Ron Farnsworth wrote: I also was very reluctant to buy a frame 4cm bigger than anything else I had been riding for the previous 20 years. Went from a 57 cm Merlin to a 61cm Homer and will never look back. I'm now realizing how much a difference comfort and versatility mean to my cycling future. It was a leap, and admittedly a different style of riding, but one that I'm glad I made. My original concern about standover height has long since faded. I don't buy into everything Riv, but I'd recommend everyone take a closer look at what they represent.
------- My experience is nearly identical. Convinced I needed a certain minimum stand-over clearance, I refused to ride any frame larger than 56 cm. I gradually came to understand that I might be more comfortable on a larger frame. Still, when I ordered a Rivendell custom (and insisted on a level-as-possible top tube, purely for aesthetic reasons), Grant called me and said, ³Now don¹t freak out, but your seat tube is going to be 60.5 centimeters long.² I calmed down a little when he reminded me that part of the increase is at the bottom of the tube so doesn¹t affect stand-over. I fretted about that until the first ride. In less than five minutes the bike felt like it was made for just me. When I have occasion to ride my 56-cm Trek 760, it¹s light and quick, but I feel, well, pinched. Like I¹m wearing really nice shoes that are a whole size too small. -- Jon ³Papa² Grant Illustration + Information Graphics Austin, Texas [email protected] 512-284-9599 Drawings all sorts--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected].
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
