Old 05-20-12, 12:08 PM
  #18  
halfspeed
Senior Member
 
halfspeed's Avatar
 
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
Originally Posted by DaveSSS
Unless you're buying your first bike, I don't see the point in comparing what you currently ride to some computer generated numbers. It's not difficult to compare your current bike's fit to a proposed new one and get a frame that fits nearly the same.

The output from this calculator proposes fits that cover such a huge range of possibilities that it's worthless. The seat tube range has nothing at all do do with the fit of a bike and it's totally out of date, with most modern frames having sloping TTs. What really matters from a vertical standpoint is the frame's stack height. The TT length is meaningless without a seat tube angle to go with it. It requires both to define a frame's reach.

In my case, the calculator proposed seat tubes that were much too large for my inseam and only the longest saddle height was what I really use. The calculator actually did come up with a reasonable range of TT lengths, but with no STA, it's meaningless, since the STA can change the reach by 10-20mm.
I'm glad I'm not the only one to notice this. If they really wanted it to be useful, they'd generate suggested stack and reach numbers and publish them for all of the frames they sell.
__________________
Telemachus has, indeed, sneezed.
halfspeed is offline