Lum, Dave: I think you are right. I was really on the fence about the size when consulting with Jay. He asked if I was planning to use the bike off road, and at the time I was thinking I might use it offload only 10% of the time, so he counseled me to go to the bigger size. In retrospect, knowing what I know now about the length of the top tube, which has always felt too long, I don't think the terrain matters. The smaller size would have been better. I think Lum is right in my not being able to muscle the large bike. While I'd love to get to the point where I can ascend mountains in the saddle, I'm often out of the saddle on all my bikes, always have been. I need all the leverage and muscle recruitment I can get.
So what I have learned about this particular frame (can't speak for any other models, even different year of the same model, as Dave points out): Being that I ride drops with a long reach (noodles) and that my legs are long relative to my torso, and the fact that I'm a light, not-powerful rider, the smaller frame would have been a better cal, of me. Maybe not for someone else. If I'd been local and could have ridden different sizes, I would likely have gone to the smaller frame, I think. Live and learn. On Saturday, January 7, 2017 at 2:42:24 PM UTC-8, Dave Johnston wrote: > > The newer Sams have slightly shorter effective top tubes relative to their > seat tubes than the first generation ones. The 60cm model had a 61cm top > tube and today's 58cm model has a 59cm effective top tube. That may work > better for you with drop bars and maybe worse with upright bars. > > The 2016 and on 58cm model will have a single top tube as well. Does your > bike have a double top tube? I would guess that a double top tube would > make a bike less lively, but more tour worthy. If you are more leg than > torso I would have recommended going down in size vs up as long as the bars > would end up where you want them. Smaller bikes tend to feel more lively > and bigger ones tend to be more stable because of the longer wheelbase, but > I'm dubious there is a speed difference. > > I believe that the early Sams had thinner wall tubes but I can't find the > specs on those. The "Silver" tubes on the current models are pretty darn > thick. The top tube on the 55cm is 0.9 - 0.7mm and the downtube 1.1 - > 0.8mm. I think some of the tubes are single butted. > > I have a early 56cm Atlantis and have always found it sluggish feeling > compared to 56 Ram and 57 Bleriot. Its a good tourer and can fit 2" tires, > so its a better trail rider, so that is a trade off I accept and I still > find rides fun on almost any bike, but the Atlantis did not work out as the > "bike for all uses" because of that. It can do it all, but it is not as > much fun on unloaded zippy day rides. I believe the current Atlantis has > thicker tubing than the early generation ones, but Riv doesn't like to talk > about tubing so I'm not sure. > > > -Dave J > > > On Thursday, January 5, 2017 at 5:29:16 PM UTC-5, John Bokman wrote: >> >> I'm trying to discern if there's any real (not imagined) physical >> properties of the upsloping top tube on my 2009 Sam that would make it a >> sluggish climber. I've never cared for the aesthetics of the sloped frame, >> so I'm thinking it could be in my head. But the truth is, I've always felt >> the bike is sluggish climbing, and I'm curious what other's think. Granted, >> tires make a big difference, but regardless of tires and tire pressures >> (I've used many variants), the result is the same for me: sluggish >> climbing. Whatever you do, please don't tell me it's the motor! >> >> >> > -- 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 rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
