Cycling UK Forum

Psamathe wrote: Very flashy trendy site though - pity it does not get the message across effectively.

Ian

531colin wrote:

Keezx wrote:
The small sizes will usually also have shallower head angles, therefore short riders all prefer less twitchy steering......?
Somewhere on here http://forum.ctc.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=50886&hilit=anthropomorphic&start=60 is a thread that started looking for an "A4 size" bicycle wheel, and finished by reporting a lot of anthropomorphic (?) data, which didn't support the often-repeated "fact" that women have long legs compared to men, or that tall people have relatively longer legs.
What is true is that the small range of saddle adjustment front to back is constant across all sizes, and so will be a bigger percentage of the height of short riders.
The manipulation of the frame angles in the different sizes seems to me to serve the "purpose" of getting riders of all heights on bikes with as close as possible the same wheelbase.....apparently the tight control of wheelbase is a paramount consideration, more important than getting the saddle in the right place, more important than steering geometry, more important than weight distribution.
.............I think its tripe, personally.

kylecycler wrote:Keesx - concerning the benefit of steep seat angles on small frames, there was a great story that appeared on Dave Moulton's blog a few months ago. Someone on the Retrobike forum had rescued a Dave Moulton track bike with a small frame from the dump. Turned out it had been built for Margaret ('Maggie') Thompson, who won the Ladies 3,000 metre Pursuit title on it in the British National Championships in 1977 and '78. Maggie got word of the story about her old frame and commented below Dave's blog post, explaining why its 77 degree (she'd previously been stuck with 73 degree) seat angle worked for her (she's 5' 3" tall):
CUT

Manc33 wrote:I wouldn't even buy "electronic gearing" if it were the same price as mechanical.

Samuel D wrote:I like to wrap up the threads I start if there is anything to wrap up. In this case I snagged a Facom BT.11A from eBay for €19.50 (with local pickup). The toolbox is in good shape – just a bit of surface rust and flaking paint here and there, as if it had been stored for a few years but seldom used – so I’m happy.

Tonight I transferred most of my tools into it:

CUT

Mick F wrote:
The top tube has no bearing in the seat tube angle BUT with a sloping top tube, you have a long seat post. That long seat post can have a longer setback than a short seatpin could ever have.

I have a 73deg parallel frame, and it has been suggested that if it were 72deg I could put my saddle forwards a bit.

WHY?

reohn2 wrote:I'm coming to the conclusion that steep seatube angled frames are only made to make the bike look faster,and have no place in practicality.

Mick F wrote:
Seat tube angle in a diamond frame is obviously important for saddle position. My point is that with low top tubes, the seat tube angle is less important than on a frame with a high top tube because you can scour the world for a suitable seat post.