Standover height

[Paul Turner]

I have a question about standover height. I accept that one can be injured
falling hard on the top tube, and it seems to follow that the higher the
tube the more the likelihood of hitting it. What I don't understand, though,
is why flatfooted standover height plus some margin (like two inches) is
often promoted as the standard for safety. Is there really a big
discontinuity in the risk at that height? I find it hard to imagine
accidents on a road bike in which one would come down with both feet flat
and the bike in an upright position, especially using toe clips or clipless
pedals. My accidents all seem to involve falling over. As long as the rider
can mount easily and stand comfortably at a stop, does an inch or two of
standover margin matter for accidents that are actually likely? Whether I
have half and inch or three inches of flatfooted standover height seems not
irrelevant, exactly, but more a matter of degree than something that
presents a demonstrably greater risk of injury. I have enough doubts,
though, to ask about it here. Does anyone have experience or know of studies
suggesting a basis for the two-inch rule?

The context for this is that with my recent frame swap I went up a size. I'm
a tall guy with legs that are short for my height, and I like the fit of the
bigger frame. The standover is definitely snug, though. I can stand
comfortably flat footed but there is no room to spare. I went small the
first time out of respect for the ostensibly greater safety of a lower top
tube.

--
Paul Turner

[Jeff Williams]

Paul Turner wrote:
> I have a question about standover height. I accept that one can be injured
> falling hard on the top tube, and it seems to follow that the higher the
> tube the more the likelihood of hitting it. What I don't understand, though,
> is why flatfooted standover height plus some margin (like two inches) is
> often promoted as the standard for safety. Is there really a big
> discontinuity in the risk at that height? I find it hard to imagine
> accidents on a road bike in which one would come down with both feet flat
> and the bike in an upright position, especially using toe clips or clipless
> pedals. My accidents all seem to involve falling over. As long as the rider
> can mount easily and stand comfortably at a stop, does an inch or two of
> standover margin matter for accidents that are actually likely? Whether I
> have half and inch or three inches of flatfooted standover height seems not
> irrelevant, exactly, but more a matter of degree than something that
> presents a demonstrably greater risk of injury. I have enough doubts,
> though, to ask about it here. Does anyone have experience or know of studies
> suggesting a basis for the two-inch rule?
>
> The context for this is that with my recent frame swap I went up a size. I'm
> a tall guy with legs that are short for my height, and I like the fit of the
> bigger frame. The standover is definitely snug, though. I can stand
> comfortably flat footed but there is no room to spare. I went small the
> first time out of respect for the ostensibly greater safety of a lower top
> tube.
>
> --
> Paul Turner
>
>
I recall hearing a comedian (I cannot recall who) noting, about
bicycles, that he didn't understand why the ones with the balls got the
ones with the bars, a question I often ponder.

[[email protected]]

Paul Turner writes:

> I have a question about standover height. I accept that one can be
> injured falling hard on the top tube, and it seems to follow that
> the higher the tube the more the likelihood of hitting it. What I
> don't understand, though, is why flat footed standover height plus
> some margin (like two inches) is often promoted as the standard for
> safety.

The whole idea is something that lives in someone's mind. I have not
heard of such an injury and I also recall that I and all my friends at
school often rode older brother's bicycle on which we could not get
both feet on the ground. This is a bugaboo that thrives on a life of
its own.

The matter got revived when the sloping top tube was introduced to
reduce the number of different frame sizes needed to fill the pallet.
No one was ready to admit that there are no more frame sizes and that
only seat post lengths are sold today. Therefore, lets cover that up
as a stand-over safety feature.

Bicycling is and always has been full of a raft of myth and lore.

Jobst Brandt

[Zoot Katz]

On 14 Dec 2005 03:39:59 GMT, wrote:

>The matter got revived when the sloping top tube was introduced to
>reduce the number of different frame sizes needed to fill the pallet.

I'm left wondering if "palette" isn't the intended word
--
zk

[[email protected]]

Someone writes:

>> The matter got revived when the sloping top tube was introduced to
>> reduce the number of different frame sizes needed to fill the
>> pallet.

> I'm left wondering if "palette" isn't the intended word

palette : a comparable range, quality, or use of available elements
especially in another art (as music)

or as I intended, a range of choices. Is that what you were thinking?
So how does that affect your stand-over height? ...oops I meant impact.

Jobst Brandt

[Bob]

wrote:
> Paul Turner writes:
>
> > I have a question about standover height. I accept that one can be
> > injured falling hard on the top tube, and it seems to follow that
> > the higher the tube the more the likelihood of hitting it. What I
> > don't understand, though, is why flat footed standover height plus
> > some margin (like two inches) is often promoted as the standard for
> > safety.
>
> The whole idea is something that lives in someone's mind. I have not
> heard of such an injury and I also recall that I and all my friends at
> school often rode older brother's bicycle on which we could not get
> both feet on the ground. This is a bugaboo that thrives on a life of
> its own.

It may or may not cause injury in a fall but inadequate standover
height can and sometimes does cause pain/discomfort during the simple
act of stopping and standing. It has happened to me on any number of
bikes. Those occasional incidences of pain/discomfort were reason
enough for me to finally invest in a bike that actually fit. In this
case, one man's bugaboo is another's truth.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

[Paul Turner]

Bob wrote:

> It may or may not cause injury in a fall but inadequate standover
> height can and sometimes does cause pain/discomfort during the simple
> act of stopping and standing. It has happened to me on any number of
> bikes. Those occasional incidences of pain/discomfort were reason
> enough for me to finally invest in a bike that actually fit. In this
> case, one man's bugaboo is another's truth.

I would think a bike would actually have to have negative standover height
to be unconfortable when stopping and standing. Even on this bike with
little standover margin I'm perfectly at ease in normal stop posture, with
one foot still clipped and the bike at a bit of an angle. The only time I
notice the top tube is when mounting. I've discovered I have a habit of
getting on the bike from the left and then transferring my weight to the
right leg so I can take off left footed. That'll probably change now.

--
Paul Turner

[[email protected]]

Bob Hunt writes:

>>> I have a question about standover height. I accept that one can be
>>> injured falling hard on the top tube, and it seems to follow that
>>> the higher the tube the more the likelihood of hitting it. What I
>>> don't understand, though, is why flat footed standover height plus
>>> some margin (like two inches) is often promoted as the standard for
>>> safety.

>> The whole idea is something that lives in someone's mind. I have
>> not heard of such an injury and I also recall that I and all my
>> friends at school often rode older brother's bicycle on which we
>> could not get both feet on the ground. This is a bugaboo that
>> thrives on a life of its own.

> It may or may not cause injury in a fall but inadequate standover
> height can and sometimes does cause pain/discomfort during the
> simple act of stopping and standing. It has happened to me on any
> number of bikes. Those occasional incidences of pain/discomfort were
> reason enough for me to finally invest in a bike that actually
> fit. In this case, one man's bugaboo is another's truth.

You're getting old and fuzzy. With "Injury in a fall" I see a
doomsday attitude just like so many people once thought the elbow in
the classic quill stem would disembowel a rider who went over the
bars. Both concepts are false mental images, not derived from
reality. If that were not the case, we should have heard of such
injuries long ago and we haven't.

Jobst Brandt

[Zoot Katz]

On 14 Dec 2005 06:10:49 GMT, wrote:

>Someone writes:
>
>>> The matter got revived when the sloping top tube was introduced to
>>> reduce the number of different frame sizes needed to fill the
>>> pallet.
>
>> I'm left wondering if "palette" isn't the intended word
>
>palette : a comparable range, quality, or use of available elements
> especially in another art (as music)
>
>or as I intended, a range of choices. Is that what you were thinking?
>So how does that affect your stand-over height? ...oops I meant impact.
>
If the bike's on a shipping pallet then there's another 15 or so
centimeters to the ground.

Either word makes sense in the sentence.
--
zk

[Jeff Starr]

On 14 Dec 2005 06:10:49 GMT, wrote:

>Someone writes:
>
>>> The matter got revived when the sloping top tube was introduced to
>>> reduce the number of different frame sizes needed to fill the
>>> pallet.
>
>> I'm left wondering if "palette" isn't the intended word
>
>palette : a comparable range, quality, or use of available elements
> especially in another art (as music)
>
>or as I intended, a range of choices. Is that what you were thinking?
>So how does that affect your stand-over height? ...oops I meant impact.
>
>Jobst Brandt

And here I thought you meant a shipping pallet.

pal·let n.

5. A portable platform used for storing or moving cargo or freight.


Life is Good!
Jeff

[wle]

i will tell you one accident you will wish for lots of standover
height:

foot-off-pedal types [assuming you are standing, which
increases the likelihood of this type thing]

chain slips
gear skips
crank/pedal/BB/chain/freewheel breaks
wheel slips on road
foot comes off pedal



any of that happens and you are coming down on the bar, dude.


wle.

[[email protected]]

someone snipes:

> i will tell you one accident you will wish for lots of standover
> height:

> foot-off-pedal types [assuming you are standing, which increases the
> likelihood of this type thing]

> chain slips
> gear skips
> crank/pedal/BB/chain/freewheel breaks
> wheel slips on road
> foot comes off pedal

Nice imagination but untrue. As I said, if this ever occurred to
someone, you would hear about it. Besides the bicycle under
discussion is one with pedal attachment and if you cant reach the
pedal at the bottom of its stroke, you can't ride. Your imagined
scenarios don't wash.

> any of that happens and you are coming down on the bar, dude.

You may believe so, but it isn't true. Besides, how do you know this
with such assurance? I don't believe you have had any of these
failures AND experienced injury from landing on the top tube.

I have had some of these failures and can assure you that if your
freewheel fails you go over the bars with no contact with the bicycle.
Chain skipping of wheels slipping does only that and does not alter
rider position. Finally, how do you visualize "foot coming off the
pedal" to cause injury?

Do you also write computer viruses in your spare time?

Jobst Brandt

[Bob]

wrote:

> You're getting old and fuzzy. With "Injury in a fall" I see a
> doomsday attitude just like so many people once thought the elbow in
> the classic quill stem would disembowel a rider who went over the
> bars. Both concepts are false mental images, not derived from
> reality. If that were not the case, we should have heard of such
> injuries long ago and we haven't.
>
> Jobst Brandt

Since my post dealt with another so-called safety consideration- one
that is more accurately described as a comfort concern- and it began
with, "It may or may not cause injury in a fall but...", I'd say if
either of us is getting old and fuzzy it's you. Read what I wrote, not
what you think I should have written.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

[Bob]

Paul Turner wrote:
> Bob wrote:
>
> > It may or may not cause injury in a fall but inadequate standover
> > height can and sometimes does cause pain/discomfort during the simple
> > act of stopping and standing. It has happened to me on any number of
> > bikes. Those occasional incidences of pain/discomfort were reason
> > enough for me to finally invest in a bike that actually fit. In this
> > case, one man's bugaboo is another's truth.
>
> I would think a bike would actually have to have negative standover height
> to be unconfortable when stopping and standing. Even on this bike with
> little standover margin I'm perfectly at ease in normal stop posture, with
> one foot still clipped and the bike at a bit of an angle. The only time I
> notice the top tube is when mounting. I've discovered I have a habit of
> getting on the bike from the left and then transferring my weight to the
> right leg so I can take off left footed. That'll probably change now.
>
> --
> Paul Turner

Negative standover height *is* inadequate standover height isn't it?
:-)

Regards,
Bob Hunt

[Bill Sornson]

Bob wrote:
> wrote:
>
>> You're getting old and fuzzy. With "Injury in a fall" I see a
>> doomsday attitude just like so many people once thought the elbow in
>> the classic quill stem would disembowel a rider who went over the
>> bars. Both concepts are false mental images, not derived from
>> reality. If that were not the case, we should have heard of such
>> injuries long ago and we haven't.
>>
>> Jobst Brandt
>
> Since my post dealt with another so-called safety consideration- one
> that is more accurately described as a comfort concern- and it began
> with, "It may or may not cause injury in a fall but...", I'd say if
> either of us is getting old and fuzzy it's you. Read what I wrote, not
> what you think I should have written.

Jobst is in a mood today.

Bill "'splainer" S.

[[email protected]]

Bob Hunt writes:

>>>>> I have a question about standover height. I accept that one can
>>>>> be injured falling hard on the top tube, and it seems to follow
>>>>> that the higher the tube the more the likelihood of hitting
>>>>> it. What I don't understand, though, is why flat footed
>>>>> standover height plus some margin (like two inches) is often
>>>>> promoted as the standard for safety.

>>>> The whole idea is something that lives in someone's mind. I have
>>>> not heard of such an injury and I also recall that I and all my
>>>> friends at school often rode older brother's bicycle on which we
>>>> could not get both feet on the ground. This is a bugaboo that
>>>> thrives on a life of its own.

>>> It may or may not cause injury in a fall but inadequate standover
>>> height can and sometimes does cause pain/discomfort during the
>>> simple act of stopping and standing. It has happened to me on any
>>> number of bikes. Those occasional incidences of pain/discomfort
>>> were reason enough for me to finally invest in a bike that
>>> actually fit. In this case, one man's bugaboo is another's truth.

>> You're getting old and fuzzy. With "Injury in a fall" I see a
>> doomsday attitude just like so many people once thought the elbow in
>> the classic quill stem would disembowel a rider who went over the
>> bars. Both concepts are false mental images, not derived from
>> reality. If that were not the case, we should have heard of such
>> injuries long ago and we haven't.

> Since my post dealt with another so-called safety consideration- one
> that is more accurately described as a comfort concern- and it began
> with, "It may or may not cause injury in a fall but...", I'd say if
> either of us is getting old and fuzzy it's you. Read what I wrote,
> not what you think I should have written.

Well it's all there and I see nothing I missed or failed to comment
on. What is it you think I got wrong?

Anyway, maybe you can show where there is something we should worry
about. As I said, beginning riders in my youth often rode older
brother's bicycles on which they could barely reach the bottom of the
stroke while practically sitting on the toptube. This could be called
negative standover clearance. Maybe you started riding later but
neither I nor anyone I rode with had the imagined problem that you
allude to. I think I hear chicken little's warnings.

Jobst Brandt

[Bob]

wrote:

> Well it's all there and I see nothing I missed or failed to comment
> on. What is it you think I got wrong?
>
> Anyway, maybe you can show where there is something we should worry
> about. As I said, beginning riders in my youth often rode older
> brother's bicycles on which they could barely reach the bottom of the
> stroke while practically sitting on the toptube. This could be called
> negative standover clearance. Maybe you started riding later but
> neither I nor anyone I rode with had the imagined problem that you
> allude to. I think I hear chicken little's warnings.
>
> Jobst Brandt

What you missed is that I clearly said it was more aptly called a
comfort issue than a safety issue. That *you* never experienced
something doesn't mean it has never occurred so let me make you an
offer. If you keep the snide "imagined problem" and "chicken little"
comments to yourself I won't claim that since I've never met an
engineer that wasn't a jerk that they must all be jerks. Deal?

Regards,
Bob Hunt

[[email protected]]

Bob Hunt writes:

>> Well it's all there and I see nothing I missed or failed to comment
>> on. What is it you think I got wrong?

>> Anyway, maybe you can show where there is something we should worry
>> about. As I said, beginning riders in my youth often rode older
>> brother's bicycles on which they could barely reach the bottom of
>> the stroke while practically sitting on the toptube. This could be
>> called negative standover clearance. Maybe you started riding
>> later but neither I nor anyone I rode with had the imagined problem
>> that you allude to. I think I hear chicken little's warnings.

> What you missed is that I clearly said it was more aptly called a
> comfort issue than a safety issue. That *you* never experienced
> something doesn't mean it has never occurred so let me make you an
> offer. If you keep the snide "imagined problem" and "chicken
> little" comments to yourself I won't claim that since I've never met
> an engineer that wasn't a jerk that they must all be jerks. Deal?

"Comfort issue"?

The trouble you are having is that you have no problem, only an
imagined one. What is "comfort" when you can stand flat footed
astride the bicycle? You didn't say the top tube made contact with
any part of your anatomy. This is all so unreal. You allude to
things that remain undefined and not unexplained. What are readers to
make of this, other than you giving dire warnings that it will cause
some undefined discomfort.

Jobst Brandt

[Bill Sornson]

wrote:
> Bob Hunt writes:
>
>>> Well it's all there and I see nothing I missed or failed to comment
>>> on. What is it you think I got wrong?
>
>>> Anyway, maybe you can show where there is something we should worry
>>> about. As I said, beginning riders in my youth often rode older
>>> brother's bicycles on which they could barely reach the bottom of
>>> the stroke while practically sitting on the toptube. This could be
>>> called negative standover clearance. Maybe you started riding
>>> later but neither I nor anyone I rode with had the imagined problem
>>> that you allude to. I think I hear chicken little's warnings.
>
>> What you missed is that I clearly said it was more aptly called a
>> comfort issue than a safety issue. That *you* never experienced
>> something doesn't mean it has never occurred so let me make you an
>> offer. If you keep the snide "imagined problem" and "chicken
>> little" comments to yourself I won't claim that since I've never met
>> an engineer that wasn't a jerk that they must all be jerks. Deal?
>
> "Comfort issue"?
>
> The trouble you are having is that you have no problem, only an
> imagined one.

AAAARRRRGHGHGHGGHGHGH!!! I couldn't stand it one more second.

The fact is that YOU MISREAD AND/OR MISREPRESENTED WHAT BOB WROTE. And now
you're presuming to tell him what he has or has not experienced!

You're a real piece of work.

Bill "and work is over-rated" S.

[[email protected]]

Bill Sornson writes:

>>>> Well it's all there and I see nothing I missed or failed to comment
>>>> on. What is it you think I got wrong?

>>>> Anyway, maybe you can show where there is something we should
>>>> worry about. As I said, beginning riders in my youth often rode
>>>> older brother's bicycles on which they could barely reach the
>>>> bottom of the stroke while practically sitting on the toptube.
>>>> This could be called negative standover clearance. Maybe you
>>>> started riding later but neither I nor anyone I rode with had the
>>>> imagined problem that you allude to. I think I hear chicken
>>>> little's warnings.

>>> What you missed is that I clearly said it was more aptly called a
>>> comfort issue than a safety issue. That *you* never experienced
>>> something doesn't mean it has never occurred so let me make you an
>>> offer. If you keep the snide "imagined problem" and "chicken
>>> little" comments to yourself I won't claim that since I've never
>>> met an engineer that wasn't a jerk that they must all be
>>> jerks. Deal?

>> "Comfort issue"?

>> The trouble you are having is that you have no problem, only an
>> imagined one.

> AAAARRRRGHGHGHGGHGHGH!!! I couldn't stand it one more second.

> The fact is that YOU MISREAD AND/OR MISREPRESENTED WHAT BOB WROTE.
> And now you're presuming to tell him what he has or has not
> experienced!

Maybe you didn't notice but the reason there are inclusions of prior
statements is to clarify these things. However, when I included what
was said, it was again deleted from Bob's response and tangent
references made to what isn't.

You are doing the same thing. Maybe you could explain how the problem
occurs with low standover clearance. You'll note that there is no
words above explaining what the problem is, either in what Bob said or
what you wrote. What I am pointing out is that the "comfort" to which
is alluded is neither defined or explained ho0w it is lost.

If you know what it is, you might reveal the secret.

> You're a real piece of work.

You're right, tracking down open ended allusions to undefined problems
is a tedious piece of work. I also mentioned earlier that there is
hardly an adult bicycle sold today that doesn't have a steeply
slanting downtube (hyena style) that standover clearance is a concern.

> Bill "and work is over-rated" Sornson.

Whose work?

Jobst Brandt

[Bill Sornson]

wrote:
> Bill Sornson writes:
>
>>>>> Well it's all there and I see nothing I missed or failed to
>>>>> comment on. What is it you think I got wrong?
>
>>>>> Anyway, maybe you can show where there is something we should
>>>>> worry about. As I said, beginning riders in my youth often rode
>>>>> older brother's bicycles on which they could barely reach the
>>>>> bottom of the stroke while practically sitting on the toptube.
>>>>> This could be called negative standover clearance. Maybe you
>>>>> started riding later but neither I nor anyone I rode with had the
>>>>> imagined problem that you allude to. I think I hear chicken
>>>>> little's warnings.
>
>>>> What you missed is that I clearly said it was more aptly called a
>>>> comfort issue than a safety issue. That *you* never experienced
>>>> something doesn't mean it has never occurred so let me make you an
>>>> offer. If you keep the snide "imagined problem" and "chicken
>>>> little" comments to yourself I won't claim that since I've never
>>>> met an engineer that wasn't a jerk that they must all be
>>>> jerks. Deal?
>
>>> "Comfort issue"?
>
>>> The trouble you are having is that you have no problem, only an
>>> imagined one.
>
>> AAAARRRRGHGHGHGGHGHGH!!! I couldn't stand it one more second.
>
>> The fact is that YOU MISREAD AND/OR MISREPRESENTED WHAT BOB WROTE.
>> And now you're presuming to tell him what he has or has not
>> experienced!
>
> Maybe you didn't notice but the reason there are inclusions of prior
> statements is to clarify these things. However, when I included what
> was said, it was again deleted from Bob's response and tangent
> references made to what isn't.
>
> You are doing the same thing. Maybe you could explain how the problem
> occurs with low standover clearance. You'll note that there is no
> words above explaining what the problem is, either in what Bob said or
> what you wrote. What I am pointing out is that the "comfort" to which
> is alluded is neither defined or explained ho0w it is lost.
>
> If you know what it is, you might reveal the secret.

Damn, Jobst, it's late. Sigh...here we go.

Bob wrote (as quoted by you): "It may or may not cause injury in a fall but
inadequate standover height can and sometimes does cause pain/discomfort
during the simple act of stopping and standing. It has happened to me on any
number of bikes. Those occasional incidences of pain/discomfort were reason
enough for me to finally invest in a bike that actually fit. In this case,
one man's bugaboo is another's truth."

To which you replied (rather snottily): "You're getting old and fuzzy.
With "Injury in a fall" I see a doomsday attitude just like so many people
once thought the elbow in the classic quill stem would disembowel a rider
who went over the bars. Both concepts are false mental images, not derived
from reality. If that were not the case, we should have heard of such
injuries long ago and we haven't."

So rather than comprehend and address what Bob /actually wrote/, you instead
meanly demean him for what he DIDN'T mean. (Hint: he didn't fear monger or
invoke "doomsday" scenarios at all.)

He then points this out to you and again, instead of either just admitting
you misconstrued what he wrote, you again insult him AND dismiss what he
says are HIS PERSONAL EXPERIENCES simply because they haven't happened to
have happened to you. (Too lazy to get quotes; anyone can read 'em if
thread intact.) BTW, ask Lance how it feels to slip off a pedal and land
hard on the top tube...


>> You're a real piece of work.

> You're right, tracking down open ended allusions to undefined problems
> is a tedious piece of work. I also mentioned earlier that there is
> hardly an adult bicycle sold today that doesn't have a steeply
> slanting downtube (hyena style) that standover clearance is a concern.
>
>> Bill "and work is over-rated" Sornson.
>
> Whose work?

Whoosh.

Bill "old and fuzzy much?" S .

[Zoot Katz]

On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 07:44:09 GMT, "Bill Sornson"
> wrote:

> BTW, ask Lance how it feels to slip off a pedal and land
>hard on the top tube...

About half as bad as anyone else in the peloton.
--
zk

[Bill Sornson]

Zoot Katz wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 07:44:09 GMT, "Bill Sornson"
> > wrote:

>> BTW, ask Lance how it feels to slip off a pedal and land
>> hard on the top tube...

> About half as bad as anyone else in the peloton.

Of all the people for whom to play straight man...

Bill "no /additional/ pun intended" S.