I asked Dale if I was getting off topic and he said no, so here goes: This is something I came up with as a way to illustrate that the fit of a bicycle has so much to do with the way the rider's weight is distributed on the bike.
Sometimes it is useful to exaggerate something to illustrate a point.
If we took a child's sidewalk bike and put your ideal seat position and bar position on that bike, and you rode it, how would it feel? It would feel pretty unstable and skittish. That would not be because of the seat and handlebar relationship but because your weight would be wrongly distributed with regard to the wheelbase. In fact, there are plenty of folding bikes with small wheels that are made to work for adults and all of them move the wheels further apart, making the weight distribution of the rider more normal.
Anybody who sidetracked this exaggerated example by thinking to him or herself, "Hey, it would feel terrible because it has crappy parts." please move to the back of the class and you will receive a passing grade just to get you out of the class.
For many years of my bicycle shop career, the way we fitted people to bikes was to have them stand over the bike and check leg length with regard to the bike. If a rider had short legs and a long torso, he would get a shorter bike and we would use a longer stem for those long torso guys.
I've changed the way I fit people some time ago. I started to realize that by fitting by leg length, long torso riders had been riding with way too much weight thrown forward on the bike. We no longer sell a bike to a person's legs. We fit it to the whole person. Unless a bike is being custom made, it is typical for a short leg/long torso person to have less seat post showing.
Chuck Hoefer Pacific Coast Cycles Oceanside, Ca.
I can say for certain that people are getting bad fitting advice on line or they are grossly misinterpreting what fitting charts say.
> Listers,
>
> This sizing discussion reminds me of my own sizing pilgrimage.
>
> In late 1971 my considerably-upgraded 21"/53 CM Peugeot UO-8 (Brooks Pro
> saddle, Suntour all-alloy derailleur, etc.) had just been
> stolen from our co-op housing's front porch and, being a full-blown bike
> addict by this time, I spent tuition money to replace it
> with a Peugeot PX-10, my first all-531 bike.
>
> Because the prevailing wisdom and popular books dictated that touring
> frames should be taller, I insisted on a 23" PX-10.
> (I was 5'7" tall, and my pants inseam was (and is) 26.5 - 27". The guys at
> Collins' Cycle tried to dissuade me but I was in
> college and knew everything....)
>
> That 23" PX was a fine bike but far too tall and awkward for me, not to
> mention the ever-present hazard to certain sensitive tissues
> if I came down hard on that ever-present top tube. None the lessI toured
> from Eugene, Oregon to San Francisco, California on that bike,
> and on sew-ups no less!
>
> I rather quickly realized the error of my ways and remedied the seat tube
> length problem with a 52 CM (ctt) Raleigh Pro Mark IV two years later
> and a champagne-green 53 CM PX-10 in 1975. (I LOVED the handling of my
> second PX.... :-)
>
> My problem has always been one of needing a long (54-56 CM) top tube with
> a 51-52 CM seat tube. Most frames that short have come
> with a a 53-53.5 CM TT, necessitating 12-13 CM stems in order for me to
> properly extend my proportionally longish arms and torso. (I have had two
> Raleigh Pros Mark IV, one PX-10, a KOF TREK 760, and an aluminum-framed
> and off-topic TREK 2000 with TTs in this 53-53.5 CM
> range. And those were the longest TTs I could find among the available
> production bikes. many bikes had shorter TTs...)
>
> Since finding this list, of course, I have discovered the broad range of
> English path racers and 1930s - 1960s road racing frames
> with the "classic" relaxed geometry and long TTs that I seek. I have not
> yet had my Allegro out on any long, fast downhills (I need
> new whees to really let loose over 30 MPH safely, IMHO) but I will be
> really curious to compare its longer TT and relaxed angles to
> my late-1990s KOF Eisentraut, which tracks like a demon at 40-plus....)
>
> For me, then, the seat tube range is far less flexible, as I am at my
> upper limit with a 52 CM center-to-top frame with 72 degrees parallel
> angles and a standard bottom bracket height. I might be able to ride as
> small as a 50 CM (ctt) seat tube but doubt that I would find many of those
> with a 55-56 CM top tube....
>
> I am still looking for the "holy grail" in frame/bike fit, and the Allegro
> (72 parallel, 55 CM TT) may provide some answers that my Eisentraut (73
> parallel, 54 CM TT) has not. Although it is really hard to criticize the
> way my 'Traut handles downhills.... :-)
>
> Jon Spangler
> Almost feeling a 45-MPH wind in my hair in Alameda, CA USA
>
> Writer/editor
> Linda Hudson Writing
> TEL 510-864-2144
> CEL 510-846-5356
> JonSwriter@att.net
> http://www.linkedin.com/
> http://www.twitter.com/
>
>
> -----Chuck Hoefer wrote.......
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 19:37:17 -0800
> From: "paccoastcycles" <paccoastcycles@sbcglobal.net>
> Subject: Re: [CR] Big frames ride better?
> To: "Tom Harriman" <transition202@hotmail.com>,
> <thomasthomasa@yahoo.com>, "Classic Rendezvous"
> <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
> Message-ID: <A412394FB8F34D9A9754BAE0F0924A21@ownerd556865ac>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> reply-type=original
>
> Tom Adams wrote:When I asked why, he said the bigger frames with the
> longer
> frame tubes would flex more and absorb more road shock.
>
> My comment would be that it is not primarily the flex of the frame but the
> position of one's body and the distribution of one's weight with relation
> to
> the wheelbase that leads to comfort on the bike.
>
> Chuck Hoefer
> Pacific Coast Cycles
> Oceanside, Ca