[RBW] Re: Rivendell Bike Models Page - some updates

Sun, 18 Jan 2009 19:11:16 -0800 

I'd say short chainstays, a steep seat tube, and probably low bars.

On Jan 18, 8:44 pm, "Doug Peterson" <[email protected]> wrote:
> What really makes for good climbing is to weigh about 140 lbs.  However
> we're stuck with what we've got, so plan B is the bike.
>
> My $0.02 is:  short stays & light rotating mass.  
>
> dougP
>
>   _____  
>
> From: [email protected]
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of PATRICK MOORE
> Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2009 5:47 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: [RBW] Re: Rivendell Bike Models Page - some updates
>
> On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 5:29 PM, Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I suspect that geometry is more important than tube diameter when
> we're talking about bikes that climb well vs bikes that don't.
>
> Now *this* is an interesting topic!
>
> What do y'all think makes for good climbing, first with respect to geometry?
> I throw out the suggestion that one quality is a frame designed for saddle
> back, butt back, riding position (which would be slack seat angle, except
> that mine all have had 73 deg sts.) I know Grant has favored a long stayed,
> shortish front-center design; perhaps that aspect trumps seat tube angle? In
> any event, IME (and I emphasize in *my* experience), a butt back position
> favors fast climbing.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to