Compact Aluminum Frames CONTINUED!!!

[abrown360]

I am the original poster of the Aluminum Composite vs Steel Standard
message today, and I am in Seattle (someone was wondering).

So the Fuji League that I am looking it at is a compact frame, Med
50cm. The size below is Sm 44cm, and the size above is Lg 56cm. I have
been sized at 52cm. Will the compact frame 50cm Fuji League be able to
accomodate me? I have ridden the bike, and it feels all right. Is it ok
to get the bike below your size a bit, and have it adjusted to fit? Is
that the point of compact frames? To be adjusted? What exactly do they
adjust?

I like the downtube shifters, and the cheaper component set (mainly due
to the CHEAP replacement cost, I am very bike accident prone). I really
wish there was a 2004 or 2003 Fuji League out there, it would make all
this much easier.

Eeek! What do I do? I will be making a lot more money in about a year,
so I can get a better bike then. For the time being I am thinking I
should just buy the cheapo Fuji League and roll with it?

Anyone out there buy a bike a bit smaller than their ideal size? Does
it work out OK with the adjustments? Whaddya think? What have you
experienced?

[Rich Clark]

"abrown360" > wrote in message
ps.com...

> Anyone out there buy a bike a bit smaller than their ideal size? Does
> it work out OK with the adjustments? Whaddya think? What have you
> experienced?

My experience is that it's better to buy too big, as long as you can still
stand over it. As you become acclimated, you tend to expand a bike: raise
the saddle, extend the reach, move the saddle back. A too-small frame may
not give you any room to do that.

I have heard that newbies buying too-small bikes is a common mistake, and I
believe it.

RichC


>

[Steven M. Scharf]

Rich Clark wrote:

> I have heard that newbies buying too-small bikes is a common mistake, and I
> believe it.

It's very common, but don't blame the newbies, blame the shops that are
selling them too-small bikes.

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

> Anyone out there buy a bike a bit smaller than their ideal size? Does
> it work out OK with the adjustments? Whaddya think? What have you
> experienced?

Buy a bike the right size. Period. There's nothing more important to your
comfort and enjoyment than getting a bike that fits well. In many cases,
that might mean selecting the shop more than it does the bike itself. Find a
shop that takes fit seriously and will work with you on it... not just when
you buy it, but even afterward (in terms of changing out the stem, making
seat adjustments, etc).

A shop that will willingly sell you the wrong size bike (assuming that
someone other than yourself has determined that the bike you're looking at
is too small) is probably not a shop to buy a bike from.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com


"abrown360" > wrote in message
ps.com...
>I am the original poster of the Aluminum Composite vs Steel Standard
> message today, and I am in Seattle (someone was wondering).
>
> So the Fuji League that I am looking it at is a compact frame, Med
> 50cm. The size below is Sm 44cm, and the size above is Lg 56cm. I have
> been sized at 52cm. Will the compact frame 50cm Fuji League be able to
> accomodate me? I have ridden the bike, and it feels all right. Is it ok
> to get the bike below your size a bit, and have it adjusted to fit? Is
> that the point of compact frames? To be adjusted? What exactly do they
> adjust?
>
> I like the downtube shifters, and the cheaper component set (mainly due
> to the CHEAP replacement cost, I am very bike accident prone). I really
> wish there was a 2004 or 2003 Fuji League out there, it would make all
> this much easier.
>
> Eeek! What do I do? I will be making a lot more money in about a year,
> so I can get a better bike then. For the time being I am thinking I
> should just buy the cheapo Fuji League and roll with it?
>
> Anyone out there buy a bike a bit smaller than their ideal size? Does
> it work out OK with the adjustments? Whaddya think? What have you
> experienced?
>

[Steven M. Scharf]

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>>Anyone out there buy a bike a bit smaller than their ideal size? Does
>>it work out OK with the adjustments? Whaddya think? What have you
>>experienced?
>
>
> Buy a bike the right size. Period.

Good advice, but with compact frames, each size fits a wider range of
riders than was the case with traditional geometry frames. The bicycle
that the original poster is considering is a prime example, since from
2004 to 2005 they went from a traditional frame, offered in seven sizes,
to a compact frame offered in small, medium, and large. So if he was
sized at 52 cm for a traditional geometry frame, he probably would fit
the medium size in a compact frame, with appropriate adjustments to the
seat height and handlebar position.

It's similar to the cheap shirts that come in S,M,L & XL, as opposed to
twenty or so combination of neck sizes and arm lengths of the more
expensive shirts. The former kind of fits okay, but aren't optimal; the
neck may be a bit too tight or too loose, and the arms may bunch up or
not extend to the wrist. The latter is more expensive for the
manufacturer to produce and distribute, and more trouble for the
retailer to stock, but better for the consumer.

[David]

In article m>,
abrown360 > wrote:

> I am the original poster of the Aluminum Composite vs Steel Standard
> message today, and I am in Seattle (someone was wondering).
>
> So the Fuji League that I am looking it at is a compact frame, Med
> 50cm. The size below is Sm 44cm, and the size above is Lg 56cm. I have
> been sized at 52cm. Will the compact frame 50cm Fuji League be able to
> accomodate me? I have ridden the bike, and it feels all right. Is it ok
> to get the bike below your size a bit, and have it adjusted to fit? Is
> that the point of compact frames? To be adjusted? What exactly do they
> adjust?
>

Bike fitting should be based on the type of riding you do, how fit you
are, how flexible your joints, neck and back are as well as your normal
cadence output.

As that all will be determined by a very experienced bike fitter, it's
important to find a shop that will spend the time fitting you to any
bike that falls within your budget, and not just a brand of bike.

David.

[David]

In article >, Rich Clark
> wrote:

> "abrown360" > wrote in message
> ps.com...
>
> > Anyone out there buy a bike a bit smaller than their ideal size? Does
> > it work out OK with the adjustments? Whaddya think? What have you
> > experienced?
>
> My experience is that it's better to buy too big, as long as you can still
> stand over it. As you become acclimated, you tend to expand a bike: raise
> the saddle, extend the reach, move the saddle back. A too-small frame may
> not give you any room to do that.
>
> I have heard that newbies buying too-small bikes is a common mistake, and I
> believe it.
>
> RichC

It all depends on what you mean by a common mistake by buying too small
of a bike. You have to understand that many newbies buy bikes when
they are rarely as fit or flexible joint wise as we more experienced
cyclists are accustomed to. So, their start riding position will
always be upright or some super upright.
The bike shop isn't going to sell this newbie rider a super long top
tube and stretched out ride (typical of a larger frame), even it he or
she might end up with one in a long distant future. He's going to sell
what the customer needs at that point in time, which can be a smaller
frame plus a stem extender.

Ofcourse, when this person rides more and more and more, he or she
becomes more flexible and be able to bend down more and more to get
more leverage and push bigger gears. But because the bike was set up
to ride upright, the cockpit becomes tight as your butt scoots back and
the upper body lean forward and low, assuming a more aero position.

What to do then?

Like most people do.

Buy a seatpost with a certain setback. Titec makes one for triathlon
events that gives a long forward or rear setback.
Secondly. You can switch to a longer stem OR slap on clip-on aerobars.

Don't confuse this as a mistake. It's a function of our body getting
more flexible as we ride more.

David.

[[email protected]]

abrown360 wrote:
>
>
> Anyone out there buy a bike a bit smaller than their ideal size? Does
> it work out OK with the adjustments? Whaddya think? What have you
> experienced?

I didn't _buy_ a bike a bit smaller, but I ride one frequently. Here's
my story:

In 1974, I was quite poor. I couldn't even afford to _dream_ about a
Raleigh International, but I thought that someday, someday I could save
enough to buy a Raleigh Super Course. Someday.

And after years of wishing, I learned that my guitar teacher had one
languishing in his basement. It had very low miles, but it needed
_lots_ of attention. I traded a perfectly tuned cheap German ten speed
for that bike.

It was too small - a 21.5" frame. I fit better on a 22.5"

I'm still commuting to work on that Raleigh, all these years later. At
first, I just put up with the handlebars being a little too low. Later
I put a taller stem on the bike. And yes, I have more than a fistful
of seatpost showing. (Before compact frames, that was one way to
evaluate bike size.) And yes, some people have told me the bike was
actually too small for me.

But it's served me well over the years. It's done multi-hundred-mile
loaded tours, and thousands and thousands of miles commuting. I'm more
comfortable on my larger Cannondale, but I do fine on the Raleigh too.

It's better to get a properly fitting bike, no doubt. If you're buying
new, you should certainly do that. But a frame a _little_ small isn't
a disaster.

- Frank Krygowski

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article >,
"Steven M. Scharf" > wrote:

> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> >>Anyone out there buy a bike a bit smaller than their ideal size? Does
> >>it work out OK with the adjustments? Whaddya think? What have you
> >>experienced?
> >
> >
> > Buy a bike the right size. Period.
>
> Good advice, but with compact frames, each size fits a wider range of
> riders than was the case with traditional geometry frames. The bicycle
> that the original poster is considering is a prime example, since from
> 2004 to 2005 they went from a traditional frame, offered in seven sizes,
> to a compact frame offered in small, medium, and large. So if he was
> sized at 52 cm for a traditional geometry frame, he probably would fit
> the medium size in a compact frame, with appropriate adjustments to the
> seat height and handlebar position.
>
> It's similar to the cheap shirts that come in S,M,L & XL, as opposed to
> twenty or so combination of neck sizes and arm lengths of the more
> expensive shirts. The former kind of fits okay, but aren't optimal; the
> neck may be a bit too tight or too loose, and the arms may bunch up or
> not extend to the wrist. The latter is more expensive for the
> manufacturer to produce and distribute, and more trouble for the
> retailer to stock, but better for the consumer.

The difference, of course, is that your local couturier usually doesn't
also stock the parts to easily change the neck and arm size of their
garments (well, maybe they do if they have a tailor on site; there's a
sweet spot of tailoring where the garment is expensive enough to be
worth the cost of alteration).

As Sheldon has pointed out, long seatposts are an innovation that
mountain bikes brought to cycling at about the same time as they
introduced low-standover (effectively, compact) frames.

Combined with a wider variety of stems (and, in those cases where the
steer tube is left at a proper length, vertical adjustability) on the
market, a single frame can fit a vastly wider range of riders. There are
limits, and there are some riders who will almost always need custom
frames for an ideal fit, owing to quirky bodies.

Moreover, threaded stems, besides being a lousy joint and marginally
heavier than threadless setups, also have a funky failure mode: moisture
(sweat) can drop down the stem and corrosively bond the quill into the
steer tube. This very thing has happened to a pretty 80s-vintage steel
frame ridden by a club-mate of mine.

Now, I like traditional-geometry and steel as much as the next guy: I
raced a wildly outdated steel Pinarello for a few years. I am presently
exploiting its horizontal dropouts and cold-settable frame to build a
really nice road fixie. But understand the tradeoffs: a really light,
very expensive steel frame will hit 3.5 pounds (about 1500g). 1500-2000g
aluminum frames cost $120-500 new (Nashbar's Frame is the archetypal
example). Light, expensive aluminum frames are 1000-1300g, and zany
race-grade cf and stupidlight aluminum frames are now below 900g.

These are marginal advantages. But the inexpensive end of decent modern
aluminum frames will cost more and weigh more than any decent steel
frame (ask not about the evil that be low-end "hi-ten" steel and
department-store aluminum bikes).

Repairability, for most riders, is all hype. You can buy another
aluminum frame for less than the cost of most repairs. An exception is
made for world travelers, but only a small exception.

If you're not racing, my standard recommendation is to scour garage
sales. I don't do as much scouring these days, but in the last two years
I pulled a variety of frames from garage sales and dumpsters. $10 at
various garage sales bought me a really nice Mikado touring frame, a
Bianchi which still serves as my commuter, and an early-70s Motobecane.
The Nishiki which I sold to a friend after some upgrades (brakes and
rear cogs, mainly). These bikes are all serviceable, durable, and (it
goes without saying given their age) steel.

Racers have different priorities, and few of them are likely to be
really happy with the compromises in a $10 garage-sale bike :). I have a
lot of bikes in my shed, but the race bike (my "serious" road bike, but
one of three I normally keep around) is a cheap 1500g aluminum frame
that, with a bunch of stuff I bought cheaply, built up into something
like a 19-pound bike (my conservative estimate after some preliminary
weighing) for relatively little money. I wouldn't recommend this
approach for a first bike, because it took me months to assemble the
parts from my various deals, and you have to ride in the meantime.
Moreover, I had a pretty good idea of what I needed, and was able to fit
it up on my own.

http://wiredcola.blogspot.com/2005_05_29_wiredcola_archive.html#111786997
317601208

http://tinyurl.com/89dl5

In conclusion: buy a bike that fits. The cheapest good used bikes are
likely to be steel. The cheapest good new bikes are likely to be
aluminum. The lightest bikes tend to be carbon fibre or aluminum. The
most wildly indestructible bikes are probably made of Ti. For that trip
across Africa, go for the steel frame.

Horses for courses,

--
Ryan Cousineau http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

I submit that on or about 2 Jun 2005 14:37:16 -0700, the person known
to the court as "abrown360" > made a statement
m> in Your
Honour's bundle) to the following effect:

>Anyone out there buy a bike a bit smaller than their ideal size? Does
>it work out OK with the adjustments? Whaddya think? What have you
>experienced?

Go to a proper bike shop and use their bike fit system. For a
reasonable approximation in the comfort of your own home, try
http://www.wrenchscience.com/WS1/Secure/Fitting/Height.asp

And don't get too hung up on it, because unless you are riding
thousands of miles a year or competing seriously, an inch out in the
frame size is honestly no big deal. Think of all those kids who ride
the same bike for two or three years, while putting on multiple inches
in height.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound