A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Sizing a Bike



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old March 1st 08, 03:36 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Tom Kunich
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,456
Default Sizing a Bike

Over the years I've followed this fad and that and one of them has been to
ride frame sizes one or two sizes smaller than you should be riding. Today
this also comes down to those idiotic "compact" frames that are too small in
all sizes.

The problem with small frames is that you cannot mount the bars in the
correct position. For most riders the handlebars should be about 1" below
the saddle height - when was the last time you saw that? Why magazine "test
bikes" invariably have photos of a racing bike with the bars perhaps 4"
below saddle height (some even more!) as if that were some sort of target.

Low bars cause you to ride with your neck craned back too far to see
forward. It also puts your genitals in a very painful position. Add to this
the ridiculous "ultralight" saddles which achieve lightening by making the
smallest possible saddle and here you are with a flat back, head craned up
40 degrees, weight falling forward and having to sit off to one side of the
saddle to avoid painful interactions.

When your bar tops are an inch below the saddle height the DROPS become
usable if and when you're in that racing pack. Today's drops are so low that
your arms are out straight as an arrow when you try to use them and you have
more drag than with your hands on the tops!

Anyone that's seen Jobst out riding would note immediately that he certainly
isn't following any bicycle magazine ads pertaining to bicycle fit. And most
people still can't stay with him when he's in a hurry.

Ads
  #2  
Old March 1st 08, 03:54 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Paul M. Hobson[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 370
Default Sizing a Bike

Tom Kunich wrote:
Over the years I've followed this fad and that and one of them has been
to ride frame sizes one or two sizes smaller than you should be riding.
Today this also comes down to those idiotic "compact" frames that are
too small in all sizes.

The problem with small frames is that you cannot mount the bars in the
correct position. For most riders the handlebars should be about 1"
below the saddle height - when was the last time you saw that? Why
magazine "test bikes" invariably have photos of a racing bike with the
bars perhaps 4" below saddle height (some even more!) as if that were
some sort of target.

Low bars cause you to ride with your neck craned back too far to see
forward. It also puts your genitals in a very painful position. Add to
this the ridiculous "ultralight" saddles which achieve lightening by
making the smallest possible saddle and here you are with a flat back,
head craned up 40 degrees, weight falling forward and having to sit off
to one side of the saddle to avoid painful interactions.


I've been looking for a new frame lately. It seems that at least SOMA
Fabrications and Gunnar are making frames with taller headtubes "to
eliminate the need for so many spacers." It seems they get it, at least.

\\paul
ps. I think I'm going with the Gunnar. More $$$ but it's made in the US.
--
Paul M. Hobson
..:change the f to ph to reply:.
  #3  
Old March 1st 08, 06:32 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Nick Payne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 153
Default Sizing a Bike

Threadless carbon steerers make the problem even worse - most manufacturers
specify a maximum of 30mm or 40mm of spacers allowed between the headset and
stem.

Nick

"Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote in message
...
Over the years I've followed this fad and that and one of them has been to
ride frame sizes one or two sizes smaller than you should be riding. Today
this also comes down to those idiotic "compact" frames that are too small
in all sizes.

The problem with small frames is that you cannot mount the bars in the
correct position. For most riders the handlebars should be about 1" below
the saddle height - when was the last time you saw that? Why magazine
"test bikes" invariably have photos of a racing bike with the bars perhaps
4" below saddle height (some even more!) as if that were some sort of
target.

Low bars cause you to ride with your neck craned back too far to see
forward. It also puts your genitals in a very painful position. Add to
this the ridiculous "ultralight" saddles which achieve lightening by
making the smallest possible saddle and here you are with a flat back,
head craned up 40 degrees, weight falling forward and having to sit off to
one side of the saddle to avoid painful interactions.

When your bar tops are an inch below the saddle height the DROPS become
usable if and when you're in that racing pack. Today's drops are so low
that your arms are out straight as an arrow when you try to use them and
you have more drag than with your hands on the tops!

Anyone that's seen Jobst out riding would note immediately that he
certainly isn't following any bicycle magazine ads pertaining to bicycle
fit. And most people still can't stay with him when he's in a hurry.


  #4  
Old March 1st 08, 07:04 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Mike Jacoubowsky
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,972
Default Sizing a Bike

The problem with small frames is that you cannot mount the bars in the
correct position. For most riders the handlebars should be about 1" below
the saddle height - when was the last time you saw that? Why magazine
"test bikes" invariably have photos of a racing bike with the bars perhaps
4" below saddle height (some even more!) as if that were some sort of
target.


You need to be careful to separate the issue of too-low handlebars from
sloping top tubes. In many cases, so-called "compact" frames simply have a
top tube that slopes down from the front of the bike to the rear. The front
is every bit as high, and sometimes higher, than a traditional level
top-tube bike.

In the case of Trek, the high end bikes are available in two different
styles. Each has a sloping top tube, but the "Profit" has the front end at
exactly the same height as the previous level top-tube bikes, while the
"Performance" fit has the front end 3cm HIGHER than what had been the
standard.

And I'm told the industry standard is moving towards the higher front ends
on bikes. In most cases, what you might have seen as being a lower handlebar
is actually an illusion caused by the large amount of seatpost showing.

Whatever the case, it has never been easier for us to accomodate a cyclist
who would like a higher handlebar position.

In the end, the only thing that matters is the minimum "drop" you can
accomplish between the seat and handlebar. The evidence is that bars are
getting higher, not lower, compared to seat height.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA


"Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote in message
...
Over the years I've followed this fad and that and one of them has been to
ride frame sizes one or two sizes smaller than you should be riding. Today
this also comes down to those idiotic "compact" frames that are too small
in all sizes.

The problem with small frames is that you cannot mount the bars in the
correct position. For most riders the handlebars should be about 1" below
the saddle height - when was the last time you saw that? Why magazine
"test bikes" invariably have photos of a racing bike with the bars perhaps
4" below saddle height (some even more!) as if that were some sort of
target.

Low bars cause you to ride with your neck craned back too far to see
forward. It also puts your genitals in a very painful position. Add to
this the ridiculous "ultralight" saddles which achieve lightening by
making the smallest possible saddle and here you are with a flat back,
head craned up 40 degrees, weight falling forward and having to sit off to
one side of the saddle to avoid painful interactions.

When your bar tops are an inch below the saddle height the DROPS become
usable if and when you're in that racing pack. Today's drops are so low
that your arms are out straight as an arrow when you try to use them and
you have more drag than with your hands on the tops!

Anyone that's seen Jobst out riding would note immediately that he
certainly isn't following any bicycle magazine ads pertaining to bicycle
fit. And most people still can't stay with him when he's in a hurry.



  #5  
Old March 1st 08, 07:34 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Luke
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 342
Default Sizing a Bike

In article , Tom Kunich
cyclintom@yahoo. wrote:

Over the years I've followed this fad and that and one of them has been to
ride frame sizes one or two sizes smaller than you should be riding. Today
this also comes down to those idiotic "compact" frames that are too small in
all sizes.

The problem with small frames is that you cannot mount the bars in the
correct position. For most riders the handlebars should be about 1" below
the saddle height - when was the last time you saw that? Why magazine "test
bikes" invariably have photos of a racing bike with the bars perhaps 4"
below saddle height (some even more!) as if that were some sort of target.

snip

I suspect that buycycling mags espouse this esthetic because there is a
market buying into this racer chic fetish. The 'high performance', and
presumably, high margin accessory business is built upon it. In some
ways commerce behaves likes natu it abhors a vacuum; and those that
don't know any better have no shortage of those willing to tell them
what is better.

Happily my casual observations reveal a disassociation from what's most
commonly and prominently featured in the glossy shills of the trade and
what's between the legs of local cyclists. Heresy that so many of the
provincial velo Luddites eschew the high price bling and cling
stubbornly to practical designs and inexpensive models.

Let the velo-zines indulge the myth that discomfort is the price of
speed. After all, why would one expect them to behave any differently
from their car and motorcycle counterparts that frequently feature the
exotic and impractical?
  #6  
Old March 1st 08, 09:41 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Lou Holtman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 627
Default Sizing a Bike

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
The problem with small frames is that you cannot mount the bars in the
correct position. For most riders the handlebars should be about 1" below
the saddle height - when was the last time you saw that? Why magazine
"test bikes" invariably have photos of a racing bike with the bars perhaps
4" below saddle height (some even more!) as if that were some sort of
target.


You need to be careful to separate the issue of too-low handlebars from
sloping top tubes. In many cases, so-called "compact" frames simply have a
top tube that slopes down from the front of the bike to the rear. The front
is every bit as high, and sometimes higher, than a traditional level
top-tube bike.

In the case of Trek, the high end bikes are available in two different
styles. Each has a sloping top tube, but the "Profit" has the front end at
exactly the same height as the previous level top-tube bikes, while the
"Performance" fit has the front end 3cm HIGHER than what had been the
standard.

And I'm told the industry standard is moving towards the higher front ends
on bikes. In most cases, what you might have seen as being a lower handlebar
is actually an illusion caused by the large amount of seatpost showing.

Whatever the case, it has never been easier for us to accomodate a cyclist
who would like a higher handlebar position.

In the end, the only thing that matters is the minimum "drop" you can
accomplish between the seat and handlebar. The evidence is that bars are
getting higher, not lower, compared to seat height.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA


"Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote in message
...
Over the years I've followed this fad and that and one of them has been to
ride frame sizes one or two sizes smaller than you should be riding. Today
this also comes down to those idiotic "compact" frames that are too small
in all sizes.

The problem with small frames is that you cannot mount the bars in the
correct position. For most riders the handlebars should be about 1" below
the saddle height - when was the last time you saw that? Why magazine
"test bikes" invariably have photos of a racing bike with the bars perhaps
4" below saddle height (some even more!) as if that were some sort of
target.

Low bars cause you to ride with your neck craned back too far to see
forward. It also puts your genitals in a very painful position. Add to
this the ridiculous "ultralight" saddles which achieve lightening by
making the smallest possible saddle and here you are with a flat back,
head craned up 40 degrees, weight falling forward and having to sit off to
one side of the saddle to avoid painful interactions.

When your bar tops are an inch below the saddle height the DROPS become
usable if and when you're in that racing pack. Today's drops are so low
that your arms are out straight as an arrow when you try to use them and
you have more drag than with your hands on the tops!

Anyone that's seen Jobst out riding would note immediately that he
certainly isn't following any bicycle magazine ads pertaining to bicycle
fit. And most people still can't stay with him when he's in a hurry.





I agree. Yesterday I got the latest issue of TOUR magazine on my
doormat. They tested 24 top carbon frames, most of them sloping frames.
The headtube lenght of all those frames with a effective toptube lenght
of 56-58 cm, a
155, 175, 170, 160, 170, 155, 160, 170, 170, 158, 176, 175, 160, 158,
183, 175, 170, 162, 170, 160, 155, 170, 160, 160 mm. Considerably larger
then the 125 mm headtube of my 'old' Litespeed Classic with horizontal
toptube.

Lou
  #7  
Old March 1st 08, 11:37 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Tom Sherman[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,890
Default Sizing a Bike

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
[...]
In the case of Trek, the high end bikes are available in two different
styles. Each has a sloping top tube, but the "Profit" has the front end at
exactly the same height as the previous level top-tube bikes[...]


Does the "Profit" include additional markup to the price?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
  #8  
Old March 1st 08, 02:32 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 153
Default Sizing a Bike

I don't undrstand why bike makers (at least moderate to high end) dont
just ship bikes with the fork ster tube uncut or at least leave it
longer. Then the dealer can easily custom fit it to the rider. When
I bought my Lemond in 02 I noticd there wre a good number of spacers.
The shop said they want people to ride and get the right height then
they will gladly cut it. I never went back as it was prfect. This
saves the manufacturer time and money
and allows riders to get a more comfy ride. I know this may not apply
to carbon ster tubes but for others it would be ideal.

On Mar 1, 1:04*am, "Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote:
The problem with small frames is that you cannot mount the bars in the
correct position. For most riders the handlebars should be about 1" below
the saddle height - when was the last time you saw that? Why magazine
"test bikes" invariably have photos of a racing bike with the bars perhaps
4" below saddle height (some even more!) as if that were some sort of
target.


You need to be careful to separate the issue of too-low handlebars from
sloping top tubes. In many cases, so-called "compact" frames simply have a
top tube that slopes down from the front of the bike to the rear. The front
is every bit as high, and sometimes higher, than a traditional level
top-tube bike.

In the case of Trek, the high end bikes are available in two different
styles. Each has a sloping top tube, but the "Profit" has the front end at
exactly the same height as the previous level top-tube bikes, while the
"Performance" fit has the front end 3cm HIGHER than what had been the
standard.

And I'm told the industry standard is moving towards the higher front ends
on bikes. In most cases, what you might have seen as being a lower handlebar
is actually an illusion caused by the large amount of seatpost showing.

Whatever the case, it has never been easier for us to accomodate a cyclist
who would like a higher handlebar position.

In the end, the only thing that matters is the minimum "drop" you can
accomplish between the seat and handlebar. The evidence is that bars are
getting higher, not lower, compared to seat height.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

"Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote in ...



Over the years I've followed this fad and that and one of them has been to
ride frame sizes one or two sizes smaller than you should be riding. Today
this also comes down to those idiotic "compact" frames that are too small
in all sizes.


The problem with small frames is that you cannot mount the bars in the
correct position. For most riders the handlebars should be about 1" below
the saddle height - when was the last time you saw that? Why magazine
"test bikes" invariably have photos of a racing bike with the bars perhaps
4" below saddle height (some even more!) as if that were some sort of
target.


Low bars cause you to ride with your neck craned back too far to see
forward. It also puts your genitals in a very painful position. Add to
this the ridiculous "ultralight" saddles which achieve lightening by
making the smallest possible saddle and here you are with a flat back,
head craned up 40 degrees, weight falling forward and having to sit off to
one side of the saddle to avoid painful interactions.


When your bar tops are an inch below the saddle height the DROPS become
usable if and when you're in that racing pack. Today's drops are so low
that your arms are out straight as an arrow when you try to use them and
you have more drag than with your hands on the tops!


Anyone that's seen Jobst out riding would note immediately that he
certainly isn't following any bicycle magazine ads pertaining to bicycle
fit. And most people still can't stay with him when he's in a hurry.- Hide quoted text -


- Show quoted text -


  #9  
Old March 1st 08, 05:56 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
A Muzi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,551
Default Sizing a Bike

Tom Kunich wrote:
Over the years I've followed this fad and that and one of them has been
to ride frame sizes one or two sizes smaller than you should be riding.
Today this also comes down to those idiotic "compact" frames that are
too small in all sizes.

The problem with small frames is that you cannot mount the bars in the
correct position. For most riders the handlebars should be about 1"
below the saddle height - when was the last time you saw that? Why
magazine "test bikes" invariably have photos of a racing bike with the
bars perhaps 4" below saddle height (some even more!) as if that were
some sort of target.

Low bars cause you to ride with your neck craned back too far to see
forward. It also puts your genitals in a very painful position. Add to
this the ridiculous "ultralight" saddles which achieve lightening by
making the smallest possible saddle and here you are with a flat back,
head craned up 40 degrees, weight falling forward and having to sit off
to one side of the saddle to avoid painful interactions.

When your bar tops are an inch below the saddle height the DROPS become
usable if and when you're in that racing pack. Today's drops are so low
that your arms are out straight as an arrow when you try to use them and
you have more drag than with your hands on the tops!

Anyone that's seen Jobst out riding would note immediately that he
certainly isn't following any bicycle magazine ads pertaining to bicycle
fit. And most people still can't stay with him when he's in a hurry.


You're singing my song, Tom. Modern bikes sold elsewhere keep us quite
busy with tall stem sales.

If you find a solution, would you start working on monster trucks, please?
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
  #10  
Old March 1st 08, 08:52 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Tom Sherman[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,890
Default Sizing a Bike

Andrew Muzi wrote:
Tom Kunich wrote:
[...]
Anyone that's seen Jobst out riding would note immediately that he
certainly isn't following any bicycle magazine ads pertaining to
bicycle fit. And most people still can't stay with him when he's in a
hurry.


You're singing my song, Tom. Modern bikes sold elsewhere keep us quite
busy with tall stem sales.

If you find a solution, would you start working on monster trucks, please?


butbutbut, Jobst needs the monster trucks to park his bicycle against:
http://i1.tinypic.com/505ukc2.jpg.

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




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Bike sizing Sticky Wicket Techniques 10 March 2nd 07 02:59 PM
bike sizing chris c General 4 April 2nd 05 05:22 PM
bike sizing Michael UK 4 November 30th 03 06:57 PM
Bike Sizing article Drinky UK 8 October 8th 03 03:08 PM
Bike sizing Bob M General 17 August 3rd 03 01:35 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:53 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.