Pars

ftfy

^ Yes, on rolled threads (good), the OD of the threaded portion will be > than that of the material they are rolled in.

^ don't you mean function over form? EDIT: or form follows function? not sure how you say this in a PC manner

^ Win

Yep. They are still using B52s, which are MUCH older ('50s).

Hmm, did a little reading of that thread. Interesting. Damn, that is one thin board Birgir.

Happy Birthday Jim!

Yep. Good news. http://velonews.competitor.com/2013/09/bikes-and-tech/drivetrain-compatibility-hidden-in-plain-sight_303199

Drool... but not happening

Rotating weight (wheels) is more important than static weight. I think they used to say that 1lb in the wheels was worth 2 anywhere else. Weight mainly effects acceleration, and climbing. Rider weight far exceeds bike weight. In my opinion, reliability/longevity trumps weight any day. Of course I'm not racing. And I am paying for my own parts/maintenance. What the tour teams do (and who/what kind of sponsorship deals they cut) has no bearing on me. And stuff like Schleck dumping a chain 2-3 years ago seems asinine at that level to begin with. And pics or it didn't happen Chris

Happy Birthday!

^ Riding >> bike??

Happy Birthday Deepak!

^ True. Weight was back in steel/aluminum frame days. And agree about the flattened back (if you are young and flexible enough to be able to do that) Also, with modern frames (sloping TT) there seem to be fewer sizes offered. They used to be in 1cm increments from many manufacturers. Did I see someone now only offers a S-M-L frame sizing system?

The trend to small frames started in the early '90s (maybe even the '80s). The thought was weight savings of a smaller frame. A foot of seatpost showing, long stems (130-140mm). The larger frame should be more comfortable for long rides. Those were hideous. And the praxis rings are hideously expensive. Of course I find the newer cranks, particularly shimano, to be hideous looking as well, so you can write that off as you wish.

I think that is a good choice Justin. I always tend to larger than smaller in frame size for myself, but then I'm a bit old school.

I think you were told early on in this thread that you were on the wrong forum for shit like this. Visit head-fi instead...

Sorry to hear Larry. We don't live in a floodplain, but our basement got 1'-2' of water in it in the mid '90s due to 17" of rain in less than 24 hours. Our homeowners insurance kicked in (no special flood insurance), and we even got somewhat of a check from FEMA since the area was declared a disaster area. Had to haul all kinds of crap to the curb, and yes, it sucked. But no one died or was injured. Probably not smart of me to wade around in the basement with a refrigerator plugged in (power on at that point) and submerged

RIP

Considering who it is coming from, odds are it does work. Had it been from "M" (who for some unknown reason bought "N" to get back into the phone business), I wouldn't give it as good of odds... And Ken, you should send the Genius a thank you note for upgrading you to a competitor

Yeah, Park probably. I have the small one (CT-5 IIRC) which I personally haven't been too impressed with, but most of theirs are good. Awesome ride Nate! Glad u had a great time, and for a good cause!

Well, the 12" of drop was a joke... I think. I run around 2-2.5" of drop, but I'm an old guy. More than that and I find it tiring on my neck to look up to see where I am going. Since you are young and probably much more fit than I am, once you start riding a lot, you may find that you want more drop or reach than what you are initially set up for.

Not pant inseam. His measurement to the floor is probably closer to 32+, but I agree, the subtract 30cm seems to arrive at a (too) small frame. I'm 5'7" and my Raleigh is a 56 C-C (TT is also 56). At least 6" of seatpost showing (29" or 73.6 cm is my saddle height from BB). I also ride a couple of 54s and in some ways they seem small to me. Of course back then what CC would call a French fit was more what was recommended, instead of the smallest frame possible with 12" of drop The Competitive Cyclist fit calculator works pretty well for me (Eddy fit), though my frame is bigger than what it recommends. This is the Lemond sizing chart:

How tall are you Justin? Inseam? I would think a 55 might be about right; the 51 definitely seems too small for you. Top tube length (or I guess effective length) is probably the most important measurement. What about Jeff's Calfee seemed too big for you? EDIT: I always liked this post on paceline. Jam a book in your crotch and measure (or have someone else measure) to the floor, barefooted. Subtract 30cm. Start there.