#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |