Perhaps I was more controversial in the title of my original post than I intended. I meant 'discount' as in, you know, discount:
1 : a reduction made from the gross amount or value of something Some people think TT length is THE most important dimension on a bike. Every one of you has read a post on this or another bike- related forum in which the poster claimed exactly that. Some of you have written a post like that. Grant stated in his post above and in the RivNews thing yesterday, that it's not THE most important dimension on a bike. Obviously he didn't mean that TT length is totally meaningless. He put it in its place, somewhat lower than the top. A reduction in value...a discount. On Aug 10, 8:39 am, grant <grant...@gmail.com> wrote: > Top Tube Length > > When you draw enough frames (and one may be "enough') you'll see that > the forwardmost point of a fixed-length top tube depends on the drop > (barely) and the seat tube angle (heavily), and that alone---with > nothing else added to the discussion---illustrates that a 57cm tt on > one bike is not a-gonna put that point at the same spot as a 57cm top > tube on another bike (with a different seat tube angle). > > When you mix into the equation (as you gotta, there's no denying, > there's no choice here, you just hafta) the additional and equally-if- > not-more dramatic effects of raising the handlebar and dicking around > (is that OK to say?) with stem length, then it is super easy to see > that harping on "top tube length" without the context of all these > other factors is like walking around the streets saying "I like > spices." > > A long time ago, shortly after "Q-Factor" went public in Bicycle > Guide magazine, there was another "factor" article, called "The Z- > Factor" that talked more about the top tube, and addressed the thing > Bob Cooper mentioned briefly here: > > "The top tube should really be measured from a point in space that is > directly above the bottom bracket spindle to the center of the headset > lock nut and level with the lock nut." > > May not be izzzactly the same, but "Z-Factor" iz cloze to dat. > > Anyway, EVERY tube on a bike frame matters, but a bike frame in the > design stage is like one of those kid's toys made up of straight > sticks and ball joints that you can reshape by pulling and pushing and > squeezing to your heart's content, and every movment affects a bunch > of other stuff. Please, when I die, don't engrave on my urn, "Dude > didn't think top tube length mattered one whit." > > When there's a roar of public opinion that warrants a dissenting > voice, and you're the mouse with that dissenting voice, you gotta > squawk loudly to be heard above it, or else....nobody hears. So every > now and then you can expect me to squawk about how top tube length > "doesn't matter"....but I know it DOES MATTER, but it is like the > spice in a sauce....izzall. > > That is what I think. Nothing's what I know. > > G -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
