I too take 57 cm c-c as the benchmark for my tts, but this is for (1) a 73* seat tube angle, (2) saddles (Flites or Turbos) all the way back on the rails on large-setback, older Dura Ace seatposts; and (3) a moderately agressive drop bar position with bar about 3 cm below saddle. See the photo of my Riv Road:
https://picasaweb.google.com/BERTIN753/BIKESMISCELLANEA#5695034988390084306 OTOH, I comfortably rode a 56 cm Sam HIllborne that had a 59 cm top tube when my "normal" road bikes all have top tubes of 56 to 57. Part of the excess was taken care of by the considerably shallower seat tube: 71* instead of my usual 73*; this effectively "shortens" the tt because you don't have to slam your saddle back as far to get the right position wrt to the bb. The rest was taken care of by having the bars a good 3 or 4 cm higher than those on my road bikes: thanks to the acute head angle, raising the bar brings the bar back roughly in the ratio of 1:2 comparing reach to height. The overall effect was a comfortable position, especially with the deeper drop/longer reach Noodles (deeper than the 185s and, currently, Maes Parallels on the Road Rivs) but one that was not as agressive as on the RRs. I get the same results with my Fargo: the bar is far higher (~2 cm above saddle) than on the RRs but the reach is the same because the stem, bar and tt combo are much longer than on the RRs; thus: https://picasaweb.google.com/BERTIN753/BIKESMISCELLANEA#5704695502487130658 Similarly, when I was negotiating purchase of my trike I was anxious about the 58 cm c-c tt, but it turned out that the trike has a shallower seat tube angle so that the saddle, so that with the saddle a bit more forward to maintain the ideal saddle-to-bb relationship, the reach turned out to be just like that on my RRs. https://picasaweb.google.com/BERTIN753/BIKESMISCELLANEA#5665987116273041874 Upshot: consider (1) the seat tube angles of the SH or AHH compared to your benchmark bikes and (2) how high the bars on the SH or AHH will be compared to those on your benchmarks -- not to mention the kind of bar you want to use. On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 12:14 PM, Lugmonster <suraj.shanmu...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello all, > > I live in Australia and am thinking of picking up a Riv, either a > Hillborne or a Hilsen. Given shipping issues etc. I'm sweating over > picking the right sized frame. My PBH is 94cm but my height is only > 186cm ie. I have a pretty long bottom half and short top half. The > folks at Riv are suggesting that I should be looking at a 64cm > Hillborne or a 65cm Hilsen. > > Now this to me seems massive, as I seem to be comfortable on an > effective top tube length of about 570mm on a standard racing bike > (56-68cm frame). Any top tube past 580mm and I feel like its a bit of > a stretch. I'm therefore thinking of maybe a smaller Hilsen (?63) or a > 60cm Hillborne. > > I do appreciate that the bars will be higher thus shortening the > distance to handlebars but still it seems like those frames are a bit > stretched out for me. Anyone with a similar build who has had > experiences positive or negative with Riv sizing? Could you provide > some advice? Thanks! > > -- > 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-bunch@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. > -- Patrick Moore Albuquerque, NM For professional resumes, contact Patrick Moore, ACRW http://resumespecialties.com/index.html -- 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-bunch@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.
