B
damyth wrote:
> I have NO idea where you get 3.42mm. The actual vertical displacement
> in the bar height (as a result of removing a 5mm spacer) would be
> 5mm*cos(90-73)~=4.78mm. Also easily verified by using
> (5^2-1.46^2)^0.5.
>
Thanks for pointing out my error -- I came up with that when somewhat
sleep deprived. Anyway, you are correct, the change in bar height
created by subtracting a 5mm spacer is 4.78mm. Honestly, if I'm going
to make a case based on numbers, I think I should check my figures
first! Anyway, I still think that even a small alteration in effective
stem length can prove significant, especially if the alteration is
repeated to an end where it produces a cumulative effect.
> Furthermore, even if you happen to believe 1.46 change in stem
> extension would be significant in fit (which I completely disagree), I
> already said that can be obviated either by tilting the handlebar up a
> tad or moving the brake levers up the handlebar. You conveniently
> ignored that part.
>
Actually, I completely ignored that part from your post because it was
-- how do you say it -- *irrelevant*. The OP stated he has setup his
bike with a flatbar and therefore your suggestion -- although a very
good one for helping to adust the forward fit of a dropbar roadbike --
is really of no utility in the particular case. As a side note, it's
interesting that you make a somewhat hysterical (if erroneous)
complaint against being off topic in this very same way later in your
post.
> The only possible way a 1.46mm change in extension (assuming no change
> in handlebar height) could possibly be significant is if he is already
> very far from his sweet spot, which implies a very bad fit to begin
> with. In other words, it's clear that the major detriment in fit (for
> 5mm spacer removal) was due to the handlebar height change rather than
> any resultant change in extension.
>
Contrary to you implied assertion, the OP made no statement indicating
there is a "major detriment" in fit. He stated that he changed the
handlebar height but that he's not sure if the change is a good one.
Following that, you interjected an illogical and factually erroneous
argument against my reply, while you at once came up short on ideas
other than your interesting but bizarre suggestion that the OP dial-in
his saddle position by moving it back to the point where he is barely
able to control the bicycle while riding no-hands.
> All the rest of your post is irrelevant because the OP is not removing
> (cumulative) stem spacer greater than 5mm. The OP already knows that
> 5mm spacer removal was too much, which is why he posted in the first
> place. Your post is an answer to a problem that he doesn't have.
>
Again, you are falsifying the statements made by the OP with no
apparent reason other than to rationalize your irrational and
spontaneous attack against a genuine reply to the OP. You state "the OP
already knows that 5mm spacer removal was too much" However, it is a
matter of record in this thread that the OP made it clear that he did
NOT know whether or not the 5mm spacer removal was a good choice or not
-- his actual words were "Not sure if it's a good position for me." One
can reasonably conclude that you have not genuinely paid attention to
the statements and queries made by the OP, as I've already specified
and by the fact that the OP clearly stated he is interested in how
alterations in bar height might effect the fit overall. I responded
with discussion on how alterations in bar height might effect the fit
overall -- what could be more on-topic?
> Huh?? where are you getting 5.84??
>
Again, you are proving that you are far quicker to contribute bluster
to a thread than you are to actually read the posts of other
contributors. In this case, I stated that if the rider removes four 5mm
spacers then because the effective stem length will be increased by
1.46mm per spacer removed (consistent with your own calculation) then
the total increase in effective stem length will be 4 * 1.46mm =
5.84mm. To be perfectly clear: Four spacers removed translates to an
increase of 5.84mm in effective stem length.
Sorry to have apparently caught you without your handy calculator in
hand, but please take note that in addition to the sine/cosine
functions, your calculator no doubt provides you with the capacity to
add. Now here comes the rub: Your calculator cannot help you with your
personality disorder.
That will be all.
-bg
> I have NO idea where you get 3.42mm. The actual vertical displacement
> in the bar height (as a result of removing a 5mm spacer) would be
> 5mm*cos(90-73)~=4.78mm. Also easily verified by using
> (5^2-1.46^2)^0.5.
>
Thanks for pointing out my error -- I came up with that when somewhat
sleep deprived. Anyway, you are correct, the change in bar height
created by subtracting a 5mm spacer is 4.78mm. Honestly, if I'm going
to make a case based on numbers, I think I should check my figures
first! Anyway, I still think that even a small alteration in effective
stem length can prove significant, especially if the alteration is
repeated to an end where it produces a cumulative effect.
> Furthermore, even if you happen to believe 1.46 change in stem
> extension would be significant in fit (which I completely disagree), I
> already said that can be obviated either by tilting the handlebar up a
> tad or moving the brake levers up the handlebar. You conveniently
> ignored that part.
>
Actually, I completely ignored that part from your post because it was
-- how do you say it -- *irrelevant*. The OP stated he has setup his
bike with a flatbar and therefore your suggestion -- although a very
good one for helping to adust the forward fit of a dropbar roadbike --
is really of no utility in the particular case. As a side note, it's
interesting that you make a somewhat hysterical (if erroneous)
complaint against being off topic in this very same way later in your
post.
> The only possible way a 1.46mm change in extension (assuming no change
> in handlebar height) could possibly be significant is if he is already
> very far from his sweet spot, which implies a very bad fit to begin
> with. In other words, it's clear that the major detriment in fit (for
> 5mm spacer removal) was due to the handlebar height change rather than
> any resultant change in extension.
>
Contrary to you implied assertion, the OP made no statement indicating
there is a "major detriment" in fit. He stated that he changed the
handlebar height but that he's not sure if the change is a good one.
Following that, you interjected an illogical and factually erroneous
argument against my reply, while you at once came up short on ideas
other than your interesting but bizarre suggestion that the OP dial-in
his saddle position by moving it back to the point where he is barely
able to control the bicycle while riding no-hands.
> All the rest of your post is irrelevant because the OP is not removing
> (cumulative) stem spacer greater than 5mm. The OP already knows that
> 5mm spacer removal was too much, which is why he posted in the first
> place. Your post is an answer to a problem that he doesn't have.
>
Again, you are falsifying the statements made by the OP with no
apparent reason other than to rationalize your irrational and
spontaneous attack against a genuine reply to the OP. You state "the OP
already knows that 5mm spacer removal was too much" However, it is a
matter of record in this thread that the OP made it clear that he did
NOT know whether or not the 5mm spacer removal was a good choice or not
-- his actual words were "Not sure if it's a good position for me." One
can reasonably conclude that you have not genuinely paid attention to
the statements and queries made by the OP, as I've already specified
and by the fact that the OP clearly stated he is interested in how
alterations in bar height might effect the fit overall. I responded
with discussion on how alterations in bar height might effect the fit
overall -- what could be more on-topic?
> Huh?? where are you getting 5.84??
>
Again, you are proving that you are far quicker to contribute bluster
to a thread than you are to actually read the posts of other
contributors. In this case, I stated that if the rider removes four 5mm
spacers then because the effective stem length will be increased by
1.46mm per spacer removed (consistent with your own calculation) then
the total increase in effective stem length will be 4 * 1.46mm =
5.84mm. To be perfectly clear: Four spacers removed translates to an
increase of 5.84mm in effective stem length.
Sorry to have apparently caught you without your handy calculator in
hand, but please take note that in addition to the sine/cosine
functions, your calculator no doubt provides you with the capacity to
add. Now here comes the rub: Your calculator cannot help you with your
personality disorder.
That will be all.
-bg
