Compact Road Bike not suitable for tall riders?

Discussion in 'Australia and New Zealand' started by powinc, Dec 8, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. amirm

    amirm New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2003
    Messages:
    245
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.



     


  2. byron27

    byron27 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2003
    Messages:
    919
    Likes Received:
    1
    on the reply form you can attach files:)
     
  3. SCOOBA STEVE

    SCOOBA STEVE New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2003
    Messages:
    44
    Likes Received:
    0
    just reply and go to the bottom of page to "attach file" but your JPG. file can't be too big.
     
  4. Paul J

    Paul J New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2003
    Messages:
    119
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  5. Jose Rizal

    Jose Rizal Guest

    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.
     
  6. powinc

    powinc New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2003
    Messages:
    85
    Likes Received:
    0
    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
     
  7. Jose Rizal <[email protected]_._> 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...
     
  8. Jose Rizal

    Jose Rizal Guest

    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.
     
  9. A Little Bit

    A Little Bit Guest

    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.
     
  10. Jose Rizal <[email protected]_._> 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.
     
  11. Jose Rizal

    Jose Rizal Guest

    John Stevenson:

    > Jose Rizal <[email protected]_._> 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.
     
  12. powinc

    powinc New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2003
    Messages:
    85
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks for all the advice, I took note of the point made that “compact frame manufacturers only made 4 or 5 sizes” and therefore save on stock variants.

    Upon choosing a new bike I test rode both semi compact and traditional frame sets and found the XL semi-compact frame still a touch loose 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 a 2nd hand 60cm Cannondale. Because after all that, some bikes just seem to fit right.

    Thanks again

    powinc
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...