Large Road Frames and the Myths

Qui si parla Campagnolo

apoman-<< I welcome your opinions on this subject, >><BR><BR>

Threadless aluminum steerer with spacers and a rise stem or a custom with a
headtube extension. I wouldn't get a frameset that is too big for you as the
seat tube angle 'may' be too slack and the top tube too long.

Peter Chisholm
Vecchio's Bicicletteria
1833 Pearl St.
Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535
http://www.vecchios.com
"Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

Rick Onanian

On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 21:46:26 -0400, "David L. Johnson"
<david.johnson@lehigh.edu> wrote:
>is for, and it is the fault of the promoters of threadless headsets that
>have made that the hardest parameter, rather than the easiest, to adjust.
>
>Bike size, among stock sizes, is first and foremost determined by top tube
>length. Why? Because that is the hardest to correct for. Seatposts
>can be raised, as (in the good old days) can handlebars. But reach is
>more difficult, and can only partially be compensated for by changing the
>length of the stem.

Ah, but there's threadless stems' strength: reach is far easier to
adjust. It barely takes a minute to change a threadless stem.
--
Rick Onanian

Matt O'Toole

Rick Onanian wrote:

> Ah, but there's threadless stems' strength: reach is far easier to
> adjust. It barely takes a minute to change a threadless stem.

This is true, although there's no reason quill stems can't be made with two
piece handlebar clamps. A couple of them are now.

Matt O.

Paul Kopit

On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 22:18:46 -0700, Benjamin Lewis <bclewis@cs.sfu.ca>
wrote:

>I don't see the need for being able to stand over the frame, either. How
>often do you stand over your top tube with both feet on the ground?

I do stand over the toptube when I stop and don't want to dismount for
a while. I also straddle the toptube when I get on the bicycle by
swinging my leg over the bars instead of the seat.

David L. Johnson

On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 10:04:59 -0400, Rick Onanian wrote:

>
> Ah, but there's threadless stems' strength: reach is far easier to
> adjust. It barely takes a minute to change a threadless stem.

"Adjust" does not really mean "replace parts". But you are also not
thinking about anything particular to threadless stems. What makes it
easier to swap out is the fact that there is a separate end cap with 2 or
more bolts, not the old 1-bolt handlebar binder. I*have 2 quill stems
like that now. Not only would they be easier to swap out than a
threadless setup (don't have to mess with bearing preload), the height can
be adjusted in seconds.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | "Business!" cried the Ghost. "Mankind was my business. The common
_`\(,_ | welfare was my business; charity, mercy, forbearance, and
(_)/ (_) | benevolence, were, all, my business. The dealings of my trade
were but a drop of water in the comprehensive ocean of my
<business!" --Dickens, "A Christmas Carol"

Mark

I do understand what you folks are telling me here, Thanks.

As I mentioned in the beginning of this thread I'm wishing to perhaps
build a vintage NOS frame up.

Perhaps in this case like others mention, the geometry, and fit might
be a bit different from bike of today.

Seems there are so many factors for a proper fit. I can imagine with
the rake/angle of a seat tube too, the higher the seatpost, the
further away the distance is to the bars. Don't quote me on exact
measurements please, but as an example, and thinking about this a bit,
a 60cm frame with the seat raised 3" may have a shorter reach to the
bars that a 56cm frame with the seat jacked up 8".

I know it's a real can of worms I'm opening here, because I'm sure a
number of other factors then come into play, one being that there must
be proper leg position over the pedals, etc.

As Rivendell explains in part, that usually the more expensive a Bike
frame is, usually the smaller it will be per recommendations of the
LBS.

I can understand this, as usually the person who walks into a shop,
and is purchasing a $3,000-$4,000 frame pretty much wants this bike
for mostly one purpose, and that is to race with. (I know there always
is the exception) So the more compact a frame is, the better
torsional stiffness is, and also lighter, and better aero-dynamics. I
guess this equates to a faster rider, and a rider who will be less
taxed by the size, and weight of his/her bike.
Mark

"David L. Johnson" <david.johnson@lehigh.edu> wrote in message news:<pan.2004.04.15.22.00.29.975430@lehigh.edu>...
> On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 08:58:54 -0700, Mark wrote:
>
> > Hi Folks, I've been kicking around the possibility of buying another
> > Road Frame, as I would like to build a bike this time, with the
> > components of my choice (Most likely mid-high range Campy Parts).
> >
> > I'd like to build myself a all steel frame bike, something perhaps
> > like an old vintage NOS Paramount, or Colnago.
> >
> > Question is, that I wish to seek opinions about the larger frames for
> > a medium height rider such as myself. One thing I do notice on this
> > new 57cm Bianchi I currently have, is that I'm doing quite a bit of
> > bending over to get into the drops.
>
> Perhaps you could raise the bars a bit.
>
> > I'm 5"-8" in height, and I have
> > the Seatpost extended on the Bianchi about 6", or so.
>
> Seems to be in line.
>
> >
> > Reading a article in last month's Bicycling Mag, I'm reading about the
> > Boss Man at Rivendell praising the larger frames, and thier comfort.
> > The editor, while questioning this philosophy did somewhat agree with
> > Rivendell about the huge road frames feeling wonderful.
>
> There is much more to frame size than just seat tube length. A
> bigger frame is also longer. Those who find them comfortable are perhaps
> in need of a longer top tube, not a higher one.
>
> >
> > I feel with a slightly larger road frame, say a 60cm, that I might find
> > I'm not bending quite so much to get into the drops, and might find
> > myself a much more comfortable ride on longer mileage jaunts.
>
> IMO 60cm is very big for someone 5'8". Even if you are relatively
> long-legged, I would think you would have trouble reaching the bars on
> most stock frames that size. Custom is different, but we wouldn't be
> talking just about "size" in that case. I'm 5'11" and have, for years,
> ridden a 56cm frame.
>
> >
> > Is is so bad, to just have an inch, or 2 of seatpost extended so that
> > pedal reach is correct?
>
> This does not sound like a good idea. Get yourself fit for a bike by
> someone who knows what they are doing.
>
> > I'm not going to be doing any time trials against Lance, or Ulrich. Just
> > desiring a bit more comfortable ride, and I'm thinking that the smaller
> > "Politically Correct" frame just is not going to give me this.
>
> There is PC-ness on both sides of this. Rivendell is reacting to a couple
> things, one is the silliness of compact frames with foot-long seatposts,
> and the other is the tendency for racers to use smaller frames in order to
> get a lower position. But they seem to have gone a bit too far, in my
> opinion.

nomisa

drew@revolt.poohsticks.org (Drew Eckhardt) wrote in message news:<po6n5c.7s41.ln@revolt.poohsticks.org>...
> In article <68236fb6.0404150758.69a0bb08@posting.google.com>,
> Mark <apoman60612@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Question is, that I wish to seek opinions about the larger frames for
> >a medium height rider such as myself. One thing I do notice on this
> >new 57cm Bianchi I currently have, is that I'm doing quite a bit of
> >bending over to get into the drops. I'm 5"-8" in height, and I have
> >the Seatpost extended on the Bianchi about 6", or so.
>
> Whether your height is in your torso or legs makes a big difference in
> your frame dimensions; and both seat and top tube lengths increase
> when frame size goes up.
>
> I'm 5'10 with a 30.5" inseam. I ride a 55cm center-to-top (53.5 center to
> center) frame with a 55.5 cm top tube and 120mm stem. It's about right in
> the hoods and drops and IIRC matches the USCF fit guidelines.
>
> >Is is so bad, to just have an inch, or 2 of seatpost extended so that
> >pedal reach is correct?
>
> You need to get the right reach to the pedals and bars.

I ride a Riv Atlantis, their touring bike, but take the company's
philosophies with a grain of salt, just like everything else. That
being said, their frame sizing system generally works for me, with
some positives and negatives.

I'm 5'11" with a 78 cm saddle height (long legs), and now ride a 61 cm
frame. I used to ride a 57 cm Bianchi, upon recommendation from my
LBS, and always found it a little too small. I have a bad shoulder
and even after 30 mile rides it would hurt like hell. I also seldom
used the drops except when going downhill.

Positives for me on larger frame:
- Easier on shoulders
- Drops are very accessible and useful (a big plus esp. in headwind.)
- Easier on lower back
- Neck doesn't get stiff
- Generally more comfortable

Negatives:
- Some loss of power when riding on the hoods. Can compensate by using
drops.
- More pressure on behind = more saddle soreness. Must pick right
saddle.
- Harder to climb when standing with hands on the hoods. I sometimes
climb from the drops for short sections, instead. This works ok.
- The frame "feels slower", but this is purely subjective and not
based in any way on actual timed measurements.

Overall impression:
If you're a more easygoing casual rider, the larger frame works well.
I like it. A "fistfull of seatpost + 1 or 2 fingers" is a good
general rule. The two inches you suggest sounds way small, even by
Rivendell standards.

Ted B

Mark wrote:
> I can understand this, as usually the person who walks into a shop, and
> is purchasing a $3,000-$4,000 frame pretty much wants this bike for
> mostly one purpose, and that is to race with. (I know there always is
> the exception) So the more compact a frame is, the better torsional
> stiffness is, and also lighter, and better aero-dynamics. I guess this
> equates to a faster rider, and a rider who will be less taxed by the
> size, and weight of his/her bike.



This is more or less true. I previously rode two Bianchi framesets, both
in 55cm. My measurements however point to a 53cm as the best fit, which
is what I ride presently. The 53cm is indeed the more precise fit where
all out performance is concerned, but the 55cm frames did feel more
comfortable for longer duration training and such.

Naturally, a frame that is obviously too large will feel like a big
boat, which is what you don't want. A frame that is on the larger side
of your measurements however should not hamper you in spirited riding,
and will be more comfortable for those long touring rides.



--

Matt O'Toole

Mark wrote:

> I can understand this, as usually the person who walks into a shop,
> and is purchasing a $3,000-$4,000 frame pretty much wants this bike
> for mostly one purpose, and that is to race with. (I know there always
> is the exception)

The "exceptions" are the rule. Very few cyclists actually race. I don't know
what the statistics are, but of the road cyclists I know, I'd guess it's 1 out
of 100. Plenty participate in organized/club rides, but actual races? No.

Matt O.

David L. Johnson

On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 08:20:22 -0700, Mark wrote:

> Seems there are so many factors for a proper fit. I can imagine with
> the rake/angle of a seat tube too, the higher the seatpost, the
> further away the distance is to the bars. Don't quote me on exact
> measurements please, but as an example, and thinking about this a bit,
> a 60cm frame with the seat raised 3" may have a shorter reach to the
> bars that a 56cm frame with the seat jacked up 8".

I doubt it. that 5" of seatpost, at a typical 73-degree angle moves you
back less than 1.5". Now, for standard geometry, the 60cm frame will
likely have a 60cm top tube, adding 4cm, which is just a bit more.
However, if you fit on the 60cm frame with 3" of seatpost showing, you
will NOT fit on the 56 with 8" of seatpost. The difference in seatpost
exposure will be 4cm, so you will see 1.17cm of extra length by raising
the seat, instead of 4cm of extra length by going with a larger frame.


> As Rivendell explains in part, that usually the more expensive a Bike
> frame is, usually the smaller it will be per recommendations of the LBS.

This is bull. If you want to believe this sort of slander against any and
all local bike shops, then go ahead. But the price of th bike is
independent of the size that fits.

> I can understand this,

How?

> as usually the person who walks into a shop, and
> is purchasing a $3,000-$4,000 frame pretty much wants this bike for
> mostly one purpose, and that is to race with.

No. I know lots of people who ride expensive bikes and don't race. In
fact, it seems that around here, the slower a ride is, the more titanium
it attracts.


--

David L. Johnson

__o | And what if you track down these men and kill them, what if you
_`\(,_ | killed all of us? From every corner of Europe, hundreds,
(_)/ (_) | thousands would rise up to take our places. Even Nazis can't
kill that fast. -- Paul Henreid (Casablanca).

Paul Kopit

My favorite 1 1/8" threadless stem does not have a 2 piece bar clamp.
In that respect, it it no different than most of the quill stems.


On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 14:10:59 GMT, "Matt O'Toole" <matt@deltanet.com>
wrote:

>Rick Onanian wrote:
>
>> Ah, but there's threadless stems' strength: reach is far easier to
>> adjust. It barely takes a minute to change a threadless stem.
>
>This is true, although there's no reason quill stems can't be made with two
>piece handlebar clamps. A couple of them are now.
>
>Matt O.
>
>

Rick Onanian

On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 13:35:23 -0400, "David L. Johnson"
<david.johnson@lehigh.edu> wrote:
>No. I know lots of people who ride expensive bikes and don't race. In
>fact, it seems that around here, the slower a ride is, the more titanium
>it attracts.

Yeah, that's the old "oh god I'm so tired of lugging up that
hill..if I can just get a couple pounds off the bike...an ounce
here, a few grams there..." thing. If it only works psychologically,
it still works.

Er, I haven't got any ti on my bike. But if I had the money...
--
Rick Onanian

B a r r y

On 16 Apr 2004 08:20:22 -0700, apoman60612@yahoo.com (Mark) wrote:

>
>I can understand this, as usually the person who walks into a shop,
>and is purchasing a $3,000-$4,000 frame pretty much wants this bike
>for mostly one purpose, and that is to race with.

My experience working in an LBS is that many people simply want to
LOOK like they race with it. <G>

Many of the real racers I deal with can't afford the bike they need.

Barry

Tim McNamara

Rick Onanian <spamsink@cox.net> writes:

> Ah, but there's threadless stems' strength: reach is far easier to
> adjust.

Yeah. But not height. That's harder to adjust and sometimes
impossible without resorting to goofy angles and stacks of spacer that
look (to my eyes) quite ridiculous.