View Single Post
Old 03-29-10 | 01:23 PM
  #9  
Shp4man's Avatar
Shp4man
Senior Member
 
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,050
Likes: 96
From: San Diego

Bikes: 1989 Schwinn World Sport. 1994 Diamond Back Response Elite MTB. 1964 Schwinn Typhoon. 1974 Bridgestone Sprinter, 2015 Scott Sub 10 Citybike.

Originally Posted by USAZorro
It all makes quite perfect sense up to this. The only reason I can see for this is that a smaller frame will be an ounce or two lighter. Not a concern if you're not a racer, or unless you're so old that you're taking body shrinkage into account. My philosophy is to aim for the middle of the range that you feel comfortable on. My thinking is that a 140 mm stem on 52 cm frame looks ridiculous, as does a seatpost that pops up a foot above the top tube. Similarly, a 70mm stem on a 59cm frame, and 3/4" of seatpost showing looks almost as foolish - not to mention, a frame in the middle of the ideal range can be much more easily adapted if your riding posture evolves.
Well, I did say "comfortably". When a frame is too small, the bars can't be positioned properly and too much weight is on the hands, regardless of stem length.

Edit: Unless you go to one of those funky looking tall stems. Personally, I wouldn't do that.

Last edited by Shp4man; 03-29-10 at 01:27 PM. Reason: add comment
Shp4man is offline  
Reply