Well maybe not. I'm EXTREMELY short waisted for my height. I used to ride with a friend who was about 5 or 6" taller than me, and we had the same length arms and legs. All that height difference was in the torso.
I'm 5'2", 30" inseam, and I actually have the seat fully extended (handlebars as well), but if I went up a frame size, the top tube was going to be too long. It's 19.4" on my 17.5 Madeleine, which is ok but it's right on the edge of trying to be too long. I see the 19" frame was only 19.5", but there's got to be a breakpoint and I think I was already there.
That's why I say the Isis/Symmetry fits me a tad better - the top tube length on that bike is 19" in that frame size (17.5"). But I wanted the touring style bike.
I had not actually realized she had gone to 650c wheels, but as I recall, there was some hubbub around that time about changing criteria for racing. They weren't going to allow different size wheels or something? I don't remember the details anymore. Maybe that's why she switched though.
I see that all the new Fast Woman and Valkyrie models have the seat angle at 74 degrees. Well, it's still under 75 degrees, unlike most of the WSD bikes on the market. Some of them are as steep as 76 degrees.
If I recall correctly, shallower seat tube is better for comfort, more aggressive (under 75 degrees) is better for control? Or Speed or something.
Also, the new theory is that part of the reason women need a shorter top tube is that they are more comfortable sitting further back on the bike than men are, allegedly due to center of gravity issues. Yup, they're now saying that it isn't that women are proportionally shorter-waisted than men (except for me, I'm shorter waisted than about everybody, LOL!) Anyway, if that's the case, a shallower seat tube angle would be preferable for many women.
Aaaah, I'm falling into the pit of trying to figure out the whys of bike geometry. I'd better quit before it pulls me under, LOL!




Reply With Quote