Sizing a Bike

Tom Kunich said:

Over the years I've followed this fad and that and one of them has been
to ride frame sizes one or two sizes smaller than you should be riding.
Today this also comes down to those idiotic "compact" frames that are
too small in all sizes.

The problem with small frames is that you cannot mount the bars in the
correct position. For most riders the handlebars should be about 1"
below the saddle height - when was the last time you saw that? Why
magazine "test bikes" invariably have photos of a racing bike with the
bars perhaps 4" below saddle height (some even more!) as if that were
some sort of target.

Low bars cause you to ride with your neck craned back too far to see
forward. It also puts your genitals in a very painful position. Add to
this the ridiculous "ultralight" saddles which achieve lightening by
making the smallest possible saddle and here you are with a flat back,
head craned up 40 degrees, weight falling forward and having to sit off
to one side of the saddle to avoid painful interactions.

I've been looking for a new frame lately. It seems that at least SOMA
Fabrications and Gunnar are making frames with taller headtubes "to
eliminate the need for so many spacers." It seems they get it, at least.

\\paul
ps. I think I'm going with the Gunnar. More $$$ but it's made in the US.
--
Paul M. Hobson
..:change the f to ph to reply:.

Threadless carbon steerers make the problem even worse - most manufacturers
specify a maximum of 30mm or 40mm of spacers allowed between the headset and
stem.

Nick

"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Over the years I've followed this fad and that and one of them has been to
ride frame sizes one or two sizes smaller than you should be riding. Today
this also comes down to those idiotic "compact" frames that are too small
in all sizes.

The problem with small frames is that you cannot mount the bars in the
correct position. For most riders the handlebars should be about 1" below
the saddle height - when was the last time you saw that? Why magazine
"test bikes" invariably have photos of a racing bike with the bars perhaps
4" below saddle height (some even more!) as if that were some sort of
target.

Low bars cause you to ride with your neck craned back too far to see
forward. It also puts your genitals in a very painful position. Add to
this the ridiculous "ultralight" saddles which achieve lightening by
making the smallest possible saddle and here you are with a flat back,
head craned up 40 degrees, weight falling forward and having to sit off to
one side of the saddle to avoid painful interactions.

When your bar tops are an inch below the saddle height the DROPS become
usable if and when you're in that racing pack. Today's drops are so low
that your arms are out straight as an arrow when you try to use them and
you have more drag than with your hands on the tops!

Anyone that's seen Jobst out riding would note immediately that he
certainly isn't following any bicycle magazine ads pertaining to bicycle
fit. And most people still can't stay with him when he's in a hurry.

Quoted message said:

The problem with small frames is that you cannot mount the bars in the
correct position. For most riders the handlebars should be about 1" below
the saddle height - when was the last time you saw that? Why magazine
"test bikes" invariably have photos of a racing bike with the bars perhaps
4" below saddle height (some even more!) as if that were some sort of
target.

You need to be careful to separate the issue of too-low handlebars from
sloping top tubes. In many cases, so-called "compact" frames simply have a
top tube that slopes down from the front of the bike to the rear. The front
is every bit as high, and sometimes higher, than a traditional level
top-tube bike.

In the case of Trek, the high end bikes are available in two different
styles. Each has a sloping top tube, but the "Profit" has the front end at
exactly the same height as the previous level top-tube bikes, while the
"Performance" fit has the front end 3cm HIGHER than what had been the
standard.

And I'm told the industry standard is moving towards the higher front ends
on bikes. In most cases, what you might have seen as being a lower handlebar
is actually an illusion caused by the large amount of seatpost showing.

Whatever the case, it has never been easier for us to accomodate a cyclist
who would like a higher handlebar position.

In the end, the only thing that matters is the minimum "drop" you can
accomplish between the seat and handlebar. The evidence is that bars are
getting higher, not lower, compared to seat height.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Over the years I've followed this fad and that and one of them has been to
ride frame sizes one or two sizes smaller than you should be riding. Today
this also comes down to those idiotic "compact" frames that are too small
in all sizes.

The problem with small frames is that you cannot mount the bars in the
correct position. For most riders the handlebars should be about 1" below
the saddle height - when was the last time you saw that? Why magazine
"test bikes" invariably have photos of a racing bike with the bars perhaps
4" below saddle height (some even more!) as if that were some sort of
target.

Low bars cause you to ride with your neck craned back too far to see
forward. It also puts your genitals in a very painful position. Add to
this the ridiculous "ultralight" saddles which achieve lightening by
making the smallest possible saddle and here you are with a flat back,
head craned up 40 degrees, weight falling forward and having to sit off to
one side of the saddle to avoid painful interactions.

When your bar tops are an inch below the saddle height the DROPS become
usable if and when you're in that racing pack. Today's drops are so low
that your arms are out straight as an arrow when you try to use them and
you have more drag than with your hands on the tops!

Anyone that's seen Jobst out riding would note immediately that he
certainly isn't following any bicycle magazine ads pertaining to bicycle
fit. And most people still can't stay with him when he's in a hurry.

In article <[email hidden]>, Tom Kunich

cyclintom@yahoo. said:

Over the years I've followed this fad and that and one of them has been to
ride frame sizes one or two sizes smaller than you should be riding. Today
this also comes down to those idiotic "compact" frames that are too small in
all sizes.

The problem with small frames is that you cannot mount the bars in the
correct position. For most riders the handlebars should be about 1" below
the saddle height - when was the last time you saw that? Why magazine "test
bikes" invariably have photos of a racing bike with the bars perhaps 4"
below saddle height (some even more!) as if that were some sort of target.

<snip>

I suspect that buycycling mags espouse this esthetic because there is a
market buying into this racer chic fetish. The 'high performance', and
presumably, high margin accessory business is built upon it. In some
ways commerce behaves likes nature: it abhors a vacuum; and those that
don't know any better have no shortage of those willing to tell them
what is better.

Happily my casual observations reveal a disassociation from what's most
commonly and prominently featured in the glossy shills of the trade and
what's between the legs of local cyclists. Heresy that so many of the
provincial velo Luddites eschew the high price bling and cling
stubbornly to practical designs and inexpensive models.

Let the velo-zines indulge the myth that discomfort is the price of
speed. After all, why would one expect them to behave any differently
from their car and motorcycle counterparts that frequently feature the
exotic and impractical?

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

Quoted message said:

The problem with small frames is that you cannot mount the bars in the
correct position. For most riders the handlebars should be about 1" below
the saddle height - when was the last time you saw that? Why magazine
"test bikes" invariably have photos of a racing bike with the bars perhaps
4" below saddle height (some even more!) as if that were some sort of
target.

You need to be careful to separate the issue of too-low handlebars from
sloping top tubes. In many cases, so-called "compact" frames simply have a
top tube that slopes down from the front of the bike to the rear. The front
is every bit as high, and sometimes higher, than a traditional level
top-tube bike.

In the case of Trek, the high end bikes are available in two different
styles. Each has a sloping top tube, but the "Profit" has the front end at
exactly the same height as the previous level top-tube bikes, while the
"Performance" fit has the front end 3cm HIGHER than what had been the
standard.

And I'm told the industry standard is moving towards the higher front ends
on bikes. In most cases, what you might have seen as being a lower handlebar
is actually an illusion caused by the large amount of seatpost showing.

Whatever the case, it has never been easier for us to accomodate a cyclist
who would like a higher handlebar position.

In the end, the only thing that matters is the minimum "drop" you can
accomplish between the seat and handlebar. The evidence is that bars are
getting higher, not lower, compared to seat height.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Over the years I've followed this fad and that and one of them has been to
ride frame sizes one or two sizes smaller than you should be riding. Today
this also comes down to those idiotic "compact" frames that are too small
in all sizes.

The problem with small frames is that you cannot mount the bars in the
correct position. For most riders the handlebars should be about 1" below
the saddle height - when was the last time you saw that? Why magazine
"test bikes" invariably have photos of a racing bike with the bars perhaps
4" below saddle height (some even more!) as if that were some sort of
target.

Low bars cause you to ride with your neck craned back too far to see
forward. It also puts your genitals in a very painful position. Add to
this the ridiculous "ultralight" saddles which achieve lightening by
making the smallest possible saddle and here you are with a flat back,
head craned up 40 degrees, weight falling forward and having to sit off to
one side of the saddle to avoid painful interactions.

When your bar tops are an inch below the saddle height the DROPS become
usable if and when you're in that racing pack. Today's drops are so low
that your arms are out straight as an arrow when you try to use them and
you have more drag than with your hands on the tops!

Anyone that's seen Jobst out riding would note immediately that he
certainly isn't following any bicycle magazine ads pertaining to bicycle
fit. And most people still can't stay with him when he's in a hurry.

I agree. Yesterday I got the latest issue of TOUR magazine on my
doormat. They tested 24 top carbon frames, most of them sloping frames.
The headtube lenght of all those frames with a effective toptube lenght
of 56-58 cm, are:
155, 175, 170, 160, 170, 155, 160, 170, 170, 158, 176, 175, 160, 158,
183, 175, 170, 162, 170, 160, 155, 170, 160, 160 mm. Considerably larger
then the 125 mm headtube of my 'old' Litespeed Classic with horizontal
toptube.

Lou

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

[...]
In the case of Trek, the high end bikes are available in two different
styles. Each has a sloping top tube, but the "Profit" has the front end at
exactly the same height as the previous level top-tube bikes[...]

Does the "Profit" include additional markup to the price? 😉

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

I don't undrstand why bike makers (at least moderate to high end) dont
just ship bikes with the fork ster tube uncut or at least leave it
longer. Then the dealer can easily custom fit it to the rider. When
I bought my Lemond in 02 I noticd there wre a good number of spacers.
The shop said they want people to ride and get the right height then
they will gladly cut it. I never went back as it was prfect. This
saves the manufacturer time and money
and allows riders to get a more comfy ride. I know this may not apply
to carbon ster tubes but for others it would be ideal.

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

Quoted message said:

The problem with small frames is that you cannot mount the bars in the
correct position. For most riders the handlebars should be about 1" below
the saddle height - when was the last time you saw that? Why magazine
"test bikes" invariably have photos of a racing bike with the bars perhaps
4" below saddle height (some even more!) as if that were some sort of
target.

You need to be careful to separate the issue of too-low handlebars from
sloping top tubes. In many cases, so-called "compact" frames simply have a
top tube that slopes down from the front of the bike to the rear. The front
is every bit as high, and sometimes higher, than a traditional level
top-tube bike.

In the case of Trek, the high end bikes are available in two different
styles. Each has a sloping top tube, but the "Profit" has the front end at
exactly the same height as the previous level top-tube bikes, while the
"Performance" fit has the front end 3cm HIGHER than what had been the
standard.

And I'm told the industry standard is moving towards the higher front ends
on bikes. In most cases, what you might have seen as being a lower handlebar
is actually an illusion caused by the large amount of seatpost showing.

Whatever the case, it has never been easier for us to accomodate a cyclist
who would like a higher handlebar position.

In the end, the only thing that matters is the minimum "drop" you can
accomplish between the seat and handlebar. The evidence is that bars are
getting higher, not lower, compared to seat height.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in messagenews:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Over the years I've followed this fad and that and one of them has been to
ride frame sizes one or two sizes smaller than you should be riding. Today
this also comes down to those idiotic "compact" frames that are too small
in all sizes.

Quoted message said:

The problem with small frames is that you cannot mount the bars in the
correct position. For most riders the handlebars should be about 1" below
the saddle height - when was the last time you saw that? Why magazine
"test bikes" invariably have photos of a racing bike with the bars perhaps
4" below saddle height (some even more!) as if that were some sort of
target.

Quoted message said:

Low bars cause you to ride with your neck craned back too far to see
forward. It also puts your genitals in a very painful position. Add to
this the ridiculous "ultralight" saddles which achieve lightening by
making the smallest possible saddle and here you are with a flat back,
head craned up 40 degrees, weight falling forward and having to sit off to
one side of the saddle to avoid painful interactions.

Quoted message said:

When your bar tops are an inch below the saddle height the DROPS become
usable if and when you're in that racing pack. Today's drops are so low
that your arms are out straight as an arrow when you try to use them and
you have more drag than with your hands on the tops!

Quoted message said:

Anyone that's seen Jobst out riding would note immediately that he
certainly isn't following any bicycle magazine ads pertaining to bicycle
fit. And most people still can't stay with him when he's in a hurry.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Tom Kunich said:

Over the years I've followed this fad and that and one of them has been
to ride frame sizes one or two sizes smaller than you should be riding.
Today this also comes down to those idiotic "compact" frames that are
too small in all sizes.

The problem with small frames is that you cannot mount the bars in the
correct position. For most riders the handlebars should be about 1"
below the saddle height - when was the last time you saw that? Why
magazine "test bikes" invariably have photos of a racing bike with the
bars perhaps 4" below saddle height (some even more!) as if that were
some sort of target.

Low bars cause you to ride with your neck craned back too far to see
forward. It also puts your genitals in a very painful position. Add to
this the ridiculous "ultralight" saddles which achieve lightening by
making the smallest possible saddle and here you are with a flat back,
head craned up 40 degrees, weight falling forward and having to sit off
to one side of the saddle to avoid painful interactions.

When your bar tops are an inch below the saddle height the DROPS become
usable if and when you're in that racing pack. Today's drops are so low
that your arms are out straight as an arrow when you try to use them and
you have more drag than with your hands on the tops!

Anyone that's seen Jobst out riding would note immediately that he
certainly isn't following any bicycle magazine ads pertaining to bicycle
fit. And most people still can't stay with him when he's in a hurry.

You're singing my song, Tom. Modern bikes sold elsewhere keep us quite
busy with tall stem sales.

If you find a solution, would you start working on monster trucks, please?
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 18:36:39 -0800, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo.

com said:

Over the years I've followed this fad and that and one of them has been to
ride frame sizes one or two sizes smaller than you should be riding. Today
this also comes down to those idiotic "compact" frames that are too small in
all sizes.

Obvious justification for riding retro steel.

Andrew Muzi said:

Tom Kunich wrote:
[...]

Quoted message said:

Anyone that's seen Jobst out riding would note immediately that he
certainly isn't following any bicycle magazine ads pertaining to
bicycle fit. And most people still can't stay with him when he's in a
hurry.

You're singing my song, Tom. Modern bikes sold elsewhere keep us quite
busy with tall stem sales.

If you find a solution, would you start working on monster trucks, please?

butbutbut, Jobst needs the monster trucks to park his bicycle against:
<http://i1.tinypic.com/505ukc2.jpg>. 😉

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Tom Kunich wrote:
[...]

Quoted message said:

Anyone that's seen Jobst out riding would note immediately that he
certainly isn't following any bicycle magazine ads pertaining to
bicycle fit. And most people still can't stay with him when he's in a
hurry.

Quoted message said:

Andrew Muzi said:

You're singing my song, Tom. Modern bikes sold elsewhere keep us quite
busy with tall stem sales.
If you find a solution, would you start working on monster trucks,
please?

Tom Sherman said:

butbutbut, Jobst needs the monster trucks to park his bicycle against:
<http://i1.tinypic.com/505ukc2.jpg>. 😉

That one seems almost benign. Different story when the pilot's on a cell
phone, coffee in the other hand, wildly gesticulating as it drifts into
my lane.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Andrew Muzi said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Tom Kunich wrote:
[...]
> Anyone that's seen Jobst out riding would note immediately that he
> certainly isn't following any bicycle magazine ads pertaining to
> bicycle fit. And most people still can't stay with him when he's in
> a hurry.

Quoted message said:

Andrew Muzi said:

You're singing my song, Tom. Modern bikes sold elsewhere keep us
quite busy with tall stem sales.
If you find a solution, would you start working on monster trucks,
please?

Tom Sherman said:

butbutbut, Jobst needs the monster trucks to park his bicycle against:
<http://i1.tinypic.com/505ukc2.jpg>. 😉

That one seems almost benign. Different story when the pilot's on a cell
phone, coffee in the other hand, wildly gesticulating as it drifts into
my lane.

I have woken up a couple of these people in vehicles (driver seems too
generous a term) with an Air Zound horn, when they came too close.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

"still just me" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 18:36:39 -0800, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo.

com said:

Over the years I've followed this fad and that and one of them has been to
ride frame sizes one or two sizes smaller than you should be riding. Today
this also comes down to those idiotic "compact" frames that are too small
in
all sizes.

Obvious justification for riding retro steel.

Indeed and I've noticed that lugged steel bikes are actually becoming more
valuable.

On Mar 1, 2:20 pm, Tom Sherman <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Andrew Muzi said:

Quoted message said:

> Tom Kunich wrote:
> [...]
>> Anyone that's seen Jobst out riding would note immediately that he
>> certainly isn't following any bicycle magazine ads pertaining to
>> bicycle fit. And most people still can't stay with him when he's in
>> a hurry.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Andrew Muzi wrote:
> You're singing my song, Tom. Modern bikes sold elsewhere keep us
> quite busy with tall stem sales.
> If you find a solution, would you start working on monster trucks,
> please?

Quoted message said:

Tom Sherman said:

butbutbut, Jobst needs the monster trucks to park his bicycle against:
<http://i1.tinypic.com/505ukc2.jpg>. 😉

Quoted message said:

That one seems almost benign. Different story when the pilot's on a cell
phone, coffee in the other hand, wildly gesticulating as it drifts into
my lane.

I have woken up a couple of these people in vehicles (driver seems too
generous a term) with an Air Zound horn, when they came too close.

A couple of blasts from an Air Zound will bring even the densest of
blonde bimbos out of their cell phone induced stupor.

Per Tom Sherman:

Quoted message said:

<http://i1.tinypic.com/505ukc2.jpg>. 😉

Looks like a *really* tall bike.

Is Jobst that tall?
--
PeteCresswell

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

"still just me" <[email hidden]> wrote in messagenews:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 18:36:39 -0800, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo.
com> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Over the years I've followed this fad and that and one of them has been to
ride frame sizes one or two sizes smaller than you should be riding. Today
this also comes down to those idiotic "compact" frames that are too small
in
all sizes.

Quoted message said:

Obvious justification for riding retro steel.

Indeed and I've noticed that lugged steel bikes are actually becoming more
valuable.

Except a lot of the Italian retro steel frames in my size -- 63/4 cm
-- had short top tubes, like 58.5. That's one reason I like more
modern frames. What is odd to me is that I loved my old steel frames
in the '70s and '80s and put tons of miles on them, but now when I
ride my last remaining vintage steel frame bike, it gives me a back
ache because it is too cramped in the cockpit. I guess I stretched
out. -- Jay Beattie.

(PeteCresswell) said:

Per Tom Sherman:

Quoted message said:

<http://i1.tinypic.com/505ukc2.jpg>. 😉

Looks like a *really* tall bike.

Is Jobst that tall?

Why, yes. <http://www.sbraweb.org/photos/2001/jobst/jobst.jpg>.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

Wow! It's been a while since I saw a bike with clearance for a pump
behind the seat tube. I'm guessing that isn't his climbing bike....

Colin Campbell said:

Wow! It's been a while since I saw a bike with clearance for a pump
behind the seat tube. I'm guessing that isn't his climbing bike....

Here is Jobst climbing an alpine pass on said yellow bicycle:
<http://www.kenpapai.com/cycling/rbr/jobst1.jpg>.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful