New bikes are Huuuge! Zaskar trigger warning!

We seem to be at communicational loggerheads. I say 'tops'.. you say 'yes just to the hoods'. That's about 5cm different... and the not-so-subtle sub-text of my post was that bike fit hasn't come any way at all in forty+ years. Why would it?.🙂
 
We seem to be at communicational loggerheads. I say 'tops'.. you say 'yes just to the hoods'. That's about 5cm different... and the not-so-subtle sub-text of my post was that bike fit hasn't come any way at all in forty+ years. Why would it?.🙂
Maybe because of your metric system? We has flats, and hoods, and drops. The tops I assumed you meant hands on the hoods.

Edit: my apologies, I totally misread what you wrote.

From what I’ve seen there was a size and rider proportion that correctly fit bikes in the 70s, but stray above 5’8” and the correct rider proportions became… strange because torso wasn’t allowed to grow with height. It’s possible you’re within the parameters of the old fit in which case indeed nothing changed. Lucky you.

when I was of bike shopping age there were stores selling frames with more reasonable fit for “typically dimensioned” taller people. I got to experience the damage though because there were still stores that tried to shoehorn me onto bikes that didn’t fit. I think we’ve all seen classic non custom road bikes where reach was too short while top tube was uncomfortably high? That’s fit damage that has been largely fixed in last 30 years. Made me mad when snobby stores didn’t know how to fit a bike and mislead new riders.

I’ve seen geo charts from Italian brands where seat tube/top tube height/stack were the only things that changed with size. Literally tt length didn’t change and riders used the stem to correct reach. Abusive to the buyer and weight was balanced poorly on the wheels.

I am happy with rad matching my hoods because I race cx and it makes sense that most dynamic standing position gives access to brakes. I don’t know what you do on your bike’s flats but seems like an error if that is matching your rad. Implies hoods are too far away for standing strength but maybe not important if you don’t ride standing. Rad is only standing fit, just a piece of the puzzle.
 
Last edited:
I don’t know what you do on your bike’s flats but seems like an error if that is matching your rad.
It's a bit academic these days. From memory, apart from uphill, It's where I psych myself up to stretch to the hoods, deluding myself that I'm going fast enough that I might need to apply the brakes..🙂
 
Good discussion. FWIW, saw Lee's RAD stuff a few years back. Turned out its equation matched my 96 stumpy paired with 60mm stem, that felt insanely good, really tightly. But at the end of the day, he's picked a random multiple to apply to rider height that seems to work especially well for the average height rider - he's either plucked this from his ass, or being generous its reverse correlated with some of his personal real world observations. Even allowing for the latter, it's a really weak theory to work from. The fact that Lee thinks your arms have a role in pumping, and sells an exercise machine based on that, probably gives all the context you need on his scientific rigour generally.

What RAD does say, which appears to be true and is a feature of modern Geo, is that having your CoG centred on in the bike and plenty of room to move it around that central space as needed, is a good thing. That's what makes me curious about the 'new' Geo; all that space to work 'in' the bike rather than moving about 'on' it as the trail changes/gets interesting.
 
The difference is enormous betwixtle my e-bike and my P7. How did I ride it back then, down roacks and staircases etc?
 

Attachments

  • IMG_7656.JPG
    IMG_7656.JPG
    745.2 KB · Views: 18

Latest posts

Back
Top