Just wanted to share this interesting blog post from the Surly Website about the up and coming 650b Straggler.
Interesting read.
Printable View
Just wanted to share this interesting blog post from the Surly Website about the up and coming 650b Straggler.
Interesting read.
Thanks-
I have 42 cm LHT and it still is not a perfect fit for me (5'1")
My only comment after reading the blog is that Surly seems to have an attitude about "wee folks." I do not like being called that. A woman, 5' 3.75" isn't short in my book.
Did they talk to anyone 4' 10'- 5' 2"?
I can't help but wonder why it took this woman so long to figure this out? I'm the same height, and I struggled with bike fit for the first two years of my riding because I couldn't get comfortable and confident. Once I found the right bike (with 650c's nonetheless), it was magic. I'll never go back. In fact, it's taking surprisingly long to build up my next bike because fit matters so much to me and I'm not 'typical' from a bike component perspective. But my point is that I did this 8 years ago! Why did she have to wait for 2014 to discover this? 650b's are not a new invention!
I agree, Crankin about the height thing...but even though I feel completely 'average' in height for most things, I do feel way out of the ordinary when it comes to bikes. For me, it's partly due to my unusually short legs, but the bike world still mostly measures itself by men and a 5'4" (or shorter) man is still pretty much an anomaly.
It's about more than height. I'm 5'0". I have both 650c and 700c bicycles that fit me. I don't have any functional toe overlap on either of them. They are both road bikes. The smaller bike is Ti, the other carbon. The 650 doesn't handle any better than than the 700c - in fact with my best wheels, I'd say the 700c bike feels more stable cornering at high speeds. The carbon bike is built up far lighter than the ti bike, which does effect braking - I need to be more careful on the lighter bike, but that also makes it a better accelerator and climber. Neither is any more/less comfortable over the long haul as far as neck, shoulders etc go.
It's great that the blog writer found a bike she likes, but to think that it's just about the wheel size is way over simplifying things. It's about the geometry of the frame, her body proportions - beyond simple height, her riding style, handling skills and comfort level, the width/tread on the tires, the weight of the bike, the weight of the wheels, the condition of the surface she likes to ride on….
Neat looking bike, but what are they thinking with the standover? The smallest size frame (38 cm, for goodness sakes -- sounds tiny) has standover of 27.7" with a slanted top tube? That's not particularly "wee", especially for a bike with wheels smaller than 700c. I'm thinking that's about the standover on my 47cm Trek Pilot WSD with 700c wheels. With 650s, couldn't they have done better for we truly "wee" folks?
I agree with others who say that 5'3.75" is not particularly short. Isn't the average height of women in the US around 5'4"?
I'm 5'2", and I have a Bianchi Eros Donna in 44 cm and a Colnago CLD in 40 cm that fit me perfectly. Both bikes have 700c wheels, standover height of about 27", and almost the same actual and effective top tube lengths as the Surly Straggler 650b. It's a shame Bianchi stopped making WSD steel bikes and now only makes 46 cm bikes or bigger since the smallest 44 cm Eros Donna with small Campy ergo shifters is a perfect bike for us Wee-Folk.
I agree, my first thought when I saw her height was "she's not that short"!Quote:
Originally Posted by Crankin