05-24-2004, 07:34 PM
|
#17 (permalink)
|
| | Re: Bike Sizes
On Mon, 24 May 2004 22:43:05 -0400, Badger_South <Badger@South.net>
wrote:
>On Mon, 24 May 2004 20:13:21 -0400, Rick Onanian <spamsink@cox.net> wrote:
>>My main road bike is a size too small because I wasn't smart enough
>>to know when I bought it. With an appropriate stem to put the
>>handlebars in a reasonable spot, it's good for me.
>>
>>If you can get the right size, get it; the hard part is knowing.
>>Search this newsgroup at groups.google.com to find loads and loads
>>of information on fitting, and links to fit calculators.
>
>Numbers? You're six feet tall, right? Are you riding a 17 inch frame?
I'm probably 5'10" or so. The frame in question is a Giant TCR2
compact frame in "Medium", which I think is supposed to be
equivalent to a 55cm. Huh? A "medium giant"? No conflict there? 
Actually, according to Giant's sizing web page at
http://www.giant-bicycles.com/us/050...50.600.100.asp
it is the correct frame for me, but I suspect a larger frame would
be more appropriate.
Hah! They offer a small giant. Maybe I should start a bike company
called "minuscule" and sell large frames.
>My LBS looked at me and said 17.5, but the bike seemed small to me. I'm
>5'9".
Mountain or road?
MTB sizing is generally done on the small side, and that's ok. Road
sizing is done small now too, but that's _not_ ok. It makes sense
for off-road riding to have lots of extra clearance everywhere and
short reach, and so much time is spent out of the saddle and doing
weird stuff and flying off the bike into sharp rocks that you don't
notice minor size issues.
Road bikes, OTOH, should be fit perfectly. I understand that many
years ago, road sizing was done too large; that must have been
unpleasant. Now they do it too small, for minor weight savings,
purported stiffness, and extra-low handlebars. The trouble is that
road biking, with so much time and so many miles spent in the saddle
in one position, is very sensitive to minor size issues.
>(Would it be worse to have a bike that's too large than a bit too small?
>There'd be no way to fix that without sawing off something, eh? <g>)
Depends on exactly what's too large.
Top tube height? Replace 700c wheels with 650c.
KOPS? Setback seatpost.
Reach? Stem.
Bar height? Stem.
Saddle height? Seatpost.
Etc. Modifications can be made to make most bikes fit most people,
if sufficiently motivated.
Fit goes beyond how your body contacts the bike, IMO. Fit should
also include how you're going to use the bike, and your abilities.
In this region, a double crank doesn't make sense for beginners,
weak riders, people living in extra-steep areas, or anybody not
completely sure of their needs. I'm not sure it makes much sense for
anybody, but I certainly shouldn't have left that store with a
double. In fact, I should have had a sport tourer, or at least
something whose geometry is a little more relaxed than the hardcore
racer that I bought -- maybe a Giant OCR. I know now...I know a
_lot_ more than I did then. I'm nearly "saavy". Unfortunately, bike
shop employees tend to be either racer-wannabes (and expect
everybody else to be), or don't give a damn, or dumb, or too busy
focusing on bringing in the benjamins (how's that for me being hip!
to help somebody choose the right bike.
This newsfroup should write a training manual for bike shop owners
and employees. Now that I've done the hard work of coming up with
that idea, it's up to the rest of you to implement it. What, me
spend MORE time on it? Sheesh, how ungrateful... <BFG>
--
Rick Onanian
|
|
|  |