I think the whole idea of top tube length "not mattering" might be a bit controversial because it seems SO EMPHASIZED in the rest of the bicycle industry as THE KEY MEASURE of bicycle fit. Sales and marketing teams have gotten lazy with trying to explain how "compact" frame designs designated as S,M,L, XL with a two foot seat mast will fit. It's easy to say bicycle fit comes down to one key metric. When I worked in a shop, I heard the suggestion from customers and industry people all the time; size people based on top tube length or better yet, "virtual top tube."
Sometimes best understand things by analogy. If we look at the clothing industry, clothes may come in a size: Small, Medium, 6, 32, etc. Some pants might be sized only by waist, other by inseam and waist. Other garments might be assigned S,M,L and yet others by chest, neck, arm, etc. There's no guarantee though that based on one of these measurements, certainly not by any ONE measurement that the garment will fit. Heck, furthering the analogy, there's no guarantee that even given ALL of the measurements one could tell how well something "fits." I marvel at the ability for some people to take ingredients together to come up with a finished product. It's magic; an artist painting, a chef cooking a meal, a tailor making clothes. We can all see the raw materials and visualize the process to come up with the finished product, but it really takes the artist and/or craftsman to do it exceedingly well. It's more than just following the recipe and assembling the ingredients, more than the science and the measurements... To me, frame design is amazing and Grant at Rivendell is one of the best artisans there is, or at least... I really dig his style :) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
