Re: [RBW] Re: Surly Pacer sizing

Thanks guys. I was toying with the idea of something a little lighter and sportier than my 56 Sam. The Sam felt a tiny long for me with Noodles, even with an 8 cm stem. Much better since I changed to Albas and an 11 cm stem a couple years ago. Bars more or less level with the saddle depending

Re: [RBW] Re: Surly Pacer sizing

Ha! that's funny because I've been thinking that about the 55 !) -- 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

Re: [RBW] Re: Surly Pacer sizing

I had a 56 Sam that was too long for drop bars for me but perfect w some upright ones, alas I sold it. The now 51 would be a good fit for me if I was to buy another On Thursday, September 22, 2016, Richard Rios wrote: > I don't think it was mentioned and it's a great

[RBW] Re: Surly Pacer sizing

I don't think it was mentioned and it's a great point about the bars. Lots of stuff plays into sizing. Perhaps he would like to offer more info and someone could offer a more specific response. Or maybe he was already leaning towards one and was looking for a bit of reassurance. Don't know.

[RBW] Re: Surly Pacer sizing

My PBH is 83.x. If I was going to get a Pacer, it'd be a 52 or 54, but certainly I would not want to go 56 because then i'd need a real short stem which IMO does not work for that bike.. the question is, and pardon if it was mentioned, but does Jay want drop bars or not? If not, well then yes,

[RBW] Re: Surly Pacer sizing

Absolutely. There is no exact method for sizing a bike. Personal preference plays a huge role. After going round and around about the whole finding the "perfect" frame size...I have resigned myself to the whole F@#! it get a close enough frame size, to which there are no major compromises and

[RBW] Re: Surly Pacer sizing

PBH is no absolute either, no method is ! This may be the most difficult thing to understand because people are so used to having other people tell them what they should want or be like. There are many variables of why a frame may be "just right" or not, some you can't even put into words

[RBW] Re: Surly Pacer sizing

Totally agree that ETT isn't the end-all-be-all, but for something a bit more racey/fastish don't you want more weight on the front of the wheel so a longer stem? On Thursday, September 22, 2016 at 3:08:05 PM UTC-4, Richard Rios wrote: > > I'm with Grant sizing wise 100% on this one about not

[RBW] Re: Surly Pacer sizing

I'm with Grant sizing wise 100% on this one about not letting top tube length lead you around to much by the nostrils. My experience with the top tube length has been it is pretty easy to adjust for with a shorter / longer stem and depending on how high your bars are much of that length can be

[RBW] Re: Surly Pacer sizing

It's best to look at the geometry chart to compare, however. The pacer is not like the crosscheck or straggler. I can easily ride a 52 pacer, but a 54 straggler was a bit too long - 54 straggler is a 563.3 top tube, 52 pacer is a 540 top tube. 54 pacer is a 555.. On Thursday, September 22, 2016

[RBW] Re: Surly Pacer sizing

Thanks Richard. That's very helpful. On Thursday, September 22, 2016 at 1:31:08 AM UTC+3, Richard Rios wrote: > > Here's my 02 and this is based off an 85ish pbh and purchasing a cross > check. 56 for modern sporty bars below saddle, 58 for levelish bars. I'd > even consider a 60 If you want

[RBW] Re: Surly Pacer sizing

Here's my 02 and this is based off an 85ish pbh and purchasing a cross check. 56 for modern sporty bars below saddle, 58 for levelish bars. I'd even consider a 60 If you want them way up there Riv style. Also depends on how you feel about spacer stack. Surlys come with uncut steerer tube so if

[RBW] Re: Surly Pacer sizing

Also looking at the Bob Jackson Audax end-to-end. Same question but in inches. What size? On Wednesday, September 21, 2016 at 9:50:03 PM UTC+3, Jay in Tel Aviv wrote: > > Anybody know what size Pacer would fit me with a PBH of 85.5? > I was thinking 58 but their size chart looks more like a 56.