Ideal cycling physique?

Jon Senior' jon@restless_REMOVE_lemon.co.uk said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Jon Senior" <jon@restless_REMOVE_lemon.co.uk> writes:
Mmmm. Not sure about this... Actually, I'm about to
start looking at a new bike. I've got an 18 year
old Harry Hall tourer which I think is a 25"
frame. The seat post is as far up as it can go as
is the handlebar stem, even though there's only
about 1" clearance when I straddle the top tube.
I've been looking at Thorn [Brevet, Club Tour] and
Dawes [Sardar, Galaxy], but three out of the four
seem to have sloping top tubes. Isn't this going
to mean getting an even taller seat post and won't
that be a problem?

It may well be. Giant claim that they can cater for all
sizes, but the compromise of a smaller frame is naturally
going to be taller rides. With MTB seat posts often being
enormous, and with the variety of ajustment possible with
the Ahead stems, it should be possible to set up a bike,
but it may require a friendly LBS and some adjustment.

I haven't looked recently, but I presume that most
manufacturers are still doing a variety of frame sizes.
Giant's range consists of S, M, L, and some long posts.

Jon

Thanks Jon. It makes the more traditional frames (e.g the
Galaxy or the Hewitt Cheviot, which seems to get good
reviews) more enticing, or at least less hassle...

David

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Mmmm. Not sure about this... Actually, I'm about to start
looking at a new bike. I've got an 18 year old Harry
Hall tourer which I think is a 25" frame. The seat
post is as far up as it can go as is the handlebar
stem, even though there's only about 1" clearance
when I straddle the top tube. I've been looking at
Thorn [Brevet, Club Tour] and Dawes [Sardar,
Galaxy], but three out of the four seem to have
sloping top tubes. Isn't this going to mean getting
an even taller seat post and won't that be a
problem?

I'm 3" taller and a stock 63cm Cannondale frame fits me fine
with just a few inches of seatpost sticking out.. One
problem with most frames built in the large sizes is the
tubes are just made longer. So while many complain a
Cannondale is very stiff, in the large size its just right
(for me anyway) while lots of other bikes become a bit flexy
in the large sizes.

IIRC Cannondale do tourers in stock sizes up to 68cm

Tony

On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 21:40:39 -0000, "Jon Senior"

jon@restless_REMOVE_lemon.co.uk () said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Jon Senior" <jon@restless_REMOVE_lemon.co.uk> writes:
Mmmm. Not sure about this... Actually, I'm about to start
looking at a new bike. I've got an 18 year old
Harry Hall tourer which I think is a 25" frame. The
seat post is as far up as it can go as is the
handlebar stem, even though there's only about 1"
clearance when I straddle the top tube. I've been
looking at Thorn [Brevet, Club Tour] and Dawes
[Sardar, Galaxy], but three out of the four seem to
have sloping top tubes. Isn't this going to mean
getting an even taller seat post and won't that be
a problem?

It may well be. Giant claim that they can cater for all
sizes, but the compromise of a smaller frame is naturally
going to be taller rides. With MTB seat posts often being
enormous, and with the variety of ajustment possible with
the Ahead stems, it should be possible to set up a bike,
but it may require a friendly LBS and some adjustment.

Quoted message said:

I haven't looked recently, but I presume that most
manufacturers are still doing a variety of frame sizes.
Giant's range consists of S, M, L, and some long posts.

I've got a Giant OCR 3 in XL (58.5) and it comes with a
stupidly long seat post. I've got it set up comfortably for
me and have about 4 inches to spare on the seat-post.

It is a tall ride, but not (IMO) excessively so. The compact
frame is probably a little too compact for my liking, but
for a fast commuter-bike it's pretty good when fitted with a
light rack and a set of race-blades. I'm not sure I'd want
to do any serious distances on it, though.

--
Matt K Dunedin, NZ

in message <[email hidden]>, Just zis Guy,

you know? (') said:

On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 02:00:28 +0000, James Hodson
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

A short [censored], eh? 6'00" and 75kg sounds preferable to me.

Midget.

(6'1"😉

Runt.

(6'2", but, unfortunately, 83Kg)

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke)
jasmine.org.uk~simonOpen ↗

X-no-archive: No, I'm not *that* naive.

On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 20:49:33 -0000, "Tony Raven"

() said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Excuse me, could we have a little bit of quiet down
there?

David (6'3"😉

Too far away for me to hear them ;-)

Tony (6'6"😉

I'm sorry, did you say something?

Matt (6'7"😉

--
Matt K Dunedin, NZ

Whingin' Pom said:

Matt (6'7"😉

What's all this then?

Simon (6'12"😉

On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 22:32:37 -0000, "Jon Senior"

jon@restless_REMOVE_lemon.co.uk () said:

"Whingin' Pom" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I've got a Giant OCR 3 in XL (58.5) and it comes with a
stupidly long seat post. I've got it set up comfortably
for me and have about 4 inches to spare on the seat-post.

They did an XL? Not that it makes much difference to me,
I'm currently riding an OCR 1T in M. It has a fair amount
of visible seat post, but that does allow me to have a
mudguard, rear light and saddle bag fitted without too
much grief!

They still make an XL, it might even be a newish
introduction (I've got the 2004 model).

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It is a tall ride, but not (IMO) excessively so. The
compact frame is probably a little too compact for my
liking, but for a fast commuter-bike it's pretty good
when fitted with a light rack and a set of race-blades.
I'm not sure I'd want to do any serious distances on it,
though.

I'm rather fond of the compact frame, but there is no real
reason for it. I think that I'm actually just rather fond
of the bike which accelarates nicely.

It is quick out the blocks for sure. That's about the first
thing I noticed when testing it.

Quoted message said:

I'll be taking it for some nice long rides in France soon,
so I may have adjust the riding posture to be less sprint
oriented.

The idea of doing more than about 50 miles on it sounds
painful, but that's why I have a Proper Bike. :-)

Quoted message said:

It's more suited to mad dashes between traffic lights
right now!

It's just the job in central Dunedin. Lots of short sprints
with lots of traffic lights in between. :-) Much quicker
than a car for going cross-town or nipping to the gym.
--
Matt K Dunedin, NZ

Quoted message said:

What's all this then?

Simon (6'12"😉

Is that a bald patch coming?

Mark (only 6'1" but upstairs at the moment)

Mark Thompson said:

Quoted message said:

What's all this then?

Simon (6'12"😉

Is that a bald patch coming?

Mark (only 6'1" but upstairs at the moment)

No, just a bad case of Keyboard Kourage.

Simon (6'0" actually)

On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 00:49:43 -0000, "Simonb"

() said:

Mark Thompson said:

Quoted message said:

What's all this then?

Simon (6'12"😉

Is that a bald patch coming?

Mark (only 6'1" but upstairs at the moment)

No, just a bad case of Keyboard Kourage.

Simon (6'0" actually)

Well, pass it round, then. Some of these buggers'll
drink anything.

--
Matt K Dunedin, NZ

In article <[email hidden]>,

Tony Raven said:

Too far away for me to hear them ;-)

Bah. Not funny, you lot. Height discrimination is
alive and well,

/me navels you lot, being far too disadvantaged to
eyeball you

--
Nick Kew

In article <[email hidden]>,

Whingin' Pom said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Too far away for me to hear them ;-)

Bah. Not funny, you lot. Height discrimination is alive
and well,

Quoted message said:

Completely agree with you. As a tall bloke, I get loads of
dumb remarks regarding the weather, possible causes of
height e.g. growbags, odorous feet etc.

Interesting to hear that from up there. But all the stats
say tall men have the advantage. Look at the "top end" of
the overpaid businesses - lawyers, bankers, "gravy train"
industries - and it's overwhelmingly dominated by the tall.
ISTR a study revealing an average-pay gap of about 30% for 8
inches of height in men (but not in women; they're allowed
to be short).

And how many men of 6 foot or less would make a credible
candidate, let alone win an election, for head of a
democratic state? That's really revealing of subconscious
prejudices in a general population.

Or look at personal ads. How many girls want a shortarse?
They all want a six-foot-something.

Anyway, I speak from somewhere middling. I'm marginally
below average in my own country (UK), but lived several
years in Italy where that was reversed:-)

Quoted message said:

It's probably the same at the other end of the bell
curve.

I'm not sure if that's really true: comments like the ones
you get sound like a defensive reflex when you're looming
over someone. Noone feels threatened or inferior[1] in the
presence of a shortarse.

Quoted message said:

It's a bit like the old "Get on the cycle-path" thing. The
first few times are merely annoying. After a while, you
start to retaliate...

Hadn't thought of it like that. I don't *think* I'm guilty
of that kind of comment, but can't be 100% sure ... anyway,
I'll be aware in future.

[1] Inferior - literally "Lower". See what I mean - we have
prejudice built in to our language!

--
Nick Kew

On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 21:43:24 +0000, [email hidden] (Nick Kew)

() said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Tony Raven said:

Too far away for me to hear them ;-)

Bah. Not funny, you lot. Height discrimination is alive
and well,

Completely agree with you. As a tall bloke, I get loads of
dumb remarks regarding the weather, possible causes of
height e.g. growbags, odorous feet etc. It's probably the
same at the other end of the bell curve.

I have started to retaliate. If it's OK for, say, a shop
assistant to make personal remarks about my appearance, then
it must be fine for me to do the same. Much fun can be had
with this. :-)

Example: Shop Assistant: "Cor, you're really tall ain't you?
Did your mum put you in a grow bag?" Myself: "Gosh. You're
extremely fat and spotty. Do you just eat chips?"

Or...

"What's the weather like up there?" "I'll tell you when
you grow up."

It's a bit like the old "Get on the cycle-path" thing. The
first few times are merely annoying. After a while, you
start to retaliate...

Quoted message said:

/me navels you lot, being far too disadvantaged to
eyeball you

Remember, all trees are felled at the ground . Or, when your
head is level with his navel, your fists are level with his
groin . :-)

--
Matt K Dunedin, NZ

On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 09:00:02 +0000, [email hidden] (Nick Kew)

() said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Whingin' Pom said:

Quoted message said:

> Too far away for me to hear them ;-)

Bah. Not funny, you lot. Height discrimination is alive
and well,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Completely agree with you. As a tall bloke, I get loads
of dumb remarks regarding the weather, possible causes of
height e.g. growbags, odorous feet etc.

Interesting to hear that from up there. But all the stats
say tall men have the advantage. Look at the "top end" of
the overpaid businesses - lawyers, bankers, "gravy train"
industries - and it's overwhelmingly dominated by the tall.
ISTR a study revealing an average-pay gap of about 30% for
8 inches of height in men (but not in women; they're
allowed to be short).

Blimey. Looks like I've missed my calling. The work of a
research assistant hardly attracts top dollar. I reckon
it's a damn sight more interesting than being a fat-cat
boss, though.

Quoted message said:

And how many men of 6 foot or less would make a credible
candidate, let alone win an election, for head of a
democratic state? That's really revealing of subconscious
prejudices in a general population.

Or an indication involved of the prejudices of a
manipulating media, particularly in an age where style is
prized over content and the "ideal woman" looks, IMO,
dangerously malnourished.

It would be interesting to see a list of heights of world
leaders for the last 100 years.

Quoted message said:

Or look at personal ads. How many girls want a shortarse?
They all want a six-foot-something.

<gratuitous smutty remark> Or a shortarse *with* a six-foot
something...

Joking apart, again, this is indicative of the way that the
"ideal body" is presented by the media. Anything towards the
extremes, either short or tall, is derided for not being
part of the norm. The "ideal male" physique probably does
tend toward the upper end of the "accepted norms". People
like me are far outside of that.

My personal favourite preconception is that of "big=stupid
and clumsy". If someone assumes that of me, they are in for
a shock, after I've used it to my own advantage. :-)

Quoted message said:

Anyway, I speak from somewhere middling. I'm marginally
below average in my own country (UK), but lived several
years in Italy where that was reversed:-)

Do they have the same cultural expectations of height as
they have in the UK?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It's probably the same at the other end of the bell
curve.

I'm not sure if that's really true: comments like the ones
you get sound like a defensive reflex when you're looming
over someone.

Possibly, but that's not an excuse for being downright rude.

Quoted message said:

Noone feels threatened or inferior[1] in the presence of a
shortarse.

Dunno about that. I've had some very dodgy moments with
short blokes wanting to pick a fight with me in pubs. Me,
I'd rather drink in peace. I'm not much good in a punch-up
despite of how I look.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It's a bit like the old "Get on the cycle-path" thing.
The first few times are merely annoying. After a while,
you start to retaliate...

Hadn't thought of it like that. I don't *think* I'm guilty
of that kind of comment, but can't be 100% sure ... anyway,
I'll be aware in future.

It's been food for thought for me, too. This is a good
thing. I like having preconceptions challenged.

I try and make a point of treating people as I find them.
But it's difficult to be sure, isn't it?

Quoted message said:

[1] Inferior - literally "Lower". See what I mean - we have
prejudice built in to our language!

Indeed. And it's worse it you're a lefty, too. Oh, and FWIW,
my wife is 4'11".
--
Matt K Dunedin, NZ

Quoted message said:

Interesting to hear that from up there.

Watch it, he'll react badly to that...

Quoted message said:

But all the stats say tall men have the advantage. Look at
the "top end" of the overpaid businesses - lawyers,
bankers, "gravy train" industries - and it's
overwhelmingly dominated by the tall. ISTR a study
revealing an average-pay gap of about 30% for 8 inches of
height in men (but

not in

Quoted message said:

women; they're allowed to be short).

It's 'cos they can tower over and intimidate their bosses
into a pay rise. If you look at the data on height you can
see that each generation of overpaid professionals gets
taller by several inches. As well as favouring the tall, it
also actively disadvantages the short - tall people need
ever bigger desks, which mean short-arses can't be seen when
their demanding that rise.

Quoted message said:

And how many men of 6 foot or less would make a credible

candidate,

Quoted message said:

let alone win an election, for head of a democratic
state? That's really revealing of subconscious prejudices
in a general

population.

I think it's the same with balding men and gingers. Why else
is Tony Blair still riding so high in the polls despite
admitting to being a politician.

Quoted message said:

Or look at personal ads. How many girls want a
shortarse? They

all

Quoted message said:

want a six-foot-something.

!

How would he walk?!

"Nick Kew" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Bah. Not funny, you lot. Height discrimination is alive
and well,

Quoted message said:

Apart-height is banned ;-)

IGMC

Tony

"MSeries" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Rick said:

However, from your picture he does indeed appear to have
grown, but in a different direction!

Anyway, thanks for the inspiring info for us tall chaps.
That means I can't use my height as an excuse anymore
for being so slow!

Your beer belly if you have one can be explained away by
saying your lungs are so big that they push your stomach
down and it falls out of the front. That was Indurains
excuse - I tend to believe him !

LOL! I'll remember that one next time someone accuses me of
eating all the pies (and biscuits, and cakes ...)

"Nick Kew" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Interesting to hear that from up there. But all the stats
say tall men have the advantage. Look at the "top end" of
the overpaid businesses - lawyers, bankers, "gravy train"
industries - and it's overwhelmingly dominated by the
tall. ISTR a study revealing an average-pay gap of about
30% for 8 inches of height in men (but not in women;
they're allowed to be short).

The 6'8" American economist, JK Galbraith worked out that it
was worth $1000/inch in height in the late 80's so it must
be at least double that now.

Quoted message said:

And how many men of 6 foot or less would make a credible
candidate, let alone win an election, for head of a
democratic state? That's really revealing of subconscious
prejudices in a general population.

But interestingly there is a predominance of short males
amongst dictators and film stars

Quoted message said:

Or look at personal ads. How many girls want a shortarse?
They all want a six-foot-something.

<snigger>

Tony

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by Tony Raven
[BThe 6'8" American economist, JK Galbraith worked out that it was worth $1000/inch in height in the late 80's so it must be at least double that now.

Hmmm, let's not start a debate amongst the female fraternity about how much an extra inch or two is worth 🙄

As for being a shortarse, given the responses I've read here I guess I am a short-[censored] at 5'10" and 80kg. I lift weights as well as cycle, so I am probably far from the idea shape for cycling (16" arms, 44" chest means too much air resistance on top half).

I'd have thought that the ideal cyclist would be someone with an awesome power:weight ratio rather than any particular height or shape (meso, ecto or endomorph and all that).

"McBain_v1" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Tony Raven said:

[BThe 6'8" American economist, JK Galbraith worked out
that it was worth $1000/inch in height in the late
80's so it must be at least double that now.

Hmmm, let's not start a debate amongst the female
fraternity about how much an extra inch or two is worth
🙄

As for being a shortarse, given the responses I've read
here I guess I am a short-[censored] at 5'10" and 80kg. I lift
weights as well as cycle, so I am probably far from the
idea shape for cycling (16" arms, 44" chest means too much
air resistance on top half).

Reminds me of a description a friend of mine gave of two
Americans - one's 6'10" and the others the same volume

Tony