Re: [CR]frame size

(Example: Racing:Beryl Burton)

Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 09:49:03 -0800
From: "Brandon Ives" <monkeylad@mac.com>
To: Richard M Sachs <richardsachs@juno.com>
Subject: Re: [CR]frame size
cc: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
cc: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org

I think what e-richie was getting at and what Richard Rose was asking about can be answered by thinking about the body as a series of levers. I've always believed that foot size is quite important in regard to crank length. I don't know e-richie's sizing or fit formula so I can't answer for him. I can say that I too think it's an important dimension though I'm not sure of how to apply it to frame design itself. There have been quite a few different bio-mechanical studies done on power output using foot size as a factor over the years. We all may be different machines but leverage formulae stay the same and can be applied to all of us. enjoy, Brandon"monkeyman"Ives SB, CA

On Thursday, March 27, 2003, at 09:58AM, Richard M Sachs <richardsachs@juno.com> wrote:
>snipped:
>"Richard Rose" <rmrose@toast.net> writes:
>"I assume that only unusually short or long feet would
>cause an otherwise "normal" frame size / saddle height
>to not be correct?"
>
>what's "normal"?
>you mean a pre-built frame made to cookie cutter
>dimension, one firm's 58cm bearing little resemblence
>to the one from the next village?!
>on the issue of 'fit', the rider's position is more important
>(and certainly less yielding...) than trying to reverse engineer
>an existing frame to work with it. you can always change a
>stem, move a saddle up-down-front-back, etcetera, but you
>can't change where the wheels are or alter the center of
>gravity once a bicycle is "fitted" to a rider. you can get the
>position dialed in but the bicycle may not work well...
>e-RICHIE
>chester, ct
>_______________________________________________
>
>

++++++++++++++++++++
Nobody can do everything,
but if everybody did something
everything would get done.
--Gil Scott-Heron--
++++++++++++++++++++