Those more "enlightened" use things like reach and stack to better determine a bike's fit - and also consider what these should be based on different handlebars and so forth. But that's not most people, and in the case of Rivendell, you have to do a bit of diligence to even find those numbers.
The engineer in me thinks that the most reasonable compromise, based on Riv's fit philosophy, would be to standardize "size" and median PBH suitable for that given size. So, for instance, if you have a PBH of 83 cm, you are a Rivendell 54 (or whatever it works out to be). Sometimes the nearest size is a 52, sometimes it's a 55, but you know that you land squarely at 54 based on the standardized conversion chart, so you know if that bike will be a touch to the high end or the low end for you. And this is a conversion chart that is strictly PBH to "frame size", and this "frame size" is just a number for marketing the frame. No dimension on the frame actually has to match it. A 54 might have a range of seat tube and top tube lengths, suitable to someone with a 83 PBH and the fit that the bike is meant to have. What I like about that type of approach is that correlates nicely with other bikes out there, despite being a bit arbitrary otherwise. This was common when "compact geometry" became a thing on road bikes, with a 54cm frameset actually measuring something like 50cm - but the ETT was similar to a traditional geo 54cm frame. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/3fa1f4fd-bcec-4b21-aca9-f9ebe99694cb%40googlegroups.com.
