Forum menu
Out riding this week my mate commented on my genereously endowed seatpost
[img] 
[/img]
Seat height is set up for in pedalling in the pic.
This is as a result of being freakishly long legged and also enjoying the chuckability of a smaller frame.
Anyone better it?
Are you a clown?
yes
you need a flashing red light on that, how many people does a passenger airliner carry? there are lives currently at risk!
the chuckability of a smaller frame.
One of the most overused phrases in cycling perpetuated by men who think they like a bike thats too small for them.
I don't have a pic, but my dialled alpine with GD seatpost looks pretty similar. My legs are also pretty long and since I spend more of my time messing around on jumps or downhill's with the post dropped I can put up with it looking silly on the infrequent climbs and flats. My bike looks good with the seat dropped, silly with it raised, but gates look like gates 100% of the time.
I'm only 5'11", but even my 19" commuter has a silly long seatpost.
[img] 
[/img]
makes mine look ok
No pic but my mate who's 6'5" with very long legs had USE do him a custom post that was silly long at something like 60cm on the agreement that there was no warranty if it bent. It went on his Whyte which made it even more fugly...
[img] 
[/img]
Geewavetree have you bought Rob's bike? 😉
Bez was king of the long seatpost if i remember, found this though
[img] 
[/img]
from [url= http://www.stewartpratt.co.uk/showarticle.php?path=articles/mountainbiking/mybikes/&id=inbred ]stewartpratt.co.uk[/url]
My bike looks good with the seat dropped, silly with it raised
Image more important than performance shocker!
It went on his Whyte which made it even more fugly
Man forces bike that is evidently too small to 'fit' shocker!
you don't need a longer seatpost, just a larger frame;
[img] 
[/img]
TooTall - read my post again - "mostly used for jumping and DH". Function over form.
Tootall there are some people with long legs and short (for their height) upper bodies. Agree with you on "Image more important than performance shocker!" tho, see a lot of that - not necessarily aimed at bagstard.
GeeWaveTree is that near darwen tower?
Surely you must all have fukt backs having to stoop to the bars like that??
with my new forks the bars are 20mm higher so spot on
the next size up giant is too big 🙁
[img] 
[/img]
The angle of the shot makes it look even longer but it's basically 4mm shy of the minimum insertion mark on the bike...Just arrived from shop and was the first thing I did (hence the flat pedal bits still attached).
[img] 
[/img]
Pretty much all my bikes have a lot of seatpost showing...I'm a lanky streak of p...
Frigging hell! I'm soundly beaten by Bez and Dick Barton I think.
TooTall what's your point re: small frame chuckability?
Go and ride a big MTB. Then go and ride a BMX. The BMX will no question feel more 'chuckable' - i.e. changes direction quicker, easier to throw around, easier to hop/jump. OK this may be somewhat to do with geometry, but part of it definitely the physical size of the fame.
For me, erring on the small side for frames is just a less extreme version of this phenomenon.
I heard Bez had ordered a custom 10" Inbred and a 600mm seatpost.
Am I the only one who wants to see pics of you all actually sitting on these bikes?
That is indeed a long seat post. Quite why you had to park your bike by the local 'glory holes' is beyond me.
[url= http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3066/3022345465_fd82f3279a.jp g" target="_blank">
Not mine
IU'm 5.10 and ride a 16 frame, with wide bars and a layback seat post, why? because its a hoot, a larger frame may be a more "correct fit" but to me a larger frame would only really feel better on long long distance XC where as I am more of a fan of hooning around in the woods and a like where a smaller size bike does seem to instill a bigger grin factor than a proper grown up seriously fitted bicycle. moo.
if ever there was a case for a 36er then dicks bikes are it 😉
Go and ride a big MTB. Then go and ride a BMX. The BMX will no question feel more 'chuckable' - i.e. changes direction quicker, easier to throw around, easier to hop/jump. OK this may be somewhat to do with geometry, but part of it definitely the physical size of the fame.
Yes - the difference between a MTB and a BMX are rather large - hence the choice of tool for job. However, the difference between a L and XL in a frame are so minimal on the 'chuckability' front that it can't be more than a couple of hundred grammes difference. Example - Turner 5 Spot geometry:
[url= http://www.competitivecyclist.com/mountain-bikes/frame/2010-Turner-5-spot-5190.html ]2010-Turner-5-spot[/url]
Those numbers are not that far apart, the contact points are going to be similmar distances apart, the wheel base will be similar. So, between a S and an XL there might be a decent difference, but there is almost nothing between L and XL.
I get 'chuckability', when it is the difference between a BMX and a MTB. I don't get it when people claim the differences up or down a frame size. The numbers aren't different enough.
This was a custom build for Nightfire (as he was on here) by Raoul. Don't know if he still has it but I can't imagine it fitting many others !
[img] 
[/img]
i win?:
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
😆
Can't compare with any of these
[img] 
[/img]
What's with all the people with saddles pointing up in the air? You like smashing your perineal nerves to bits or something? You're meant to sit on your sit bones, not your soft delicate perineum.
"The BMX will no question feel more 'chuckable'"
A BMX has 20" wheels and about a 75 degree head angle.
[img] [/img]
/p>
what size wheels on this?
Dick Barton relaxes with the paper after a ride
[img] 
[/img]
🙂
@dick barton
Maxed out seat posts and all those spacers would indicate to me that you are buying the wrong size frames.
What size are they?
"what size wheels on this?"
Looking at the chainset, i'd guess they were 700c, which makes the whole thing pretty scary.
"what size wheels on this?"Looking at the chainset, i'd guess they were 700c, which makes the whole thing pretty scary.
They look like 700's, which would make the seat and top tubes somewhere over 85cm by my rough reckoning. Must be a build for someone 7' plus. A true candidate for 36" wheels...
Like these, but in a bike to fit the guy who rides the Kelly, would look pretty much proportionate.
[img] 
[/img]
I bought my frame small as it was the last in the lbs and the large i "need" was online and i couldn't wait!
Anyone ridden a 36er?
Maxed out seat posts and all those spacers would indicate to me that you are buying the wrong size frames.
My bikes look a bit like that. However, I have long legs for my height, so the frame size is fine. Larger frames are too long for me.
Kingtut - not sure it is the wrong size - reach feels perfect (the larger frames felt very stretched out) and when standing on the floor, I've got 2" clearance between top tube and groin...but yes, they do look like they are too small - if you buy into the thought process that the stem needs to be flat against the headset...
[img] 
[/img]
Ridden at Laggan...
Sweet baby Jesus and the orphans, there's some seriously FUGLY bikes on here! 😯
🙂
Move over...
[img] 
[/img]
Smaller frames are definitely more chuckable and generally more comfy going downhill (imo). There's a huge difference in feel between my old 19" and my current 16".
lol worst photoshopping ever 😀
Youd have to have arms that dragged on the floor when you walked too 😀
I find this interesting, because I ride a small Cotic Simple.
I am 175cm (5' 9"), right on the edge between a 16" small and the 17.5" medium. I have about 27cm of seatpost sticking out, which is quite a bit.
But even on the small I find the top tube quite long and I don't think I'd want the extra length of the medium. I run a 70mm stem. I find manualing the Cotic more difficult than other, shorter bikes I've owned. I've not owned enough different bikes though to make a good comparison I suppose.
Those numbers are not that far apart, the contact points are going to be similmar distances apart, the wheel base will be similar. So, between a S and an XL there might be a decent difference, but there is almost nothing between L and XL.I get 'chuckability', when it is the difference between a BMX and a MTB. I don't get it when people claim the differences up or down a frame size. The numbers aren't different enough.
My point re the BMX / MTB is that there is a demonstrable difference due to frame size.
I agree with you that the differences between L/XL numbers aren't great. However the numbers don't have to be that big in magnitude to make quite a difference to the feel of the ride (at least to me).
This week I slid my saddle forwards by <1cm to get me more over the front of the bike for climbing, and it has definitely made a difference to the way the bike rides seated on steep climbs.
The other way of looking at it is, if only a cm or so on the tt makes no difference then why do they bother making both an L and an XL? Or is this just marketing?
FWIW I started off riding gates at my dad's insistence. Since choosing my own bikes I have realised I prefer a small frame - I have experience of both ends of the frame sizing spectrum.