Bicycle Mechanics - Sheldon Brown is wrong!!??

Now that I've shocked and angered you...

Whilst I generally believe Sheldon Brown to be accurate in most of the bicycle related information he dishes out, I have to take umberance with his advice regarding bicycle sizing.

"Up until the early '80's, this was a fairly easy question to answer. You would stand over the frame of a bike, and if there was an inch or two between the top of the top tube and your tender parts, that was the right size"

Really?, maybe this is an American thing as if you could stand over a frame without leaning slightly to one side here in the UK the frame was generally thought of as being too small, granted it seems we had rather more choice when it came to frame sizing than yourself (frames would usually be sized in 1/2 or 1 inch steps).

"It is obvious why you shouldn't have a bike that is too tall to stand over with a reasonable safety margin (although even this sizing practice was not universally accepted for the first 30 or 40 years of the diamond frame.)

On the other hand, why shouldn't you ride a "too small" bike? "Because the seat and handlebars will be too low!" That was a good objection ten years ago, when tall seatposts were a rarity and quality handlebar stems were available in a variety of forward extensions but only one (short) height.

All that was before the mass production of the mountain bike. Now 250 mm and 300 mm seatposts are stock items, and a variety of excellent handlebar stems are available"

There is little need to stand over a bicycle with both feet flat on the ground, it easy to learn to lean to one side, as used to be the case(up to the 1980's, not turn of the century). This is not dangerous.

Ultra long seatposts and stems are a kludge, they aren't as strong as frame tubing, long quill stems exacerbate the fact the the plug/wedge is the only bit holding the stem to the frame and the whole thing looks dreadfully ugly.

"With the smaller frame sizes used now, the "7" shaped stem is an atavism, a stylistic holdover from an obsolete technology. An extended "7" stem is two sides of a triangle. A stem that follows the diagonal, directly from just above the headset to the handlebar clamp makes more sense geometrically. Such a stem would be as strong as a similarly made "7" stem, but substantially lighter. It would also be more crash-worthy. Modern Allen-bolt stems are certainly safer than the old style that had a protruding hex head and a sharp rear corner, but the shape is still a threat to the rider's groin in a collision.

There is a trend to use "mountain-bike type" stems on road bikes, and it really makes a lot of sense. All that the "7" stem has going for it is tradition."

If a riders groin is near enough the 7 stem that there's danger of a collision then all their weight is going to be so far forward that the rear wheel is lifting and they are destined to go over the bars, rather than collide with the stem.

Mountain style quill stems are ugly and a kludge for frames that are too small and once again are exacerbating the problem of an ill fitting stem held in solely by a plug/wedge.

"This isn't nearly as common as it used to be, since the abandonment of a slavish dedication to the level top tube, but used to be widespread."

And what was wrong with a level top tube, at least we knew where we stood regarding frame sizing. These days there is all manner of fit kits and other voodoo just to fit a bicycle. The compact frame may be slightly stiffer, but the long old seatpost and stem needed are far flexier than a properly fitting traditional frame would be.

Why buy a frame and then have to buy aftermarket components just to fit the damn thing, buy the right size frame first time round.

Lastly, by the time most people get the handlebars high enough to be comfortable for general riding, they've found the top tube is now far too short, as their reach has improved from their elbows being bent at much nearer to right angles than when the stem was further down.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/wine/graphics/2006/11/11/stew.jpg

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/wine/graphics/2006/11/11/stew.jpg

Will you share?

Now that I've shocked and angered you...

Whilst I generally believe Sheldon Brown to be accurate in most of the bicycle related information he dishes out, I have to take umberance with his advice regarding bicycle sizing.

"Up until the early '80's, this was a fairly easy question to answer. You would stand over the frame of a bike, and if there was an inch or two between the top of the top tube and your tender parts, that was the right size"

(frames would usually be sized in 1/2 or 1 inch steps).


errm... that's the way bikes were sized in my experience. Not sure about the 1/2 or 1 inch size steps either? that would mean a lot of different size bikes. Like i said, I don't know about that though.

Half inch steps were definitely less common and not throughout the entire size range, most manufacturers I know of would size in 1 inch steps, at least at the larger end of the scale.

Whilst I generally believe Sheldon Brown to be accurate in most of the bicycle related information he dishes out, I have to take umberance with his advice regarding bicycle sizing.


you seem to object to the reality of current bicycles rather than anything Sheldon Brown is reporting. In fact, you are not disagreeing with anything he is saying.

You clearly disagree with current bicycle technology and are using Sheldon Brown's rather objective reporting of the facts to pick a fight. Terrible way to use the forums. :(

I wouldn't normally respond to threads like this but I do think SB is a good resource, like any FREE information, he isn't forcing it on people. My impression is that SB is someone who loves cycling and all the wonderful details, tries to be factual and informative.

Why anyone except maybe a troll would try to make this controversial is beyond me.

It's the way it was done.

http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d7/k4drd/Bicycles/1976Fitting.jpg

Not necessarily pick a fight, but definitely create argument towards greating understanding.

Indeed, I think most frames today are sized too small for x rider, Sheldon Brown's advice seems to sway towards these overly small frames. Given that he is so widely followed, I decided to give you my own take, as I don't particularly agree with his advice.

It's not personal.

oh, you better get your flame suit on, highlyselassie


Oh and what the hell is an "umberance" or are you just making that up ?


thought so

here is the word you are looking for: umbrage

but u r using it wrong.

Umbrage: a feeling of pique or resentment at some often fancied slight or insult <took umbrage at the speaker's remarks>

How did SB slight you, pray tell ?


that's fail twice for you, zero for SB. score: [Asses Lie Highly -2 ]:[ SB 0 ]...SB wins



if you are gonna open yer hole and try to slight SB
who pretty much is bikes and biking, and knows a
lot more about it, you better be good at it.


Hey I can find this in your username: Asses Lie Highly
I think it is appropriate.

To be honest, stan. Frame sizing has been perceived differently at different times of the last century, but by the 50's in the UK and on the continent imo a good standard had been set.

The advert you show is American, again it may of always been different over there...

I don't see how any of these points this person is making are anything other than a slight difference of opinion (mixed with a bit of misinterpretation) with Sheldon.

Over a fairly subjective issue as well.
Who cares? Size your bike the way you want to...

I think the point of this post is for the OP to be able to hoist himself up onto the canvas with the enviably great Sheldon Brown. But just because you have put yourself in the ring doesn't mean much. In fact I'm not even certain you've thrown a punch.

I think the point of this post is for the OP to be able to hoist himself up onto the canvas with the enviably great Sheldon Brown. But just because you have put yourself in the ring doesn't mean much. In fact I'm not even certain you've thrown a punch.

:roflmao:

Any arguments against my points will be gladly taken, once the faith has been defended thoroughly enough.

oh, you better get your flame suit on, highlyselassie


Oh and what the hell is an "umberance" or are you just making that up ?


thought so

here is the word you are looking for: umbrage

but u r using it wrong.

Umbrage: a feeling of pique or resentment at some often fancied slight or insult <took umbrage at the speaker's remarks>

How did SB slight you, pray tell ?


that's fail twice for you, zero for SB. score 2 - 0...SB wins



if you are gonna open yer hole and try to slight SB
who pretty much is bikes and biking, and knows a
lot more about it, you better be good at it.


Hey I can find this in your username: Asses Lie Highly
I think it is appropriate.

Hey, 13-year old.
Shouldn't the score be -2 against 0 if he is down by 2 against Sheldon?

I think the point of this post is for the OP to be able to hoist himself up onto the canvas with the enviably great Sheldon Brown. But just because you have put yourself in the ring doesn't mean much. In fact I'm not even certain you've thrown a punch.


holy crap Portis you are some type of super genius
I bow deeply

Hey, 13-year old.
Shouldn't the score be -2 against 0 if he is down by 2 against Sheldon?

fixed. and I am 113 years old, give me some credit

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/wine/graphics/2006/11/11/stew.jpg......best post so far.......and not a single word was thrown..........

I've got too much time on my hands and would like your attention to be paid to me and so I've taken Sheldon's generalities regarding bicycle sizing and turned them into absolutes in order to have a starting point for my "argument" which uses my own personal arbitrary observations as if they're somehow facts the world at large agrees on. Please indulge me.


I fixed this for you.

I fixed this for you.

:roflmao:
that's one way to say it. harsh but it's a rainy friday and pretty funny sitting here.

maybe next time you start your thread like this....."Hey Mr. Brown..'scuse me a minute....are you sure about this???"

maybe next time you start your post like this....."Hey Mr. Brown..'scuse me a minute....are you sure about this???"

this.

arguments are OK,
but the title of a thread could have been better

The title was inspirational.

highlyselassie,
I'm a bit unclear;are you saying that a frame that requires a small sideways tilt at rest is properly sized?
Now,I do see your point;I'm short 5'5" and my first really good bike-Bottechia Pro-in 1974 was a 21.5 or 22" frame.I did have to slightly tilt it at rest.The upside of the too big frame was that I wasn't bent over as far to get into the drops)or to ride with hands on top(most of the time).The tall frame meant that the seat was sitting just above the frame-it was below or level with the handlebars.A properly sized road bike had the seat above the handle bars,and it was less comfortable.
This was fine 99.9% of the time.HOWEVER, occasionally, you lose control,hit a bump,screw up,whatever.Your feet bounce off the pedals, or you take them out of the toe clips,and try to stand on the ground-while moving-for "some" reason.I promise you,when your groin bounces on the top tube,you remember it.If you are lucky, it is metal to bone contact-which just hurts like heck.Not so lucky, it is metal to "soft parts" contact with your full weight squashing/bruising/hitting smashing your soft parts into the top tube.
Yes,this can happen with 1" clearance, but it is much more likely to happen with no(or negative when you tilt) clearance.The blow is harder with no clearance also.
Better have a bike with some top tube soft parts clearance.Have your groin bounce off the top tube, it will make that clear.
Thanks,
Charlie
PS I now have bikes with tall stems, or old fashioned handlebars so I can sit upright-works fine.I have plenty of clearance.

Better have a bike with some top tube soft parts clearance.Have your groin bounce off the top tube, it will make that clear.


Maybe highlyselassie is really just trying to imply that the British have bigger soft parts making it more difficult to straddle a puny American frame without tiltage. I think I take umberance to that remark.

Eric "dresses on the left to avoid the top tube" J

The title was inspirational.

The title was stupid.


Tim

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/wine/graphics/2006/11/11/stew.jpg

OMG that is friggin' hilarious, Stacey!!

I was just thinking that...:D

fixed. and I am 113 years old, give me some credit

:D

The title was stupid.


Tim

It inspired posts though, shame so little counter argument.

OMG that is friggin' hilarious, Stacey!!

+1! here too! :D

How did you find the PERFECT picture so quickly?!?
I'll be chuckling about that for DAYS!

You want atavism? voilà!

I'll see your Sheldon Brown fitting guide and raise you a Grant Peterson:

http://www.rivbike.com/article/bike_fit/choosing_a_frame_size

"In General
-people ride bikes that are too small. If you go into a bike shop or ask the local fast riders about frame sizing, you'll likely hear comments such as, 'Smaller bikes are lighter, stiffer, more maneuverable, and more efficient.'..."

Ooo, retro-curmudgeon fight!

(Peterson sides with OP. Highlyselassie, you sure you're not Grant Peterson?)

It inspired posts though, shame so little counter argument.


In other words:


I am trolling.

In other words:

Lol, tru dat true dat.

he seems to dislike americans tho

Lol, tru dat true dat.

he seems to dislike americans tho

No fault for that. I dislike Americans and I am one.

Fat slobbering s.o.bs who can't make a decent compact car...

Present a different viewpoint and get accused of narcissism. Trolling=please don't touch our ideas they are fragile and easily broken?

Present a different viewpoint and get accused of narcissism. Trolling=please don't touch our ideas they are fragile and easily broken?

You're not presenting a different viewpoint, you're deliberately picking a pointless and arbitrary fight and revelling in the attention. That's trolling.

The fact that you gain so much satisfaction from people telling you where to stick it just confirms your skin is green and you live under a bridge.

Elsewhere in the forums, I find that older Raleigh roadsters tend to have larger frames and tend to have the crank center up higher than modern bikes. Assuming the people using them were the same size or smaller, this implies to me a difference in sizing standards between the US and English bikes. It sounds like perhaps a differenence as to whether you choose the ideal ride height and compromise when standing, or vice versa.

It's not always obvious on the internet, as you can access articles anywhere, but seems like Sheldon's articles are oriented for the US market.

Nostalgic emotional gut reactions do have a certain comic value, I must agree. The fact that no-one has said "you're wrong because" thrills me more though.

Nostalgic emotional gut reactions do have a certain comic value, I must agree. The fact that no-one has said "you're wrong because" thrills me more though.

You say Sheldon is wrong, but you've yet to prove you're right. I guess the UK way is the only way?

Nostalgic emotional gut reactions do have a certain comic value, I must agree. The fact that no-one has said "you're wrong because" thrills me more though.


you are wrong in many ways. starting with the title.

and then the next troll thing...'now that I have your attention..'

then you **** our minds with the misuse and misspelling of umbrage.
'LOL' and texting style is fine, but using that word incorrectly implies
SB somehow personally attacked you. need I go on ?


then you continue to fail horribly. it is just noxious.

there is the TB guy, 'Don't tase me Bro', and you.

I don't know why I bother- oh wait, yes I do. Because you really annoy me.

So if I show you you don't even have an argument, that there's no substance to what you've written, will you shut up? Please?



Now that I've shocked and angered you...

Yeah, from the title. Because you want to pick a fight and sit in your dirty underwear in your parents moldy basement and giggle and guffaw at the kerfuffle you cause for a few hours before you go to bed.

Whilst I generally believe Sheldon Brown to be accurate in most of the bicycle related information he dishes out, I have to take umberance with his advice regarding bicycle sizing.

"Up until the early '80's, this was a fairly easy question to answer. You would stand over the frame of a bike, and if there was an inch or two between the top of the top tube and your tender parts, that was the right size"

Really?, maybe this is an American thing as if you could stand over a frame without leaning slightly to one side here in the UK the frame was generally thought of as being too small, granted it seems we had rather more choice when it came to frame sizing than yourself (frames would usually be sized in 1/2 or 1 inch steps).

Good for you. Sheldon lives in America. Wow this is great so far.

"It is obvious why you shouldn't have a bike that is too tall to stand over with a reasonable safety margin (although even this sizing practice was not universally accepted for the first 30 or 40 years of the diamond frame.)

On the other hand, why shouldn't you ride a "too small" bike? "Because the seat and handlebars will be too low!" That was a good objection ten years ago, when tall seatposts were a rarity and quality handlebar stems were available in a variety of forward extensions but only one (short) height.

All that was before the mass production of the mountain bike. Now 250 mm and 300 mm seatposts are stock items, and a variety of excellent handlebar stems are available"

There is little need to stand over a bicycle with both feet flat on the ground, it easy to learn to lean to one side, as used to be the case(up to the 1980's, not turn of the century). This is not dangerous.

Ultra long seatposts and stems are a kludge, they aren't as strong as frame tubing, long quill stems exacerbate the fact the the plug/wedge is the only bit holding the stem to the frame and the whole thing looks dreadfully ugly.

Ah geez... So your big argument is a bunch of arbitrary personal gripes? "Dreadfully ugly" is your point? How is this an argument? How is this something that needs to be debated? Have you no concept of the difference between information, opinion and rhetoric? No? Don't they have those distinctions in Britain?

"With the smaller frame sizes used now, the "7" shaped stem is an atavism, a stylistic holdover from an obsolete technology. An extended "7" stem is two sides of a triangle. A stem that follows the diagonal, directly from just above the headset to the handlebar clamp makes more sense geometrically. Such a stem would be as strong as a similarly made "7" stem, but substantially lighter. It would also be more crash-worthy. Modern Allen-bolt stems are certainly safer than the old style that had a protruding hex head and a sharp rear corner, but the shape is still a threat to the rider's groin in a collision.

There is a trend to use "mountain-bike type" stems on road bikes, and it really makes a lot of sense. All that the "7" stem has going for it is tradition."

If a riders groin is near enough the 7 stem that there's danger of a collision then all their weight is going to be so far forward that the rear wheel is lifting and they are destined to go over the bars, rather than collide with the stem.

Mountain style quill stems are ugly and a kludge for frames that are too small and once again are exacerbating the problem of an ill fitting stem held in solely by a plug/wedge.

You take Sheldon's generalities and assign specific meanings to them in order to form an argument, which is obnoxious enough, but then you also can't read. Sheldon writes: "but the shape is still a threat to the rider's groin in a collision". And you translate that to: "If a riders groin is near enough the 7 stem that there's danger of a collision..."

Sheldon is saying in a collision the 7 stem is more dangerous than a diagonal stem but you turn that into something like 'the 7 stem is dangerous because the top tube is so short the rider's groin is close to it.'

I'd like to call you a name at this point but I'll just say: That's not how comprehending the written word works.


"This isn't nearly as common as it used to be, since the abandonment of a slavish dedication to the level top tube, but used to be widespread."

And what was wrong with a level top tube, at least we knew where we stood regarding frame sizing. These days there is all manner of fit kits and other voodoo just to fit a bicycle. The compact frame may be slightly stiffer, but the long old seatpost and stem needed are far flexier than a properly fitting traditional frame would be.

Why buy a frame and then have to buy aftermarket components just to fit the damn thing, buy the right size frame first time round.

Lastly, by the time most people get the handlebars high enough to be comfortable for general riding, they've found the top tube is now far too short, as their reach has improved from their elbows being bent at much nearer to right angles than when the stem was further down.

Again another general observation and you create a strawman out of it.


YOU. ARE. TEDIOUS.

I don't disagree with either of them. Properly fitting a bicycle to a rider is largely a subjective matter. Just take the varying sizes of people and then throw the various types of bikes and riding on top of that. I'm surprised that there's anything close to standardization in sizing and not surprised that there is discontent and compromises that have to be made.

In a perfect world, every frame would be custom made for each rider. I don't think that's going to happen. The simple fact is, that really solving the issue would cost too much. I tend to agree more with Mr. Brown in that I would rather have a frame that is too small for me and work from that, than one that is too large. I'm going through that issue right now. I have a Raleigh that is probably 2cm too small and a Medici that is probably a cm or 2 too big (exacerbated by a TT geometry). Guess which bike is proving easier to fix, that's right, the small one.

Of course there's an exception to every rule. My last Raleigh was rather large, but the top tubes on that model tended to run short, therefore it was not very difficult to fit. I could not flat foot it, but that is not a problem for me.

Overall it's a useless argument. People need to find what works for them and use the numbers as more of a guideline and less of a rule. Expect that you will have to compromise something unless you want to throw down the bucks or pounds for custom work.

I tend to agree more with Mr. Brown in that I would rather have a frame that is too small for me and work from that, than one that is too large.

That is not what Mr. Brown said. It is interesting how things are taken out of context and definitions supplied by the orig. poster are taken as fact by page 2.

It is also of note that SB is not advocating anything in the orig quoted reference! That is the funny part. He is basically giving a slice of bicycle development history.

I really think it is important, since it is being referenced, to keep Sheldon Brown's words and meaning intact. While discussing a person's words, it really helps to read and understand them and context.

(not an attack on you WorldPax)

why the heck am i defending SB anyway? I don't even know the guy!:p

All this talk about emasculation by top-tube or handlebar stem is beside the point. The reason this American rides a bike that is at least 4 cm too small by the pubic bone-top tube delta standard is that the top tube would be too long. And in 47 years of riding and crashing my private parts have never been in contention for time-space coordinates with the parts of my bicycle.

Forty years ago seat tube angles were slacker, chain stays were longer, and stems were shorter. The rider weight was better centered between the front and rear axles. In the 1970s, seat stays and top tubes got shorter and stems got longer. The intention was a lighter, stiffer, and more responsive frame, but there were unintended consequences for balance, too. Shorter seat stays put the center of mass closer to the rear axle and the combination of shorter top tube and longer stem helped keep the front wheel planted.

The current fashion in frame dimension is short chain stays and longer top tubes. Riders who buy a new frame base on their old seat tube lengths report that they're using shorter stems, and the shorter stems are screwing up the steering.

Chain stay length pretty much dictates minimum stem length for a given frame size. Current frame fashion indicates that, for most riders, the order of importance of frame dimensions is top tube for reach, head tube for upper body height, and seat tube. For a given size differences in head and seat angles are practically negligible.

So sure, snug that top tube right up to your scrotum, but only if you can reach with a properly proportioned stem or the bike has 43 cm chain stays.

Whilst I generally believe Sheldon Brown to be accurate in most of the bicycle related information he dishes out, I have to take umberance with his advice regarding bicycle sizing.

"Up until the early '80's, this was a fairly easy question to answer. You would stand over the frame of a bike, and if there was an inch or two between the top of the top tube and your tender parts, that was the right size"

Really?, maybe this is an American thing as if you could stand over a frame without leaning slightly to one side here in the UK the frame was generally thought of as being too small,

I dunno about UK vs. USA vs. whoever. But this shouldn't even be controversial: it's clearly safer to have a frame you can straddle over. Please don't try to argue that it's not, that would defile your original post with BS. Just ask yourself: is it possible to come into a situation where you are forced to straddle your bike? And the answer is yes. No matter how 'leet you think you are, you could come into such a situation. And with a frame too small, you could scramble your gonads.

There is absolutely no reason for chosing a frame that would put you in that danger. Even if the likelyhood is superextremelyultrasmall, why would you? Why would you choose a frame that's larger than needs be?

Interesting article (here: http://trekroad.typepad.com/trekroad/)

http://trekroad.typepad.com/trekroad/images/2008/01/03/2008_trek_new_mdaone_seat_height_ra.gif

shows that, for the rider in the example, any of five bike frame sizes, can be configured to accommodate the rider.

:)

Nostalgic emotional gut reactions do have a certain comic value, I must agree. The fact that no-one has said "you're wrong because" thrills me more though.

You are wrong because if you ride a bike that needs to be tilted,you will eventually bounce your groin off the top tube.No one(especially male) who has ridden very much would every suggest that a too tall bike was anything but a bad idea.
Bikes that need to be tilted at rest are dangerous.Inexperience is the only explanation for even suggesting it is anything but a bad idea.You haven't ridden many bikes, and you haven't ridden very much.I can see where the seat handlebar relationship might be better, but it is soooooo painful,and there are soooo many ways to accomplish the same relationship, why risk your testicles??
Charlie

:) Based in what wagathon is saying, I would love to see Rasmussen riding a madone in size 48 :) or Armstrong riding a madone in size 60 :)

Still remember the mode back in the day of ride just like Lemond, well his style was unique but many people was trying to get the same position and style than him.. so many guys were riding weird frame sizes and stuff.. well thats the past. At some point i sort of agree with the original poster because i'm comming from a more clasical school than many people that read the forum. Frame sizes is so subjective, and even more now a days when frames have other shapes or ways to get measured. But yes, the rule of the 1 or 2 inches under the crotch thing i tihnk it works only with certain people, and always if the bb has an specific hight from the groud. I think makes sense hehehe. Well as an example, if you have a bike with 650 wheels and in a size 50 but with a bb hight of 60 cms is more than clear that probably the bike will be too big (based in the crotch rule that many people sware as a god's commandment) hehehe :) Another example? well track bikes, here in the US as a rule guys get 2 or 3 cms smaller bikes based in the crotch rule thing, well again, a real track bike has a bb that is like 2 or 3 cms higher than a road bike soooo??? well makes sense that the TT is higher and probably the crotch will be crushed by the Top Tube, the whole frame is higher from the GROUND, DUH!... well I agree with the original poster complain about that rule posted in sheldons web site, but i agreee that sheldon have very valuable information in his website, he have saved my life more than once anyways... and because of that i say thanks SHeldon :)

Cya.,,

That is not what Mr. Brown said. It is interesting how things are taken out of context and definitions supplied by the orig. poster are taken as fact by page 2.

It is also of note that SB is not advocating anything in the orig quoted reference! That is the funny part. He is basically giving a slice of bicycle development history.......

" On the other hand, why shouldn't you ride a "too small" bike? "Because the seat and handlebars will be too low!" That was a good objection ten years ago, when tall seatposts were a rarity and quality handlebar stems were available in a variety of forward extensions but only one (short) height.

All that was before the mass production of the mountain bike. Now 250 mm and 300 mm seatposts are stock items, and a variety of excellent handlebar stems are available " Copied directly from Sheldon Brown's page

The way I read that, Mr. Brown is pointing out that while previously it was not recommended to ride a frame that was too small for you, modern technology has overcome those issues ie: longer stems and seat posts.

I do not read anywhere in that article where he suggests that there are any recent fixes for riding a frame too large.

I understand you were not attacking me, but I don't think my post was incorrect in it's assumptions.