HELP: Hybrid bike for a tall man

Op 30-5-2011 21:51, Chalo schreef:
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

It is all anectdotical 'evidence' Chalo. Shall I give you an example of
some persons I know that could only be fitted correctly on a compact frame?
I ordered some frames (for me and some of my riding buddy's) from these
guys:

http://www.canyon.com/_nl/racefietsen/bike.html?b=2139

Sloping toptube and 9 sizes from 50 cm to 66 cm with increments of 2 cm.
Excellent frame. There a many manufacturers who offer this. Not at Wall
Mart. Choice is enormous. If you want a horizontal toptube you can buy
one, not as easy as it used to be, I admit, but hé cars look also
different these days then they did 20 years ago.

Lou

On 5/30/2011 1:42 PM, Chalo wrote:

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.

Was that pre-bankruptcy or post-bankruptcy?

Chalo wrote:
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


Did you read Mike Burrows' book? He says he invented it.

http://www.alibris.com/booksearch?ke....y=0&hs=Submit

http://preview.tinyurl.com/3ts9f9h

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 5/30/2011 3:12 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Chalo wrote:
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


Did you read Mike Burrows' book? He says he invented it.

http://www.alibris.com/booksearch?ke....y=0&hs=Submit


http://preview.tinyurl.com/3ts9f9h


Hmm, I have a book by the co-author, Tony Hadland, on folding bikes,
"It's in the Bag" but never heard of Burrows.
http://www.hadland.me.uk/page4.html.

Cannondale made nice panniers, but their bicycles were never anything to
write home about. Still you have to admire their marketing, they took a
cheaper frame material and convinced a lot of naive buyers to pay a lot
more for bicycles made from it. Once all the other manufacturers
realized how much money they could save by using cheaper materials,
Cannondale lost their uniqueness.

On May 30, 5:12*pm, AMuzi wrote:
Chalo wrote:
SMS wrote:

..."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. *

Did you read Mike Burrows' book? He says he invented it.

http://www.alibris.com/booksearch?ke...n+burrows&mtyp....

http://preview.tinyurl.com/3ts9f9h

Archibald Sharp's book from the Gay Nineties (as opposed to the ghey
'90s) has plenty of drawings of sloping top tube bikes. But I didn't
see any sloping top tube diamond frames other than BMX stuff until
Cannondale appeared in my world.

Chalo

SMS wrote:

Cannondale made nice panniers, but their bicycles were never anything to
write home about. Still you have to admire their marketing, they took a
cheaper frame material and convinced a lot of naive buyers to pay a lot
more for bicycles made from it.

Cannondale frames from before the aluminum rush are stronger, stiffer,
and more durable than any steel frames weighing less than twice as
much. After the rest of the industry turned to aluminum, they
resorted to some silly conceits that gave away those initial virtues,
but at first they were really on to something.

The Cannondale bike I rode to work today has reached an age at which
it could accompany me into a bar if it was thirsty. It has outlasted
all of its original components except the 1-1/4" headset-- remember
those? And it even has a few of the goofy marketing-driven frame
features that compromised its once-mighty breed.

Chalo

On May 31, 4:56*am, Chalo wrote:


Archibald Sharp's book from the Gay Nineties (as opposed to the ghey
'90s) has plenty of drawings of sloping top tube bikes. *But I didn't
see any sloping top tube diamond frames other than BMX stuff until
Cannondale appeared in my world.

Fred DeLong's book, _DeLong's Guide to Bicycles and Bicycling_ has
many photos showing him riding his custom touring bike with its
sloping top tube. That was published in 1974. IIRC, DeLong liked the
better standover clearance. But the slope was not great, and the bike
was custom, not production.

- Frank Krygowski

On 5/28/2011 1:47 AM, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
=====
wrote in message
...
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!!!!!
======

A number of manufacturers, including Trek, make hybrids in 64cm size at
reasonable prices. The issue could be the top tube though... since you
mentioned that specifically, is this guy someone with a really long
torso compared to legs, or the other way 'round? Most taller hybrids
don't have really long top tubes, so if that's the issue, then you might
have to go custom.

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

I'm 210 cm tall. My preference is for touring frames, mostly because
they tend to be a bit over-built, have longer wheelbase (mostly from
longer chain stays) and usually will accept larger tire sizes. As Mike
points out, the critical dimension is top tube length, you can get long
seat posts and raise the bars with various steer tube extenders and
stems, but there's not much you can do for a too short cockpit. A longer
wheelbase and stiffer frame make a bike much more stable in the largest
sizes. I have been unimpressed by the big custom bikes I have seen. A
touring frame set up with wide tires and a triple chain ring will do
everything that a hybrid will and then some. It doesn't need to be
prohibitively expensive, either. My main road ride these days is a bike
I built up ~6 years ago from a new (old stock) Fuji touring frame and
various components purchased on sale, total cost around $600.

My current collection of road bikes includes 2 (aluminum) Cannondale's
and 2 (steel) Fuji's, all 68 cm. The Fuji's are nice, the Cannondale's
are nicer (lighter, stiffer). The frames are all between 10 and 25 years
old. I'm not sure what's available these days. A 64 cm frame might work
for someone 205 cm tall, depending on the frame's geometry and the
person's anatomy. If the guy really wants a hybrid style bike, I'd
suggest starting with a touring bike (or at least frame) and "hybridize"
from there. A conversion to a flat bar would likely necessitate swapping
the brake levers and shifters, but those could be resold, and flat bar
(MTB) components are relatively cheap. The real challenge of creating a
tall bike is tweaking things, which requires a good bike mechanic.

On 6/1/2011 6:32 AM, Peter Cole wrote:

My current collection of road bikes includes 2 (aluminum) Cannondale's
and 2 (steel) Fuji's, all 68 cm. The Fuji's are nice, the Cannondale's
are nicer (lighter, stiffer). The frames are all between 10 and 25 years
old.

You still see some 68 cm tourers show up on craigslist. The frame is
probably fine, and is a good base to build up a complete bike.

Rivendell still makes some large frames. My tall nephew in Minnesota was
going to get one until his shop told him that there were so many former
Trek frame builders from when Trek did all U.S. production that he could
get a custom built frame for less than the Rivendell.

"Chalo" wrote in message
...
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.

All you have to do is look at a catalog. Trek added sizes, not
subtracted, when they went to "compact" styling. But you've always been
out of luck with most large-scale bike companies; aside from Panasonic's
brief flirtation with really large sizes (using inappropriate diameter
steel tubing), and Cannondale's (which worked very well in oversized
aluminum but didn't sell well enough to continue production), people
your size haven't had much in the way of mainstream choices. Trek has
never, and never will, make a 68cm frame, and likely not even a 66cm.
Just not enough sales in such sizes to make it practical for their type
of manufacturing.

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.

Yes, no way that "jumbo" size came close to replacing what you had
before! Too bad stack & reach is a difficult thing to move to, since it
describes frame size far more accurately than anything else so far.

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.

No argument from me! It's just unfortunate that many believe the move to
"compact", by definition, means fewer frame sizes. It certainly did when
Giant pushed it on the world, but that hasn't been the case for Trek
and, I suspect, many others. They may have initially hoped it would be,
but intelligence prevailed, at least for this one item anyway.


Chalo

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