I'm not sure this true for every rider/circumstance. I've purchased a couple of custom bikes over my 40+ years of riding and purchased them with setback seatposts and shortish stems to accommodate my somewhat long legs and short arms. As I've grown older and suffered injuries which impact how I sit on my bikes, my fit has changed. Rather than discard frames and buy new ones, I've been able to successfully move from a 20mm offset to a zero offset seapost without discomfort or injury. In fact, just the opposite occurred. I own and Clem and MIT Atlantis and purchased both using guidance from Riv and experience to achieve a comfortable fit on both. My drop bar Atlantis is set up with a zero offset post and a 1 cm shorter stem. My swept back bar Clem has a 20mm set back post and 1cm longer stem. My contact points are nearly identical on the two and I ride both in comfort for hours. I have tried short extension stems (less than 4cm) and found that they did strange things to steering and my position on the bike. Just my $.02.
On Wednesday, March 4, 2020 at 4:33:39 PM UTC-5, James / Analog Cycles wrote: > > A few things about drop bars on Riv's, shortening reach to bars, and short > stems. > > 1. Putting a zero offset post on your bike is not a valid way to > shorten reach. It's like cutting the toe box out of your shoes because > they're too short. The answer isn't shoe destruction, it's to get shoes > that fit. Zero offset posts make zero sense unless your bike has a really > slack seat angle to begin with. The following is from a forthcoming > article on Tanglefoot Cycles' website, which I wrote. " > > In the years between 1890 and 1905, bike geometry made a shift. > Bikes in the early 1890’s had really steep seat angles and really short > chainstays, geometry not far from today’s ‘trail bikes’. In the years > that > followed, bike geometry grew up. It settled on angles that reflected the > use of the bike for longer and rougher trips. Bike makers needed to > modify > angles until folks could ride long, hard rides, over really bad terrain. > Slowly, then allofasudden, angles looked normal. The Wright Brothers Van > Cleve, a really nice looking all arounder, has a seat angle that we’d > recognize today as a normal, riding position. Tanglefoot recognizes the > importance of this riding position. People have not physically changed > much in 100 years. The riding position that worked for long, hard rides is > still the riding position we need today. Steep seat angles were discarded > through 20 years of experimentation a long time ago. We don’t need to > relearn the lesson. It’s already been learned. > > By 1900, cycling had transitioned from a rich person’s hobby to a > serious means of transportation. The first roads in the US to be paved > were not paved because of cars, but because cyclists demanded better > surfaces to ride on. Bike racing became incredibly popular, including long > endurance track races and long distance road races. Bike riding clubs > started up all over the country. Riders routinely rode long distances in > these club rides, riding from town to town, city to city. Bike touring > became an affordable way to see the country. All of these factors meant > people were spending more time on their bikes. They needed a riding > position that allowed them to travel these increased distances > comfortably. > Seat angles became slacker and chainstays grew longer because of this. By > 1910 or so, seat angles had more or less settled on the standard that was > used as the paradigm for the next 120 years. > > It’s important to note a few things about this seat tube angle. > > For starters, the effective angle between the center of the usable > portion of the saddle rails and the center of the bottom bracket is not > the > seat tube angle. Let’s call that angle the effective saddle fore and aft > position angle, or just saddle angle for short. The saddle angle is > slacker > than the seat tube angle and that’s important. It’s roughly 1.5 > degrees slacker on most bikes. The human body hasn't changed in all > these years.. and the sound fit principals that found this happy medium > have not changed either. The relationship of the hip/knee/pedal happens to > grow as needed by a taller rider’s femur as the saddle goes up and back on > this angled axis, the Mezzo Forte Axis. The Mezzo Forte Axis is the > moderate, but powerful riding position that has proven itself over the > course of history. > > The fastest riders on the planet, the riders who race the Tour and the > Giro and the Vuelta ride this saddle angle. If there was a faster angle > to > ride hard then get up the next day and do it again, they’d use it. Look at > the pro’s road race bikes. The steeper the seat angle, the more saddle > set back there is. This is the reason, very very few pros ride 0mm > setback posts, and only a tiny handful ride posts with negative > setback, ie posts that put your saddle clamp in front of the seatpost. > > We have high-tech technology to see what the best position is on a > bike for long distance riding. Before we had the technology, we had > stopwatches and race results. I’ve heard arguments that a more forward > riding position is more powerful for short bursts. That’s true, but it’s > not > sustainable power. If it was, road racers would use it all the time. > The muscles engaged with a more forward position do not have the ability > to > grind in a forward position for hours. You use big endurance muscles > when your saddle is further back. They’re not as punchy, but they’re > effective for the long haul. Wanna use those power muscles? Slide forward > on your saddle. Then... This from a different section: You also never > want to admit that by shortening chainstays and steepening seat angles, > you > are putting the riders’ weight further forward, which decreases traction > on > the rear wheel and puts more weight on your hands. The forward weight > shift also increases the likelihood of an endo (flying over your > handlebars > when the going gets steep or sketchy). This position disregards years > of proven results for the purpose of fat tire / short stay marketing > piffle > and misinformed claims of increased power with no regard for reduced > mechanical advantage. Steep seat angles work fine on Time Trial/Tri bikes, > because the bars are incredibly low. This combo, low bars, steep seat > angle, allows you to maintain the relationship between your torso and legs > that makes a normal seat angle work so well. If you only change one of > these things, IE the seat angle, and not the other, the system falls out > of > wack. No advertising or catalog is gunna point these negative issues > out. They are not selling features. Nor is the knee damage riders will > suffer from an increasingly aggressive pedaling position, or the higher > center of gravity resulting from moving forward and up. As the saddle > moves forward, it must also be raised to maintain consistent leg length. > 2. > > Your saddle needs to be at the right height and set back for long term > comfortable riding. You adjust reach with a stem, as that does not > negatively impact your best saddle position. > 3. > > Never move a saddle toward it's extremes on the rails. I've seen far > too many rails break from this. Saddles, esp Brooks, need to be centered > within a few mm on the seatpost clamp. > 4. > > All of this is why we reinvented (from the early 1900's) the super > short (w)Right stem, which finally will be available again in about 2-3 > weeks. They are at the cerakoter now. 225mm quill length, the same as a > Technomic Tallux, because it uses a Technomic bolt and wedge. We'll have > 30mm and 0mm extensions, in clear gloss cerakote or gloss black cerakote, > which is harder and thinner and longer lasting than a powder coat. In a > month, we'll have these in 50 and 70mm as well. Analog and The Psychic > Derailleur will stock them. 31.8mm clamp only for now, but that's not a > bad > thing, as most good bars these days only come in 31.8. For whatever it's > worth, the stem is entirely US sourced, from the materials to the guy > brazing them (Alex Meade) to the coating. 4 bolt faceplate. > 5. > > Combining a short reach stem and shorter reach bars is a valid fit > fix, and, when you are using a steel stem with 31.8 clamp, you are also > stiffening up bar area, which means better tracking, especially on rough > terrain. > 6. > > Every Riv model can be converted to a comfortable drop bar set up > without a 0mm seatpost. You just need the right bars and stem. I've done > it > to Clems, Joe's, lots of Atlantises. Works great, with the right tools. > > -james / Analog Cycles / Tanglefoot Cycles / Discord Components / Fifth > Season Canvas > > On Wednesday, February 26, 2020 at 7:00:13 AM UTC-5, John G. wrote: >> >> I have a bunch of parts in need of a 700c frame, so I’ve been pondering >> my next build. I miss my old Atlantis, though I traded it for my Roadeo, >> which I love. I’m thinking about getting a MIT Atlantis, but the reach on >> the MIT model seems longer than the older iterations. Albatrosses aren’t >> for me—I get wrist pain on longer rides. Has anyone set up their MIT >> Atlantis with drops or Albastaches? Are they really more intended for bars >> like the Albastache? > > -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/81ebb452-6598-4812-90d2-274fa83ebfa9%40googlegroups.com.
