Sheldon Brown is wrong!!??
01-04-08, 08:51 PM
#51
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Columbia, MO
Posts: 126
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Okay OP, please address this: When getting fitted for my new bike the 58cm frame would have worked out almost exactly as you suggest is proper. I would be able to ride it but would need to tilt it a bit when stopped. The problem is that the top tube was too long. On the 58cm frame I would actually have had to have bars BEHIND the head tube for proper length. The 56cm model was a bit better. It gave me just about an inch of clearance for the boys but the bars were still barely extended past the head tube. I then tried the 54cm. That gave me around 2 inches of clearance and a top tube that allowed the bars to be placed properly.
So, if I understand you correctly, I should have gone with the 58cm frame. Is that correct? If so, why? If not, what have I misunderstood?
Thank you.
Joe
P.S. I say "NI" to you.
So, if I understand you correctly, I should have gone with the 58cm frame. Is that correct? If so, why? If not, what have I misunderstood?
Thank you.
Joe
P.S. I say "NI" to you.
01-04-08, 09:08 PM
#52
Senior Member
I regularly run my '68 schwinn run-a-bout round town and the island. The bike is way down there, way, way down there. My knutties are safely 8 inches away from the stik shift (in third- I NEVER stand up in first). I'll bet my fun meter is pegged more than yours.....
01-04-08, 10:30 PM
#54
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: SE Minnesota
Posts: 12,275
Bikes: are better than yours.
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times
in
3 Posts
Interesting article (here: https://trekroad.typepad.com/trekroad/)
shows that, for the rider in the example, any of five bike frame sizes, can be configured to accommodate the rider.
shows that, for the rider in the example, any of five bike frame sizes, can be configured to accommodate the rider.
01-04-08, 10:43 PM
#55
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: SE Minnesota
Posts: 12,275
Bikes: are better than yours.
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times
in
3 Posts
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.
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.
I think the idea of fitting as large as you describe never took hold in the US may be because the CPSC has long had rules about minimum recommended clearances. So keep that in mind.
Secondly, I think you're misreading Mr. Brown in a number of cases. Understand that when he is talking about modern mountain bike parts, he's talking about threadless systems. Not quill stems. So your criticisms about long quills only being held by a wedge are not criticisms of what he wrote. Bear in mind that modern stem systems are significantly more stiff than any traditional quill.
However, there is some validity to recognize that really long posts on compact frames may add some flex and weight to the complete bike while making the marketing guys thrilled with a couple of ounces savings in =frame= weight.
As far as the complications of modern fitting are concerned, I think this will shake out pretty soon and we'll start seeing something like Trek's "stack and reach" fitting or maybe simply head tube and effective top tube becoming the standard way we think about it. It's not that hard once we drop the concept of "frame size" as a number with any objective meaning for comparison purposes.
01-05-08, 01:02 AM
#56
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,728
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
As for frames that are too large ... a down-sloping top tube cuts down on that as a problem, and won't happen on a bike with a horizontal top tube if you go with one of the other old sizing rules, i.e., you should have about a fist worth of exposed seatpost.
01-05-08, 02:28 AM
#57
Senior Member
Your title didn't inspire anyone to post anything. It incited the members to reply. That's a big difference.
You implied that a very well respected member of the bicycling community was incorrect just to gain attention for yourself. Had it been one of the more acidic member, no names will be mentioned, we might have thought it funny. Sheldon Brown is a fountain of information and more importantly help for the members. He never puts anyone down or makes fun of them for his own gain. Something I can't say about you.
Truthfully, I would be ashamed to have posted what you did. Your remarks served only to make yourself look small in our eyes. Have you ever thought of a life in politics?
Tim
You implied that a very well respected member of the bicycling community was incorrect just to gain attention for yourself. Had it been one of the more acidic member, no names will be mentioned, we might have thought it funny. Sheldon Brown is a fountain of information and more importantly help for the members. He never puts anyone down or makes fun of them for his own gain. Something I can't say about you.
Truthfully, I would be ashamed to have posted what you did. Your remarks served only to make yourself look small in our eyes. Have you ever thought of a life in politics?
Tim
01-05-08, 03:26 AM
#58
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Bossier City, La
Posts: 628
Bikes: 70's Motobecane, 89 Centurion Ironman
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
01-05-08, 05:39 AM
#61
Senior Member
Two observations:
(a) <yawn>
(b) little wonder Sheldon tends to avoid contributing around here much anymore; he's obviously not needed with such expert commentary.
By the way, Stace... just who is she**********
(a) <yawn>
(b) little wonder Sheldon tends to avoid contributing around here much anymore; he's obviously not needed with such expert commentary.
By the way, Stace... just who is she**********
01-05-08, 05:53 AM
#62
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Fife Scotland
Posts: 2,053
Bikes: Airnimal Chameleon; Ellis Briggs; Moulton TSR27 Moulton Esprit
Mentioned: 37 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3291 Post(s)
Liked 827 Times
in
583 Posts
My recollection of UK bike sizing certainly doesn't follow yours. As far as I'm concerned it has always been the case that one tried to have an inch or an inch and a half between top tube and crutch.
The sizing of frames has always been subject to changing fashion. As I remember, in the UK in the forties I think, there was a move to having small frames with longer seat-posts and taller stems.
Pity you sought to draw attention by using the heading you did. It does not help informed debate.
The sizing of frames has always been subject to changing fashion. As I remember, in the UK in the forties I think, there was a move to having small frames with longer seat-posts and taller stems.
Pity you sought to draw attention by using the heading you did. It does not help informed debate.
01-05-08, 06:27 AM
#64
Non Tribuo Anus Rodentum and off to the next adventure (RIP)
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 9,161
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
__________________
01-05-08, 11:56 AM
#66
New Orleans
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,794
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 157 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times
in
3 Posts
Guess we were all suckered into a pointless non argument.Anyone who suggests that I bike so tall that it needs to be tilted to standover isn't a terribly bad idea, just can't have ridden much, or maybe he has nothing to injure?When he started his post suggesting Brits commonly rode bikes too tall,I should have ignored him.I know that that French" Minister of Something or Other" strongly implied that most Brits hit from the other side of the plate,but even if it was true,they would still need to be fully serviceable down below.The original poster tried to steer us wrong.
This is my last one post on this,
Charlie
This is my last one post on this,
Charlie
01-05-08, 12:01 PM
#67
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Durham,NC.
Posts: 305
Bikes: Heron Wayfarer/ 2004 Giant Cypress SX
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Get off the spelling B bandwagon! It's a cheap shot.
01-05-08, 12:11 PM
#68
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,728
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
01-05-08, 12:22 PM
#69
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Venice, Florida
Posts: 62
Bikes: Cinelli Proxima/Dura Ace 9-speed/Fizik Aliante/Easton Vistas/Michelin Pro 2's
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I think that Sheldon is mistaken when he claims that Dura Ace A and B chain rings will work fine together. I did this, and the chain would skate sometimes when shifting to the lower chainring. Maybe I didn't have the F Der adjusted correct (but I think that I did), but ever since I got the correct chainring to match the 42, things have been fine.
He was also wrong to disparage the Brooks Colt. It is a unique saddle that was worthy of inclusion in his inventory. Brooks Colt riders unite!
Besides those two complaints, the other 9 million pages of his site I have found to be interesting and accurate, and refer to them often.
He was also wrong to disparage the Brooks Colt. It is a unique saddle that was worthy of inclusion in his inventory. Brooks Colt riders unite!
Besides those two complaints, the other 9 million pages of his site I have found to be interesting and accurate, and refer to them often.
01-05-08, 12:41 PM
#70
Non Tribuo Anus Rodentum and off to the next adventure (RIP)
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 9,161
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
My relationship would not be recognized in a number of states, however I'm just as committed to her as if the state would sanction our union.
Now... The relevance?
This is me...
__________________
Last edited by Stacey; 02-03-08 at 11:50 AM.
01-05-08, 02:08 PM
#72
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 248
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
I renounce my former stance, I was wrong to bring attention so crudely. I wish Sheldon Brown nothing but peace and happiness, maybe even alcohol if I'm ever in the vicinity(sp?, sure someone will help).
It's a Taurus Millennium 9.
01-06-08, 06:39 AM
#75
Non Tribuo Anus Rodentum and off to the next adventure (RIP)
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 9,161
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
Yo! I've had the courtesy to answer your question directly and promptly. Please show me the same respect.
__________________