Site hosted by Angelfire.com: Build your free website today!
« November 2009 »
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30
Entries by Topic
All topics  «
Beer
Cycling
Dieting
Blog Tools
Edit your Blog
Build a Blog
RSS Feed
View Profile
You are not logged in. Log in
The Cat's Meow
Saturday, 28 November 2009
Another bike fit fad challenged (Updated)
Mood:  quizzical
Topic: Cycling

Interesting read regarding frame size at Rivendell Bicycle Works website:

In General - people ride bikes that are too small. If you go into a bike shop or ask the local fast riders about frame sizing, you'll likely hear comments such as, "Smaller bikes are lighter, stiffer, more maneuverable, and more efficient."

To that we say this: Small has to be lighter, but we're talking ounces, and let's not talk about ounces until your belly is so ripped that you're regularly mistaken for one of those guys in the Dance Theater of Harlem.

Lots more at this link: http://www.rivbike.com/article/bike_fit/choosing_a_frame_size

 My thought on the topic?  "Can you comfortably ride it?"

UPDATE: Yes, I know Rivendell builds touring bikes, but there's still considerable wisdom in their writings.  It doesn't matter if you're a competitive cyclist or a club rider, you still have to finish.  Why be miserable on your compact carbon fiber wonder when a centimeter or so and an extra pound or two of cromoly steel eases your pain and suffering?  The pros rode larger frames in the 70s and 80s because they knew better.

Are you going to ride your bike or weight it?  Food for thought . . .


Posted by ciocc-cat at 3:37 PM CST
Updated: Sunday, 29 November 2009 6:28 PM CST
Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post

View Latest Entries