Patrick: I've also found the same. I like to be back on the saddle when 
cranking at a low rpm. But prefer to be a bit further forward when I'm 
spinning with less resistance. Just my (completely unscientific) 

Rene: For you're sake, lets hope they graded on a curve! I've definitely 
found the same. The B17 always needed to be all the way back for me...even 
on a Riv. One of the reasons I think I'm more comfortable on the C17.

As for choosing the bike for drop versus upright... 

I just picked up a used Hilsen for a second bike...Woohoo! I ended up going 
with a 61cm, even though Riv sizing says my 89.75 pbh would be better on a 
63. Though there is a bit more seatpost/stem showing then I like, I went 
with the 61 for a few reasons: (1) My 62cm SimpleOne fits me perfectly and 
shares the same top tube length as the 61 Hilsen. I know Riv downplays 
this, but for a long-legged, short-torsoed gentleman like myself, I try to 
pay attention to it; (2) I feel like I could use drops or upright bars on 
the 61, while the 63 would be too long and require a ridiculously short 
stem. Granted, I probably won't put drop bars on it anytime soon, but I 
like the feeling that it's possible; and (3) it was available at a good 
price and is a beautiful bike. That said, I may live to regret the choice. 
But like I say to my students when they ask if something will work, 
'there's only one way to find out.'


On Wednesday, October 12, 2016 at 10:52:15 PM UTC-4, Patrick Moore wrote:
> Eric: this agrees with what I read about saddle setback and weight on 
> hands; that a butt position behind the bb, no matter how this is achieved, 
> makes your torso muscles carry more weight and leaves less on your hands. 
> It certainly agrees, too, with my own experience -- a saddle too far 
> forward makes you support yourself on the bar.
> Of course there are other reasons for having more saddle setback; pedaling 
> torque is one that I notice -- I find myself scooting back when I want to 
> shove the pedals around at low rpm, for example, when climbing in a fixed 
> gear. 
> And the classic bolt-upright bikes certainly seem to "encourage" a setback 
> saddle. Look at the 3 photos below and see where the saddle nose falls wrt 
> the cranks.
> The omafiets looks horrible; yet, when I've ridden one -- no more than a 
> few hundred yards -- I have been surprised at how "lively" it feels; though 
> the bars hit my knees when I turn sharply.
> [image: Inline image 1]
> [image: Inline image 2]
> [image: Inline image 3]
> Ok, ok, yes, this is extreme, but whatta bout this one? Froome, 2016.
> [image: Inline image 4]
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 9:12 AM, Eric Karnes < 
> <javascript:>> wrote:
>> Very good question. I have a similar understanding of geometry as I have 
>> of macroeconomics. Which is to say, none. So I'll leave the theorizing to 
>> others.
>> But I will say (as a few others have opined in other conversations) that 
>> I have never been able to get older racing bikes to work well with upright 
>> bars. On my mid-eighties Trek for example (73.5 sta and 73 hta), I always 
>> felt like all of my weight was resting on my hands. This occurred even with 
>> different bars (albatross, jitensha, vo porteur), different stem lengths 
>> (everything from 8mm to 12mm), and different bar heights (below, even with, 
>> and above the saddle). It turned out the most expensive 200 dollar 
>> Craigslist bike I've ever come across.
>> My SimpleOne on the other hand (72 and 72 if I remember correctly), works 
>> beautifully with upright bars. Right now it's sporting VO Porteurs even 
>> with the saddle height, so it's not like I even have to be bolt upright to 
>> be comfortable. It took a little bit of noodling to get it dialed in, but 
>> honestly not a whole lot. I'm even thinking of getting a Hilsen with the 
>> same tt length and trying out some drop bars (which have always intimidated 
>> my long-legged, short-torsoed self).
>> Eric
>> On Wednesday, October 12, 2016 at 10:37:29 AM UTC-4, Patrick Moore wrote:
>>> 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 
>>> saddle).
>>> 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 damned high.
>>> 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 
>>> this position.
>>> 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 <> 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 <javascript:>.
>> To post to this group, send email to 
>> <javascript:>.
>> Visit this group at
>> For more options, visit
> -- 
> Resumes, LinkedIn profiles, bios, and letters that get interviews.
> By-the-hour resume and LinkedIn coaching.
> Other professional writing services.
> Patrick Moore
> Alburquerque, Nouvelle Mexique,  Vereinigte Staaten
> **************************************************************************
> **************
> *The point which is the pivot of the norm is the motionless center of a 
> circumference on the contours of which all conditions, distinctions, and 
> individualities revolve. *Chuang Tzu
> *Stat crux dum volvitur orbis.* *(The cross stands motionless while the 
> world revolves.) *Carthusian motto
> *It is *we *who change; *He* remains the same.* Eckhart
> *Kinei hos eromenon.* (*It moves [all things] as the beloved.) *Aristotle

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
Visit this group at
For more options, visit

Reply via email to