- Dec 29, 2004
=========================================================el Inglés said:Buying a bike because it looks good is stupid - there is a lot of attractive **** out there - so don´t dismiss a compact frame for looks , they have a lot of advantages * if made properly ( not all giant clones are faithfull to the design concept )
* it can enable a smaller rider to buy a small frame without having the usual problem of too little distance between the head races and sizing doesnot have to be quite so precise as a standard frame - you can finalise the bar position later with the correct , for you , bar stem at little cost . You can often get abetter frame for your money as the fabricator can concentrate on fewer sizes and the shops on fewer models to stock .
re sizing : I heard inside leg * x 0.65
*inside leg = groin to floor with feet 10cm apart at heels - you will need help for this , believe me .
unless your name is Valverde or Friere then getting the seat height right is the most important the rest is a matter of personal taste or physical weirdness so don´t try to get too scientific about sizing as it tends to be something of a blind alley for most people and more designed about the needs of a few racers than jane public .
remember it´s supposed to be fun , so have some .
Of course most people wouldn't buy a bike JUST on looks
But who would buy a bike that doesn't look good to them and who would ride a bike that they think doesn't look good - and the ideal is to be riding it right?
For most people(we're not talking Euro pros here) the slight stiffness that might come from a compact frame over a standard frame will make no noticeable riding difference.
Funny how a lot of compact frames now have a carbon rear end that takes away some of the supposed benefit of the short stays.
To my mind - compact frames look stupid
.67 works for so many people - see other postings, books, and people I've sized for bikes(not for eveyone of course).