Stem Length

jorge said:

I normally ride a 56cm bike.. I was recently involved in a crash that bent
my frame. I have the opportunity to buy virtually the same frame, except
in size 54cm (It is a good deal). I have taken all of the measurements
from my bike (relative to the BB), and determined that the 54cm bike can
be adjusted so that the seat and handlebars are in exactly the same
position as on my 56cm bike. The only major difference being that I would
need to increase the length of my stem from 100mm to 120mm. I am
wondering if this difference is stem length will substantially change the
feel or handling characteristics of the bike, for the better or for the
worse? Are there any other cons to moving to a smaller frame that I am
not aware of? Are there any other pros that I not aware of?

We can't really make this determination. In general, a "bargain" bike
that does not fit is no bargain. But, who knows, maybe the 56 was too
large for you. If the stem is any guide, and it really isn't all that
good, 100mm is on the short side, and 120mm is long (for a 54), but not
that unusual.

How much seatpost is showing on the old bike? You don't want it to look
like a compact frame with a 3-foot long seatpost (unless, I guess, it is a
compact frame, but that is another topic). If not enough post is inside
the frame, that would be bad. Where will your knee be in comparison to
what you are used to? Moving the seat up also moves it back; be sure to
take that into account.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | Become MicroSoft-free forever. Ask me how.
_`\(,_ |
(_)/ (_) |

the bike is not compact geometry, and the seat post goes into the frame well
past the "min insertion" line.

"David L. Johnson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

jorge said:

I normally ride a 56cm bike.. I was recently involved in a crash that

bent

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

my frame. I have the opportunity to buy virtually the same frame,

except

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

in size 54cm (It is a good deal). I have taken all of the measurements
from my bike (relative to the BB), and determined that the 54cm bike can
be adjusted so that the seat and handlebars are in exactly the same
position as on my 56cm bike. The only major difference being that I

would

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

need to increase the length of my stem from 100mm to 120mm. I am
wondering if this difference is stem length will substantially change

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

feel or handling characteristics of the bike, for the better or for the
worse? Are there any other cons to moving to a smaller frame that I am
not aware of? Are there any other pros that I not aware of?

We can't really make this determination. In general, a "bargain" bike
that does not fit is no bargain. But, who knows, maybe the 56 was too
large for you. If the stem is any guide, and it really isn't all that
good, 100mm is on the short side, and 120mm is long (for a 54), but not
that unusual.

How much seatpost is showing on the old bike? You don't want it to look
like a compact frame with a 3-foot long seatpost (unless, I guess, it is a
compact frame, but that is another topic). If not enough post is inside
the frame, that would be bad. Where will your knee be in comparison to
what you are used to? Moving the seat up also moves it back; be sure to
take that into account.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | Become MicroSoft-free forever. Ask me how.
_`\(,_ |
(_)/ (_) |

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In article said:

I normally ride a 56cm bike.. I was recently involved in a crash that bent
my frame. I have the opportunity to buy virtually the same frame, except in
size 54cm (It is a good deal). I have taken all of the measurements from my
bike (relative to the BB), and determined that the 54cm bike can be adjusted
so that the seat and handlebars are in exactly the same position as on my
56cm bike. The only major difference being that I would need to increase
the length of my stem from 100mm to 120mm.

_ That seems with reason and common practice.

See

http://www.hampsten.com/Company/design.html

for interesting comments on stem length/frame size.

_ There's a web page on the Park site about transfering
setup measurements from bike to bike. I would double
check that you can get all of these with the new bike
before purchase.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/tech/fix/?id=roadposition

Quoted message said:

I am wondering if this
difference is stem length will substantially change the feel or handling
characteristics of the bike, for the better or for the worse?

_ It will be different, but some people like it and some don't. A
lot depends on how far the stem extends above the top tube as
well. Really long quill stems like the Nitto can feel a bit
squirrelly at times. This is one place that Aheadset design
is superior if you use a steel steerer tube.

Quoted message said:

Are there any
other cons to moving to a smaller frame that I am not aware of? Are there
any other pros that I not aware of?

_ If the 54 and 56 are measured the same way ( ie c-c or c-t ),
then 2cm is not a killer IMHO. It really depends on a lot of
other dimensions that you haven't listed. Are the frame angles
different, has the wheel base changed significantly?

_ I regularly switch from a 52cm c-c bike to a 56cm c-t bike
and while they are definitely different, I would be hard pressed
to call one better than the other. Most of the differences
have to do with the rest of the geometry and not the 2.5 cm
on the seat tube.

_ Booker C. Bense

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBQWWDOGTWTAjn5N/lAQHuEQP/fSW5JiYfkuEaVZyUv3okYOT9WFZfajRQ
nTj4+LHcVZCIhHn3FEPwZHse5jBcUrvG/2vq6LnXGqCnz0l/Ux6FeuHHHJ1BHQIp
Z1NPPAOk8akEoUt5lTvWUosMP5Fx3rCzYzSk1WqfMfSaV11Yy9Oi4GWhW/gE08EP
b4eNXqjDtIU=
=u0TF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

jorge said:

I normally ride a 56cm bike.. I was recently involved in a crash that bent
my frame. I have the opportunity to buy virtually the same frame, except in
size 54cm (It is a good deal). I have taken all of the measurements from my
bike (relative to the BB), and determined that the 54cm bike can be adjusted
so that the seat and handlebars are in exactly the same position as on my
56cm bike. The only major difference being that I would need to increase
the length of my stem from 100mm to 120mm. I am wondering if this
difference is stem length will substantially change the feel or handling
characteristics of the bike, for the better or for the worse? Are there any
other cons to moving to a smaller frame that I am not aware of? Are there
any other pros that I not aware of? Thanks, Jeff

A 12cm stem is getting long for a 54cm frame. I think you'd be better
on the 56cm. The 54cm would be fine if the top tube was longer.

Booker C. Bense said:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In article said:

I normally ride a 56cm bike.. I was recently involved in a crash that bent
my frame. I have the opportunity to buy virtually the same frame, except in
size 54cm (It is a good deal). I have taken all of the measurements from my
bike (relative to the BB), and determined that the 54cm bike can be adjusted
so that the seat and handlebars are in exactly the same position as on my
56cm bike. The only major difference being that I would need to increase
the length of my stem from 100mm to 120mm.

---8<----cutting middle

Quoted message said:

_ It will be different, but some people like it and some don't. A
lot depends on how far the stem extends above the top tube as
well. Really long quill stems like the Nitto can feel a bit
squirrelly at times. This is one place that Aheadset design
is superior if you use a steel steerer tube.

------8<---cutting

Quoted message said:

_ If the 54 and 56 are measured the same way ( ie c-c or c-t ),
then 2cm is not a killer IMHO. It really depends on a lot of
other dimensions that you haven't listed. Are the frame angles
different, has the wheel base changed significantly?

_ I regularly switch from a 52cm c-c bike to a 56cm c-t bike
and while they are definitely different, I would be hard pressed
to call one better than the other. Most of the differences
have to do with the rest of the geometry and not the 2.5 cm
on the seat tube.

_ Booker C. Bense

I'll gladly second Booker's analysis. The seat tube length is not a big
deal. Now of course many builders will make a 54 frame a half degree
steeper (e.g. 74 in the case of Colnago) than a 56 (73,5), but that's
also small adjustments (of the order of 5 mm on the saddle rail, to get
the same effective setback relative to centre bracket). A slightly
bigger difference will be the loss of 1-2 cm on the top tube going to
the smaller frame, which can be offset fitwise by using the 120 stem as
you correctly point out. OK, that's not the complete story since you
will sit slightly more forward relative to the front wheel but it's
close enough.

I used to ride a 56 cm c-t but last year switched to a 52,5 cm frame
(Colnago call it a "54", but they measure from centre of centre bracket
up to seat post clamp, which is far beyond the top of top tube -
weird!). Now I have a proportionally shorter torso in relation to my
height, so the shorter top tube with a 120cm stem feels really good. I
also like the agility of the smaller frame with shorter wheelbase,
though I have to use a 4 cm stack of spacers between a-headset and the
stem. Just the same, the bar tops are a good 10 cm below the saddle tip.

But I love it and now wonder why I didn't try a smaller frame earlier on
in my biking life. It's kind of like having all the advantages of a nice
rigid compact frame without its ugly looks ;-)

/Robert

"jorge" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

I normally ride a 56cm bike.. I was recently involved in a crash that bent
my frame. I have the opportunity to buy virtually the same frame, except in
size 54cm (It is a good deal). I have taken all of the measurements from my
bike (relative to the BB), and determined that the 54cm bike can be adjusted
so that the seat and handlebars are in exactly the same position as on my
56cm bike. The only major difference being that I would need to increase
the length of my stem from 100mm to 120mm. I am wondering if this
difference is stem length will substantially change the feel or handling
characteristics of the bike, for the better or for the worse? Are there any
other cons to moving to a smaller frame that I am not aware of? Are there
any other pros that I not aware of? Thanks, Jeff

It will feel significantly different when you stand up, as your weight
will be further over the front wheel. You may or may not prefer the
way it feels, so I can say if it's a pro or con.

You may also find that on the smaller frame you have trouble getting
the bars high enough, due to the shorter head tube on the smaller
frame. You'll likely either need a bunch of extra spacers, which may
lead to more flex in the steerer tube (again, which you may or may not
like) or you may have to use a stem turned over so that it angles
upward.

One last thing, while you're keeping the bars in the same place,
you're bringing the stem/steerer tube 2cm closer to the saddle, which
may lead to lot's of problems with you banging your knees on the stem
every time you stand up. Hard to see that one as a 'pro'.

The smaller frame is NOT a good deal, IF it doesn't fit. For what
it's worth, every time I've ever tried to get by on a frame that
wasn't right, it NEVER justified the savings.

"jorge" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I normally ride a 56cm bike.. I was recently involved in a crash that

bent

Quoted message said:

my frame. I have the opportunity to buy virtually the same frame, except

in

Quoted message said:

size 54cm (It is a good deal). I have taken all of the measurements from

my

Quoted message said:

bike (relative to the BB), and determined that the 54cm bike can be

adjusted

Quoted message said:

so that the seat and handlebars are in exactly the same position as on my
56cm bike. The only major difference being that I would need to increase
the length of my stem from 100mm to 120mm. I am wondering if this
difference is stem length will substantially change the feel or handling
characteristics of the bike, for the better or for the worse? Are there

any

Quoted message said:

other cons to moving to a smaller frame that I am not aware of? Are

there

Quoted message said:

any other pros that I not aware of? Thanks, Jeff

Unless the 56cm bike is on the small side already, I think you'll be fine
with a 54. The longer stem will slow down steering a little, but that's
usually the kind of thing you compensate for without thinking about it. I'm
6'10" and used to riding slightly small frames with big stems. My current
stem is 130, and that's on a touring frame with relatively sedate handling
already, I don't even think about it.

Quoted message said:

the bike is not compact geometry, and the seat post goes into the frame
well
past the "min insertion" line.

A bike can be a bad fit and still have the seatpost above the "min
insertion" line. The biggest issue going to a smaller frame is whether you
can get the stem high enough. But no matter what, if you had a 56cm that
you felt fit nicely, I wouldn't even consider going to a smaller size
without having the opportunity to ride it, properly set up, first.

I can guarantee you that, even if you set them up identically, they'll still
feel different. I can't tell you which will be better or worse, but
definitely different.

I will also say that, in general, people are more comfortable with frames
that are "too large" than those which are "too small", if the top tube/stem
distance remains the same.

A lot of this hinges on whether the 56cm was the right size to begin with.
If you feel that it is/was, then it's dumb to change. Or, let's look at it
this way. If money wasn't an issue, which size would you buy? That's the
way you should go.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

I will also say that, in general, people are more comfortable with frames
that are "too large" than those which are "too small", if the top tube/stem
distance remains the same.

I've always thought the opposite; that it's easier to deal with
a frame too small than too large. (This may not quite be the same
thing as what you're saying, but let me continue my rant anyways).

I now have four bikes, and I'd say all four of them are actually
too small for me in frame size. I compensate by extending the
stems and seatposts.

My most recent acquisition is a *very much* too small Trek 7000
abandoned next to a dumpster. It was LX equipped and I needed a
backup icebike with studded snowies already mounted and ready
to go for this winter.

A lot of WD-40, oil, new chain, 8 new spokes, and relevant to
the point I'm trying to make, a threaded to threadless converter,
plus 3" extension, plus 40 degree, 130mm stem plus 400mm seat
post and the bike is more comfortable than my 19" frame Mongoose
MTB. Not certain what the frame size for the "new" Trek is.

My 520 is 58 cm with maxed out seatpost and stem, and my 2000
was a 60cm, with seatpost and stem almost maxed out. I should
have gone with the 63cm which was the next size up but seemed
too big a jump at the time.

I would not want to travel for days on the MTBs but I have
traveled long distances on the 520 and 2000 with no ill effect
from the smaller than optimum frame size.

I'll even go so far as to say the smaller than optimal frame
size makes hauling the bike easier. They toss in the truck and
stow on the boat with much less hassle than a larger frame which
would probably be more appropriate to my body dimensions.

So I do not believe frame size is as critical as some on this
NG say. One can find a range of frame sizes, combined with
stem and seatpost adjustments that will bring even a mismatched
frame size into proper adjustment for almost anyone.

SMH

Quoted message said:

So I do not believe frame size is as critical as some on this
NG say. One can find a range of frame sizes, combined with
stem and seatpost adjustments that will bring even a mismatched
frame size into proper adjustment for almost anyone.

Or, a cynic might say that you've perhaps never ridden a bike that truly
fits right, and don't know what you're missing. The truth is somewhere
in-between.

By the way, the manner in which TREK does their sizing results in some
peculiar anomalies, such as the fact that a 58cm 520 may, in fact, size a
bit larger than a 60cm normal road bike in their line. Thus it's no
surprise you can ride the two bikes interchangeably. The next size up 520
would most likely be too big. On the other hand, when you're riding with
seatpost & stem "maxed out", the indications are that a larger size is at
least worth trying.

How tall are you, by the way?

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

"Stephen Harding" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

I will also say that, in general, people are more comfortable with frames
that are "too large" than those which are "too small", if the top
tube/stem distance remains the same.

I've always thought the opposite; that it's easier to deal with
a frame too small than too large. (This may not quite be the same
thing as what you're saying, but let me continue my rant anyways).

I now have four bikes, and I'd say all four of them are actually
too small for me in frame size. I compensate by extending the
stems and seatposts.

My most recent acquisition is a *very much* too small Trek 7000
abandoned next to a dumpster. It was LX equipped and I needed a
backup icebike with studded snowies already mounted and ready
to go for this winter.

A lot of WD-40, oil, new chain, 8 new spokes, and relevant to
the point I'm trying to make, a threaded to threadless converter,
plus 3" extension, plus 40 degree, 130mm stem plus 400mm seat
post and the bike is more comfortable than my 19" frame Mongoose
MTB. Not certain what the frame size for the "new" Trek is.

My 520 is 58 cm with maxed out seatpost and stem, and my 2000
was a 60cm, with seatpost and stem almost maxed out. I should
have gone with the 63cm which was the next size up but seemed
too big a jump at the time.

I would not want to travel for days on the MTBs but I have
traveled long distances on the 520 and 2000 with no ill effect
from the smaller than optimum frame size.

I'll even go so far as to say the smaller than optimal frame
size makes hauling the bike easier. They toss in the truck and
stow on the boat with much less hassle than a larger frame which
would probably be more appropriate to my body dimensions.

So I do not believe frame size is as critical as some on this
NG say. One can find a range of frame sizes, combined with
stem and seatpost adjustments that will bring even a mismatched
frame size into proper adjustment for almost anyone.

SMH

RE/

Quoted message said:

One can find a range of frame sizes, combined with

Quoted message said:

stem and seatpost adjustments that will bring even a mismatched
frame size into proper adjustment for almost anyone.

Or, a cynic might say that you've perhaps never ridden a bike that truly
fits right, and don't know what you're missing. The truth is somewhere
in-between.

I've had an experience that supports that: an Ellsworth Isis that I set up per
Seven's interpretation of a FitKit session. The bike definately rode a lot
better than it did when it was set up just by me.

OTOH, the frame they finally built for me has exactly the same
saddle/spindle/handlebar measurements, but handles so much better that I've just
plain lost interest in riding the Isis.

My take is that you can only tweak a frame so far before it doesn't work as well
as a frame that's made to the right dimensions for your body.
--
PeteCresswell

"Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

I can guarantee you that, even if you set them up identically, they'll still
feel different. I can't tell you which will be better or worse, but
definitely different.

Could you please elaborate on this? Can you give some specifics
examples of what will feel different? Another poster mentioned how
the "longer stem on a smaller bike" will put the front wheel farther
back when standing and climbing. Can you give some similar examples?

I'm not trying to argue or criticize, I just want to understand this
subject better. (The subject being how two different size bikes feel
different if the points where the body contacts the bike are of
identical dimensions. This would mean identical distance from the
seatpost to handlebars, handlebar vrs seatpost height, bottom bracket
to seat distance and angle, etc).

Tom

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I can guarantee you that, even if you set them up identically, they'll
still
feel different. I can't tell you which will be better or worse, but
definitely different.

Could you please elaborate on this? Can you give some specifics
examples of what will feel different? Another poster mentioned how
the "longer stem on a smaller bike" will put the front wheel farther
back when standing and climbing. Can you give some similar examples?

I'm not trying to argue or criticize, I just want to understand this
subject better. (The subject being how two different size bikes feel
different if the points where the body contacts the bike are of
identical dimensions. This would mean identical distance from the
seatpost to handlebars, handlebar vrs seatpost height, bottom bracket
to seat distance and angle, etc).

On the frame with a shorter top tube & longer stem, you're positioning
yourself differently over the front wheel than would be the case with a
longer top tube & shorter stem. I know this very well, as I raced two bikes
that couldn't be more different in terms of top-tube length. My Bob Jackson
was exceptionally short, while my Cinelli was quite long. Had a 12cm stem
on the Jackson, and an 8cm on the Cinelli. The contact points were
identical, but the feel of the two bikes quite different. I preferredthe
Cinelli, but could descend equally well on either bike. They had different
personalities, but not really different capabilities.

Of course, since these were two different-brand bikes, there are more
variables than just frame size involved; the main point of the illustration
was that I could adapt easily to either bike, yet I preferred one over the
other.

From a practical matter, we set up bikes with the same contact points but
different sizes all the time at the shop, as customers often question what
the next larger or smaller frame would be like. It's a very rare thing that
someone comes back without an opinion that they preferred one over the
others. You don't hear people saying "I can't tell the difference."

For what it's worth, I'm not a fan of "3 sizes fits everybody bike fitting,
just change the stem & seatpost."

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
IMBA, BikesBelong, NBDA member

"Thomas Reynolds" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

I can guarantee you that, even if you set them up identically, they'll
still
feel different. I can't tell you which will be better or worse, but
definitely different.

Could you please elaborate on this? Can you give some specifics
examples of what will feel different? Another poster mentioned how
the "longer stem on a smaller bike" will put the front wheel farther
back when standing and climbing. Can you give some similar examples?

I'm not trying to argue or criticize, I just want to understand this
subject better. (The subject being how two different size bikes feel
different if the points where the body contacts the bike are of
identical dimensions. This would mean identical distance from the
seatpost to handlebars, handlebar vrs seatpost height, bottom bracket
to seat distance and angle, etc).

Tom

"Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

By the way, the manner in which TREK does their sizing results in some
peculiar anomalies, such as the fact that a 58cm 520 may, in fact, size a
bit larger than a 60cm normal road bike in their line.

I realize that you are more familiar with TREK than other lines, but isn't
this a characteristic of the bicycle industry that goes far beyond TREK?

"Mike Jacoubowsky/Chain Reaction Bicycles" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I can guarantee you that, even if you set them up identically, they'll
still
feel different. I can't tell you which will be better or worse, but
definitely different.

Could you please elaborate on this? Can you give some specifics
........

On the frame with a shorter top tube & longer stem, you're positioning
yourself differently over the front wheel than would be the case with a
longer top tube & shorter stem. I know this very well, as I raced two bikes
that couldn't be more different in terms of top-tube length. My Bob Jackson
was exceptionally short, while my Cinelli was quite long. Had a 12cm stem
on the Jackson, and an 8cm on the Cinelli. The contact points were
identical, but the feel of the two bikes quite different. I preferredthe
Cinelli, but could descend equally well on either bike. They had different
personalities, but not really different capabilities.

Of course, since these were two different-brand bikes, there are more
variables than just frame size involved; the main point of the illustration
was that I could adapt easily to either bike, yet I preferred one over the
other.

From a practical matter, we set up bikes with the same contact points but
different sizes all the time at the shop, as customers often question what
the next larger or smaller frame would be like. It's a very rare thing that
someone comes back without an opinion that they preferred one over the
others. You don't hear people saying "I can't tell the difference."

Thank you for the thoughtful reply. I have a lot of road bikes, most
of them 20+ years old with longer wheelbases, more rake in the fork,
and (some) with larger, wider tires. I also have three newer frames.
There are obvious differences in the ride characteristics. This what
got me thinking about this subject.

Tom

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

By the way, the manner in which TREK does their sizing results in some
peculiar anomalies, such as the fact that a 58cm 520 may, in fact, size a
bit larger than a 60cm normal road bike in their line.

I realize that you are more familiar with TREK than other lines, but isn't
this a characteristic of the bicycle industry that goes far beyond TREK?

Absolutely. It's a nightmare trying to compare one manufacturer's sizing
with another, particularly when you throw level vs sloping top tubes into
the mix. But the TREK "family" of bikes tends to demonstrate just how silly
things are, since, between TREK, Klein & LeMond, you have three different
ways of measuring the same frame. At one point standardizing things was
considered, but it was decided to keep measuring them the way they had prior
to becoming part of the TREK stable, primarily as a marketing move (as it
helped to continue product differentiation).

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

Quoted message said:

Stephen Harding wrote:

So I do not believe frame size is as critical as some on this
NG say. One can find a range of frame sizes, combined with
stem and seatpost adjustments that will bring even a mismatched
frame size into proper adjustment for almost anyone.

Or, a cynic might say that you've perhaps never ridden a bike that truly
fits right, and don't know what you're missing. The truth is somewhere
in-between.

That's always a possibility.

I hear the same thing about not going clipless, or not wearing
biking shorts, or ....

Quoted message said:

By the way, the manner in which TREK does their sizing results in some
peculiar anomalies, such as the fact that a 58cm 520 may, in fact, size a
bit larger than a 60cm normal road bike in their line. Thus it's no
surprise you can ride the two bikes interchangeably. The next size up 520
would most likely be too big. On the other hand, when you're riding with
seatpost & stem "maxed out", the indications are that a larger size is at
least worth trying.

I thought it rather strange that Trek had such a gap in frame size from
60 to 63, but perhaps it's just economics of demand.

The frame of my 520 if very definitely physically smaller than that of
the 2000. Geometry is of course a bit different but the 520 is very
much a "smaller bike" ignoring seat post/stem height.

Quoted message said:

How tall are you, by the way?

6'1" and about 180-185.

Perhaps there is more built in "adaptability" to a bike with a taller
person than with a short one; or perhaps I've simply developed an
iron butt that could ride comfortable on a tricycle with a tractor
seat just as well as a "properly sized" bike.

SMH

Retro Bob said:

Stephen Harding said:

Quoted message said:

Or, a cynic might say that you've perhaps never ridden a bike that truly
fits right, and don't know what you're missing. The truth is somewhere
in-between.

That's always a possibility.

I hear the same thing about not going clipless, or not wearing
biking shorts, or ....

Yes, those silly shorts. He, he, he... I wear "regular shorts" and a
t-shirt of my choosing. No "cycling" clothes. Most of the purists
- who apparently think they are potential Armstrong challengers and
way too important to deal with an amateur like me - will even wave.

Ya know, I only have one pair of cycling shorts, and one pair of cycling
undershorts. So sometimes I ride with them, sometimes they're both in
the wash and I wear regular shorts.

I can hardly tell the difference.

-km

--
Only cowards fight kids -- unidentified Moscow protester

http://community.webshots.com/user/blackrosequilts
proud to be owned by a yorkie

"the black rose" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Retro Bob said:

On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 07:08:27 -0400, Stephen Harding
<[email hidden]> wrote:

Yes, those silly shorts. He, he, he... I wear "regular shorts" and a
t-shirt of my choosing. No "cycling" clothes. Most of the purists
- who apparently think they are potential Armstrong challengers and
way too important to deal with an amateur like me - will even wave.

Ya know, I only have one pair of cycling shorts, and one pair of cycling
undershorts. So sometimes I ride with them, sometimes they're both in
the wash and I wear regular shorts.

I can hardly tell the difference.

It may not be obvious to n00bs, but cycling shorts are an extremely
pragmatic bit of functional apparel. They are designed for riding with
intensity and duration, if you do neither, they're not necessary.