Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:

"SMS" wrote in message
| I see some bicycles in bike shops that also come in that kind of sizing,
| though they sometimes have XS, and XL as well.

Which isn't great, but it's a retreat from Giant's original idea that,
indeed, you could fit everybody with a very small number of sizes. I don't
know if there's a magic number, it bit seems that, with 13 different sizes
for many of my bikes (8 men's, 5 women's), if I can't fit someone, I need to
find a new business. Trust me, I can understand the desire to tame
inventory! However, the desire to properly fit people so they really enjoy
riding is more important.

Well since you're in the business, I guess I have to cut you
some slack on critiquing the micro-fit view of getting someone
on a properly sized bike.

However I'm of the school that a small number of frame sizes
actually are all that is needed to produce "suitable fit".

I have road bikes of 58 and 60cm sizes (Trek 520 and 2000)
and mountain bikes of 54cm and 22 inch (dumpster rescued Trek
7000 and Raleigh Mojave 5.0).

With the addition of stem extenders and high rise, long stems
and many long seat posts available on the market, all my bikes
are quite comfortable.

They are different enough that when I get on one of them after
an absence of some time, they can "feel funny" at first, but I
have ridden some of these bikes very long distances. Last
year I broke my saddle time record while on a tour with over 9
hours of actual peddling in a day. No real problems.

Add to this the adjustability of the body itself, I think you
can have a very small number of bike sizes, combined with stem
and seatpost lengths/adjustments to handle proper fit of almost
anyone.

You're always going to have some small/large sized person
outliers that require more custom fits, but I believe three
sizes of bike in some S/M/L grouping would be sufficient for
90+% of the pedaling public.


SMH