On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 5:44 PM, George Schick <bhim...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [...] > 1) (And this is the one where I get a bit crossways with Grant and Riv on > their frame sizing criteria) Two people of exactly the same height and > weight can have completely different anatomies and therefore different > frame size (not to mention stem heights and lengths) requirements. I can't > remember where I read it now, but a while back someone submitted a post > where he and a co-worker got to talking about frame sizing. Both were the > same height. One said that he was perfectly comfortable with frame size > "x" and the other said 'no way' and that he required frame size "y". So > they went into the restroom with rulers that they could pull up to their > PBH and looked at themselves in the mirror. Sure enough, one's ruler was > considerably higher than the other. I'm 5'9", but have short legs for my > height - in a "normal" anatomy I'd be at least 6' given the length of my > arms and torso - I have shorter legs. So I'm comfy on a 54cm whereas I've > been told I should be on a 56cm or even a 58cm. Some of my most miserable > years of cycling back in the early 70's were when I let LBS sales types > talk me into bikes with 23" frames so I could "stretch out", they said. > Not only could I not stand over the bike at a stop without lifting one leg > off the ground, but I kept having to buy shorter and shorter stems to > accommodate the "large" frame. > I'm built much the same, though without the long arms. I'm an honest 5'10 in bare feet on a level, concrete floor, but when I sit on a flat, wooden bench beside my 6'1" bro in law (last name "Hansen") I am at least as tall and perhaps a wee bit taller. (I'm also better looking.) I agree about the huge importance of top tube length. Hell, forget seat tube length if tt length is OK. (That's not entirely serious, but it makes the point.) One reason I sold the 56 cm Sam Hill was that the 59 cm c-c tt was just way too long. OTOH, that old Herse, at 60 X 57 c-c, fit perfectly. (What a *nice* bike! The problem I had with it was: it was too heavy for a gofast, and it didn't handle my sort of easy-load grocery loads well, either front or rear. Oh well, the new owner loved it.) My two remaining Rivs are 57 and 58 (c-c) with 56 1/2 cm effective top tubes. The 17" c-c Fargo has a 57 cm effective top tube. When I converted various early '90s mountain bikes to drops, I needed short and steep upjutters; the last such conversion, a 20" c-c Diamond Back with flat tt and head tube cut off practically level with tt fit fine with a 10 cm Dirt Drop stem for the Noodle. > > 2) …. about a decade ago when I was almost 30 years older and far less > flexible. It seems that AGING has a lot to do with the way a bike feels > and handles and what's comfy and what's not. I don't know how old the OP > is, but maybe he still has enough go-fast in him that the Ram just doesn't > feel responsive enough. I understand that; I would've felt the same way > 30 years ago. But not now. So much of it is all in the sizing, the aging, > and the perception. I live next to a city park and I see people of all > shapes, sizes, ages, and sexes riding their bikes on the park trail every > day, many of which appear to me to have their saddles too low or high, > wrong size frames, etc. But I'm not about to go out there and critique > them and suggest something different. I've done that before - many years > ago when a flawed setup seemed obvious to me, only to get push-back from > the rider that they'd been riding like that for years and were perfectly > comfortable with it. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
