All of this raises a new question for me. As frames have changed -- more seat tube extension above
the top tube, extended head tubes for threadless systems, and especially longer top tubes -- and as
the pro peloton has moved to smaller and smaller frames, what are the "experts" now saying about
formulas for bike fit? For years I have relied on the LeMond/Hinault method of .67 of inseam length
for minimum c/t size. Does this formula still hold or has the multiplier now gone down or become
irrelevant?
I realize that the formula does still hold -- bike sizes figured this way do fit. My question is
that for the more "contemporary" theorizers, do they now see this formula as "out of date?" The
original post could be interpreted as suggesting just that.
**** Peterson
"Baird Webel" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:BA5BE229.1A5F1%[email protected]...
> On 1/27/03 18:16, in article
u5jZ9.30749$A%
[email protected],
> "Paul Southworth" <
[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> >
http://www.bikesportmichigan.com/reviews/colnago.shtml
> >
> > I don't know if this is a new article or not but it's new to me and I think contains some
> > interesting commentary on bike fit
> > vs. frame design.
>
> My reaction:
>
> I am a little skeptical that getting a frame 1cm too large makes the incredible difference in
> handling that he experienced. It would be interesting to put him on two identical frames 1cm apart
> and see if he can tell the difference. I don't think I could, but who knows? If anybody wants to
> contribute a pair of Colnagos to the effort, I'll do my best to test them ;-)
>
> I also am very skeptical at anybody who claims that integrated headsets
are
> such an advance. I generally find that properly installed and adjusted quality headsets on road
> bikes are already maintenance free. I don't like the idea of buying a new frame if somehow the
> integrated headset is
damaged.
>
> The only personal, albeit second hand, experience I have with such bikes
is
> an uncle who has ridden Colnagos for many years. He got a custom Seven, built to his fit specs, as
> this article does not favor, and loves the ride of the Seven, rides it much, much more than he
> ever did his Colnagos.
>
> Fit to me has to do with building the frame so the rider can put the
saddle
> and handlebars where it is comfortable for him/her. The handling
qualities
> of the frame will be determined mainly by the steering geometry, weight distribution and center of
> gravity. For a given saddle/handlebar
position,
> it seems to me that you can build frames with very significant variance in the factors that
> determine handling. I think the author's contention that you should avoid a custom built frame
> because the one that was built for
him
> happened to not handle the way he wanted it is rather illogical, any more than he should have
> avoided Colnago frames in the future because he was
not
> happy with the first one that he got.
>
> I also find it unimpressive that such an expensive frame would come with rough surfaces from the
> factory. If I were building such high $$$ frames,
I
> would not be relying on individual dealers to have frame prep tools and to use them on all of
> my frames.
>
> Baird
>
>
>
>
> --
> Baird Webel Washington DC