HUMP DIESEL wrote:
[quote="Strange. I understand what you are saying, but drop affects reach too. The more drop you have, the longer your reach is in a given position. They go hand in hand, which is why riders tend to sit either lower and longer or high and short. I would think high and short would be suboptimal on a standard-geo. road bike, because, in most cases, the frame was not designed to be ridden that way, and a lower center of gravity usually results in better handling.
Drop effects actual reach, but not the reach in a linear way from the bottom bracket. It affects how far you "Reach" to put your hands in the drops. I know we got onto Steve Hogg for a bit, but a lot of what he talks about is actually good common sense. He talks about having the minimal number of muscles recruited for stabilization. That makes perfect sense, in the fact that if you upper body is relaxed, due to not being in a position that requires recruitment of smaller stabilizer muscle of the abdomen and lower back, you are able to breathe more freely and in turn produce more efficient power. Note, I did not say more power, just more efficient power.
Not sure what you are saying by "linear" reach. If you run 6 cm of drop and a 12 cm stem and then increase that drop to 10 cm, you will need a shorter stem, as you are reaching farther. Sitting lower on a given frame is better for handling -- to a point of course. Bikes were designed to handle right with the rider in a certain position, if we start moving away from that too much, handling will suffer.