Tendency to buy frame too big...way too big
10-03-17, 09:57 AM
#1
Banned.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 10
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Tendency to buy frame too big...way too big
I see a lot of posts here from people struggling between two sizes, because they are supposedly caught in the middle of some random size chart. For instance, someone who is 181cm with 84cm inseam debating between a 55 or 57 frame. More often than not you have a bunch of posters saying clearly he needs the 57, backed by their own experiences. Of course they have years of riding experiences and have convinced themselves that they (and their LBS) is correct and there is no way they have been riding on a frame that is at least one, likely two or three sizes too large.
Here is a general rule of thumb: for a healthy, young adult, if you are riding a frame that requires you to use anything shorter than a 120mm stem, you are DOING IT WRONG. The above rider should be in the 53 frame, and quite possibly a 52 if they make such a size.
You see so many riders on frames that are just too big. Little seat post showing, minimal drop (might as well be riding an MTB, let's be serious).
NOW, before you all freak out and say, "well I have bad back...or I care about comfort...or it's painful to ride." That's YOUR personal situation and YOUR health issues. A young rider who is fit will have no problem adjusting to the proper road cycling position. Just because you can't, doesn't mean you should advise others to ride in a similar oversized comfy geometry as you. And please, when you say you lack the flexibility to ride in a more aero position (i.e., a smaller frame), we all know that means you have a gut that can't be folded into the aero position. There is no reason a healthy, fit young rider can't ride in an aero position for 2-3 hours without issues.
And how has this all perpetuated? Simply put, out of shape obese riders whose views are reinforced by their LBS or bike fitter. These LBS are in the business of making money. When they see a middle-aged man with a gut (let's be honest, the vast majority of purchasers of high-end road bikes), they are not going to put them on a standard road geometry. They are going to put them on something that is comfortable, and can accomodate their customers' lack of flexibility and that gut which simply won't handle a proper riding position. Of course, they won't tell you that, so they just sell you a frame that is 2 sizes too large and tell you this is the "standard." And they come onto these forums and advise everyone else what the "standard" is. Also, LBS will stock sizes for their typical customer (probably between 5'9" - 6'0" with a bit of a gut, roughly aged mid-30s to 50s) so of course they will stock more larger sizes. When a healthy young fit buck shows up and wants to try the smaller size, the fitter will say "oh no that's way too small, you MUST have this larger size".
There are probably naysayers who say "but I test drove the smaller frame and it was uncomfortable!" Two explanations. One, you are either grossly obese and have a bad back and therefore you should really be on an MTB until you get your health in order, or Two, that smaller frame probably had a 80-100mm stem and of course that would feel incredibly awkward. Swap it out for a 120-140mm stem and report back next time.
Let's do a thought exercise. There are only TWO universal limitations to going "smaller". First, you run out of seatpost to achieve the proper pedaling position. Two, the stem you need in the proper position would be so long as to disrupt the fore-aft distribution on the bike. It would have to be at least 140mm or longer for this to be a serious risk. That's it.
Comfort, your poor lower back, those are all SUBJECTIVE and UNIQUE to you. If you sit around in an office all day, and are too lazy to do some minimal squats or other core body exercises on a regular basis, you're going to have problems well beyond not being comfortable on a road bike and you should get on that.
In conclusion, I want to remind you all that a ROAD BIKE is NOT an MTB, is NOT a XC or fixie or Sunday cruiser. Road bikes are meant for going fast, and for racing. The largest difference between a road bike and an MTB is NOT the width of the tires but the geometry and position. A lot of you are trying to ride a road bike in an MTB position! That's just wrong. You can of course use a road bike for whatever purpose you deem fit, but don't forget that you are in a frame 1-3 sizes too large, the pro peleton are in frames much smaller than yours for a reason. Because they don't have guts, they are not old and they don't have lower back issues.
So next time you want to troll and advise someone to get a frame too large, just add the caveat "if you are old, have bad back or have a gut."
Here is a general rule of thumb: for a healthy, young adult, if you are riding a frame that requires you to use anything shorter than a 120mm stem, you are DOING IT WRONG. The above rider should be in the 53 frame, and quite possibly a 52 if they make such a size.
You see so many riders on frames that are just too big. Little seat post showing, minimal drop (might as well be riding an MTB, let's be serious).
NOW, before you all freak out and say, "well I have bad back...or I care about comfort...or it's painful to ride." That's YOUR personal situation and YOUR health issues. A young rider who is fit will have no problem adjusting to the proper road cycling position. Just because you can't, doesn't mean you should advise others to ride in a similar oversized comfy geometry as you. And please, when you say you lack the flexibility to ride in a more aero position (i.e., a smaller frame), we all know that means you have a gut that can't be folded into the aero position. There is no reason a healthy, fit young rider can't ride in an aero position for 2-3 hours without issues.
And how has this all perpetuated? Simply put, out of shape obese riders whose views are reinforced by their LBS or bike fitter. These LBS are in the business of making money. When they see a middle-aged man with a gut (let's be honest, the vast majority of purchasers of high-end road bikes), they are not going to put them on a standard road geometry. They are going to put them on something that is comfortable, and can accomodate their customers' lack of flexibility and that gut which simply won't handle a proper riding position. Of course, they won't tell you that, so they just sell you a frame that is 2 sizes too large and tell you this is the "standard." And they come onto these forums and advise everyone else what the "standard" is. Also, LBS will stock sizes for their typical customer (probably between 5'9" - 6'0" with a bit of a gut, roughly aged mid-30s to 50s) so of course they will stock more larger sizes. When a healthy young fit buck shows up and wants to try the smaller size, the fitter will say "oh no that's way too small, you MUST have this larger size".
There are probably naysayers who say "but I test drove the smaller frame and it was uncomfortable!" Two explanations. One, you are either grossly obese and have a bad back and therefore you should really be on an MTB until you get your health in order, or Two, that smaller frame probably had a 80-100mm stem and of course that would feel incredibly awkward. Swap it out for a 120-140mm stem and report back next time.
Let's do a thought exercise. There are only TWO universal limitations to going "smaller". First, you run out of seatpost to achieve the proper pedaling position. Two, the stem you need in the proper position would be so long as to disrupt the fore-aft distribution on the bike. It would have to be at least 140mm or longer for this to be a serious risk. That's it.
Comfort, your poor lower back, those are all SUBJECTIVE and UNIQUE to you. If you sit around in an office all day, and are too lazy to do some minimal squats or other core body exercises on a regular basis, you're going to have problems well beyond not being comfortable on a road bike and you should get on that.
In conclusion, I want to remind you all that a ROAD BIKE is NOT an MTB, is NOT a XC or fixie or Sunday cruiser. Road bikes are meant for going fast, and for racing. The largest difference between a road bike and an MTB is NOT the width of the tires but the geometry and position. A lot of you are trying to ride a road bike in an MTB position! That's just wrong. You can of course use a road bike for whatever purpose you deem fit, but don't forget that you are in a frame 1-3 sizes too large, the pro peleton are in frames much smaller than yours for a reason. Because they don't have guts, they are not old and they don't have lower back issues.
So next time you want to troll and advise someone to get a frame too large, just add the caveat "if you are old, have bad back or have a gut."
Last edited by iheartnyc; 10-03-17 at 10:00 AM.
10-03-17, 10:03 AM
#2
Custom User Title
Join Date: May 2013
Location: SE MN
Posts: 11,239
Bikes: Fuji Roubaix Pro & Quintana Roo Kilo
Mentioned: 40 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2863 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 31 Times
in
14 Posts
I have an 80mm stem, over a half a foot of saddle to bar drop, and plenty of seat post. So I'm going to go with this post being dumb.
10-03-17, 10:04 AM
#3
Banned.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 10
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Congrats on your 80mm stem...do you want a cookie?
10-03-17, 10:12 AM
#5
Jet Jockey
This post is dumb.
Stems, like other frame parts, are proportional to the frame and the body. Shorter bikes have shorter stems, taller bikes have longer stems. Cranks follow the same.
I'm 5'6". My bikes fit very nicely with stems ranging from 90 to 110. As it should be at my size and frame sizes.
Stems, like other frame parts, are proportional to the frame and the body. Shorter bikes have shorter stems, taller bikes have longer stems. Cranks follow the same.
I'm 5'6". My bikes fit very nicely with stems ranging from 90 to 110. As it should be at my size and frame sizes.
__________________
Good night...and good luck
Good night...and good luck
10-03-17, 10:15 AM
#6
Banned.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 10
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
This post is dumb.
Stems, like other frame parts, are proportional to the frame and the body. Shorter bikes have shorter stems, taller bikes have longer stems. Cranks follow the same.
I'm 5'6". My bikes fit very nicely with stems ranging from 90 to 110. As it should be at my size and frame sizes.
Stems, like other frame parts, are proportional to the frame and the body. Shorter bikes have shorter stems, taller bikes have longer stems. Cranks follow the same.
I'm 5'6". My bikes fit very nicely with stems ranging from 90 to 110. As it should be at my size and frame sizes.
Also, no, there is no such thing as "shorter bikes." Bikes begin their lives as frames. But because LBS need to sell bikes, they put together a component to fit their target audience, i.e., an average male of average fitness, so they can sell "complete bikes", which is what the mass market is looking for. Of course a more discerning and fit rider will choose absolutely the smallest frame possible and build out the rest to fit.
If you look at the bicycles ridden by the pros, they almost universally have stems that are 120mm or longer, with a few exceptions.
Last edited by iheartnyc; 10-03-17 at 10:19 AM.
10-03-17, 10:15 AM
#7
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,570
Mentioned: 54 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1852 Post(s)
Liked 679 Times
in
430 Posts
Dictating frame size by stem length is so backward. The reason there are a variety of stem lengths is so that frames can be fit to people of different sizes, builds, flexibility...
It also completely ignores the role of handlebar reach in fit.
10-03-17, 10:19 AM
#8
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Southwestern Ontario
Posts: 5,133
Mentioned: 22 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1582 Post(s)
Liked 1,206 Times
in
612 Posts
I see a lot of posts here from people struggling between two sizes, because they are supposedly caught in the middle of some random size chart. For instance, someone who is 181cm with 84cm inseam debating between a 55 or 57 frame. More often than not you have a bunch of posters saying clearly he needs the 57, backed by their own experiences. Of course they have years of riding experiences and have convinced themselves that they (and their LBS) is correct and there is no way they have been riding on a frame that is at least one, likely two or three sizes too large.
Here is a general rule of thumb: for a healthy, young adult, if you are riding a frame that requires you to use anything shorter than a 120mm stem, you are DOING IT WRONG. The above rider should be in the 53 frame, and quite possibly a 52 if they make such a size.
You see so many riders on frames that are just too big. Little seat post showing, minimal drop (might as well be riding an MTB, let's be serious).
NOW, before you all freak out and say, "well I have bad back...or I care about comfort...or it's painful to ride." That's YOUR personal situation and YOUR health issues. A young rider who is fit will have no problem adjusting to the proper road cycling position. Just because you can't, doesn't mean you should advise others to ride in a similar oversized comfy geometry as you. And please, when you say you lack the flexibility to ride in a more aero position (i.e., a smaller frame), we all know that means you have a gut that can't be folded into the aero position. There is no reason a healthy, fit young rider can't ride in an aero position for 2-3 hours without issues.
And how has this all perpetuated? Simply put, out of shape obese riders whose views are reinforced by their LBS or bike fitter. These LBS are in the business of making money. When they see a middle-aged man with a gut (let's be honest, the vast majority of purchasers of high-end road bikes), they are not going to put them on a standard road geometry. They are going to put them on something that is comfortable, and can accomodate their customers' lack of flexibility and that gut which simply won't handle a proper riding position. Of course, they won't tell you that, so they just sell you a frame that is 2 sizes too large and tell you this is the "standard." And they come onto these forums and advise everyone else what the "standard" is. Also, LBS will stock sizes for their typical customer (probably between 5'9" - 6'0" with a bit of a gut, roughly aged mid-30s to 50s) so of course they will stock more larger sizes. When a healthy young fit buck shows up and wants to try the smaller size, the fitter will say "oh no that's way too small, you MUST have this larger size".
There are probably naysayers who say "but I test drove the smaller frame and it was uncomfortable!" Two explanations. One, you are either grossly obese and have a bad back and therefore you should really be on an MTB until you get your health in order, or Two, that smaller frame probably had a 80-100mm stem and of course that would feel incredibly awkward. Swap it out for a 120-140mm stem and report back next time.
Let's do a thought exercise. There are only TWO universal limitations to going "smaller". First, you run out of seatpost to achieve the proper pedaling position. Two, the stem you need in the proper position would be so long as to disrupt the fore-aft distribution on the bike. It would have to be at least 140mm or longer for this to be a serious risk. That's it.
Comfort, your poor lower back, those are all SUBJECTIVE and UNIQUE to you. If you sit around in an office all day, and are too lazy to do some minimal squats or other core body exercises on a regular basis, you're going to have problems well beyond not being comfortable on a road bike and you should get on that.
In conclusion, I want to remind you all that a ROAD BIKE is NOT an MTB, is NOT a XC or fixie or Sunday cruiser. Road bikes are meant for going fast, and for racing. The largest difference between a road bike and an MTB is NOT the width of the tires but the geometry and position. A lot of you are trying to ride a road bike in an MTB position! That's just wrong. You can of course use a road bike for whatever purpose you deem fit, but don't forget that you are in a frame 1-3 sizes too large, the pro peleton are in frames much smaller than yours for a reason. Because they don't have guts, they are not old and they don't have lower back issues.
So next time you want to troll and advise someone to get a frame too large, just add the caveat "if you are old, have bad back or have a gut."
Here is a general rule of thumb: for a healthy, young adult, if you are riding a frame that requires you to use anything shorter than a 120mm stem, you are DOING IT WRONG. The above rider should be in the 53 frame, and quite possibly a 52 if they make such a size.
You see so many riders on frames that are just too big. Little seat post showing, minimal drop (might as well be riding an MTB, let's be serious).
NOW, before you all freak out and say, "well I have bad back...or I care about comfort...or it's painful to ride." That's YOUR personal situation and YOUR health issues. A young rider who is fit will have no problem adjusting to the proper road cycling position. Just because you can't, doesn't mean you should advise others to ride in a similar oversized comfy geometry as you. And please, when you say you lack the flexibility to ride in a more aero position (i.e., a smaller frame), we all know that means you have a gut that can't be folded into the aero position. There is no reason a healthy, fit young rider can't ride in an aero position for 2-3 hours without issues.
And how has this all perpetuated? Simply put, out of shape obese riders whose views are reinforced by their LBS or bike fitter. These LBS are in the business of making money. When they see a middle-aged man with a gut (let's be honest, the vast majority of purchasers of high-end road bikes), they are not going to put them on a standard road geometry. They are going to put them on something that is comfortable, and can accomodate their customers' lack of flexibility and that gut which simply won't handle a proper riding position. Of course, they won't tell you that, so they just sell you a frame that is 2 sizes too large and tell you this is the "standard." And they come onto these forums and advise everyone else what the "standard" is. Also, LBS will stock sizes for their typical customer (probably between 5'9" - 6'0" with a bit of a gut, roughly aged mid-30s to 50s) so of course they will stock more larger sizes. When a healthy young fit buck shows up and wants to try the smaller size, the fitter will say "oh no that's way too small, you MUST have this larger size".
There are probably naysayers who say "but I test drove the smaller frame and it was uncomfortable!" Two explanations. One, you are either grossly obese and have a bad back and therefore you should really be on an MTB until you get your health in order, or Two, that smaller frame probably had a 80-100mm stem and of course that would feel incredibly awkward. Swap it out for a 120-140mm stem and report back next time.
Let's do a thought exercise. There are only TWO universal limitations to going "smaller". First, you run out of seatpost to achieve the proper pedaling position. Two, the stem you need in the proper position would be so long as to disrupt the fore-aft distribution on the bike. It would have to be at least 140mm or longer for this to be a serious risk. That's it.
Comfort, your poor lower back, those are all SUBJECTIVE and UNIQUE to you. If you sit around in an office all day, and are too lazy to do some minimal squats or other core body exercises on a regular basis, you're going to have problems well beyond not being comfortable on a road bike and you should get on that.
In conclusion, I want to remind you all that a ROAD BIKE is NOT an MTB, is NOT a XC or fixie or Sunday cruiser. Road bikes are meant for going fast, and for racing. The largest difference between a road bike and an MTB is NOT the width of the tires but the geometry and position. A lot of you are trying to ride a road bike in an MTB position! That's just wrong. You can of course use a road bike for whatever purpose you deem fit, but don't forget that you are in a frame 1-3 sizes too large, the pro peleton are in frames much smaller than yours for a reason. Because they don't have guts, they are not old and they don't have lower back issues.
So next time you want to troll and advise someone to get a frame too large, just add the caveat "if you are old, have bad back or have a gut."
10-03-17, 10:21 AM
#9
Banned.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 10
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Wow. There is so much wrong in that sentence.
Dictating frame size by stem length is so backward. The reason there are a variety of stem lengths is so that frames can be fit to people of different sizes, builds, flexibility...
It also completely ignores the role of handlebar reach in fit.
Dictating frame size by stem length is so backward. The reason there are a variety of stem lengths is so that frames can be fit to people of different sizes, builds, flexibility...
It also completely ignores the role of handlebar reach in fit.
If you have a custom built frame, you would never want to build a frame that requires use of a 80-100mm stem. This is pure physics, as it puts far too much of the weight distribution in the rear, which reduces your control and stability over the bike. Call me a troll all you want, but that's undeniable. A more forward position over the fork and wheel will result in achieving closer to a 60-40 or even 50-50 weight distribution.
10-03-17, 10:22 AM
#10
Occam's Rotor
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 7,248
Mentioned: 61 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2366 Post(s)
Liked 2,331 Times
in
1,164 Posts
After 4000 years of waiting, we finally have a messiah!
10-03-17, 10:25 AM
#11
Banned.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 10
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
10-03-17, 10:25 AM
#12
Occam's Rotor
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 7,248
Mentioned: 61 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2366 Post(s)
Liked 2,331 Times
in
1,164 Posts
Won't someone think of the children?
10-03-17, 10:27 AM
#13
Occam's Rotor
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 7,248
Mentioned: 61 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2366 Post(s)
Liked 2,331 Times
in
1,164 Posts
10-03-17, 10:30 AM
#14
Recusant Iconoclast
Opening post in BF, and it's that? Asinine.
Now let's see this bike of yours with the 120mm stem.
Now let's see this bike of yours with the 120mm stem.
10-03-17, 10:31 AM
#15
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: ATL ,GA. NE corridor
Posts: 192
Bikes: 17 Cannondale Synapse C; 17 DB Podium; 15 Trek Marlin 5
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 74 Post(s)
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
my bike is a little bigger for me... but I bought it used. I do need to get a smaller bike so I can get more seat stem because I would like a seat tool bag back there and lights. if not for that, I could just continue to ride this 1.
10-03-17, 10:33 AM
#16
Banned.
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 10
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Peter Sagan uses a 140mm stem. Froome/Nibali on 120mm. The vast majority of the pro peleton are between 120-140mm stem. This is because they have science, and money and careers are on the line, and because weight distribution is massively important for control. So who do you think is right? You and your local LBS? Or the pro peleton, where careers and millions are at stake?
Yeah yeah they're pro athletes, so yes they are in great shape. For an older, out of shape overweight man, yeah, get the larger frame that's the right choice. But don't try to pass it off as being the "ideal" choice. No, ideally, you would be younger, fitter and lighter, and can ride the smaller frame with the 120-140mm stem. But you can't. Doesn't mean the thousands of people who search the internet for sizing advice can't.
10-03-17, 10:35 AM
#18
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,853
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1067 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 259 Times
in
153 Posts
Did you consider that most people on this forum, and in fact most people that ride road bikes for leisure are not healthy young adults?
Also what is your cycling background that makes you so knowledgable in this area?
Also what is your cycling background that makes you so knowledgable in this area?
10-03-17, 10:37 AM
#19
Banned.
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 10
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
No, quite the contrary. Too big. This is because the frame is so large that you would need to drop the seat to achieve a proper vertical pedalling position, and because the frame is too big, you probably need to have spacers under your stem and maybe even tilt the handlebars upwards to achieve an acceptable riding position. This results in something that looks basically like a triangle between the top tube, your back and your arms, kind of like a tent aka an MTB riding position.
10-03-17, 10:41 AM
#20
working on my sandal tan
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: CID
Posts: 22,630
Bikes: 1991 Bianchi Eros, 1964 Armstrong, 1988 Diamondback Ascent, 1988 Bianchi Premio, 1987 Bianchi Sport SX, 1980s Raleigh mixte (hers), All-City Space Horse (hers)
Mentioned: 98 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3871 Post(s)
Liked 2,571 Times
in
1,579 Posts
10-03-17, 10:44 AM
#21
Senior Member
I think Grant Petersen opened a fake account and is messing with everyone.
10-03-17, 10:48 AM
#22
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 28,682
Bikes: 1990 Romic Reynolds 531 custom build, Merlin Works CR Ti custom build, super light Workswell 066 custom build
Mentioned: 109 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6556 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 58 Times
in
36 Posts
10-03-17, 10:49 AM
#23
Banned.
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 10
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
If you want to make a suggestion for a larger size for comfort reasons, you need to state clearly that this is due to old age, bad back and gut. There is an "ideal" size for an "ideal" person. My approach is to state this "ideal" to whomever asks for sizing advice. Then say, but if you have Condition X, Y or Z, you need to consider a different type of frame (endurance) or a larger frame.
Weight distribution is such an important part of cycling. In any form of racing (motobikes, cars), engineers spend millions perfecting distribution of weight and it is what separates the BMWs from the Ford Pintos (effectively, the handling). Yet SO SO SO SO SO many cyclists criminally understate the importance of the stem, thinking it merely as a simple sizing tool. No!! It plays a critical role in how much of your body weight is distributed over the front weight! But no, nobody ever talks about this. You know what is more important than your comfort? Your safety. And no, I don't feel safe with riders with 80% of their weight over their rear wheel floating around the public roads.
10-03-17, 10:50 AM
#24
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 28,682
Bikes: 1990 Romic Reynolds 531 custom build, Merlin Works CR Ti custom build, super light Workswell 066 custom build
Mentioned: 109 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6556 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 58 Times
in
36 Posts
I didn't want to post but I saw way too many terrible threads offering terrible and incorrect sizing advice.
Peter Sagan uses a 140mm stem. Froome/Nibali on 120mm. The vast majority of the pro peleton are between 120-140mm stem. This is because they have science, and money and careers are on the line, and because weight distribution is massively important for control. So who do you think is right? You and your local LBS? Or the pro peleton, where careers and millions are at stake?
Yeah yeah they're pro athletes, so yes they are in great shape. For an older, out of shape overweight man, yeah, get the larger frame that's the right choice. But don't try to pass it off as being the "ideal" choice. No, ideally, you would be younger, fitter and lighter, and can ride the smaller frame with the 120-140mm stem. But you can't. Doesn't mean the thousands of people who search the internet for sizing advice can't.
Peter Sagan uses a 140mm stem. Froome/Nibali on 120mm. The vast majority of the pro peleton are between 120-140mm stem. This is because they have science, and money and careers are on the line, and because weight distribution is massively important for control. So who do you think is right? You and your local LBS? Or the pro peleton, where careers and millions are at stake?
Yeah yeah they're pro athletes, so yes they are in great shape. For an older, out of shape overweight man, yeah, get the larger frame that's the right choice. But don't try to pass it off as being the "ideal" choice. No, ideally, you would be younger, fitter and lighter, and can ride the smaller frame with the 120-140mm stem. But you can't. Doesn't mean the thousands of people who search the internet for sizing advice can't.
10-03-17, 10:54 AM
#25
Custom User Title
Join Date: May 2013
Location: SE MN
Posts: 11,239
Bikes: Fuji Roubaix Pro & Quintana Roo Kilo
Mentioned: 40 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2863 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 31 Times
in
14 Posts
The reason there are a variety of stem lengths is so that frames that are too large can be fit to people who ideally would be in a smaller size.
If you have a custom built frame, you would never want to build a frame that requires use of a 80-100mm stem. This is pure physics, as it puts far too much of the weight distribution in the rear, which reduces your control and stability over the bike. Call me a troll all you want, but that's undeniable. A more forward position over the fork and wheel will result in achieving closer to a 60-40 or even 50-50 weight distribution.
If you have a custom built frame, you would never want to build a frame that requires use of a 80-100mm stem. This is pure physics, as it puts far too much of the weight distribution in the rear, which reduces your control and stability over the bike. Call me a troll all you want, but that's undeniable. A more forward position over the fork and wheel will result in achieving closer to a 60-40 or even 50-50 weight distribution.