Compact Road Bike not suitable for tall riders?

[SCOOBA STEVE]

byron27 wrote:
> Every seatpost i have had has snapped. including a dean mountain bike
> one. Every frame apart from a giant CFR1 i had has snapped. From my
> personal experience unfortunately, i feel i can make the assumption that
> it will snap. If you know a seat post that doesnt snap, and i mean truly
> has never snapped under normal riding, i am all ears.



Well i ride a compact GIANT ALU frame with a GIANT blade carbon fibre
seat post and it's fine. I am a big guy and race A grade and no prob's.
A bit expensive but mine seams to be fine



--

 

[Paul J]

Thanks Jose and John for enlightening me further as my limited
experience in these matters often needs to be put into perspective.

I have just found that my Giant feels twitchy now that I have something
to use as a comparison. This has been my limited observation. The only
real scientific way would have been a process of elimination, gradually
replacing bits such as wheels, tyres, saddle etc. and finally finishing
with a completely different bike. I am sure that this has already been
done and documented fully as you are both probably aware and I found
this way to be financially draining after just replacing the fork and I
thought...stuff it, buy a new bike.

Once again thankyou both for bringing some balance into this subject.



--

 

[amirm]

SCOOBA STEVE wrote:
> It all depends if you want to ride or look cool at the cafe'.

Well, even the looks can be fixed without thousands of $$$. My
latest project is an example. I just don't know how to post a pic on
this forum.






--

 

[byron27]

Jose Rizal wrote:
> byron27:
> > SCOOBA STEVE wrote:
> > > I think thats ****. I am 6'2" and was bought a compact bike
> > > because of my height. The idea with the compact frame is to cut
> > > down on frame material by reducing the length of the seat tube
> > > thus reducing flex in the frame. And what better size rider to
> > > take advantage of this than a taller rider. GOOD LUCK
> >
> > Reduces flex in the frame but increases flex in the seatpost. i broke
> > my seatpost and i think i would prefer my frame snapping, less
> > painful.
> You're assuming that breaking a seatpost is inevitable. It's not. Rather
> than getting a new frame, just get a stronger seatpost.



Every seatpost i have had has snapped. including a dean mountain bike
one. Every frame apart from a giant CFR1 i had has snapped. From my
personal experience unfortunately, i feel i can make the assumption that
it will snap. If you know a seat post that doesnt snap, and i mean truly
has never snapped under normal riding, i am all ears.



--

 

[Jose Rizal]

byron27:
>
> Every seatpost i have had has snapped. including a dean mountain bike
> one.

Unless you weigh 120 kgs or more, I think you'll find it hard to snap
MTB seatposts made by Thomson, Titec, Raceface or even Salsa.

> Every frame apart from a giant CFR1 i had has snapped.

You need to try straight gauge steel then.

 

[John Stevenson]

Jose Rizal <_@_._> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> John Stevenson:
>
>> TomAYto; tomAHto. I have a Giant TCR-1 I'm riding at the moment, on
>> test for Cyclingnews.com. Compared to my regular rig, it's very
>> quick- handling, but nervous? I wouldn't say so. I can take my hands
>> off the bars at 60km/h...
>
> "Twitchy" has to do with stem length and fork rake rather than frame
> geometry.

I was disputing the characterisation of the handling, not its origin.

Still, strange frames you must ride where fork offset and head angle (far
more important determiners of handling than stem length) are not part of
the geometry.

Of course, that's a slightly different use of 'geometry', just to keep
things intersting...

 

[powinc]

Thanks for all that advice guys. Now I'm more confused, but seriously I
think @ 6'2" I'll go for either a XL semi compact or a 58 to 60cm
traditional frame set, which ever feels and looks the best.

thanks again powinc



--

 

[Jose Rizal]

John Stevenson:

> Still, strange frames you must ride where fork offset and head angle (far
> more important determiners of handling than stem length) are not part of
> the geometry.

Fork offset isn't frame geometry since the fork is not part of the
frame.

Head tube angle obviously affects steering, but unless you go for a
custom job, mass-produced frames have head tube angles which fall within
a very narrow range.

 

[A Little Bit]

On 10 Dec 2003 13:32:32 +1050, SCOOBA STEVE <[email protected]>
wrote:

> just reply and go to the bottom of page to "attach file" but your JPG.
> file can't be too big.

Do NOT attach binaries to non-binary groups. Many ISPs simply delete such
posts.

 

[John Stevenson]

Jose Rizal <_@_._> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Fork offset isn't frame geometry since the fork is not part of the
> frame.

Do you have a point, or are you just demonstrating that you can be even
more sad and pedantic than me? If so, I cheerfully concede.

 

[Jose Rizal]

John Stevenson:

> Jose Rizal <_@_._> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
> > Fork offset isn't frame geometry since the fork is not part of the
> > frame.
>
> Do you have a point, or are you just demonstrating that you can be even
> more sad and pedantic than me? If so, I cheerfully concede.

The point has nothing to do with pedantry, everything to do with
preciseness. Fork offset isn't a frame property, so just admit that
you're wrong and move on with your life.

You have no one to blame for your being sad and pedantic but yourself,
I'm afraid.

 

[powinc]

Thanks for all the advice, I took note of the point made that “compac
frame manufacturers only made 4 or 5 sizes” and therefore save o
stock variants

Upon choosing a new bike I test rode both semi compact and traditiona
frame sets and found the XL semi-compact frame still a touch loos
underneath me and no-one seems to stock XXL frame sets

So I think I'll go with the traditional frameset and I have my eye on
2nd hand 60cm Cannondale. Because after all that, some bikes just see
to fit right

Thanks agai

powin


-