Starting a new thread about a topic that has interested me for a long time,
with a question: do slack angles and therefore (all else equal) saddles
well back of bb, work better with upright positions? Or perhaps, an upright
position works best with a rearward saddle and thus slack angles?
I recall dithering about a nice Dave Moulton, at a very good price, because
of the 74* st angle, and being told that a racing position on a racing bike
means being forward over the crank assembly/bb shell. This was confirmed by
several experienced ex racers. I finally passed.
The classic bolt upright ride seems to be the Raleigh DL-1, perhaps Dutch
city bikes (but I've no experience with them). Such slack angles, high bb
shell, and ends of grips practically bumping your knees. I've ridden many
such bikes and I've watched others ride them, and I know for a fact that
they very strongly discourage an energetic riding style -- if you try to
ride hard, you always (and I see others always) reposition the body to
negate the design -- lean forward, grab bar next to stem, sit on nose of
And then there's the gearing: stock on the DL-1 was 46/18 or 72 gi, iirc.
Even if 44/18, that's still 68". Even 68" on a very tall, 50 lb bike is
So the design must have been built with a (1) relaxed or energy conserving
and (2) ponderous or high torque/low rpm
It's hard to understand why the DL-1 remained in production for so long; I
don't think that this extended product life can't be explained solely on
failing-socialist Indian and Chinese economic practices, or pure inertia.
So something about this sort of riding position must work, and therefore
one presumes that Raleigh had worked out the riding style, and then the
position, and then the angles and lengths that were most efficient with
Translate this into the upright Rivendells. These have low bbs, so that's
different; they also come with low gearing -- I get the impression that
these favor spinning, and not mashing?
And the Rivs have startlingly long tts -- to countereffect the rearward
sweep of the bar and the slacker heads? So, this would mean a more
aggressive riding position, and therefore more spirited riding style, than
what the DL-1 was designed for.
On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 2:19 PM, Eric Karnes <epkar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> My guess that this is mostly a commentary on the use of fairly steep seat
> tube angles (73–75 degrees) on many road/sport/touring bikes from (very
> roughly) the 80s to present. This can make it very hard for some people to
> get a proper weight distribution without slamming the seat back, using an
> ultra-setback seatpost, or a combination of both. I had a mid-eighties Trek
> sport touring bike like this. I loved the way the frame rode, but the 73.5
> degree sta made it impossible for me to get comfortable.
> On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 2:27:41 PM UTC-4, Belopsky wrote:
>> As a follow-up, I saw somewhere Grant writing that people like to slam
>> the seats ALL the way back - is this due to the upright bars / higher than
>> seat bars / upright posture on a bike?
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.