Writing a reply to Wychy’s earlier comments about frame geometry, I remembered I was going to check www.ribble.co.uk to see if their road frame differed from their Winter\/Audax frame (the one I own).<\/p>\n
Looking through the table of figures I find the 56cm and work through the values, noticing the top-tube length is 58.. um.. what? 58cm? That’s not.. But.. I.. um.. measured it already and it was 56cm.. err.. wasn’t it? <\/p>\n
I remember looking at this table before I bought the bike and thinking “56cm square = cool” but now looking at the table I reckon I’ve read from the wrong column(s)! A1 instead of A and read across to a top-tube of 55.8cm, thinking “fine” when in fact I should have been seeing 58 and thinking “no no no”.<\/p>\n
I rush over to the bike with the tape measure, rub my eyes and look.. 58cm. <\/p>\n
Frickin’ hell! Fifty EIGHT not Fifty SIX like I thought. No fricking wonder I’ve always felt over-stretched and suffer from sore arms!!<\/p>\n
Ribble 7005 Frame Geometry: <\/p>\n
A \t A1 \t B \t D \t a? \t b?<\/p>\n
46 \t50 \t53.5 \t400 \t75 \t72<\/p>\n
48 \t52 \t54 \t400 \t75 \t72<\/p>\n
50 \t54 \t55 \t400 \t74 \t73<\/p>\n
52 \t56<\/b> \t55.8<\/b> \t400 \t74 \t73<\/p>\n
54 \t58 \t57 \t400 \t74 \t73<\/p>\n
56<\/b> \t60 \t58<\/b> \t400 \t74 \t73<\/p>\n
58 \t62 \t58.8 \t400 \t74 \t73<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Writing a reply to Wychy’s earlier comments about frame geometry, I remembered I was going to check www.ribble.co.uk to see if their road frame differed from their Winter\/Audax frame (the one I own). Looking through the table of figures I … Continue reading