed.

Have you read me praising any of the foo foo components?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

In article ,
Tom Sherman wrote:

Andre Jute wrote:
[...]
Nah, stack height is just another parasite foisted on cyclists by the
entire racing-fashion-onesizefitsallmakeitcheaperandchargemore
paradigm and the wretched A-head stems that came with it. A
traditional quill stem can be any height, angle and extension you
require; it solves a lot of problems without even breaking sweat.

I do not always agree with JB, but he is correct he
http://sheldonbrown.com/brandt/threadless-headset.html.

BTW, without pretending it is a scientific measurement -- I didn't
even get the scales out --, I did once weigh an 80s Atax (I think, it
was off an early upmarket Peugeot bike) A-head stem in one hand
against the fully toollessly adjustable quill stem of my luxurious
Gazelle Toulouse (whose makers would you sue you for libel if you
called them weight weenies) -- and got a shock. The "sports" stem was
obviously heavier than the entire Gazelle adjustable assembly. It's a
crock that the A-head and its stem saves any significant weight; it's
purpose is to let manufacturers make a onesize bike, to make the
fittings more cheaply, to sell a second unit, the stem, to which a
mystique and therefore a boutique price can be attached, in other
words not for the benefit of the rider but for the glorification of
their bank accounts. I'm surprised that Tom Sherman doesn't ride the
ass of the bike manufacturers, and especially their components and
aftermarket adjuncts, every day for their greed.

Have you read me praising any of the foo foo components?

frou frou.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=frou-frou

--
Michael Press

On Apr 30, 3:26*am, Tom Sherman
wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
[...]
Nah, stack height is just another parasite foisted on cyclists by the
entire racing-fashion-onesizefitsallmakeitcheaperandchargemore
paradigm and the wretched A-head stems that came with it. A
traditional quill stem can be any height, angle and extension you
require; it solves a lot of problems without even breaking sweat.

I do not always agree with JB, but he is correct he
http://sheldonbrown.com/brandt/threadless-headset.html.

Adam Smith told us in the same year as the American Republic was
founded that "engineers never congregate but to conspire against the
pockets of their fellow cyclists".

BTW, without pretending it is a scientific measurement -- I didn't
even get the scales out --, I did once weigh an 80s Atax (I think, it
was off an early upmarket Peugeot bike) A-head stem in one hand
against the fully toollessly adjustable quill stem of my luxurious
Gazelle Toulouse (whose makers would you sue you for libel if you
called them weight weenies) -- and got a shock. The "sports" stem was
obviously heavier than the entire Gazelle adjustable assembly. It's a
crock that the A-head and its stem saves any significant weight; it's
purpose is to let manufacturers make a onesize bike, to make the
fittings more cheaply, to sell a second unit, the stem, to which a
mystique and therefore a boutique price can be attached, in other
words not for the benefit of the rider but for the glorification of
their bank accounts. I'm surprised that Tom Sherman doesn't ride the
ass of the bike manufacturers, and especially their components and
aftermarket adjuncts, every day for their greed.

Have you read me praising any of the foo foo components?

Exactly. A man is known as much for what he doesn't praise as what he
condemns. I merely expressed surprise that you not react more strongly
than silent disapproval to these wasteful, inefficient and unnecessary
fads.

Andre Jute
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/B...%20HUMOUR.html

On Apr 29, 9:26 pm, Tom Sherman
wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
[...]
Nah, stack height is just another parasite foisted on cyclists by the
entire racing-fashion-onesizefitsallmakeitcheaperandchargemore
paradigm and the wretched A-head stems that came with it. A
traditional quill stem can be any height, angle and extension you
require; it solves a lot of problems without even breaking sweat.

I do not always agree with JB, but he is correct he
http://sheldonbrown.com/brandt/threadless-headset.html.



BTW, without pretending it is a scientific measurement -- I didn't
even get the scales out --, I did once weigh an 80s Atax (I think, it
was off an early upmarket Peugeot bike) A-head stem in one hand
against the fully toollessly adjustable quill stem of my luxurious
Gazelle Toulouse (whose makers would you sue you for libel if you
called them weight weenies) -- and got a shock. The "sports" stem was
obviously heavier than the entire Gazelle adjustable assembly. It's a
crock that the A-head and its stem saves any significant weight; it's
purpose is to let manufacturers make a onesize bike, to make the
fittings more cheaply, to sell a second unit, the stem, to which a
mystique and therefore a boutique price can be attached, in other
words not for the benefit of the rider but for the glorification of
their bank accounts. I'm surprised that Tom Sherman doesn't ride the
ass of the bike manufacturers, and especially their components and
aftermarket adjuncts, every day for their greed.

Have you read me praising any of the foo foo components?

I've grown to like aheadset type headsets for exactly the reasons JB
states. When I installed a Nitto 135 last week with meticulously
wrapped Tressostar into a two bolt threadless stem, I thought--well
that looks pretty good, with a foot in the past, and one in the
present. When I took it for a test ride after building the bike up, I
hit a bump a couple miles from the house and the headset clunked--just
a matter of stopping and adjusting with the allen key in my pocket.
Good stuff, especially for those on tour.

"landotter" wrote in message
...

I've grown to like aheadset type headsets for exactly the reasons JB
states. When I installed a Nitto 135 last week with meticulously
wrapped Tressostar into a two bolt threadless stem, I thought--well
that looks pretty good, with a foot in the past, and one in the
present. When I took it for a test ride after building the bike up, I
hit a bump a couple miles from the house and the headset clunked--just
a matter of stopping and adjusting with the allen key in my pocket.
Good stuff, especially for those on tour.

That's why I like them too - no need for a clunky headset spanner (or two),
no tedious adjusting of locknuts. And no need to hit the expander bolt
either :-)

The detachable faceplate is another great thing, but it's merely tradition
that means quills tend to not have them whereas threadless do - there's no
intrinsic reason why quills can't have them.

Of course the move to bigger headsets has rendered it largely academic -
although 1 1/8" quills exist AFAIK, what proportion of the world use them?

(question : Is Mike Burrows a hero for designing Chris Boardman's 'Lotus'
bike and the windcheetah (holder of the E2E record here), or a demon because
he introduced the 'compact' geometry idea via Giant?)

cheers,
clive

I agree that top tube length should be the "advertised size" as
opposed to seat tube for the reasons that Andre mentioned.

However, I also agree on the basic principle that stack height (head
tube +) is very important. Regardless of whether the threadless
steerer / stem is a conspiracy or a better system - OR - if it's
merely aesthetics, I'm finding that a lot of common and popular frame
designs just don't allow high enough handlebars without a goofy high
angle stem or an extender. Maybe the long shafted quill stem would be
better at making this adjustment, but it would still be limited and
one would still have to consider head tube length or stack height.

That said, regardless of whether the threadless stem is a good thing
or a bad thing, saying " Nah, stack height is just another parasite
foisted on cyclists by the entire racing-fashion-
onesizefitsallmakeitcheaperandchargemore paradigm and the wretched A-
head stems that came with it." is just not helpful. Note I'm not
saying it's not true, but the reality is that if you go to buy a bike
these days, it will have a threadless fork/steerer and you have to
deal with it.

Myself, I love the looks of a classic frame - thin tubes, beautifully
sculpted quill stem, unobtrusive rims and spokes. But I also like the
look of modern frames and wheels (to an extent) and do think there are
some real advantages to modern designs.