What's new

First bike for my wife!

Ah great. Glad the info helped.

Yeah, for someone of that height, shorter cranks were suggested by everyone we spoke to. I am sure there are varying theories knocking around about cranks length, but this seemed perfect for her.

Anyway, hope you find what you are looking for. Loads of us have spare parts sitting in our cupboards unused, from upgrades or whatever, and usually in very good condition, so it doesn't have to expensive or difficult. Just need to ask!
 
Bear in mind, one <wo>mans 440 is another's 480 - just depends whether they are measuring from c-c (of top tube) or c-t (typically Japanese). A '440' C-C will almost always translate into a '480' C-T. But this measurement is just a rough indicator of the whole story - and mainly only the stand over portion. What is typically more important is the top tube length and headtube height which determine the 'Reach' and 'Stack' of the bike. But since most bikes are built in somewhat common proportions around the seat tube height - the 440 / 480 measurement is what is generally referred to by the vendors as 'the size'. The smaller the rider, the shorter you need the top tube or the reach is too long. And generally speaking as you reduce the headtube height you lower the reach and increase it at the same time resulting in more of an 'aero' position. Unless your smaller loved one is an unabashed enthusiast like yourself and committed to the gospel of the 'slammed' , they will like reject anything requiring bending over more than the 2nd shelf at the conbini or reaching farther than the bathtub water valve.

As quite the homogenous population, the 155'er seems to fit quite well on the 440/480 bike with roughly 110-115 headtube and 510-ish top tube. Key is to make sure the stem does not get much shorter than 80mm. If you do, then the handling will become somewhat 'twitchy' according to the rider - remember, a longer arm applies smaller degree of motion at the center of rotation. Optimum 'feel good' is somewhere around 100 - 120mm stem length. While this is not always practical for smaller riders - if you are in the 80-100mm range of stem, you are in the golden zone.

Don't forget you can flip the stem over and give a little more 'stand up' to the rider as well. Again, there is no reason especially for novice riders (or seldom benefit) for them to , ahem, 'assume the position'.
 
Huh??

Wow I didn't think about the different possible ways of measuring so perhaps this is why the Dolce was "480" and the CR23 is "420"...

And the other issues were right as you noted, crank length was 170 and stem was 70mm, yet the reach was and is still the main issue because her arms were fully extended while in the hoods.

Anyways we decided to walk away from the Louis Garneau because to me the reach was just incorrect, and the changes we could make would not amount to the correct reach - I think.

The reach/top tube seems to be the main thing that's frustrating the purchase.

In a sad display of the sales guy's motives for selling bikes he said to my wife "the seat should be high above the handle bar", and she asks why? And he responds "because it looks cool"....
 
In a sad display of the sales guy's motives for selling bikes he said to my wife "the seat should be high above the handle bar", and she asks why? And he responds "because it looks cool"....

It could have been worse. He could have responded "The better to display your posterior."

If youse'll pardon me a minor digression, given a frame with a seat tube (etc) of the right size, what if the top tube is 3cm or so shorter than ideal and one compensates for it with a stem that's this much longer; any non-negligible downside to this?
 
@microcord - not at all! in fact - more aggressive (and fit) riders tend to choose slightly smaller frames so they can leverage the stiffness and wider fit conditions. Also - as you drop your body down more, you will tend to require more 'reach' - and with it - want a little more stability on the front end, hence longer stem automatically does this. What I typically see is something that follows this pattern (heavily generalised for road bikes)

Novice Rider - relatively upright position - stem from 70-90mm
Recreational Road - <sometimes> in the drops - stem from 80mm - 120mm
Club Rider - more than 50% in the drops - stem from 100mm - 140mm

The issue with the seatpost cannot be overlooked! It is a very well known fact that as you move yourself more over the pedals and increase your cadence, the 'metabolic cost' goes down - compared to using your big muscles and sitting back on the saddle. This correpsonds naturally with smaller (especially women) riders who can benefit much more by this position in terms of comfort and efficiency. I see riders all the time going for the 'Pro Look' by massive setback saddles - and in fact, 99% of them are mis-fitted! The ONLY reason a 'PRO' does this is becuase they've chosen a framesize that MATCHES IT! Nothing looks more strange (or ill fitting) to me, then to see a rider stretched out over a frame that is obviously too large with a 20mm setback saddle, 140mm stem, butt waaay up in the air, hips a rockin' and nose a bobbin! But yet, somehow, this is what alot of riders <think> is 'pro' - they couldn't be farther from reality.
 
It could have been worse. He could have responded "The better to display your posterior."

If youse'll pardon me a minor digression, given a frame with a seat tube (etc) of the right size, what if the top tube is 3cm or so shorter than ideal and one compensates for it with a stem that's this much longer; any non-negligible downside to this?

As Tim was pointing out earlier, ideally you'd want to have an effective top tube that would allow you to have the proper reach with a 100-120mm stem. For the more aggressive race oriented I'd probably slide that range to 110-130mm. That being said, anything between 80-140mm is acceptable, just be aware that as you approach the extremes, especially on the shorter side, you are likely negatively impacting the handling of the bike.
 
Looks like Tim and I were responding at the same time! :)

As for setback, I subscribe to the philosophy of adjusting your setback in order to gain proper fore/aft balance over the bike. If your saddle is too far forward you'll necessarily put too much weight on your hands. Ideally, you'd want to move the saddle back just enough so that at about 75-85% of full power you can completely un-weight your hands while maintaining your riding position.
 
GSAstuto and Yamabushi/Pete, thank you for your replies. Most appreciated. And now, back to the subject of the title!
 
My wife is getting distracted by the future transportation issues (taking it back to Canada in a few years), and she is leaning toward a Louis Garneau CR23 (that she would just sell when we leave)which is fine but I feel that at 10.9kg she will not have a good experience. That being said, my first roadie was a Trek 1.2 that weighed 9kg, I think.

Don`t forget, weight should be judged relative to the rider`s weight, not in terms of overall weight. Bike weight affects lighter riders more than heavier ones.
 
Pursuant to a conversation with Tim yesterday I wanted to make a follow up about parts and prices.

Here is what I'm looking for:
A drivetrain
Straight seat post
Cheap but solid wheels

The stuff doesn't have to match, all I'm looking for is that it's reliable and safe. Also please either tell me the price or what your looking for, or you can PM me.

No big rush, and thanks in advance ;)
 
Back
Top Bottom