on 2/4/10 8:28 AM, Rene at valbu...@ix.netcom.com wrote: > TCO is a problem to me which I have learned to live with with all the > Rivendell models I have owned. But this does not leave me less > sensitive to GP's choice of words on this matter either. I hope > Rivendell Bicycle Works will put out a chart or a table indicating at > what size(s) among their models is TCO not going to be "a problem" > even with a size 12 feet or shoes. Or even a smaller size if 12 is a > bigger average. Some may tell me that I should tell this directly to > RBW. But I thought since GP started this subject on this forum, I can > propose it here.
I think GP's post was a new thread to comment about a previous thread. Nevertheless, I do want to remind folks that if they want to communicate with Rivendell on any subject, the best way if directly. (Or cc them on the email with a note explaining why.) This list is an "off-site" get together. Back on this subject, to paraphrase and engage in conjecture, I think Rene's post above gets at the crux of the issue - the significant number of variables in what seems a simple question. A frame that has no TCO for a rider with size 10 feet may cause problems if you are a size 12. If I use a clip-in pedal system, with cleats under the ball of my feet, that's going to be different than if I use platforms and pedal with a mid-foot-centered position. Large soled shoes? Fitted shoes? Do I make low course corrections more with body english or tiller input? Clearly, for those folks to whom this is an issue, there must be a way to quantify it. You could probably measure the BB to front axle distance, and see if there was a consistency in what size caused the issue. The variables would be wheel size, tire size, fender standoff (gap from tire), fender thickness, shoe size (literally, the materal thickness at the toe), foot position with relation to pedal spindle (i.e. how much "meat" is in front of the spindle, though you can really just combine those two variables into one), and crank length. But, all of those would run on the basic dimension of bb to front axle. So, I get all charged up and measure this out on the Quickbeam, a 58 cm frame which seems to have about a 610 mm bb-front axle measurement. The distance from the axle to the outside of the fender is 362 mm, the cranks are 170 mm and the "foot protrusion" is 100 mm. Which would mean that the overlap is ~22 mm. Except it isn't. I don't have any issues on that bike. And then it dawns on me that the whole thing has a 2nd dimension which involves (a) the arc of the front wheel and (b) the offset of foot position from the centerline of the bike (determined by bb spindle length, crank "tread" width, length of pedal spindles, and the inboard/outboard position of the foot on the pedal itself.) So, if I pedal with toes pointed in, using a narrow Q crankset on the shortest possible bb spindle, it's going to be different than toes out, wide cranks and longer bb spindle. And that, my friends, gets quickly beyond any math I can quickly do in my head on a lunch break. Dang. - Jim "humbled by numbers once again..." -- Jim Edgar cyclofi...@earthlink.net "One Cog - Zero Excuses" L/S T-shirt - Now available http://www.cyclofiend.com/stuff Cyclofiend Bicycle Photo Galleries - http://www.cyclofiend.com Current Classics - Cross Bikes Singlespeed - Working Bikes Send In Your Photos! - Here's how: http://www.cyclofiend.com/guidelines -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
