Re: [CR] Big frames ride better?

<classicrendezvous@bikelist.org> Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 12:46 PM Subject: Re: [CR] Big frames ride better?

>
> Hi Tom. At 6.2 and 195 lbs I consider myself a larger rider. In my
> experience my 62cm frames ride about the same as 25" inch frames. I can't
> see that my frames ride any better or any worse than anyone ellis. Sorry,
> but I can't see that this theory holds any water.
>
> Tom Harriman
> San Francisco, Ca
>
>> Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 06:12:51 -0800
>> From: thomasthomasa@yahoo.com
>> To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
>> Subject: Re: [CR] Big frames ride better?
>>
>> Dear List:
>>
>> I am happy to see the insightful comments on this topic. To clarify what
>> I was asking, I'm not so much inquiring how to set up a bike, as I
>> presume anyone on this list is already enough of a bike addict to have
>> their own way of getting a good position. What I'm curious about is
>> whether a frame in the larger end of our acceptable frame size range has
>> any intrinsic advantages as far as ride quality goes. These days, with
>> Nitto stems and mountain posts you can acheive a tolerable set up on
>> almost any frame, but my totally subjective opinion, based on no
>> quatifiable data, is that my 64cm frames ride "nicer" than my 62cm
>> frames. Indeed, to the point that I sold a lovely 60 cm Ephgrave #1 to
>> Paul Raley, because the ride was just a bit,"wrong". Paul, did the frame
>> ride good for you and was it on the high end of your range? Does anyone
>> else share this impression, or indeed, have the opposite reaction?
>>
>> I think everyone has probably a 2 cm range on the ideal frame size. Is
>> there any perceived difference in ride between the low end of the range
>> and the high end of the range, assuming identical bike position?
>>
>> Aside from my own impressions, there are two tenuous roots for this
>> question. I once had a veteran LBS guy look at a 62 cm Raliegh
>> International I just got, and say "Ah, a nice big frame, that will be
>> comfortable". When I asked why, he said the bigger frames with the
>> longer frame tubes would flex more and absorb more road shock. This
>> probably is an old wive's tale, but the other side of the coin is still
>> prevelant: we're told to get the smallest racing frame we can fit
>> because the shorter frame will be stiffer (and please no one start
>> talking about whether stiffer is faster).
>>
>> The second reason is the change of frame size normally fitted to a rider.
>> Back in the 40's and 50's it looks like racers rode frames 2-3
>> centimeters bigger than current riders ride. Look at picutures of Coppi
>> and his contemporaries, and they all seem to have just a fist of seat
>> post showing out of the frame. Was there a reason for this or is it just
>> fashion?
>>
>> Thanks again for everyone's thoughts. Plenty of interesting theory out
>> there.
>>
>> Tom Adams
>> Manhattan, KS USA
>>
>> --- On Tue, 1/25/11, paccoastcycles <paccoastcycles@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> From: paccoastcycles <paccoastcycles@sbcglobal.net>
>> Subject: Re: [CR] Big frames ride better?
>> To: "Dean Kernan" <dkernan@mindspring.com>,
>> classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
>> Date: Tuesday, January 25, 2011, 9:11 AM
>>
>>
>> Has this subject morphed from what I wrote about someone selling his
>> favorite bike because it was "too big"?
>>
>> To keep this subject on topic, I'll go on record by saying that
>> Specialized was the first company I was aware of that made each frame
>> with a clean slate design. In spite of my distaste for their recent
>> business model, I give them credit for giving the industry that. It
>> forced (or enabled?) other manufacturers to do the same or close to it.
>>
>> Also, being 5'8", I can only speak from what I've deduced with regard to
>> my tall customers over the years. There have been two developements I
>> have seen for tall riders. First, oversize tubing seems appropriate for
>> most very tall frames. That also enables the frame to be made with a more
>> generous top tube which seems proportional. Second, the tendency to put
>> riders on smaller frames seems to have resulted in fewer truly good
>> fitting tall frames (by this, I mean over 60cm). I think that is down to
>> the reluctance of dealers to stock frames in the 63cm range.
>>
>> This is veering off topic so I'll invite off list discussioin with
>> anybody who wishes to further discuss it. I think it is one of the true
>> tragedies of the bicycle market place.
>>
>> Chuck Hoefer
>> Pacific Coast Cycles
>> Oceanside, Ca.
>> ---- Original Message ----- From: "Dean Kernan" <dkernan@mindspring.com>
>> To: <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 6:12 AM
>> Subject: Re: [CR] Big frames ride better?
>>
>>
>> > List (and especially framebuilders),
>> >
>> > I have a related question, and forgive my ignorance but...
>> >
>> > Was there a shift in frame-building philosopy/technique so that more
>> > recent
>> > large frames tend to be built with longer (and proportional) top tubes
>> > than
>> > they were back in the day?
>> >
>> > My original race bike from 1972 is Falcon San Remo that fits me well at
>> > 6'.
>> > Like a number of frames from that period, although it is fairly large
>> > (24/24.5 c-t-c) it has a fairly short top tube (22.5 c-t-c) which works
>> > fine
>> > for me, since I am more legs than arms.
>> >
>> > These proportions seem to be true of others from the period as well (as
>> > I
>> > have recently been reminded in an off-list exchange), ie. the larger
>> > frames
>> > tended to have extended seat tubes once they hit the upper end of the
>> > size
>> > range without a proportionate increase in TT length.
>> >
>> > Coming back to the sport, I was surprised to find more large frames
>> > that
>> > were proportional (often "square") so that I now ride a nominally
>> > smaller
>> > frame to have the same reach that I had on my original bike. Fitting on
>> > my
>> > orginal bike gives me the "fistful of seatpost" that was deemed correct
>> > for
>> > the time; fitting on my newer (~off-topic) Simonetti gives me more
>> > seatpost
>> > visible.
>> >
>> > [FWIW, I am indifferent to the issue of standover height since I don't
>> > stand
>> > over my bicycle. :>) ]
>> >
>> > The resulting loss is something that, if not a "better" ride, was
>> > certainly
>> > a different feeling on the bike.
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> > Dean Kernan
>> > Pomona, New York