What Newbie Tourer for £600?

[webber]

spa cycles have these at the moment
http://www.spacycles.co.uk/products.php ... b0s21p2416

[531colin]

............My inner leg is 34-34.5". I'll look at 57/58 then. Thanx.

Tricky buying a bike based on "measurements"....My trousers are 31", so I guess 33" to the floor...but 34" saddle to pedal, as measured previously
My advice is to always get a test ride.

[maxglide]

@CREPELLO » Mon May 20, 2013 9:26 am

Therefore, buying a bike online using only the company's sizing guide, looks like a non starter, unless you try out a bike at your LBS or high street chain, then purchase it online. From what I gather, sensible buyers would buy it from their LBS anyway, and create a relationship with them.

[maxglide]

spa cycles have these at the moment
http://www.spacycles.co.uk/products.php ... b0s21p2416

I was about to reply, Did you miss my £600, when I saw the, LOOK!!! NOW £550.00

Your eye goes immediately to, OUR PRICE £850.00

They should have a word with their webmaster.

[samsbike]

Custom bikes or bikes that are too small for us.

Really?
This is Spas 54, set up for me at 5' 10"....saddle to pedal distance 34" ...(http://www.spacycles.co.uk/info/pedaltosaddle.php)




Somebody 2" taller than me will want their saddle an inch or so higher, at a guess, so a 57 frame should be easily big enough.....heres the 57 with 35" saddle to pedal.........



whats your saddle to pedal measurement that can't be accommodated by a 60cm frame?

Colin when you quote the above in terms of sizes are you quoting effective tt or the vertical saddle to paddle distance?

[simonhill]

I am confused, is Colin's Spa tourer thatt keeps getting re-posted a £600 bike or is this just a bit of free 'advertising'?

[531colin]

I am confused, is Colin's Spa tourer thatt keeps getting re-posted a £600 bike or is this just a bit of free 'advertising'?

Its my attempt to stop the OP buying unseen a bike that's 2 sizes too big for him.

Get the mods to delete it if it offends your sensibilities.

EDIT ....Sorry, that's a bit confrontational, isn't it?

We took a series of photos to show what the different size bikes would look like with the saddle set at heights to suit different (height) riders.
If you know of a similar series of photos available, I would happily use them for similar discussions of bike sizing.

[531colin]

Colin when you quote the above in terms of sizes are you quoting effective tt or the vertical saddle to paddle distance?

Sizes (54cm, 57cm) are frame size measured traditionally, ie from BB spindle to the top of the seat tube. Saddle to pedal is measured vertically from the pedal at the bottom to the top of the saddle, as on Spa's site.

[simonhill]

It wasn't the showing, but the showing 3 times that got me. This obviously wasn't your fault, Colin.

Probably not the place to discuss it, but it does raise the question (and someting that does aggravate me) as to why people need to (re) copy whole posts when replying. This is meant to be a thread - that is something that you can read right through. Constantly re-reading the same post is a bit annoying and tends to makes me 'lose the thread'.

Nice bike, though. If I had a camera I would post my luverly Surly.

[Ant]

That Ridgeback on ebay is potentially a bargain - depending on who sees it...

I have exactly the same model and have found it an excellent commuting bike and despite being a bit heavy, is so much faster than my previous flat bar commuter. The 60cm frame is pretty big and I found the stem (110mm) too long for me and replaced it with an 80mm stem which is spot on. I am only 6 foot 1 and have a 34 inch inside leg but am not particularly long in the upper body and I still have the seatpost quite high (higher than the one in the ebay link). Any smaller frame size would have seen me crouched right down on this bike, which was not what I wanted. Quite what really tall people do is another question...

Personally I would say the Ridgeback is worth a punt, but as others point out, if you are not sure then there is no real substitute for trying bikes out.

[horizon]

Unless I've got the wrong end of the seatpost so to speak, I still don't see the problem with sizing. If a manufacturer offers four sizes S, M, L and XL (or some combination of meaningless numbers that mean the same thing) you just have to think: how big am I - S, M. L, XL? Easy. All bikes have to be adjusted to fit - that's why you have seatposts that slide up and down and saddles that move forwards and backwards and stems of different lengths. And modern bikes with sloping top tubes are even more adjustable. If you are stuck or really cannot decide between two sizes, it means that either (i.e. both) will fit you. Of course, as Colin points out, no bike is well proportioned with so few sizes and frames. But you are buying an off the shelf bike at a fantastic price - later you can order the frame of your dreams.

[maxglide]

All bikes have to be adjusted to fit - that's why you have seatposts that slide up and down and saddles that move forwards and backwards and stems of different lengths.

That's what I thought. The key phrase, All bikes have to be adjusted to fit. It's not Savile Row. If you fall between 2 sizes, should you go up or down? I'd be inclined to go up.

[531colin]

.......... Of course, as Colin points out, no bike is well proportioned with so few sizes and frames. ............

Errrrrrrrrrrrr....I didn't mean to say that...?

Actually, I can get comfortable on Spas 51, 54, and 57, and I have taken the 48 out for an hour or two, but that needed a really big stem.....

[531colin]

All bikes have to be adjusted to fit - that's why you have seatposts that slide up and down and saddles that move forwards and backwards and stems of different lengths.

That's what I thought. The key phrase, All bikes have to be adjusted to fit. It's not Savile Row. If you fall between 2 sizes, should you go up or down? I'd be inclined to go up.

As somebody pointed out earlier, you can always buy a really long seatpost and get the saddle high enough .....the choice between 2 sizes of bike usually comes down to a trade off between handlebar height and reach.....the bigger bike will have higher bars, but a long reach....the smaller bike will have a shorter reach, but at the cost of lower bars. Heres the E bay Ridgeback we are talking about, ......



Now as far as I'm concerned, the steerer is cut woefully short.....anybody who is tall enough to need a decent bit of seatpost showing is going to have the bars lower than the saddle unless they buy a high rise stem.
Ant has more or less bought a "size up" and got the bar height, then bought a short stem to reduce the reach...

[belgiangoth]

whats your saddle to pedal measurement that can't be accommodated by a 60cm frame?

come on colin, you know better than that - one measurement is not enough. Some people like large frames, some don't. I had someone 4" shorter than me ride my bike, he thought it was far too big for him and I think it's far too small for me. Sure, you can make bikes work with raised stems and seatposts, but that doesn't mean the bike fits.