Re: [CR]I'm gonna get on the fit soapbox now....

(Example: Humor:John Pergolizzi)

From: "jerrymoos" <jerrymoos@sbcglobal.net>
To: "Fred Rafael Rednor" <fred_rednor@yahoo.com>, <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
References: <20040116153044.6883.qmail@web11901.mail.yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [CR]I'm gonna get on the fit soapbox now....
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 10:32:28 -0600


It is most definitely true that women have longer legs relative to their torso length than do men. This does not apply to every individual of course, but statistically it it true. I am 5'8" and my wife is 5'6". We have almost identical inseam and need the same bike standover height. This is pretty typical of male/female proportions. I ride, ideally, a 53 or 54cm frame c-c. A lot of old French frames with 54 ST have a 56 or 57 TT. The worst bike I have in this regard is a Austro-Daimler Superleicht, with a 53 cm ST and 57 cm TT.

I don't think this particularly fits even short male cyclists. I prefer a "square" frame, with ST and TT approximately equal. For a woman, of course, a 53 x 57 is an even larger problem. Fortunately old stems were avaialable in much shorter extensions then the current stuff. Everyone used to make 80 mm stems, 70mm and 60mm were not uncommon and even 50mm could be found if you looked hard and weren't particular about the other features. On my Austro-Daimler I have a 60mm stem. However, a woman with my leg length will typically be about 2" shorter and need a stem several cm shorter than 60mm on a 53 x 57 frame. Even in the old days, they rarely made stems several cm shorter than 60mm, so for a typical woman, a 53 x 57 is simply never going to be comfortable. At about a 50 cm ST, it gets even worse, as minimum TT length is dictated by the 700c front wheel.

All this is why Georgina Terry has built a successful business serving the needs of women cyclists, with TT's equal to or shorter than the ST, and with 650c or smaller front wheels on smaller frames. She also sells very short stems, narrow short reach bars, and of course women's saddles. The "female specific" frames recently offered by large manufacturers are about two decades behind Georgina. Of course good custom framebuilders could always cater to the needs of women riders, althogh custom frames of course cost more.

Regards,

Jerry Moos
Houston, TX


----- Original Message -----
From: Fred Rafael Rednor
To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 9:30 AM
Subject: Re: [CR]I'm gonna get on the fit soapbox now....



> > Most men under 5' 8" have really long
> > torsos and arms, and this gets more
> > exaggerated as they get shorter...
> I don't think that's an accurate generalization. None of the
> shorter male cyclists in my circle of riding buddies (including
> myself) have such a physique. I really doubt the differences
> are _that_ great and I suspect that many short men would be
> beter served by riding frames that are sold as "women
> specific".
>
> I think there are various reasons why smaller frames have been
> built with disproportionately long top tubes and here's why
> this discussion has classic content: I believe that one
> important reason for the long top tubes is that, in the past,
> many of the smaller frames were meant for larger people. This
> was especially the case in England. I've had this discussion
> several times when looking at frames being sold by folks like
> Hilary Stone.
>
> When I expressed surprise at the long top tubes, the typical
> explanation has been that during the 1950s English builders
> started to build smaller frames with longer top tubes. They
> expected the rider to set up the bike with a lot of seat post
> showing. (Hilary, please correct me if I've explained this
> incorrectly.)
>
> I suspect that shorter riders were just expected to "make due"
> and adapt either themselves or the bikes to whatever extent
> possible. I think this eventually just became common practice.
> Anyway, I know of no 5'5" tall human, male or female, who
> could ride a frame with a 52cm seat tube and a 57cm top tube.
> Perhaps Kokomo Jr. the chimpanzee would fit those proportions.
>
> Anyway, if you have a 51cm to 53cm frame with a short top tube
> (52 or 53 max), my e-mail address is in the header of this
> message and I'm in the phone book.
> Best regards to all,
> Fred "San" Rafael Rednor - Arlington Virginia
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
> http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus