You are reading a single comment by @number6 and its replies. Click here to read the full conversation.
  • sorry not opening up the whole debate on frames here just

    **"whacking this here largely so i can refer to it as a link , to save me the time on the seat post size / top tube debate during sales here and elsewhere. **"

    i'm not saying that top tube is the last word - only very quickly visualizing for people that seat tube is not a complete definition of frame fit (that's it nothing else). yes there are other issues (like an assumption of parallel head and seat tube angles, placement of weight over the wheelbase etc. ), but i'm not starting the whole debate here...

    but this

    "I don't think many people would consider seat-tube length to be the sole defining criterion of 'frame size' " yes in an ideal world - but having sold well over 200 bikes and frames - i know a lot of people do consider the seat tube length to be the one and only dimension to be concerned with . the picture's presumptuous simplicity is not aimed to inform clued up bike nuts like ourselves - this is just a resource for me to refer the casual buyer to

    now i can just link to the picture to show people it's not as easy as just stating the 'frame size' as i've found myself explaining many times - a lot more on ebay than here

    @ thecarsonmccullers

    that TT bike - i agree - you 'll see this one http://static.lfgss.com/attachments/34819d1294689639-sl378550.jpg will be similar in real fit - but if were to report only on the seat post length (c to top ) one would sound much bigger than the other . not only is the rider position very sloped but they normally run a lot of stem to help on-tribars stability, so yes there are tons of anomalies but that doesn't change my one and only assertion , (that will not be news to you or i, but will be to a lot of people i'll send this link) :

    seat tube is not a complete definition of frame fit

About

Avatar for number6 @number6 started