HELP: Hybrid bike for a tall man

gorvers wrote:
Hi all, I am scratching my head trying to find a hybrid bike, flat
bar, for a man who is 205 cm tall. It needs to be good quality with
the right geometry - particularly top tube. He will use for touring
and commuting. Custom build is probably best but out of the guy’s
budget. Looking at up to £1500.
Thanks!!!!!

That's tall - 6' 8" if I do the math right, actually plus another 1/2 or
3/4", so almost 6' 9".

-S-

Op 29-5-2011 22:13, Steve Freides schreef:
gorvers wrote:
Hi all, I am scratching my head trying to find a hybrid bike, flat
bar, for a man who is 205 cm tall. It needs to be good quality with
the right geometry - particularly top tube. He will use for touring
and commuting. Custom build is probably best but out of the guy’s
budget. Looking at up to £1500.
Thanks!!!!!

That's tall - 6' 8" if I do the math right, actually plus another 1/2 or
3/4", so almost 6' 9".

-S-




In cm please. Left my calculator in my office.

Lou

On 5/29/2011 3:21 PM, Lou Holtman wrote:
Op 29-5-2011 22:13, Steve Freides schreef:
gorvers wrote:
Hi all, I am scratching my head trying to find a hybrid bike, flat
bar, for a man who is 205 cm tall. It needs to be good quality with
the right geometry - particularly top tube. He will use for touring
and commuting. Custom build is probably best but out of the guy�s
budget. Looking at up to �1500.
Thanks!!!!!

That's tall - 6' 8" if I do the math right, actually plus another 1/2 or
3/4", so almost 6' 9".

-S-




In cm please. Left my calculator in my office.

Lou

6'9" = 2.98 el or 20.6 palm (to use Dutch units Lou will understand).

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

Lou Holtman wrote:
Op 29-5-2011 22:13, Steve Freides schreef:
gorvers wrote:

a man who is 205 cm tall.
^^^^^^
^^^^^^

That's tall - 6' 8" if I do the math right, actually plus another 1/2 or
3/4", so almost 6' 9".

In cm please. Left my calculator in my office.


I'm guessing about 205cm...


--
Tad McClellan
email: perl -le "print scalar reverse qq/moc.liamg\100cm.j.dat/"
The above message is a Usenet post.
I don't recall having given anyone permission to use it on a Web site.

On 5/29/2011 6:34 PM, Tad McClellan wrote:
Lou wrote:
Op 29-5-2011 22:13, Steve Freides schreef:
gorvers wrote:

a man who is 205 cm tall.
^^^^^^
^^^^^^

That's tall - 6' 8" if I do the math right, actually plus another 1/2 or
3/4", so almost 6' 9".

In cm please. Left my calculator in my office.


I'm guessing about 205cm...

Ding, ding, ding!

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

"SMS" wrote in message
...
On 5/28/2011 11:19 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:

I'm only 6'5", but seem to need larger frames than most. My last
road bike was a 27" frame Panasonic.

You can often find some used Panasonic bicycles with large frames,
i.e. http://sfbay.craigslist.org/sby/bik/2405924912.html. Other than
that, I think the o.p. will need to go custom. The curse of compact
frames has eliminated off-the-shelf bicycles for very tall people.


"Compact" is a style, not a size. To the extent that it has been
(mis)used by some to eliminate sizes, yes, that's a bad thing (Giant
started that trend). But many manufacturers offer as many, if not more
sizes in "compact" style than they did iwth parallel top tubes.

The only thing that changes in a "compact" frame, by definition, is a
lower seat-tube/top tube junction than would be found on a standard
frame. In terms of fit issues, "compact" does bring one thing to the
party that isn't found with a standard frame- the ability to fit someone
who has very short legs in relation to arms & torso, and prefers a
taller handlebar position. That person can choose a larger compact frame
than they could fit with a standard type (and the larger frame will have
a longer top tube).

The example that I can personally vouch for comes, of course, from Trek
(because that's what I sell so that's what I know). The Trek carbon road
bikes can be found in 47, 50, 52, 54, 56, 58, 60, 62 & 64cm, all in
"compact." That is actually one size more than was available with a
"standard" frame in the past (2007 & earlier). Ironically, the
additional size is the 64cm, allowing us to fit taller people than we
could prior to "compact" sizing. But "compact" has nothing to do with it
(the ability to fit someone taller); Trek simply made a choice to take
care of taller people. Not tall enough for the tallest people, but
better off than what we had before.

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

Op 30-5-2011 5:28, Mike Jacoubowsky schreef:
wrote in message
...
On 5/28/2011 11:19 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:

I'm only 6'5", but seem to need larger frames than most. My last
road bike was a 27" frame Panasonic.

You can often find some used Panasonic bicycles with large frames,
i.e.http://sfbay.craigslist.org/sby/bik/2405924912.html. Other than
that, I think the o.p. will need to go custom. The curse of compact
frames has eliminated off-the-shelf bicycles for very tall people.


"Compact" is a style, not a size. To the extent that it has been
(mis)used by some to eliminate sizes, yes, that's a bad thing (Giant
started that trend). But many manufacturers offer as many, if not more
sizes in "compact" style than they did iwth parallel top tubes.

The only thing that changes in a "compact" frame, by definition, is a
lower seat-tube/top tube junction than would be found on a standard
frame. In terms of fit issues, "compact" does bring one thing to the
party that isn't found with a standard frame- the ability to fit someone
who has very short legs in relation to arms& torso, and prefers a
taller handlebar position. That person can choose a larger compact frame
than they could fit with a standard type (and the larger frame will have
a longer top tube).

We all now that Mike, except the people who don't like the looks of
compact frames. They use that as an excuse/reasoning for their
preference. It is their shortsightness. Well....
BTW you get a sloping toptube also from raising the front end, so you
can rid of a stack of ugly spacers.

Lou

Lou Holtman wrote:

Mike Jacoubowsky schreef:

"Compact" is a style, not a size. To the extent that it has been
(mis)used by some to eliminate sizes, yes, that's a bad thing (Giant
started that trend). But many manufacturers offer as many, if not more
sizes in "compact" style than they did iwth parallel top tubes.

I have yet to see that. Mostly I notice the previously common system
of 48cm to 68cm in 2cm increments has been replaced with S/M/L/XL (and
if you're lucky, "XS" and "XXL" as well). That's not the same, and
the biggest shortfalls seem to be on the extremes of the size range.

We all now that Mike, except the people who don't like the looks of
compact frames. They use that as an excuse/reasoning for their
preference. It is their shortsightness.

I once had a 68.5cm touring bike frame with a 62cm top tube replaced
under warranty with its new version, size Jumbo. "Jumbo" in this case
meant 59cm x 59cm. Yes, the top tube sloped, but only up to a point
some 4cm lower than the other bike's.

I hope I do not have to explain that the shift to compact geometry in
this case meant the manufacturer no longer made a bike in my size. It
is this, and not whether or not the top tube slopes, that has turned
many of us off on compact geometry and the manufacturing philosophy
that brought it to us.

Chalo

On 5/30/2011 12:51 PM, Chalo wrote:

I hope I do not have to explain that the shift to compact geometry in
this case meant the manufacturer no longer made a bike in my size. It
is this, and not whether or not the top tube slopes, that has turned
many of us off on compact geometry and the manufacturing philosophy
that brought it to us.

It's not the philosophy of compact frames that turns people off, it's
the result!

Manufacturers were simply seeking to lower their costs by reducing the
number of different size frames that they had to manufacture. With three
or four sizes of compact frames, the manufacturer can tailor the bicycle
to fit most, though not as many as before, customers. They simply use a
longer seat post to fit taller riders, at least up to a point. They can
also use a longer steer tube and use spacers between the headset and the
stem to raise the bars. A kludge to be sure, but who cares about the
outliers in terms of body size?!

What a lot of us really don't like are the false rationalizations used
to justify the move to compact frames, i.e. that the smaller frame is
lighter, and "livelier." Of course the longer seat post negates the
benefit of the lower weight of the compact frame, so it's not really any
lighter. At least they should just admit that compact frames save the
manufacturer a lot of money, in a multitude of ways, and not lie about it!

There was a good article (preserved through the wonder of the Internet
Archive) about compact geometry frames on the Cannondale web site at:
http://web.archive.org/web/20011202004447/http://www.cannondale.com/bikes/innovation/sloping.html
which stated: "there's a disturbing trend among some bike companies to
re-tool their road frames by shortening the seat tube and slanting the
top tube down from the head tube. This new design "breakthrough," they
argue, saves frame weight. And if you take their claim literally,
they're right - a shorter seat tube does make a bare frame a little
lighter. What they don't tell you is that their complete bicycle
actually weighs more than a bike with a conventional geometry." Of
course that was the old Cannondale, who knows that they're doing now as
part of Dorel.

SMS wrote:

There was a good article (preserved through the wonder of the Internet
Archive) about compact geometry frames on the Cannondale web site at:
http://web.archive.org/web/20011202004447/http://www.cannondale.com/b...
which stated: "there's a disturbing trend among some bike companies to
re-tool their road frames by shortening the seat tube and slanting the
top tube down from the head tube. This new design "breakthrough," they
argue, saves frame weight. And if you take their claim literally,
they're right - a shorter seat tube does make a bare frame a little
lighter. What they don't tell you is that their complete bicycle
actually weighs more than a bike with a conventional geometry." Of
course that was the old Cannondale, who knows that they're doing now as
part of Dorel.

That's also funny in light of the fact that Cannondale MTBs were the
first sloping top tube diamond frame bikes I ever saw, back in the
1980s. Cannondale has been one of the worst offenders in terms of
reducing frame size range and enlarging increments between successive
sizes when they dropped dimension-based sizing.

Chalo