|Do smaller frames rob potential power?||jrm|
Nov 20, 2003 2:42 PM
|Does the lack of comfort on a small frame vs. one that fits rob one of potential power?|
|I've argued that, but most racers seem to disagree.||Cory|
Nov 20, 2003 3:37 PM
|I'm not a racer, but I know I'm faster on the 64cm frame Grant Petersen recommended than I ever was on the smaller ones conventional wisdom said I should ride. Comfort is the big reason--I can stay on the bike at least 25 percent longer without pain, so I'm more fit (well, not right this minute, but last summer, at age 58, I equalled PRs I set in my mid-30s).
It's a really hard sell to racers, though. The idea that smaller is stiffer and lighter is pretty firmly ingrained.
|Let's be clear here||Kerry Irons|
Nov 20, 2003 6:11 PM
|It's all about fit, not frame size. If you can get the fit, then a smaller frame is lighter and stiffer. This is why smaller frames are the trend. It used to be that road seat posts were 180mm, so a small frame was not possible. Your body doesn't care much about stem length, seat post set back, or how much post is showing. It only cares that you are in the proper relationship to the BB and have the right seat height and bar position (reach and drop). To say that your larger frame fits you better and therefore larger frames are better is false logic. Frames that fit better are better. Full stop.|
|well, handling would differ||cyclopathic|
Nov 20, 2003 6:46 PM
|with different stem length ;) besides smaller frame would have different STA/HTA, possibly wheelbase.|
|I'm not a racer either, but||coonass|
Nov 21, 2003 5:12 PM
|I think the reasons racers ride the smaller frames are:
a) lower center of gravity.
b) lighter frame.
c) body is more aerodynamic (based on the 10+" of seat-post).
I don't know, but I would guess that they ride a correctly sized frame when not racing.
|I ride a correctly sized frame when racing.||Asiago|
Nov 21, 2003 7:54 PM
|And Kerry is right, as usual.