Smaller frame, longer controls vs. "correct" frame size
12-12-04, 03:04 PM
#1
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 7
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Smaller frame, longer controls vs. "correct" frame size
which is the best way to go? riding the smallest frame you (reasonably) can with a long stem and post? or going with the correct size?........for the aggressively positioned rider..
12-12-04, 03:07 PM
#2
Sneaky Slow
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Greenville, SC
Posts: 398
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
small frame with long stem is going to change the bike's handling, in some cases fairly radically. i kinda think it's better not to mess with the geometry/handling of a bike as designed. get one that fits with a normal size stem.
12-12-04, 04:21 PM
#3
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 9,428
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
Originally Posted by scrappy
which is the best way to go? riding the smallest frame you (reasonably) can with a long stem and post? or going with the correct size?........for the aggressively positioned rider..
12-12-04, 05:30 PM
#5
Industry Maven
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Wherever good bikes are sold
Posts: 2,936
Bikes: Thylacines...only Thylacines.
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Yes, fit is unimportant. Buy a 51cm, with a 150mm stem and a 350mm long post. You will then be agressively positioned and be super fast!
12-12-04, 06:22 PM
#7
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
Originally Posted by Ben Cousins
One thing I would take into account is that what is considered the correct fit now, was once considered too small.
Fit is subject to fashion like everything else, and is not as important as everyone makes out.
Come on, unless you are riding double centuries or racing in real competitive events, it isn't such a big deal.
Fit is subject to fashion like everything else, and is not as important as everyone makes out.
Come on, unless you are riding double centuries or racing in real competitive events, it isn't such a big deal.
I never know what to say when it seems clear to me someone has just dropped a lot of money in to what should be his pride and joy and I know it hurts because it doesn't fit and/or isn't right for his riding. I usually just let them figure it out for themselves.
12-12-04, 07:26 PM
#9
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 7
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
obviously size matters....pun intended....my thread was intended to illicit responses based on the riders who are inbetween sizes, and how the decision they made worked out for them..personally, i'm 6'1", 33"inseam and was torn between a 58 or 60 Trek madone. Since I ride a compact 58cm klein (which is equivalent TT wise to 60cm Trek) I was afraid of getting a bike that is taller than I'm used to, but I needed the length (I use a 120 length stem with a 58.5cm TT)....anyway, I would love to hear more.
12-12-04, 07:30 PM
#10
Hamburger Pimp
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Hell of the North
Posts: 576
Bikes: BMC SLT O1 Team Full Record, Kuips SuperNova Ultegra & DuraAce, Rocky Mountain Team Scandium full XTR w sids & dope parts, Guerciotti Khaybar Full Record.
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Ben Cousins must be like 9' tall. Or maybe 5' tall, depending on what style of fit is in.
12-12-04, 07:35 PM
#11
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 9,428
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
Originally Posted by scrappy
obviously size matters....pun intended....my thread was intended to illicit responses based on the riders who are inbetween sizes, and how the decision they made worked out for them..personally, i'm 6'1", 33"inseam and was torn between a 58 or 60 Trek madone. Since I ride a compact 58cm klein (which is equivalent TT wise to 60cm Trek) I was afraid of getting a bike that is taller than I'm used to, but I needed the length (I use a 120 length stem with a 58.5cm TT)....anyway, I would love to hear more.
12-12-04, 07:59 PM
#12
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 7
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I feel you syd.....It's not that the 60 is too big (especially since center to top it measures more like a 58..for some reason trek measures to the top of the seat collar), I just wondered If I should go smaller, than "the right size" to get a more agile bike...
12-12-04, 08:02 PM
#13
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 1,101
Bikes: bianchi
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by sydney
Actually, it's about as wrong as it gets.
I think that ben was trying to say that the whole small frame thing is not important-- like its a fashion thing.
People should not feel pressured into the sloping top-tube little bikes just because the pros ride them and the LBS' push it.
Compact geometry has nothing to do with performance. It is all about making it easier for the manufacturer and looking "up to date" for fashion conscious riders.
12-12-04, 09:24 PM
#14
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 9,428
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
Originally Posted by H23
I think that ben was trying to say that the whole small frame thing is not important-- like its a fashion thing.
People should not feel pressured into the sloping top-tube little bikes just because the pros ride them and the LBS' push it.
Compact geometry has nothing to do with performance. It is all about making it easier for the manufacturer and looking "up to date" for fashion conscious riders.
People should not feel pressured into the sloping top-tube little bikes just because the pros ride them and the LBS' push it.
Compact geometry has nothing to do with performance. It is all about making it easier for the manufacturer and looking "up to date" for fashion conscious riders.
12-12-04, 10:57 PM
#15
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,057
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
GET THE RIGHT SIZE!
I screw around with long stems.....but I'm using forwardish seat posts (not improper frame size).
I got short stems too that I use with set-back seatposts.
I screw around with long stems.....but I'm using forwardish seat posts (not improper frame size).
I got short stems too that I use with set-back seatposts.
12-13-04, 08:05 AM
#16
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 236
Bikes: Handbuild steelframe racer shimano 105/ultegra mix, Kildemoes alu frame hybrid
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Isnīt the top tube length and the most critical measurement, I mean you can always adjust the height without affecting the steering of the bike, but to long or to short stems affect the steering! You can find the same size bikes from different brands with way different top tube length - I do think this should be used as the numerical value for sizing.
12-13-04, 08:50 AM
#17
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 9,428
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
Originally Posted by Ben Cousins
I've got three bikes in different sizes, and I've ridden bikes that are way too small for me.
I've ridden 110miles non-stop on a 59cm with 170mm cranks, and do over 100 miles a week commuting on a 62cm with 175mm cranks. I've also ridden folding bikes very extensively that have no sizing choices at all and are 'way too small' for 6' 2" me. None of them felt any more or less comfortable than each other.
It's really fun to be anal about size, just like it's fun to be anal about weight, cadence, gearing etc. At the end of the day, for the type of casual cyclists who populate this forum, none of them really matter.
I've ridden 110miles non-stop on a 59cm with 170mm cranks, and do over 100 miles a week commuting on a 62cm with 175mm cranks. I've also ridden folding bikes very extensively that have no sizing choices at all and are 'way too small' for 6' 2" me. None of them felt any more or less comfortable than each other.
It's really fun to be anal about size, just like it's fun to be anal about weight, cadence, gearing etc. At the end of the day, for the type of casual cyclists who populate this forum, none of them really matter.
12-13-04, 09:07 AM
#18
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 1,012
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
well of Course Ben is correct,
I mean the why bother with correct fit, afterall the bike and rider don;t have a synergistic link.
while you're at it why don;t yourun in shoes that are too small as well.
I mean the why bother with correct fit, afterall the bike and rider don;t have a synergistic link.
while you're at it why don;t yourun in shoes that are too small as well.
12-13-04, 09:24 AM
#19
Former Hoarder
I think I know what Ben is trying to say....it doesn't matter what size pants you wear. After all, unless you're a stylin' New York (or London) fashion model, you aren't qualified to wear pants that fit. No matter who you are and what you do in life. Unless you happen to get lucky trying them on at the store when you buy them, you shoudn't be concerned.
After all, there's always the tailor.
55/Rad
After all, there's always the tailor.
55/Rad
__________________
12-13-04, 11:15 AM
#20
Rouleur
Years back when you bought an American road bike you choose between 52 54 56 58 60 62 cm. Thats six sizes. Most people were in teh the 54-58 range but they made frames to accomodate small and large people. Now with some manufacturers you choose between small, medium, large, and sometimes X-large. That's four sizes. WHo do you think is pushing the compact geometry "revolution"?
12-13-04, 03:33 PM
#21
Industry Maven
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Wherever good bikes are sold
Posts: 2,936
Bikes: Thylacines...only Thylacines.
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 55/Rad
I think I know what Ben is trying to say....it doesn't matter what size pants you wear. After all, unless you're a stylin' New York (or London) fashion model, you aren't qualified to wear pants that fit. No matter who you are and what you do in life. Unless you happen to get lucky trying them on at the store when you buy them, you shoudn't be concerned.
After all, there's always the tailor.
55/Rad
After all, there's always the tailor.
55/Rad
12-13-04, 07:29 PM
#22
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
Originally Posted by nbf
Isnīt the top tube length and the most critical measurement, I mean you can always adjust the height without affecting the steering of the bike, but to long or to short stems affect the steering! You can find the same size bikes from different brands with way different top tube length - I do think this should be used as the numerical value for sizing.
