Bicycle Mechanics - Schwinn Super Sport
Bikeforums.net is a forum about nothing but bikes. Our community can help you find information about hard-to-find and localized information like bicycle tours, specialties like where in your area to have your recumbent bike serviced, or what are the best bicycle tires and seats for the activities you use your bike for.
12-22-01, 09:49 PM
The low end Schwinn Super Sports aren't sized standardly. They come in L, XL, and perhaps smaller sizes. What gives?
Does anyone know to what standard sizes the Schwinn letters roughly correspond?
12-23-01, 04:43 AM
I'm not sure from memory, but it's pretty accurate to measure from the BB center up the seat tube and post to where the top of a standard ( framed) main/top tube would join it, ( the distance from the ground to where top of the front of the main/top tube joins the headtube is usually the same).
I wouldn't worry about what size the (compact) frames correspond to- the trick is to get the good maintube length to match the length/size of your trunk/upper body and arms. Just make sure you can stand over it OK and you have enough seat post/pin stickin' out of it and into it, to ride right and ride safe. Some people, ( racers, hammerheads etc.) get the smallest frame that will work for them because a smaller frame is lighter and stiffer.
Ride what feels good
12-23-01, 12:50 PM
I tried to find some info on a rough comparison to standard sizes, but I was unsuccessful.
The sizes for the Fastbacks work out to something like S=53, M=55, L=57, XL=59. I don't really know if that'll help you or not. The Super Sport geometry is somewhat similar to the Fastbacks, the key word being somewhat.
The Super Sport top tubes measure S-52.7, M-53.5, L-55.5, XL-58. Again, I don't really know if this does you any good, so do with it what you will.
Like pat said, the size with a compact frame isn't as important as with a standard frame. You're allowed quite a bit of 'fudge room.' For what it's worth, I ride a large Fastback frame, and about a 56cm otherwise.
I resent this dumbing-down of bike sizes. The traditional system, which specifies seat tube length (C-C or C-T), top tube length (C-C), and perhaps either bottom bracket height or standover height, served several generations of cyclists very well and should be retained, although today's sloping top tubes admittedly make it a bit harder to work out comparable size specifications. Yes, I agree that the ultimate test is largely subjective, but it would be very useful to be able to compare sizes from catalogues or the Internet while narrowing down one's choices for a few test rides. I also agree that, particularly for a mountain bike or hybrid, top tube length is more important than seat tube length.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.12 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.