Wouldn't a 54cm bike as opposed to a 52cm bike mean less setback for same center of gravity?
I'm trying to determine if a bike could be deemed too small due to the ability to get balanced or not. Also how does geometry effect this?
My Kinesis is more of a "traditional" bike, no curved, straight top tube, alu frame, whilst the Trek is curved top tube, wider, generally seems a real pig to get a good position compared to the Kinesis whilst I haven't found my "center" on that one, the Kinesis seems more "laid back" as in much easier to get some reliable position.
Originally Posted by
AnthonyG
Sorry, I'm not in agreement with your premise that balancing between the two wheels is how best to fit yourself on a bike. For bicycle fit the centre of the bottom bracket (BB) is the balance point and the zero, zero reference point for all measurements.
This is a fixed reference point. The centre of the two wheels is all over the place and subject to numerous variables that have nothing to do with how the rider fits on a bike.
I have heard of frame builders taking the weight distribution on each wheel into consideration in a frame design yet the is secondary rather than of primary importance to fit.