[CR]Frame sizing compromises.

(Example: Production Builders:Peugeot)

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 11:02:34 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Tom Dalton" <tom_s_dalton@yahoo.com>
To: castell5@sympatico.ca, Classic Rendezvous <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
Subject: [CR]Frame sizing compromises.

I didn't get the joke either. But what I was going to say was...

I ride bikes 60cm center to top. I prefer not to go bigger, and will go smaller by 1.5 cm, no more. I've come to realize thet TT length is at least as important, and prefer 57.5 cm, though obviously this changes as seat tube angles stray from the the 73 or so degrees that seems normal form frames my size. If I go shorter or longer and compensate with a different stem, it just isn't the same. My bike that currently gets the most use (relatively speaking) is more like 58.3 across the top and requires that I use a shorter (120mm) stem. I took some getting used to and it's less than ideal (but it's hard to argue with a decent NOS 80's D'accodri at $175). But this brings me to an actual point, which is that one of the few thinks that really bugs me about the current marketplace is the fact that stems now all come in 1 cm increments when they used to come in 0.5 cm increments. I think 1cm is too big a jump to really dial in a bike. Seat height seems to require approximately 2-3mm accuracy before it seems to feel wrong, so how can they justify jumping the reach in 10mm increments? This is even more annoying to me than the complexity of getting the bar height correct with threadless setups...

Tom Dalton Bethlehem, Pennsylvania USA

__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com