Stem Length

Discussion in 'Cycling Equipment' started by jorge, Oct 7, 2004.

  1. jorge

    jorge Guest

    I normally ride a 56cm bike.. I was recently involved in a crash that bent
    my frame. I have the opportunity to buy virtually the same frame, except in
    size 54cm (It is a good deal). I have taken all of the measurements from my
    bike (relative to the BB), and determined that the 54cm bike can be adjusted
    so that the seat and handlebars are in exactly the same position as on my
    56cm bike. The only major difference being that I would need to increase
    the length of my stem from 100mm to 120mm. I am wondering if this
    difference is stem length will substantially change the feel or handling
    characteristics of the bike, for the better or for the worse? Are there any
    other cons to moving to a smaller frame that I am not aware of? Are there
    any other pros that I not aware of? Thanks, Jeff
     
    Tags:


  2. On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 09:47:48 -0400, jorge wrote:

    > I normally ride a 56cm bike.. I was recently involved in a crash that bent
    > my frame. I have the opportunity to buy virtually the same frame, except
    > in size 54cm (It is a good deal). I have taken all of the measurements
    > from my bike (relative to the BB), and determined that the 54cm bike can
    > be adjusted so that the seat and handlebars are in exactly the same
    > position as on my 56cm bike. The only major difference being that I would
    > need to increase the length of my stem from 100mm to 120mm. I am
    > wondering if this difference is stem length will substantially change the
    > feel or handling characteristics of the bike, for the better or for the
    > worse? Are there any other cons to moving to a smaller frame that I am
    > not aware of? Are there any other pros that I not aware of?


    We can't really make this determination. In general, a "bargain" bike
    that does not fit is no bargain. But, who knows, maybe the 56 was too
    large for you. If the stem is any guide, and it really isn't all that
    good, 100mm is on the short side, and 120mm is long (for a 54), but not
    that unusual.

    How much seatpost is showing on the old bike? You don't want it to look
    like a compact frame with a 3-foot long seatpost (unless, I guess, it is a
    compact frame, but that is another topic). If not enough post is inside
    the frame, that would be bad. Where will your knee be in comparison to
    what you are used to? Moving the seat up also moves it back; be sure to
    take that into account.

    --

    David L. Johnson

    __o | Become MicroSoft-free forever. Ask me how.
    _`\(,_ |
    (_)/ (_) |
     
  3. jorge

    jorge Guest

    the bike is not compact geometry, and the seat post goes into the frame well
    past the "min insertion" line.



    "David L. Johnson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:p[email protected]
    > On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 09:47:48 -0400, jorge wrote:
    >
    > > I normally ride a 56cm bike.. I was recently involved in a crash that

    bent
    > > my frame. I have the opportunity to buy virtually the same frame,

    except
    > > in size 54cm (It is a good deal). I have taken all of the measurements
    > > from my bike (relative to the BB), and determined that the 54cm bike can
    > > be adjusted so that the seat and handlebars are in exactly the same
    > > position as on my 56cm bike. The only major difference being that I

    would
    > > need to increase the length of my stem from 100mm to 120mm. I am
    > > wondering if this difference is stem length will substantially change

    the
    > > feel or handling characteristics of the bike, for the better or for the
    > > worse? Are there any other cons to moving to a smaller frame that I am
    > > not aware of? Are there any other pros that I not aware of?

    >
    > We can't really make this determination. In general, a "bargain" bike
    > that does not fit is no bargain. But, who knows, maybe the 56 was too
    > large for you. If the stem is any guide, and it really isn't all that
    > good, 100mm is on the short side, and 120mm is long (for a 54), but not
    > that unusual.
    >
    > How much seatpost is showing on the old bike? You don't want it to look
    > like a compact frame with a 3-foot long seatpost (unless, I guess, it is a
    > compact frame, but that is another topic). If not enough post is inside
    > the frame, that would be bad. Where will your knee be in comparison to
    > what you are used to? Moving the seat up also moves it back; be sure to
    > take that into account.
    >
    > --
    >
    > David L. Johnson
    >
    > __o | Become MicroSoft-free forever. Ask me how.
    > _`\(,_ |
    > (_)/ (_) |
    >
    >
     
  4. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

    In article <[email protected]>, jorge <[email protected]> wrote:
    >I normally ride a 56cm bike.. I was recently involved in a crash that bent
    >my frame. I have the opportunity to buy virtually the same frame, except in
    >size 54cm (It is a good deal). I have taken all of the measurements from my
    >bike (relative to the BB), and determined that the 54cm bike can be adjusted
    >so that the seat and handlebars are in exactly the same position as on my
    >56cm bike. The only major difference being that I would need to increase
    >the length of my stem from 100mm to 120mm.


    _ That seems with reason and common practice.

    See

    http://www.hampsten.com/Company/design.html

    for interesting comments on stem length/frame size.

    _ There's a web page on the Park site about transfering
    setup measurements from bike to bike. I would double
    check that you can get all of these with the new bike
    before purchase.

    http://www.cyclingnews.com/tech/fix/?id=roadposition

    > I am wondering if this
    >difference is stem length will substantially change the feel or handling
    >characteristics of the bike, for the better or for the worse?


    _ It will be different, but some people like it and some don't. A
    lot depends on how far the stem extends above the top tube as
    well. Really long quill stems like the Nitto can feel a bit
    squirrelly at times. This is one place that Aheadset design
    is superior if you use a steel steerer tube.

    > Are there any
    >other cons to moving to a smaller frame that I am not aware of? Are there
    >any other pros that I not aware of?
    >


    _ If the 54 and 56 are measured the same way ( ie c-c or c-t ),
    then 2cm is not a killer IMHO. It really depends on a lot of
    other dimensions that you haven't listed. Are the frame angles
    different, has the wheel base changed significantly?

    _ I regularly switch from a 52cm c-c bike to a 56cm c-t bike
    and while they are definitely different, I would be hard pressed
    to call one better than the other. Most of the differences
    have to do with the rest of the geometry and not the 2.5 cm
    on the seat tube.

    _ Booker C. Bense




    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: 2.6.2

    iQCVAwUBQWWDOGTWTAjn5N/lAQHuEQP/fSW5JiYfkuEaVZyUv3okYOT9WFZfajRQ
    nTj4+LHcVZCIhHn3FEPwZHse5jBcUrvG/2vq6LnXGqCnz0l/Ux6FeuHHHJ1BHQIp
    Z1NPPAOk8akEoUt5lTvWUosMP5Fx3rCzYzSk1WqfMfSaV11Yy9Oi4GWhW/gE08EP
    b4eNXqjDtIU=
    =u0TF
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
     
  5. jorge wrote:

    > I normally ride a 56cm bike.. I was recently involved in a crash that bent
    > my frame. I have the opportunity to buy virtually the same frame, except in
    > size 54cm (It is a good deal). I have taken all of the measurements from my
    > bike (relative to the BB), and determined that the 54cm bike can be adjusted
    > so that the seat and handlebars are in exactly the same position as on my
    > 56cm bike. The only major difference being that I would need to increase
    > the length of my stem from 100mm to 120mm. I am wondering if this
    > difference is stem length will substantially change the feel or handling
    > characteristics of the bike, for the better or for the worse? Are there any
    > other cons to moving to a smaller frame that I am not aware of? Are there
    > any other pros that I not aware of? Thanks, Jeff


    A 12cm stem is getting long for a 54cm frame. I think you'd be better
    on the 56cm. The 54cm would be fine if the top tube was longer.
     
  6. Robert

    Robert Guest

    Booker C. Bense wrote:

    > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    >
    > In article <[email protected]>, jorge <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >>I normally ride a 56cm bike.. I was recently involved in a crash that bent
    >>my frame. I have the opportunity to buy virtually the same frame, except in
    >>size 54cm (It is a good deal). I have taken all of the measurements from my
    >>bike (relative to the BB), and determined that the 54cm bike can be adjusted
    >>so that the seat and handlebars are in exactly the same position as on my
    >>56cm bike. The only major difference being that I would need to increase
    >>the length of my stem from 100mm to 120mm.


    ---8<----cutting middle

    > _ It will be different, but some people like it and some don't. A
    > lot depends on how far the stem extends above the top tube as
    > well. Really long quill stems like the Nitto can feel a bit
    > squirrelly at times. This is one place that Aheadset design
    > is superior if you use a steel steerer tube.


    ------8<---cutting
    >
    > _ If the 54 and 56 are measured the same way ( ie c-c or c-t ),
    > then 2cm is not a killer IMHO. It really depends on a lot of
    > other dimensions that you haven't listed. Are the frame angles
    > different, has the wheel base changed significantly?
    >
    > _ I regularly switch from a 52cm c-c bike to a 56cm c-t bike
    > and while they are definitely different, I would be hard pressed
    > to call one better than the other. Most of the differences
    > have to do with the rest of the geometry and not the 2.5 cm
    > on the seat tube.
    >
    > _ Booker C. Bense
    >


    I'll gladly second Booker's analysis. The seat tube length is not a big
    deal. Now of course many builders will make a 54 frame a half degree
    steeper (e.g. 74 in the case of Colnago) than a 56 (73,5), but that's
    also small adjustments (of the order of 5 mm on the saddle rail, to get
    the same effective setback relative to centre bracket). A slightly
    bigger difference will be the loss of 1-2 cm on the top tube going to
    the smaller frame, which can be offset fitwise by using the 120 stem as
    you correctly point out. OK, that's not the complete story since you
    will sit slightly more forward relative to the front wheel but it's
    close enough.

    I used to ride a 56 cm c-t but last year switched to a 52,5 cm frame
    (Colnago call it a "54", but they measure from centre of centre bracket
    up to seat post clamp, which is far beyond the top of top tube -
    weird!). Now I have a proportionally shorter torso in relation to my
    height, so the shorter top tube with a 120cm stem feels really good. I
    also like the agility of the smaller frame with shorter wheelbase,
    though I have to use a 4 cm stack of spacers between a-headset and the
    stem. Just the same, the bar tops are a good 10 cm below the saddle tip.

    But I love it and now wonder why I didn't try a smaller frame earlier on
    in my biking life. It's kind of like having all the advantages of a nice
    rigid compact frame without its ugly looks ;-)

    /Robert
     
  7. "jorge" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > I normally ride a 56cm bike.. I was recently involved in a crash that bent
    > my frame. I have the opportunity to buy virtually the same frame, except in
    > size 54cm (It is a good deal). I have taken all of the measurements from my
    > bike (relative to the BB), and determined that the 54cm bike can be adjusted
    > so that the seat and handlebars are in exactly the same position as on my
    > 56cm bike. The only major difference being that I would need to increase
    > the length of my stem from 100mm to 120mm. I am wondering if this
    > difference is stem length will substantially change the feel or handling
    > characteristics of the bike, for the better or for the worse? Are there any
    > other cons to moving to a smaller frame that I am not aware of? Are there
    > any other pros that I not aware of? Thanks, Jeff


    It will feel significantly different when you stand up, as your weight
    will be further over the front wheel. You may or may not prefer the
    way it feels, so I can say if it's a pro or con.

    You may also find that on the smaller frame you have trouble getting
    the bars high enough, due to the shorter head tube on the smaller
    frame. You'll likely either need a bunch of extra spacers, which may
    lead to more flex in the steerer tube (again, which you may or may not
    like) or you may have to use a stem turned over so that it angles
    upward.

    One last thing, while you're keeping the bars in the same place,
    you're bringing the stem/steerer tube 2cm closer to the saddle, which
    may lead to lot's of problems with you banging your knees on the stem
    every time you stand up. Hard to see that one as a 'pro'.

    The smaller frame is NOT a good deal, IF it doesn't fit. For what
    it's worth, every time I've ever tried to get by on a frame that
    wasn't right, it NEVER justified the savings.
     
  8. Peter Cole

    Peter Cole Guest

    "jorge" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > I normally ride a 56cm bike.. I was recently involved in a crash that

    bent
    > my frame. I have the opportunity to buy virtually the same frame, except

    in
    > size 54cm (It is a good deal). I have taken all of the measurements from

    my
    > bike (relative to the BB), and determined that the 54cm bike can be

    adjusted
    > so that the seat and handlebars are in exactly the same position as on my
    > 56cm bike. The only major difference being that I would need to increase
    > the length of my stem from 100mm to 120mm. I am wondering if this
    > difference is stem length will substantially change the feel or handling
    > characteristics of the bike, for the better or for the worse? Are there

    any
    > other cons to moving to a smaller frame that I am not aware of? Are

    there
    > any other pros that I not aware of? Thanks, Jeff


    Unless the 56cm bike is on the small side already, I think you'll be fine
    with a 54. The longer stem will slow down steering a little, but that's
    usually the kind of thing you compensate for without thinking about it. I'm
    6'10" and used to riding slightly small frames with big stems. My current
    stem is 130, and that's on a touring frame with relatively sedate handling
    already, I don't even think about it.
     
  9. > the bike is not compact geometry, and the seat post goes into the frame
    > well
    > past the "min insertion" line.


    A bike can be a bad fit and still have the seatpost above the "min
    insertion" line. The biggest issue going to a smaller frame is whether you
    can get the stem high enough. But no matter what, if you had a 56cm that
    you felt fit nicely, I wouldn't even consider going to a smaller size
    without having the opportunity to ride it, properly set up, first.

    I can guarantee you that, even if you set them up identically, they'll still
    feel different. I can't tell you which will be better or worse, but
    definitely different.

    I will also say that, in general, people are more comfortable with frames
    that are "too large" than those which are "too small", if the top tube/stem
    distance remains the same.

    A lot of this hinges on whether the 56cm was the right size to begin with.
    If you feel that it is/was, then it's dumb to change. Or, let's look at it
    this way. If money wasn't an issue, which size would you buy? That's the
    way you should go.

    --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
    www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
     
  10. Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:

    > I will also say that, in general, people are more comfortable with frames
    > that are "too large" than those which are "too small", if the top tube/stem
    > distance remains the same.


    I've always thought the opposite; that it's easier to deal with
    a frame too small than too large. (This may not quite be the same
    thing as what you're saying, but let me continue my rant anyways).

    I now have four bikes, and I'd say all four of them are actually
    too small for me in frame size. I compensate by extending the
    stems and seatposts.

    My most recent acquisition is a *very much* too small Trek 7000
    abandoned next to a dumpster. It was LX equipped and I needed a
    backup icebike with studded snowies already mounted and ready
    to go for this winter.

    A lot of WD-40, oil, new chain, 8 new spokes, and relevant to
    the point I'm trying to make, a threaded to threadless converter,
    plus 3" extension, plus 40 degree, 130mm stem plus 400mm seat
    post and the bike is more comfortable than my 19" frame Mongoose
    MTB. Not certain what the frame size for the "new" Trek is.

    My 520 is 58 cm with maxed out seatpost and stem, and my 2000
    was a 60cm, with seatpost and stem almost maxed out. I should
    have gone with the 63cm which was the next size up but seemed
    too big a jump at the time.

    I would not want to travel for days on the MTBs but I have
    traveled long distances on the 520 and 2000 with no ill effect
    from the smaller than optimum frame size.

    I'll even go so far as to say the smaller than optimal frame
    size makes hauling the bike easier. They toss in the truck and
    stow on the boat with much less hassle than a larger frame which
    would probably be more appropriate to my body dimensions.

    So I do not believe frame size is as critical as some on this
    NG say. One can find a range of frame sizes, combined with
    stem and seatpost adjustments that will bring even a mismatched
    frame size into proper adjustment for almost anyone.


    SMH
     
  11. > So I do not believe frame size is as critical as some on this
    > NG say. One can find a range of frame sizes, combined with
    > stem and seatpost adjustments that will bring even a mismatched
    > frame size into proper adjustment for almost anyone.


    Or, a cynic might say that you've perhaps never ridden a bike that truly
    fits right, and don't know what you're missing. The truth is somewhere
    in-between.

    By the way, the manner in which TREK does their sizing results in some
    peculiar anomalies, such as the fact that a 58cm 520 may, in fact, size a
    bit larger than a 60cm normal road bike in their line. Thus it's no
    surprise you can ride the two bikes interchangeably. The next size up 520
    would most likely be too big. On the other hand, when you're riding with
    seatpost & stem "maxed out", the indications are that a larger size is at
    least worth trying.

    How tall are you, by the way?

    --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
    www.ChainReactionBicycles.com


    "Stephen Harding" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
    >
    >> I will also say that, in general, people are more comfortable with frames
    >> that are "too large" than those which are "too small", if the top
    >> tube/stem distance remains the same.

    >
    > I've always thought the opposite; that it's easier to deal with
    > a frame too small than too large. (This may not quite be the same
    > thing as what you're saying, but let me continue my rant anyways).
    >
    > I now have four bikes, and I'd say all four of them are actually
    > too small for me in frame size. I compensate by extending the
    > stems and seatposts.
    >
    > My most recent acquisition is a *very much* too small Trek 7000
    > abandoned next to a dumpster. It was LX equipped and I needed a
    > backup icebike with studded snowies already mounted and ready
    > to go for this winter.
    >
    > A lot of WD-40, oil, new chain, 8 new spokes, and relevant to
    > the point I'm trying to make, a threaded to threadless converter,
    > plus 3" extension, plus 40 degree, 130mm stem plus 400mm seat
    > post and the bike is more comfortable than my 19" frame Mongoose
    > MTB. Not certain what the frame size for the "new" Trek is.
    >
    > My 520 is 58 cm with maxed out seatpost and stem, and my 2000
    > was a 60cm, with seatpost and stem almost maxed out. I should
    > have gone with the 63cm which was the next size up but seemed
    > too big a jump at the time.
    >
    > I would not want to travel for days on the MTBs but I have
    > traveled long distances on the 520 and 2000 with no ill effect
    > from the smaller than optimum frame size.
    >
    > I'll even go so far as to say the smaller than optimal frame
    > size makes hauling the bike easier. They toss in the truck and
    > stow on the boat with much less hassle than a larger frame which
    > would probably be more appropriate to my body dimensions.
    >
    > So I do not believe frame size is as critical as some on this
    > NG say. One can find a range of frame sizes, combined with
    > stem and seatpost adjustments that will bring even a mismatched
    > frame size into proper adjustment for almost anyone.
    >
    >
    > SMH
    >
     
  12. RE/
    > One can find a range of frame sizes, combined with
    >> stem and seatpost adjustments that will bring even a mismatched
    >> frame size into proper adjustment for almost anyone.

    >
    >Or, a cynic might say that you've perhaps never ridden a bike that truly
    >fits right, and don't know what you're missing. The truth is somewhere
    >in-between.


    I've had an experience that supports that: an Ellsworth Isis that I set up per
    Seven's interpretation of a FitKit session. The bike definately rode a lot
    better than it did when it was set up just by me.

    OTOH, the frame they finally built for me has exactly the same
    saddle/spindle/handlebar measurements, but handles so much better that I've just
    plain lost interest in riding the Isis.

    My take is that you can only tweak a frame so far before it doesn't work as well
    as a frame that's made to the right dimensions for your body.
    --
    PeteCresswell
     
  13. "Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    >
    > I can guarantee you that, even if you set them up identically, they'll still
    > feel different. I can't tell you which will be better or worse, but
    > definitely different.
    >

    Could you please elaborate on this? Can you give some specifics
    examples of what will feel different? Another poster mentioned how
    the "longer stem on a smaller bike" will put the front wheel farther
    back when standing and climbing. Can you give some similar examples?

    I'm not trying to argue or criticize, I just want to understand this
    subject better. (The subject being how two different size bikes feel
    different if the points where the body contacts the bike are of
    identical dimensions. This would mean identical distance from the
    seatpost to handlebars, handlebar vrs seatpost height, bottom bracket
    to seat distance and angle, etc).

    Tom
     
  14. >> I can guarantee you that, even if you set them up identically, they'll
    >> still
    >> feel different. I can't tell you which will be better or worse, but
    >> definitely different.
    >>

    > Could you please elaborate on this? Can you give some specifics
    > examples of what will feel different? Another poster mentioned how
    > the "longer stem on a smaller bike" will put the front wheel farther
    > back when standing and climbing. Can you give some similar examples?
    >
    > I'm not trying to argue or criticize, I just want to understand this
    > subject better. (The subject being how two different size bikes feel
    > different if the points where the body contacts the bike are of
    > identical dimensions. This would mean identical distance from the
    > seatpost to handlebars, handlebar vrs seatpost height, bottom bracket
    > to seat distance and angle, etc).


    On the frame with a shorter top tube & longer stem, you're positioning
    yourself differently over the front wheel than would be the case with a
    longer top tube & shorter stem. I know this very well, as I raced two bikes
    that couldn't be more different in terms of top-tube length. My Bob Jackson
    was exceptionally short, while my Cinelli was quite long. Had a 12cm stem
    on the Jackson, and an 8cm on the Cinelli. The contact points were
    identical, but the feel of the two bikes quite different. I preferredthe
    Cinelli, but could descend equally well on either bike. They had different
    personalities, but not really different capabilities.

    Of course, since these were two different-brand bikes, there are more
    variables than just frame size involved; the main point of the illustration
    was that I could adapt easily to either bike, yet I preferred one over the
    other.

    From a practical matter, we set up bikes with the same contact points but
    different sizes all the time at the shop, as customers often question what
    the next larger or smaller frame would be like. It's a very rare thing that
    someone comes back without an opinion that they preferred one over the
    others. You don't hear people saying "I can't tell the difference."

    For what it's worth, I'm not a fan of "3 sizes fits everybody bike fitting,
    just change the stem & seatpost."

    --Mike Jacoubowsky
    Chain Reaction Bicycles
    www.ChainReaction.com
    IMBA, BikesBelong, NBDA member

    "Thomas Reynolds" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > "Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:<[email protected]>...
    >>
    >> I can guarantee you that, even if you set them up identically, they'll
    >> still
    >> feel different. I can't tell you which will be better or worse, but
    >> definitely different.
    >>

    > Could you please elaborate on this? Can you give some specifics
    > examples of what will feel different? Another poster mentioned how
    > the "longer stem on a smaller bike" will put the front wheel farther
    > back when standing and climbing. Can you give some similar examples?
    >
    > I'm not trying to argue or criticize, I just want to understand this
    > subject better. (The subject being how two different size bikes feel
    > different if the points where the body contacts the bike are of
    > identical dimensions. This would mean identical distance from the
    > seatpost to handlebars, handlebar vrs seatpost height, bottom bracket
    > to seat distance and angle, etc).
    >
    > Tom
     
  15. Mike Kruger

    Mike Kruger Guest

    "Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    >
    > By the way, the manner in which TREK does their sizing results in some
    > peculiar anomalies, such as the fact that a 58cm 520 may, in fact, size a
    > bit larger than a 60cm normal road bike in their line.


    I realize that you are more familiar with TREK than other lines, but isn't
    this a characteristic of the bicycle industry that goes far beyond TREK?
     
  16. "Mike Jacoubowsky/Chain Reaction Bicycles" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > >> I can guarantee you that, even if you set them up identically, they'll
    > >> still
    > >> feel different. I can't tell you which will be better or worse, but
    > >> definitely different.
    > >>

    > > Could you please elaborate on this? Can you give some specifics
    > > ........

    >
    > On the frame with a shorter top tube & longer stem, you're positioning
    > yourself differently over the front wheel than would be the case with a
    > longer top tube & shorter stem. I know this very well, as I raced two bikes
    > that couldn't be more different in terms of top-tube length. My Bob Jackson
    > was exceptionally short, while my Cinelli was quite long. Had a 12cm stem
    > on the Jackson, and an 8cm on the Cinelli. The contact points were
    > identical, but the feel of the two bikes quite different. I preferredthe
    > Cinelli, but could descend equally well on either bike. They had different
    > personalities, but not really different capabilities.
    >
    > Of course, since these were two different-brand bikes, there are more
    > variables than just frame size involved; the main point of the illustration
    > was that I could adapt easily to either bike, yet I preferred one over the
    > other.
    >
    > From a practical matter, we set up bikes with the same contact points but
    > different sizes all the time at the shop, as customers often question what
    > the next larger or smaller frame would be like. It's a very rare thing that
    > someone comes back without an opinion that they preferred one over the
    > others. You don't hear people saying "I can't tell the difference."
    >

    Thank you for the thoughtful reply. I have a lot of road bikes, most
    of them 20+ years old with longer wheelbases, more rake in the fork,
    and (some) with larger, wider tires. I also have three newer frames.
    There are obvious differences in the ride characteristics. This what
    got me thinking about this subject.

    Tom
     
  17. >> By the way, the manner in which TREK does their sizing results in some
    >> peculiar anomalies, such as the fact that a 58cm 520 may, in fact, size a
    >> bit larger than a 60cm normal road bike in their line.

    >
    > I realize that you are more familiar with TREK than other lines, but isn't
    > this a characteristic of the bicycle industry that goes far beyond TREK?


    Absolutely. It's a nightmare trying to compare one manufacturer's sizing
    with another, particularly when you throw level vs sloping top tubes into
    the mix. But the TREK "family" of bikes tends to demonstrate just how silly
    things are, since, between TREK, Klein & LeMond, you have three different
    ways of measuring the same frame. At one point standardizing things was
    considered, but it was decided to keep measuring them the way they had prior
    to becoming part of the TREK stable, primarily as a marketing move (as it
    helped to continue product differentiation).

    --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
    www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
     
  18. Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:

    >> Stephen Harding wrote:
    >>
    >>So I do not believe frame size is as critical as some on this
    >>NG say. One can find a range of frame sizes, combined with
    >>stem and seatpost adjustments that will bring even a mismatched
    >>frame size into proper adjustment for almost anyone.

    >
    > Or, a cynic might say that you've perhaps never ridden a bike that truly
    > fits right, and don't know what you're missing. The truth is somewhere
    > in-between.


    That's always a possibility.

    I hear the same thing about not going clipless, or not wearing
    biking shorts, or ....

    > By the way, the manner in which TREK does their sizing results in some
    > peculiar anomalies, such as the fact that a 58cm 520 may, in fact, size a
    > bit larger than a 60cm normal road bike in their line. Thus it's no
    > surprise you can ride the two bikes interchangeably. The next size up 520
    > would most likely be too big. On the other hand, when you're riding with
    > seatpost & stem "maxed out", the indications are that a larger size is at
    > least worth trying.


    I thought it rather strange that Trek had such a gap in frame size from
    60 to 63, but perhaps it's just economics of demand.

    The frame of my 520 if very definitely physically smaller than that of
    the 2000. Geometry is of course a bit different but the 520 is very
    much a "smaller bike" ignoring seat post/stem height.

    > How tall are you, by the way?


    6'1" and about 180-185.

    Perhaps there is more built in "adaptability" to a bike with a taller
    person than with a short one; or perhaps I've simply developed an
    iron butt that could ride comfortable on a tricycle with a tractor
    seat just as well as a "properly sized" bike.


    SMH
     
  19. Retro Bob wrote:
    > On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 07:08:27 -0400, Stephen Harding
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>>Or, a cynic might say that you've perhaps never ridden a bike that truly
    >>>fits right, and don't know what you're missing. The truth is somewhere
    >>>in-between.

    >>
    >>That's always a possibility.
    >>
    >>I hear the same thing about not going clipless, or not wearing
    >>biking shorts, or ....

    >
    >
    >
    > Yes, those silly shorts. He, he, he... I wear "regular shorts" and a
    > t-shirt of my choosing. No "cycling" clothes. Most of the purists
    > - who apparently think they are potential Armstrong challengers and
    > way too important to deal with an amateur like me - will even wave.


    Ya know, I only have one pair of cycling shorts, and one pair of cycling
    undershorts. So sometimes I ride with them, sometimes they're both in
    the wash and I wear regular shorts.

    I can hardly tell the difference.

    -km

    --
    Only cowards fight kids -- unidentified Moscow protester

    http://community.webshots.com/user/blackrosequilts
    proud to be owned by a yorkie
     
  20. Peter Cole

    Peter Cole Guest

    "the black rose" <[email protected]> wrote
    > Retro Bob wrote:
    > > On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 07:08:27 -0400, Stephen Harding
    > > <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >
    > > Yes, those silly shorts. He, he, he... I wear "regular shorts" and a
    > > t-shirt of my choosing. No "cycling" clothes. Most of the purists
    > > - who apparently think they are potential Armstrong challengers and
    > > way too important to deal with an amateur like me - will even wave.

    >
    > Ya know, I only have one pair of cycling shorts, and one pair of cycling
    > undershorts. So sometimes I ride with them, sometimes they're both in
    > the wash and I wear regular shorts.
    >
    > I can hardly tell the difference.


    It may not be obvious to n00bs, but cycling shorts are an extremely
    pragmatic bit of functional apparel. They are designed for riding with
    intensity and duration, if you do neither, they're not necessary.
     
Loading...
Loading...