Conference noted::bicycle

    	Steve,
    
    	This may be a little far to travel, but why not try Category
    	I Cyclegoods in Tyngsboro. A great many people in this
    	notesfile believe Paul Randazzo is one of the finest around.
    	Wouldn't hurt to give him a call. (617) 649-7599
    
    	Let me mention that he probably doesn't have anything as low
    	as $250, although I could be wrong.
    
    	Scott

    If I were between sizes, I'd let my preference in riding position
    be the deciding factor.  If I were concerned about light weight
    and being able to ride in a 'tuck' (low profile, hands on drops),
    I'd go for the smaller size.  If I preferred a more upright, touring
    position (hands on top of bars, back more upright) I'd go with the
    larger frame size.  (Of course, you can get to this position with
    a small frame by using an extended shank stem, such as the 'Swan'
    stem.)  [My regular bike is rediculious, with a large frame and
    a 'Swan' stem and randanour (sp?) bars.]  - Chris
    

    I have exactly the same problem.  After test riding a few different
    bikes, I decided to go with the 21 inch.  It just seemed more
    comfortable.  The 23 inch seemed more cumbersome, especially when
    getting on or off the bike.
    
    Denis

    I've noticed that the current rage is going with a small frame.
    The latest Performance catalog shows a number of bikes (especially
    the Pinarello) with the seat post stuck 10" out of the frame.

    Very few seatposts are long enough to accommodate this.  I wonder
    what they're trying to prove?  
    
    MATT

    They're probably trying to size by top tube length, then 
    placing the seat height AFTER choosing the frame size.

    I'd go with the smaller frame.  It will be lighter and stiffer.
    You can compensate with stem, seat post and the seat position (for
    and aft).  You can also have a 22" frame built.  I saw a custom
    frame last year.  Believe it or not, it was a 32".  It had an extra
    tube under the top tube as a stiffener.  Nashbar offers 2 bikes
    with 22" frames but they cost $550-600.

Quite a variety of stock bikes used to come in 22" sizes - actually a lot of
bikes are originally made in metric sizes and are relabeled for the US 
market to the nearest inch. I don't remember the equivalent sizes for sure,
but I recall that almost NO bikes we dealt were really 21", closer to
21.5". Also had a lot of 23.5", etc. sizes. Check the original metric size
on an import bike - I think 56 cm is about 22". Bring your tape measure to
the store and measure them to be sure.....

                                 ken

    
    56 cm is exactly 22 inches, and is a popular frame size as well.
    
    I'd do some more looking around, there's no need to narrow it down
    at this point, is there?
    
    CdH
    
    

    My Trek is supposedly 22.5", and this is a standard size for them.  --Dan

Reply to < Note 242.0 by EUCLID::PRINCE >
    
>   I have recently been shopping for a new bike, and I have run into
>   a slight problem.  I seem to be in between frame sizes 21" - 23".

How do you know that you need 21" to 23"?  I remember my nephew's 23 inch
bike, about which a salesman said "he'll grow into it".  This bike was much to
large for him even years after he bought it (and after he grew to his adult
size).  So if you think 21" to 23" is your size because a salesman told you
...beware!

When I bought my last bike I got Fit-Kitted.  This only confirmed what I
believed about bike sizing...that most bikes are sold too large.  I'd been
riding a 23" frame because, while straddling the top-tube I had about an inch
clearance.  This rule-of-thumb method of bike sizing doesn't take in all the
variables.  In my case the 23" frame was also too long and I had stem size
problems.  (Later I got a ~21 inch frame, pulled up the seatpost, and have
lived happily everafter...)

So the moral to the story is...have someone who knows about fitting you to a
bike to figure out what's right for you.  Even if you only spend $250 you
should have a frame that fits.  You'll probably find that the 21" frame is OK.

One last point...for a $250 bike you may not find a bikeshop that will be
willing to "fit" you to your frame as well as they should.  For example, you
might need a slightly longer stem for whatever size you get...and at $250 the
bike store may not want to bother with the expense of changing it for you.
That's just another reason to shop around (and maybe have someone who knows
what they're doing go with you).

    Getting "fit kitted" is a good suggestion. I started looking for
    a new bike last year when I became convinced that my 25" Dawes was
    too small, and had been too small for 14 years. I went thru the
    fit kit routine, which I paid I think $10 for. It's worth it. I
    found that 25" was the right frame size, but I needed a taller seat
    post, a different stem, and slightly longer cranks. With the bike
    set up this way -- to exactly the right specs for my dimensions
    -- it made a huge difference.
    
    I'd say spend $10 or so for the whole fit kit process. Then have
    your $250 bike set up just right for you. This may mean getting
    trade-in credit for some parts you upgrade or change. You might
    end up spending $50 more. BUT: a $250-$300 bike that's well-fitted
    for you will be more more and more efficient than a $600 bike that
    doesn't fit.
    
    DC

	I realize that this is a late reply, but here goes...
    
    I was Fit-Kitted by both the venerable Paul Randazzo and Peter Mooney.
    They came up with some very different answers.  Paul seemed to think
    that the only way I would ever be happy was with a custom frame
    with a very short top tube.  Peter thought that I was within three
    millimeters of many stock frames.  He also commented that fit
    is to a large extent a matter of fashion as Eddy B. and other experts
    change their minds every few years.  Is this really a science or
    have Bill Farrell's preferences (the Fit Kit) caught on here because 
    he is local?  
    
    I decided to trust Peter because he is a frame builder as well as
    a Fit-Kit user.  It also saved me a few bucks by going with a stock
    size.  This position works for me and is significantly different
    than what the Fit-Kit alone recommended. The difference was 4cm in
    the top tube, and a slightly lower seat.
    
    Is there really a "correct" position?

    re: .12
    
    The bike that you ended up with, is it 4 cm longer in the top tube
    but 4cm shorter in the handlebar stem or something like that(3,5)?
    The Fit kit allows for such substitutions as "less than optimal but
    acceptable."  That would be indicated on your Fit Kit card.
    
    As for "Is there really a 'correct' position?"  The fit kit is
    the result of years of experimentation, measuring successful and
    unsuccessful rides and their bikes and using that data to come up
    with a general formula.  Variations can and do occur.
    
    As for Peter's judgement, Peter sees many customers whose primary
    reason for going to him is that they could not find a bike that
    would fit them -- some who had just never had their bikes properly
    prepared for them.  I would trust his judgement also.
    
    As for Paul's, sometimes Paul feels compelled not to sell something
    to a customer because he feels that it is not right and that the
    customer will not be happy. I think this principle is more important
    to him than the almighty buck and respect him for that.  I often
    disagree with some of his reasons for assuming that the customer will
    not be happy but it's his business and he does not tell me how to
    do relational database software either.

    Both fitters disagreed about total reach, although not by the entire
    4 cm.  Peter made a small fuss about getting the optimal stem length
    for a given frame size.  He also relied more on the eyeball method from
    watching me ride on rollers. The Fit Kit was only used as a ballpark
    guide.  Paul seemed a little more rigid about getting numbers from 
    the charts based on measurements without seeing me on a bike.    
    
    The point that I really wanted to make is that this isn't an objective 
    science.  The fit kit is nice, but not THE ONE ANSWER.  If I had 
    clung to an idea of absolute correctness, I would have spent lots of 
    money for a custom frame on which I would have felt a little jammed.