Apologies to Eddie (as the OP) for veering off on a tangent here, but I find Patrick & Garth's discussion of STA interesting -- and I think it makes an important point regarding what sort of bike works well with swept back bars and a more upright riding position. Now that it's been pointed out, I realize that a slack STA is an attribute of pretty much every classic bike intended for a heads up riding that I've seen. I'm thinking of the Dutch and Danish city bikes I've ridden in the past - their seating position is nearly bolt upright with a super slack STA, and they give a graceful and surprisingly brisk ride.
So...back to Eddie's original post; if you're seeking a bike that will handle well with sweptback, upright bars then it makes good sense to look for one with geometry that is optimized for that kind of riding position. It's not just the length of the stem that determines how a bike handles with any given handlebar or riding position, it's the sum of all the parts. Steve On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 2:49:24 PM UTC-4 Garth wrote: > Patrick, from my experience with the Bombadil, which has a rather long TT > for it's given size, (the 60cm size has a 63cm TT), and riding it with an > Albatross bar and 130mm stem, about 2 inches above the saddle...... yes I > could lean forward going up steep hills, but the high bars limit just how > low you can go. Compared to my now drop bar Franklin, which formerly had > high mounted Albatross bars like the Bomba, the difference is substantial > as I have absolutely free hip rotation now with the bars 2-1/2 to 3 inches > below the tip of the saddle. Tat's a big part in being able to lower > yourself comfortably, efficiently and powerfully, having low bars. I feel > like a kid in candy store riding my Franklin like this. I want no part in > ever riding with such high bars again. I'm in the process of changing the > Bomba to a drop bar as low as possible given the frame limits. Plus DT > shifters. There are however +/-25d and even 35d stems these days though. so > I should be able to get it at least 3 inches below the saddle. > > While the TT on the Clem and Hilly bikes appears long on paper, the actual > practical reach(saddle tip to hands), once you move your saddle far enough > forward, plus the very shallow HTA which comes towards you dramatically as > you raise the bars, it really isn't all that long. I suspect the practical > reach would be no longer than my Bomba as I described above. > > Do you remember the post about Rivsters wanting a more setback post ? They > were mostly looking for extra reach on their Clems or Platy frames. That it > was the wrong direction to go notwithstanding, I found it telling how > anyone on such a long bike would want more reach on such a long frame and > wayback bars. > > As for STA, my Franklin is 72.5, the Bomba 72. I used to think the > shallower was what I needed, but now I realize I had that reversed, I don't > want anything less than 72.5(my Franklin), and this is with 150mm cranks > pedalling near midfoot. My newly arrived VO Rando frame has a 73.5 STA, for > which I'll use the setback Nitto S84 post with the saddle mounted well > forward(rearward on the rails). The post is a leftover, so I may as well > use it for something. Even on the Franklin, with a Cobb San Remo saddle, a > "classic" saddle not unlike a Flite or Ritchey Skyline, I currently have it > mounted about halfway back on the rails(far forward) with a Ritchey Classic > seatpost. When I first got the saddle I had mounted on the S84, so now on > the Ritchey post it's about 40mm or more forward of where I started ! The > lower I've been going in bar drop, the more forward I have been moving the > saddle. The wonderful thing is I've never been more comfortable riding a > bike ! I have a -17d stem on order so I can go lower by 20mm. It feels > totally natural. In terms of "power" in relation to STA, I'd say I don't > have more than before, I'm just using it most efficiently/effectively now. > Able to push really hard and recover quickly, things like that. I've also > noticed how day to day I don't have the sore legs I formerly did with the > seat way back and sitting more up. I don't have sore anything on the bike > anymore. Having the hips able to rotate totally freely is something I don't > ever recall experiencing. The combo of low drop bars, a more forward saddle > position and 150mm cranks is awesome ! > > Obviously I have no idea how you'd like a Clem or Hilly bike, it's just > something to experience for yourself ! > > I hope I covered everything for you Patrick .... :) ! > > > > On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 1:19:04 PM UTC-4 Patrick Moore wrote: > > I have no dog scheduled for participation in this most benign of > discussions, but I do have a question. I as Garth like a riding position > that bends my hips sufficiently -- so, sufficient saddle setback and > sufficient bar drop and distance -- and I as he expect that a Roadini > designed for a drop bar will handle awkwardly with a Billy Bar. I'm > speculating but that would certainly be true with my blue Ram or even first > edition Sam. > > But the Clem and similar designs: I have a practical interest as I have > seriously considered buying a Clem. So my question is, to Garth and others: > doesn't the very design of the Clem frame "optimize" it for a sweepback bar > and an upright riding position? > > So, isn't the Clem designed for long sweepback bars by having a very long > tt so that despite your Billy Bar you still have to learn forward enough > for decent hip angle? > > There is a discussion currently over on iBob about sta and whether steep > stas allow more power, and one thread direction has been rod brake > roadsters and omafietses which of course have very slack stas. It has been > asserted that these very slack stas are good because they allow you to sit > bolt upright while getting enough hip angle to put needed torque on the > pedals -- and God knows that RBRs are overgeared by modern standards: 68' > or 72 and that's before you add a SA AW hub with 133% overdrive! > > I realize that all of this has nothing to do with "tiller effect." > > On Mon, Sep 11, 2023 at 6:17 AM Garth wrote: > > More specifically Eddie, I don't think using a bar like the Billie on a > Roadini is a good idea to begin with if you find yourself wanting to move > forward for a more stable steering experience. You be much better of with a > shallow drop bar. Personally, I don't think having high bars lives up to > the purported benefits often espoused by Will or Grant and all that ride > them. I found just the opposite myself..... it's like wanting to get from > Dallas to Atlanta via Seattle. .... "your're going the wrong way !". Bikes > simply handle wonderfully with your body weight forward and hands forward > of the steering axis. I get that GP designs his "upright" bikes to maximize > the "high, back and upright" position in terms of stability, but to me all > the compensating in the world for being so far back of the steering axis > will ever eliminate that "twitchy, tiller effect". That said lots of people > ride them and love them and rightly so. I'm coming from a place where I > simply don't relate to that in a positive way. It's a matter of taste, and > we all have an affinity for what we have an affinity for. I can't stand the > Star Anise flavor for example, that many people love. While I don't relate > to the flavor itself, I certainly relate to the experiencing of that which > one enjoys. > > I think of how Rivendell frame design has so radically changed in the last > 20 years. You could say the Clem design may have saved the company as it > became so popular as the basic road bike design had seemed to become so > passe', so to speak. In the seeming endless quest for something "new" to > experience, I can see how road bike design went to ape crazy into carbon > for lightness and disc brakes and now aerodynamics. It's making the bikes > way more complex that they need to be, and making them out to be something > more than they ever are. .... a means to "the ride" ! That quest for > "newness" is ironically the source of all the woes of the world, as the > inherent message within it is that "now isn't good enough, it's lacking in > some way, so more is needed, some compensation is required in ordered to be > fulfilled !". The problem with that is that is just a big fat lie. The > compensation is never enough, no matter how much is given, more is always > taken, more is demanded. More is never enough. Of course it's never enough, > and that's the point. ISness can't be fulfilled or made because it isn't > absent in any way. What a paradox ..... things that seem to appear missing > aren't missing at all..... they're revealing in the Light the actuality of > What IS :) How cool that is ...... Ride on. > > > > -- 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 [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/9a401add-0168-4389-aee1-75c877e7ae64n%40googlegroups.com.
