I'm the opposite. As I've become an old fart, I've gone from 53 or 54 cm to riding a lot of 56 cm frames. Knees are fine, partly because I was never foolish enough to abuse them by jogging. But the old back doesn't like low bars any more and 56cm makes it easier to raise the bars while maintaining minimum stem insertion. I guess how you shift your frame size depends on what body parts wear out first.
Jerry Moos Houston, TX
RB <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: I'd like to hear again what peoples thoughts are on this subject. I think it varies between the vintage and modern riders.
It is a known fact that people 'shrink' a bit as they age. This could account for it. I also think that as the knees (and other things) age, it becomes more comfortable, and more confidence inspiring on a slightly smaller bike.
-----Original Message----- From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On Behalf Of Michael Francis Butler Sent: Friday, July 15, 2005 3:36 PM To: email@example.com Subject: [CR] Frame Size & Saddle Height
I know this is an old chestnut but what do other members think is the appropriate frame size for inside leg measurements. Do you subtract 9.5" from the inside leg measurement to get the correct frame size. Also when setting the correct saddle height do you place the heels on the pedals and pedal backwards without rocking in the saddle. Some people I know measure their inside leg and multiply by a number, I think its 1.08 to get the measurement to set the saddle height. I would be very interested to know especially as there are many frame builders on the list. Finally I was always advised to ride a 22.5" or 23" frame but nowadays I ride a 22" or 21.5" and I feel a lot happier. Is this old age stoop setting in. Michael B Huntingdonshire UK -- Michael Francis Butler firstname.lastname@example.org