Old 01-27-21, 08:59 PM
  #8  
RiddleOfSteel
Master Parts Rearranger
 
RiddleOfSteel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Portlandia's Kuiper Belt, OR
Posts: 4,403

Bikes: 1982 Trek 720 - 1985 Trek 620 - 1984 Trek 620 - 1980 Trek 510 - Other luminaries past and present

Mentioned: 221 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1556 Post(s)
Liked 2,024 Times in 989 Posts
Thank you for posting this article. I agree with people's sentiments here. Garbage angle on the photography, even if it was "to make it look huge." Tall bikes have a tough enough time looking attractive to those that don't ride them, don't add to it. In reality, only the Panasonic is awkward when viewed at a normal angle. The rest of those bikes are actually all well-proportioned. Bicycling.....guhhhh.

The Cannodale's 59cm TT is not too short, IMO. Writer was complaining way too much about that. Man, this is how it is in the automotive industry. [I will refrain from a diatribe on that] Disappointing. 100-110mm stems on a bike that tall are just fine!

Also, if you have to duck through doorways, 5 out of the 6 bikes are rubbish for accurate testing. A 63cm????

6 bikes for tall tall people (for 1986) should have been something like:

1) Panasonic DX-2000 [already a part of the test] in 28" (71cm) size.
2) Lotus Challenger (or similar) in 66cm size.
3) Schwinn Le Tour in 27" (68.5cm) size.
4) Miyata 110 in 27" (68.5cm) size.
5) Fuji Del Rey in 27" (68.5cm) size.
6) ST800 (canti) or ST500 (caliper) in 27" (68.5cm) size.

Honorable mention: Trek 700 (05 500) in 25.5" (65cm) size.
RiddleOfSteel is offline  
Likes For RiddleOfSteel: