Re: [RBW] Re: Bike Fitting - A Mine Field
Shaun, Based on my experience and research, I love the design of the Atlantis. However, it's a pricey option so I'm considering a LHT instead. The only thing about the Trucker that concerns me is the chainstay length of 46cm (compared to the 44cm chainstays of the Atlantis). You've ridden both so did you notice an appreciable difference in the ride/handling that can be attributed to that additional 2cm of chainstay length on the LHT? On Thursday, August 1, 2013 10:19:05 AM UTC-5, meehan...@gmail.com wrote: I've got a 64cm LHT that replaced a 68cm Atlantis. There is probably 1 or 2 more cm of seatpost showing on the Trucker but I feel more comfortable on it. With spacers on the steerer the vertical relationship beween the saddle and the bars is the same as on the Atlantis (bars slightly higher than saddle). I sized the Atlantis based on PBH, as RBW recommends, and the top tube always felt too long on the bike. Shaun Meehan On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 10:11 AM, Matt Beebe matthi...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: Hi Jim, I measured a 58 and and a 62, though my measurements may have been off by half a centimeter give or take.The 58 seems to have a 61cm actual TT length, and the 62 has a 63cm actual TT length.Doing some trigonometry the 58 Hunq has about a 63cm effective TT and the 62 has about a 65cm ETT. Also there is a post here ( https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rbw-owners-bunch/Z-4DozId6xI/9kcJ95rY5F0J) where William confirmed with Keven that the numbers had changed after the chart was made. Matt On Thursday, August 1, 2013 10:22:50 AM UTC-4, James Warren wrote: The following frames do not have expanded geometry: Atlantis, AHH, Roadeo. The following do: Hillborne, Hunqapillar, Bombadil, San Marcos, Betty Foy The expanded ones are identified in the chart by their 6 degree toptube slope (if they have a TT.) Any in that category should be showing just effective TT length. If the Hunqapillar is not showing the true effective TT number, then either geometry was changed without notice (since it is subject to that), there is a misprint, or there is some other error. Matt, how do you know that the Hunqapillar's listed length is not the real effective TT? Did you measure one? I've never done that on a sloping frame. I guess that would be simple to do. Just curious, how did you do it? (I might try a rigid meter stick held horizontal and a bubble level on top of the stick, with the stick's zero positioned at the seat post center.) -Jim W. Sent from my iPhone On Aug 1, 2013, at 12:45 AM, Matt Beebe matthi...@gmail.com wrote: It's not actually clear which frames on the current geometry chart show the effective rather than actual TT lengths. I know for example that the Hunqapillar TT lengths listed are definitely not effective length though, I don't even think they are actual length. Matt On Thursday, August 1, 2013 1:29:18 AM UTC-4, James Warren wrote: To David Craig's question: no, for Atlantis and AHH, the TT listings are actual, not effective. So with those two, the effective TT is a bit longer, but the effect is relatively small due to low angles. But yes it's true that the expanded frames (6 degree upslope ones) only list the effective TT, not actual. If you like geometry and trigonometry, I figured our how to calculate effective TT length. If you're interested, send me a private message. -Jim W. Sent from my iPhone On Jul 31, 2013, at 4:23 PM, David Craig neritic...@gmail.com wrote: Point taken, Matt. On the topic of tt's, I seem to recall reading in something from RBW that they list only the effective tt on the geometry charts. Is that true? If so, does it apply to the Atlantis as well as the bikes with more angle to the tt (Hilborne).? -- 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-bun...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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-bun...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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-bun...@googlegroups.com javascript:. To post
Re: [RBW] Re: Bike Fitting - A Mine Field
When I had my old Trek Multitrack re-fitted with a threadless fork it took two phone calls and a personal visit to the shop to convince them not to cut the steerer tube! I told them to stack the spacers and put the stem at the very top (so I'd have plenty of cable length). I'll admit it looked ridiculous and was uncomfortable to ride but I immediately dropped the stem about half-way down the steerer and went from there with experimenting for a final position. On Wednesday, July 31, 2013 2:16:04 PM UTC-5, meehan...@gmail.com wrote: A friend of mine recently purchased a Long Haul Trucker from his LBS in Wisconsin after coming up and test riding both my LHT and my Ogre to decide which one he wanted to get. When the shop took delivery of the bike, my friend called me asking for my advice as to what height he should have his steerer cut to, as the shop was ready to cut it for him as part of the assembly and set-up process. I told him to ask them not cut it at all, and to have them install adequate spacers for assembly. I explained that he could then play around with the height indefinitely and if and when he knew that he had his bars exactly where he wanted them, we could then cut it. He was buying a 64cm bike too, so it wasn't a ton of spacers. I also told him that my 64cm (that he did a test ride on) still has the full steerer and that the stem was right at the top. He relayed his request to the shop (while I was still on the phone) and he got a surprising amount of resistance! No you don't want to do that, etc. I kept insisting that that's exactly what he wanted them to do and it almost became an argument with my friend stuck in the middle. They finally agreed not to cut it and installed the spacers. I guess some shops just have the mentality that the steerer needs to be cut. Shaun Meehan On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 1:50 PM, David Craig neritic...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: Wow, Jim, thanks for this information. I had never really thought about this since I always ride Surly's largest sizes. I checked out the Surly site and noted that for the LHT, all sizes of the 700c bikes have a 320 mm steer tube. I'm glad I didn't get a 64cm LHT thinking I would get additional bar height over a 62! And I'm equally glad I didn't advise anyone to go for larger sizes just to get the bars higher because your point about the problem of getting too large of a frame when buying a Surly using the Riv sizing guidelines seems right on. However, negative perceptions about stacks o spacers on uncut tubes do complicate putting someone on the best frame size as you suggest. It took me a year to sell my wife on a steer tube extension for her road bike because she didn't like the way it looked. Neck pain and hand numbness eventually helped to make the case. I did note that the 26 LHT's do have different sized steerers for different ranges. Size 54 and below have a 300mm steer tube and 56 and above have a 380mm steer tube. It seems clear also that a 62cm CC would have a lower max bar height than a 62cm LHT given that CC's have a 300mm steer tube and LHT's have a 320mm tube. So . . . someone looking to get those bars up there for a given frame size would be better served by getting the LHT. Dave On Wednesday, July 31, 2013 5:17:53 AM UTC-7, Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery wrote: All Cross-checks in all sizes come out of the box with 300 mm steerers. With a 62 cm frame, there is nothing to cut off because the head tube is long enough to allow a stem and maybe an inch or two of spacers. The old Surly warranty stipulated that stem plus spacers shouldn't exceed 100 mm, but last year they changed that, and now they say there is no limit on steerer length. But this is important: with threaded steerers, the size of the frame determines how high you can get the bars. If you want high bars, get a big frame. This is the Rivendell way. This advice is completely worthless with threadless steerers like Surly uses, because all sizes can have the same handlebar height if you don't cut the steerer. So a 52 cm frame can theoretically fit exactly the same as a 58 cm frame if the stem length is long enough to make up the difference. Buying a Surly using the Riv sizing guideline apples-to-apples is quite likely to result in a bike that's on the too-big side. I will tell you that uncut steerers with a lot of spacers tend to get a lot of negative commentary. Our Surly floor bikes usually sport this feature, and everyday somebody asks me to justify it or comments that they don't like the look. Yet of the bikes that sell, only a small fraction come back to have the steerer shortened. -- 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
Re: [RBW] Re: Bike Fitting - A Mine Field
It's not actually clear which frames on the current geometry chart show the effective rather than actual TT lengths. I know for example that the Hunqapillar TT lengths listed are definitely not effective length though, I don't even think they are actual length. Matt On Thursday, August 1, 2013 1:29:18 AM UTC-4, James Warren wrote: To David Craig's question: no, for Atlantis and AHH, the TT listings are actual, not effective. So with those two, the effective TT is a bit longer, but the effect is relatively small due to low angles. But yes it's true that the expanded frames (6 degree upslope ones) only list the effective TT, not actual. If you like geometry and trigonometry, I figured our how to calculate effective TT length. If you're interested, send me a private message. -Jim W. Sent from my iPhone On Jul 31, 2013, at 4:23 PM, David Craig neritic...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: Point taken, Matt. On the topic of tt's, I seem to recall reading in something from RBW that they list only the effective tt on the geometry charts. Is that true? If so, does it apply to the Atlantis as well as the bikes with more angle to the tt (Hilborne).? -- 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-bun...@googlegroups.com javascript:. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.comjavascript:. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Re: Bike Fitting - A Mine Field
The following frames do not have expanded geometry: Atlantis, AHH, Roadeo. The following do: Hillborne, Hunqapillar, Bombadil, San Marcos, Betty Foy The expanded ones are identified in the chart by their 6 degree toptube slope (if they have a TT.) Any in that category should be showing just effective TT length. If the Hunqapillar is not showing the true effective TT number, then either geometry was changed without notice (since it is subject to that), there is a misprint, or there is some other error. Matt, how do you know that the Hunqapillar's listed length is not the real effective TT? Did you measure one? I've never done that on a sloping frame. I guess that would be simple to do. Just curious, how did you do it? (I might try a rigid meter stick held horizontal and a bubble level on top of the stick, with the stick's zero positioned at the seat post center.) -Jim W. Sent from my iPhone On Aug 1, 2013, at 12:45 AM, Matt Beebe matthiasbe...@gmail.com wrote: It's not actually clear which frames on the current geometry chart show the effective rather than actual TT lengths. I know for example that the Hunqapillar TT lengths listed are definitely not effective length though, I don't even think they are actual length. Matt On Thursday, August 1, 2013 1:29:18 AM UTC-4, James Warren wrote: To David Craig's question: no, for Atlantis and AHH, the TT listings are actual, not effective. So with those two, the effective TT is a bit longer, but the effect is relatively small due to low angles. But yes it's true that the expanded frames (6 degree upslope ones) only list the effective TT, not actual. If you like geometry and trigonometry, I figured our how to calculate effective TT length. If you're interested, send me a private message. -Jim W. Sent from my iPhone On Jul 31, 2013, at 4:23 PM, David Craig neritic...@gmail.com wrote: Point taken, Matt. On the topic of tt's, I seem to recall reading in something from RBW that they list only the effective tt on the geometry charts. Is that true? If so, does it apply to the Atlantis as well as the bikes with more angle to the tt (Hilborne).? -- 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-bun...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Re: Bike Fitting - A Mine Field
Hi Jim, I measured a 58 and and a 62, though my measurements may have been off by half a centimeter give or take.The 58 seems to have a 61cm actual TT length, and the 62 has a 63cm actual TT length.Doing some trigonometry the 58 Hunq has about a 63cm effective TT and the 62 has about a 65cm ETT. Also there is a post here ( https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rbw-owners-bunch/Z-4DozId6xI/9kcJ95rY5F0J) where William confirmed with Keven that the numbers had changed after the chart was made. Matt On Thursday, August 1, 2013 10:22:50 AM UTC-4, James Warren wrote: The following frames do not have expanded geometry: Atlantis, AHH, Roadeo. The following do: Hillborne, Hunqapillar, Bombadil, San Marcos, Betty Foy The expanded ones are identified in the chart by their 6 degree toptube slope (if they have a TT.) Any in that category should be showing just effective TT length. If the Hunqapillar is not showing the true effective TT number, then either geometry was changed without notice (since it is subject to that), there is a misprint, or there is some other error. Matt, how do you know that the Hunqapillar's listed length is not the real effective TT? Did you measure one? I've never done that on a sloping frame. I guess that would be simple to do. Just curious, how did you do it? (I might try a rigid meter stick held horizontal and a bubble level on top of the stick, with the stick's zero positioned at the seat post center.) -Jim W. Sent from my iPhone On Aug 1, 2013, at 12:45 AM, Matt Beebe matthi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: It's not actually clear which frames on the current geometry chart show the effective rather than actual TT lengths. I know for example that the Hunqapillar TT lengths listed are definitely not effective length though, I don't even think they are actual length. Matt On Thursday, August 1, 2013 1:29:18 AM UTC-4, James Warren wrote: To David Craig's question: no, for Atlantis and AHH, the TT listings are actual, not effective. So with those two, the effective TT is a bit longer, but the effect is relatively small due to low angles. But yes it's true that the expanded frames (6 degree upslope ones) only list the effective TT, not actual. If you like geometry and trigonometry, I figured our how to calculate effective TT length. If you're interested, send me a private message. -Jim W. Sent from my iPhone On Jul 31, 2013, at 4:23 PM, David Craig neritic...@gmail.com wrote: Point taken, Matt. On the topic of tt's, I seem to recall reading in something from RBW that they list only the effective tt on the geometry charts. Is that true? If so, does it apply to the Atlantis as well as the bikes with more angle to the tt (Hilborne).? -- 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-bun...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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-bun...@googlegroups.com javascript:. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Re: Bike Fitting - A Mine Field
I've got a 64cm LHT that replaced a 68cm Atlantis. There is probably 1 or 2 more cm of seatpost showing on the Trucker but I feel more comfortable on it. With spacers on the steerer the vertical relationship beween the saddle and the bars is the same as on the Atlantis (bars slightly higher than saddle). I sized the Atlantis based on PBH, as RBW recommends, and the top tube always felt too long on the bike. Shaun Meehan On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 10:11 AM, Matt Beebe matthiasbe...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Jim, I measured a 58 and and a 62, though my measurements may have been off by half a centimeter give or take.The 58 seems to have a 61cm actual TT length, and the 62 has a 63cm actual TT length.Doing some trigonometry the 58 Hunq has about a 63cm effective TT and the 62 has about a 65cm ETT. Also there is a post here ( https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rbw-owners-bunch/Z-4DozId6xI/9kcJ95rY5F0J) where William confirmed with Keven that the numbers had changed after the chart was made. Matt On Thursday, August 1, 2013 10:22:50 AM UTC-4, James Warren wrote: The following frames do not have expanded geometry: Atlantis, AHH, Roadeo. The following do: Hillborne, Hunqapillar, Bombadil, San Marcos, Betty Foy The expanded ones are identified in the chart by their 6 degree toptube slope (if they have a TT.) Any in that category should be showing just effective TT length. If the Hunqapillar is not showing the true effective TT number, then either geometry was changed without notice (since it is subject to that), there is a misprint, or there is some other error. Matt, how do you know that the Hunqapillar's listed length is not the real effective TT? Did you measure one? I've never done that on a sloping frame. I guess that would be simple to do. Just curious, how did you do it? (I might try a rigid meter stick held horizontal and a bubble level on top of the stick, with the stick's zero positioned at the seat post center.) -Jim W. Sent from my iPhone On Aug 1, 2013, at 12:45 AM, Matt Beebe matthi...@gmail.com wrote: It's not actually clear which frames on the current geometry chart show the effective rather than actual TT lengths. I know for example that the Hunqapillar TT lengths listed are definitely not effective length though, I don't even think they are actual length. Matt On Thursday, August 1, 2013 1:29:18 AM UTC-4, James Warren wrote: To David Craig's question: no, for Atlantis and AHH, the TT listings are actual, not effective. So with those two, the effective TT is a bit longer, but the effect is relatively small due to low angles. But yes it's true that the expanded frames (6 degree upslope ones) only list the effective TT, not actual. If you like geometry and trigonometry, I figured our how to calculate effective TT length. If you're interested, send me a private message. -Jim W. Sent from my iPhone On Jul 31, 2013, at 4:23 PM, David Craig neritic...@gmail.com wrote: Point taken, Matt. On the topic of tt's, I seem to recall reading in something from RBW that they list only the effective tt on the geometry charts. Is that true? If so, does it apply to the Atlantis as well as the bikes with more angle to the tt (Hilborne).? -- 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-bun...@**googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/**group/rbw-owners-bunchhttp://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/**groups/opt_outhttps://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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-bun...@**googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.**com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/**group/rbw-owners-bunchhttp://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/**groups/opt_outhttps://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out . -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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
Re: [RBW] Re: Bike Fitting - A Mine Field
I've never met a mean guy in a bike shop. Mostly passionate people, some jaded people who've heard it all before. This works for me and it should work for you, too, is a natural attitude. I think the comfort aspect that is so important to us, um, older guys really is lost in bike shops and certainly the bulk of the crank-them-out bike industry, where new, better, and techy sells. Paraphrased from the first post - seat high, bars down, that's where your power is. That's where his power is. My power is comfortably staying on the bike for a long ride. On Wednesday, July 31, 2013 12:36:24 AM UTC-5, IanA wrote: Excellent points made. I hope that I positively influenced the purchase of the bike. Only time will (may?) tell. After the positive and thoughtful comments from all listers on this thread, I might have been a lot more circumspect in helping my friend. Perhaps I would have just presented opinions of frame size, fit, tire clearance etc., based solely on my own experience of riding the actual bikes I own/have owned (I think I mostly did). I believe that following a certain amount of randonneur experience (more on the modest distance spectrum), extensive touring experience and extensive commuting that I have a pretty good handle on what works for me. As David rightly implies, what works for one is a subjective finding and might not work for someone else. In retrospect, perhaps it would have been better if my friend had bought a 60cm frame with an uncut steerer, or perhaps not. Perhaps either bike frame would serve equally as well. I do hope my friend enjoys the ownership of his new bike, I feel somewhat invested in it. In future, I will bear in mind all the points put forward in this thread and wade the waters of advice/opinion with great trepidation. Ian A. On Tuesday, July 30, 2013 2:46:30 PM UTC-6, David Craig wrote: It's tough to fit a bike. Really, it's much tougher than I think it seems to many of us. It's way tougher than selling shoes and even that isn't straightforward. Can we give well-intentioned shop owners, manufacturers and bike shop kids the benefit of the doubt? That doesn't mean we should blindly accept their views as truth. Caveat emptor. Regarding the challenges of bike fitting: First, there are the assumptions and values that go along with any fit system - including Grant's. There's the problem that there somehow needs to be any system and that we somehow feel better if we've been sized by a system rather than trusting ourselves. As Ron points out, science sells. Why do we need science to tell us a bike fits? Just ride, right? In a perfect world, we'd each have bodies that were perfectly proportioned, with no underlying injuries or anatomical quirks and any bike we'd buy would instantly adapt to us as we age, get fitter, decided to ride more or less, gain experience, or use the bike for different purposes. So, even a bike that's perfectly fitted and comfortable at the moment of purchase may not continue to be so after the glow of the purchase has faded or conditions change. It's funny that we'd expect anyone to fit a bike properly when proper fit is all about our own subjective feelings of comfort. The problem is exacerbated when the prospective rider hasn't really ridden since he or she was a kid. While I'll bet most of us on this list can no longer recall a time when virtually ANY bike would have felt uncomfortable, the beginner is completely dependent on someone else saying this should work so they discount their own misgivings. Or . . . contrary folks with their own minds that they are, they resist our well intentioned advice because what we're suggesting just doesn't *feel* right. Ever tried to convince a child that her or his seat height is wrong? There's also the complication of dealing with what people believe they want and need. Folks look at a bike with fat tires, a stack o spacers, bars way up there, triple chainrings or even a perfectly good bike without lugs and think that bike ain't for me. There are these individually defined aesthetics to consider and there's also the psychology of our own ego's. There are the influences we value over others or that we unconsciously accept. The issue isn't limited to bikes. I can't tell you how many folks I've met with outdoor gear that really isn't suited to who they are and what they actually do. Rather, they bought the gear (encouraged by a friend, a salesperson, an instructor, someone on a list like this . . .) to fit who they want to be. Nothing against instructors, salespeople, friends, etc., but we all also have our own biases and sometimes people ask us for our advice without accepting it as tentatively as they should. For our part, sometimes we speak our own truths a little too confidently. In the end, folks end up with too-tippy beautiful kayaks that the expert said they'd grow
Re: [RBW] Re: Bike Fitting - A Mine Field
my sister and BIL have new bikes from REI. Her power is not falling off. On Wednesday, July 31, 2013 6:50:30 AM UTC-5, Ron Mc wrote: I've never met a mean guy in a bike shop. Mostly passionate people, some jaded people who've heard it all before. This works for me and it should work for you, too, is a natural attitude. I think the comfort aspect that is so important to us, um, older guys really is lost in bike shops and certainly the bulk of the crank-them-out bike industry, where new, better, and techy sells. Paraphrased from the first post - seat high, bars down, that's where your power is. That's where his power is. My power is comfortably staying on the bike for a long ride. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
[RBW] Re: Bike Fitting - A Mine Field
Buying a Surly using the Riv sizing guideline apples-to-apples is quite likely to result in a bike that's on the too-big side. I could see that if you aimed for a fistful of seatpost on a Karate-Monkey, you'd end up with a bike that is too big.But it seems the Cross-check and LHT have similar geometries to say a Quickbeam or Atlantis, and could be sized using the basic Rivendell guidelines of seat-height minus 17cm or so.In my experience, they could, and it would not result in a bike that is too big at all. On Wednesday, July 31, 2013 8:17:53 AM UTC-4, Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery wrote: All Cross-checks in all sizes come out of the box with 300 mm steerers. With a 62 cm frame, there is nothing to cut off because the head tube is long enough to allow a stem and maybe an inch or two of spacers. The old Surly warranty stipulated that stem plus spacers shouldn't exceed 100 mm, but last year they changed that, and now they say there is no limit on steerer length. But this is important: with threaded steerers, the size of the frame determines how high you can get the bars. If you want high bars, get a big frame. This is the Rivendell way. This advice is completely worthless with threadless steerers like Surly uses, because all sizes can have the same handlebar height if you don't cut the steerer. So a 52 cm frame can theoretically fit exactly the same as a 58 cm frame if the stem length is long enough to make up the difference. Buying a Surly using the Riv sizing guideline apples-to-apples is quite likely to result in a bike that's on the too-big side. I will tell you that uncut steerers with a lot of spacers tend to get a lot of negative commentary. Our Surly floor bikes usually sport this feature, and everyday somebody asks me to justify it or comments that they don't like the look. Yet of the bikes that sell, only a small fraction come back to have the steerer shortened. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
[RBW] Re: Bike Fitting - A Mine Field
Wow, Jim, thanks for this information. I had never really thought about this since I always ride Surly's largest sizes. I checked out the Surly site and noted that for the LHT, all sizes of the 700c bikes have a 320 mm steer tube. I'm glad I didn't get a 64cm LHT thinking I would get additional bar height over a 62! And I'm equally glad I didn't advise anyone to go for larger sizes just to get the bars higher because your point about the problem of getting too large of a frame when buying a Surly using the Riv sizing guidelines seems right on. However, negative perceptions about stacks o spacers on uncut tubes do complicate putting someone on the best frame size as you suggest. It took me a year to sell my wife on a steer tube extension for her road bike because she didn't like the way it looked. Neck pain and hand numbness eventually helped to make the case. I did note that the 26 LHT's do have different sized steerers for different ranges. Size 54 and below have a 300mm steer tube and 56 and above have a 380mm steer tube. It seems clear also that a 62cm CC would have a lower max bar height than a 62cm LHT given that CC's have a 300mm steer tube and LHT's have a 320mm tube. So . . . someone looking to get those bars up there for a given frame size would be better served by getting the LHT. Dave On Wednesday, July 31, 2013 5:17:53 AM UTC-7, Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery wrote: All Cross-checks in all sizes come out of the box with 300 mm steerers. With a 62 cm frame, there is nothing to cut off because the head tube is long enough to allow a stem and maybe an inch or two of spacers. The old Surly warranty stipulated that stem plus spacers shouldn't exceed 100 mm, but last year they changed that, and now they say there is no limit on steerer length. But this is important: with threaded steerers, the size of the frame determines how high you can get the bars. If you want high bars, get a big frame. This is the Rivendell way. This advice is completely worthless with threadless steerers like Surly uses, because all sizes can have the same handlebar height if you don't cut the steerer. So a 52 cm frame can theoretically fit exactly the same as a 58 cm frame if the stem length is long enough to make up the difference. Buying a Surly using the Riv sizing guideline apples-to-apples is quite likely to result in a bike that's on the too-big side. I will tell you that uncut steerers with a lot of spacers tend to get a lot of negative commentary. Our Surly floor bikes usually sport this feature, and everyday somebody asks me to justify it or comments that they don't like the look. Yet of the bikes that sell, only a small fraction come back to have the steerer shortened. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Re: Bike Fitting - A Mine Field
A friend of mine recently purchased a Long Haul Trucker from his LBS in Wisconsin after coming up and test riding both my LHT and my Ogre to decide which one he wanted to get. When the shop took delivery of the bike, my friend called me asking for my advice as to what height he should have his steerer cut to, as the shop was ready to cut it for him as part of the assembly and set-up process. I told him to ask them not cut it at all, and to have them install adequate spacers for assembly. I explained that he could then play around with the height indefinitely and if and when he knew that he had his bars exactly where he wanted them, we could then cut it. He was buying a 64cm bike too, so it wasn't a ton of spacers. I also told him that my 64cm (that he did a test ride on) still has the full steerer and that the stem was right at the top. He relayed his request to the shop (while I was still on the phone) and he got a surprising amount of resistance! No you don't want to do that, etc. I kept insisting that that's exactly what he wanted them to do and it almost became an argument with my friend stuck in the middle. They finally agreed not to cut it and installed the spacers. I guess some shops just have the mentality that the steerer needs to be cut. Shaun Meehan On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 1:50 PM, David Craig neritic.mari...@gmail.comwrote: Wow, Jim, thanks for this information. I had never really thought about this since I always ride Surly's largest sizes. I checked out the Surly site and noted that for the LHT, all sizes of the 700c bikes have a 320 mm steer tube. I'm glad I didn't get a 64cm LHT thinking I would get additional bar height over a 62! And I'm equally glad I didn't advise anyone to go for larger sizes just to get the bars higher because your point about the problem of getting too large of a frame when buying a Surly using the Riv sizing guidelines seems right on. However, negative perceptions about stacks o spacers on uncut tubes do complicate putting someone on the best frame size as you suggest. It took me a year to sell my wife on a steer tube extension for her road bike because she didn't like the way it looked. Neck pain and hand numbness eventually helped to make the case. I did note that the 26 LHT's do have different sized steerers for different ranges. Size 54 and below have a 300mm steer tube and 56 and above have a 380mm steer tube. It seems clear also that a 62cm CC would have a lower max bar height than a 62cm LHT given that CC's have a 300mm steer tube and LHT's have a 320mm tube. So . . . someone looking to get those bars up there for a given frame size would be better served by getting the LHT. Dave On Wednesday, July 31, 2013 5:17:53 AM UTC-7, Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery wrote: All Cross-checks in all sizes come out of the box with 300 mm steerers. With a 62 cm frame, there is nothing to cut off because the head tube is long enough to allow a stem and maybe an inch or two of spacers. The old Surly warranty stipulated that stem plus spacers shouldn't exceed 100 mm, but last year they changed that, and now they say there is no limit on steerer length. But this is important: with threaded steerers, the size of the frame determines how high you can get the bars. If you want high bars, get a big frame. This is the Rivendell way. This advice is completely worthless with threadless steerers like Surly uses, because all sizes can have the same handlebar height if you don't cut the steerer. So a 52 cm frame can theoretically fit exactly the same as a 58 cm frame if the stem length is long enough to make up the difference. Buying a Surly using the Riv sizing guideline apples-to-apples is quite likely to result in a bike that's on the too-big side. I will tell you that uncut steerers with a lot of spacers tend to get a lot of negative commentary. Our Surly floor bikes usually sport this feature, and everyday somebody asks me to justify it or comments that they don't like the look. Yet of the bikes that sell, only a small fraction come back to have the steerer shortened. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit
Re: [RBW] Re: Bike Fitting - A Mine Field
On Wednesday, July 31, 2013 12:16:04 PM UTC-7, meehan...@gmail.com wrote: A friend of mine recently purchased a Long Haul Trucker from his LBS in Wisconsin after coming up and test riding both my LHT and my Ogre to decide which one he wanted to get. When the shop took delivery of the bike, my friend called me asking for my advice as to what height he should have his steerer cut to, as the shop was ready to cut it for him as part of the assembly and set-up process. I told him to ask them not cut it at all, and to have them install adequate spacers for assembly. I explained that he could then play around with the height indefinitely and if and when he knew that he had his bars exactly where he wanted them, we could then cut it. He was buying a 64cm bike too, so it wasn't a ton of spacers. I also told him that my 64cm (that he did a test ride on) still has the full steerer and that the stem was right at the top. He relayed his request to the shop (while I was still on the phone) and he got a surprising amount of resistance! No you don't want to do that, etc. I kept insisting that that's exactly what he wanted them to do and it almost became an argument with my friend stuck in the middle. They finally agreed not to cut it and installed the spacers. I guess some shops just have the mentality that the steerer needs to be cut. Yow, I would find another shop! I had the opposite response last year when I picked up a used litespeed. I got a new carbon fork and asked that they also not cut the steerer tube. The owner encouraged it agreeing that I should leave it until I find out exactly how high I wanted my bars. He put spacers below and on top of the stem. I still have it that way and actually like the look of the silver spacers on top of stem! Good Luck! On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 1:50 PM, David Craig neritic...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: Wow, Jim, thanks for this information. I had never really thought about this since I always ride Surly's largest sizes. I checked out the Surly site and noted that for the LHT, all sizes of the 700c bikes have a 320 mm steer tube. I'm glad I didn't get a 64cm LHT thinking I would get additional bar height over a 62! And I'm equally glad I didn't advise anyone to go for larger sizes just to get the bars higher because your point about the problem of getting too large of a frame when buying a Surly using the Riv sizing guidelines seems right on. However, negative perceptions about stacks o spacers on uncut tubes do complicate putting someone on the best frame size as you suggest. It took me a year to sell my wife on a steer tube extension for her road bike because she didn't like the way it looked. Neck pain and hand numbness eventually helped to make the case. I did note that the 26 LHT's do have different sized steerers for different ranges. Size 54 and below have a 300mm steer tube and 56 and above have a 380mm steer tube. It seems clear also that a 62cm CC would have a lower max bar height than a 62cm LHT given that CC's have a 300mm steer tube and LHT's have a 320mm tube. So . . . someone looking to get those bars up there for a given frame size would be better served by getting the LHT. Dave On Wednesday, July 31, 2013 5:17:53 AM UTC-7, Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery wrote: All Cross-checks in all sizes come out of the box with 300 mm steerers. With a 62 cm frame, there is nothing to cut off because the head tube is long enough to allow a stem and maybe an inch or two of spacers. The old Surly warranty stipulated that stem plus spacers shouldn't exceed 100 mm, but last year they changed that, and now they say there is no limit on steerer length. But this is important: with threaded steerers, the size of the frame determines how high you can get the bars. If you want high bars, get a big frame. This is the Rivendell way. This advice is completely worthless with threadless steerers like Surly uses, because all sizes can have the same handlebar height if you don't cut the steerer. So a 52 cm frame can theoretically fit exactly the same as a 58 cm frame if the stem length is long enough to make up the difference. Buying a Surly using the Riv sizing guideline apples-to-apples is quite likely to result in a bike that's on the too-big side. I will tell you that uncut steerers with a lot of spacers tend to get a lot of negative commentary. Our Surly floor bikes usually sport this feature, and everyday somebody asks me to justify it or comments that they don't like the look. Yet of the bikes that sell, only a small fraction come back to have the steerer shortened. -- 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-bun...@googlegroups.com javascript:. To
[RBW] Re: Bike Fitting - A Mine Field
On a related note I just bought a new frameset that came with a 400mm threadless steerer. He spec'd it super extra long to make it impossible for anyone to want it any longer, especially considering his XL is not that big, only a 60cm c-c. I cut about 90mm off mine (58 cm c-c framesize), and it's still ridiculously long, but it's at the point where I'll dial it in and cut it again if I decide I want to. If I had left it uncut, the steerer would have poked me in the face! On Wednesday, July 31, 2013 11:50:58 AM UTC-7, David Craig wrote: Wow, Jim, thanks for this information. I had never really thought about this since I always ride Surly's largest sizes. I checked out the Surly site and noted that for the LHT, all sizes of the 700c bikes have a 320 mm steer tube. I'm glad I didn't get a 64cm LHT thinking I would get additional bar height over a 62! And I'm equally glad I didn't advise anyone to go for larger sizes just to get the bars higher because your point about the problem of getting too large of a frame when buying a Surly using the Riv sizing guidelines seems right on. However, negative perceptions about stacks o spacers on uncut tubes do complicate putting someone on the best frame size as you suggest. It took me a year to sell my wife on a steer tube extension for her road bike because she didn't like the way it looked. Neck pain and hand numbness eventually helped to make the case. I did note that the 26 LHT's do have different sized steerers for different ranges. Size 54 and below have a 300mm steer tube and 56 and above have a 380mm steer tube. It seems clear also that a 62cm CC would have a lower max bar height than a 62cm LHT given that CC's have a 300mm steer tube and LHT's have a 320mm tube. So . . . someone looking to get those bars up there for a given frame size would be better served by getting the LHT. Dave On Wednesday, July 31, 2013 5:17:53 AM UTC-7, Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery wrote: All Cross-checks in all sizes come out of the box with 300 mm steerers. With a 62 cm frame, there is nothing to cut off because the head tube is long enough to allow a stem and maybe an inch or two of spacers. The old Surly warranty stipulated that stem plus spacers shouldn't exceed 100 mm, but last year they changed that, and now they say there is no limit on steerer length. But this is important: with threaded steerers, the size of the frame determines how high you can get the bars. If you want high bars, get a big frame. This is the Rivendell way. This advice is completely worthless with threadless steerers like Surly uses, because all sizes can have the same handlebar height if you don't cut the steerer. So a 52 cm frame can theoretically fit exactly the same as a 58 cm frame if the stem length is long enough to make up the difference. Buying a Surly using the Riv sizing guideline apples-to-apples is quite likely to result in a bike that's on the too-big side. I will tell you that uncut steerers with a lot of spacers tend to get a lot of negative commentary. Our Surly floor bikes usually sport this feature, and everyday somebody asks me to justify it or comments that they don't like the look. Yet of the bikes that sell, only a small fraction come back to have the steerer shortened. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
[RBW] Re: Bike Fitting - A Mine Field
What constitutes a fistful, and why does such an arbitrary dimension lead us around by the short hairs? Can't we go 2 cm either way and still have an approximate fistful? I would say that in general, with Long Haul Truckers and Cross-checks, go one size down from the Riv recommendation simply because the way the two brands measure frame size is slightly different. You'll still have an approximate fistful (depending on the size of your fist), and the bike will better approximate the fit of the recommended Riv size. If you measure a LHT the same way you measure an Atlantis, a 56 LHT is more equivalent to a 58 cm Atlantis. I had a 58 Atlantis for years, but a 58 Trucker felt big to me. On Wednesday, July 31, 2013 7:38:53 AM UTC-5, Matt Beebe wrote: Buying a Surly using the Riv sizing guideline apples-to-apples is quite likely to result in a bike that's on the too-big side. I could see that if you aimed for a fistful of seatpost on a Karate-Monkey, you'd end up with a bike that is too big.But it seems the Cross-check and LHT have similar geometries to say a Quickbeam or Atlantis, and could be sized using the basic Rivendell guidelines of seat-height minus 17cm or so.In my experience, they could, and it would not result in a bike that is too big at all. On Wednesday, July 31, 2013 8:17:53 AM UTC-4, Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery wrote: All Cross-checks in all sizes come out of the box with 300 mm steerers. With a 62 cm frame, there is nothing to cut off because the head tube is long enough to allow a stem and maybe an inch or two of spacers. The old Surly warranty stipulated that stem plus spacers shouldn't exceed 100 mm, but last year they changed that, and now they say there is no limit on steerer length. But this is important: with threaded steerers, the size of the frame determines how high you can get the bars. If you want high bars, get a big frame. This is the Rivendell way. This advice is completely worthless with threadless steerers like Surly uses, because all sizes can have the same handlebar height if you don't cut the steerer. So a 52 cm frame can theoretically fit exactly the same as a 58 cm frame if the stem length is long enough to make up the difference. Buying a Surly using the Riv sizing guideline apples-to-apples is quite likely to result in a bike that's on the too-big side. I will tell you that uncut steerers with a lot of spacers tend to get a lot of negative commentary. Our Surly floor bikes usually sport this feature, and everyday somebody asks me to justify it or comments that they don't like the look. Yet of the bikes that sell, only a small fraction come back to have the steerer shortened. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
[RBW] Re: Bike Fitting - A Mine Field
Jim +1 on your assessment for sizing Riv Atlantis and Surly LHT. My 62cm LHT fits similarly to the way my 64cm Atlantis did. Going to a 64cm LHT would also have me on a bike with a somewhat longer tt for the same bar height. I've got a short torso for my height and the extra reach would be unwelcome for my optimum choice of fit on a touring bike. Even on my 62, I'd love to bring the bars back another cm or so, but stems don't come that stubby! DC On Wednesday, July 31, 2013 1:12:22 PM UTC-7, Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery wrote: What constitutes a fistful, and why does such an arbitrary dimension lead us around by the short hairs? Can't we go 2 cm either way and still have an approximate fistful? I would say that in general, with Long Haul Truckers and Cross-checks, go one size down from the Riv recommendation simply because the way the two brands measure frame size is slightly different. You'll still have an approximate fistful (depending on the size of your fist), and the bike will better approximate the fit of the recommended Riv size. If you measure a LHT the same way you measure an Atlantis, a 56 LHT is more equivalent to a 58 cm Atlantis. I had a 58 Atlantis for years, but a 58 Trucker felt big to me. On Wednesday, July 31, 2013 7:38:53 AM UTC-5, Matt Beebe wrote: Buying a Surly using the Riv sizing guideline apples-to-apples is quite likely to result in a bike that's on the too-big side. I could see that if you aimed for a fistful of seatpost on a Karate-Monkey, you'd end up with a bike that is too big.But it seems the Cross-check and LHT have similar geometries to say a Quickbeam or Atlantis, and could be sized using the basic Rivendell guidelines of seat-height minus 17cm or so.In my experience, they could, and it would not result in a bike that is too big at all. On Wednesday, July 31, 2013 8:17:53 AM UTC-4, Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery wrote: All Cross-checks in all sizes come out of the box with 300 mm steerers. With a 62 cm frame, there is nothing to cut off because the head tube is long enough to allow a stem and maybe an inch or two of spacers. The old Surly warranty stipulated that stem plus spacers shouldn't exceed 100 mm, but last year they changed that, and now they say there is no limit on steerer length. But this is important: with threaded steerers, the size of the frame determines how high you can get the bars. If you want high bars, get a big frame. This is the Rivendell way. This advice is completely worthless with threadless steerers like Surly uses, because all sizes can have the same handlebar height if you don't cut the steerer. So a 52 cm frame can theoretically fit exactly the same as a 58 cm frame if the stem length is long enough to make up the difference. Buying a Surly using the Riv sizing guideline apples-to-apples is quite likely to result in a bike that's on the too-big side. I will tell you that uncut steerers with a lot of spacers tend to get a lot of negative commentary. Our Surly floor bikes usually sport this feature, and everyday somebody asks me to justify it or comments that they don't like the look. Yet of the bikes that sell, only a small fraction come back to have the steerer shortened. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
[RBW] Re: Bike Fitting - A Mine Field
On Wednesday, July 31, 2013 4:12:22 PM UTC-4, Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery wrote: What constitutes a fistful, and why does such an arbitrary dimension lead us around by the short hairs? Can't we go 2 cm either way and still have an approximate fistful? I would say that in general, with Long Haul Truckers and Cross-checks, go one size down from the Riv recommendation simply because the way the two brands measure frame size is slightly different. I dunno I guess fistful is what you end up with for seatpost exposure when you subtract ~17cm from your saddle height and get your frame size, since that is what Rivendell/Grant recommendshttp://www.rivbike.com/kb_results.asp?ID=41, a fistful, and that is the way he recommends arriving at it.I'm sure you could go 2cm either way under this system, but this post began about a guy being sold a frame that was 4cm too small for him by his own estimation, and that of his friend (the OP, Ian). He wanted a 62, and the shop was adamant that he should ride a 58.In this case I'd guess Grant's and Ian's sizing system/recommendation have served him well. Also, Surly measures their Crosscheck and LHT frame sizes *exactly* the same way Rivendell measures theirs: Center-to-top (i.e., top of TT). My better half owns one of the early crosschecks which is sitting in our living room, and this is how it's measured/sized. You'll still have an approximate fistful (depending on the size of your fist), and the bike will better approximate the fit of the recommended Riv size. The geometries of the 58cm LHT and 58cm Atlantis are virtually identical, so I'd guess if you wanted your LHT to fit approximately like an Atlantis (as the Riv chart recommends sizing it), you'd couldn't get any closer than by purchasing the same size.Sure the BB is spec'd at 2mm higher on the LHT http://surlybikes.com/bikes/disc_trucker/geometry, with a 78mm drop rather than 80mm of the Riv, but I don't reckon that makes an appreciable difference in how big the bike feels. Matt If you measure a LHT the same way you measure an Atlantis, a 56 LHT is more equivalent to a 58 cm Atlantis. I had a 58 Atlantis for years, but a 58 Trucker felt big to me. On Wednesday, July 31, 2013 7:38:53 AM UTC-5, Matt Beebe wrote: Buying a Surly using the Riv sizing guideline apples-to-apples is quite likely to result in a bike that's on the too-big side. I could see that if you aimed for a fistful of seatpost on a Karate-Monkey, you'd end up with a bike that is too big.But it seems the Cross-check and LHT have similar geometries to say a Quickbeam or Atlantis, and could be sized using the basic Rivendell guidelines of seat-height minus 17cm or so.In my experience, they could, and it would not result in a bike that is too big at all. On Wednesday, July 31, 2013 8:17:53 AM UTC-4, Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery wrote: All Cross-checks in all sizes come out of the box with 300 mm steerers. With a 62 cm frame, there is nothing to cut off because the head tube is long enough to allow a stem and maybe an inch or two of spacers. The old Surly warranty stipulated that stem plus spacers shouldn't exceed 100 mm, but last year they changed that, and now they say there is no limit on steerer length. But this is important: with threaded steerers, the size of the frame determines how high you can get the bars. If you want high bars, get a big frame. This is the Rivendell way. This advice is completely worthless with threadless steerers like Surly uses, because all sizes can have the same handlebar height if you don't cut the steerer. So a 52 cm frame can theoretically fit exactly the same as a 58 cm frame if the stem length is long enough to make up the difference. Buying a Surly using the Riv sizing guideline apples-to-apples is quite likely to result in a bike that's on the too-big side. I will tell you that uncut steerers with a lot of spacers tend to get a lot of negative commentary. Our Surly floor bikes usually sport this feature, and everyday somebody asks me to justify it or comments that they don't like the look. Yet of the bikes that sell, only a small fraction come back to have the steerer shortened. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
[RBW] Re: Bike Fitting - A Mine Field
a fistful is a the right ballpark to begin, then you dial in everything. Higher, lower, forward, back. It's amazing what a difference 1 or 2 degrees rotation can make on handlebar. On Wednesday, July 31, 2013 3:44:59 PM UTC-5, David Craig wrote: Jim +1 on your assessment for sizing Riv Atlantis and Surly LHT. My 62cm LHT fits similarly to the way my 64cm Atlantis did. Going to a 64cm LHT would also have me on a bike with a somewhat longer tt for the same bar height. I've got a short torso for my height and the extra reach would be unwelcome for my optimum choice of fit on a touring bike. Even on my 62, I'd love to bring the bars back another cm or so, but stems don't come that stubby! DC On Wednesday, July 31, 2013 1:12:22 PM UTC-7, Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery wrote: What constitutes a fistful, and why does such an arbitrary dimension lead us around by the short hairs? Can't we go 2 cm either way and still have an approximate fistful? I would say that in general, with Long Haul Truckers and Cross-checks, go one size down from the Riv recommendation simply because the way the two brands measure frame size is slightly different. You'll still have an approximate fistful (depending on the size of your fist), and the bike will better approximate the fit of the recommended Riv size. If you measure a LHT the same way you measure an Atlantis, a 56 LHT is more equivalent to a 58 cm Atlantis. I had a 58 Atlantis for years, but a 58 Trucker felt big to me. On Wednesday, July 31, 2013 7:38:53 AM UTC-5, Matt Beebe wrote: Buying a Surly using the Riv sizing guideline apples-to-apples is quite likely to result in a bike that's on the too-big side. I could see that if you aimed for a fistful of seatpost on a Karate-Monkey, you'd end up with a bike that is too big.But it seems the Cross-check and LHT have similar geometries to say a Quickbeam or Atlantis, and could be sized using the basic Rivendell guidelines of seat-height minus 17cm or so.In my experience, they could, and it would not result in a bike that is too big at all. On Wednesday, July 31, 2013 8:17:53 AM UTC-4, Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery wrote: All Cross-checks in all sizes come out of the box with 300 mm steerers. With a 62 cm frame, there is nothing to cut off because the head tube is long enough to allow a stem and maybe an inch or two of spacers. The old Surly warranty stipulated that stem plus spacers shouldn't exceed 100 mm, but last year they changed that, and now they say there is no limit on steerer length. But this is important: with threaded steerers, the size of the frame determines how high you can get the bars. If you want high bars, get a big frame. This is the Rivendell way. This advice is completely worthless with threadless steerers like Surly uses, because all sizes can have the same handlebar height if you don't cut the steerer. So a 52 cm frame can theoretically fit exactly the same as a 58 cm frame if the stem length is long enough to make up the difference. Buying a Surly using the Riv sizing guideline apples-to-apples is quite likely to result in a bike that's on the too-big side. I will tell you that uncut steerers with a lot of spacers tend to get a lot of negative commentary. Our Surly floor bikes usually sport this feature, and everyday somebody asks me to justify it or comments that they don't like the look. Yet of the bikes that sell, only a small fraction come back to have the steerer shortened. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
[RBW] Re: Bike Fitting - A Mine Field
Matt: Also, Surly measures their Crosscheck and LHT frame sizes *exactly* the same way Rivendell measures theirs: Center-to-top (i.e., top of TT). My better half owns one of the early crosschecks which is sitting in our living room, and this is how it's measured/sized. From the Riv site: Sizing Rivendells (the bikes we design) -- frame sizes measured center of crank to top of seat tube * * Not saying you didn't see what you saw, but I just measured my AHH and it's 65 cm at the top of the seat tube. Dave On Wednesday, July 31, 2013 1:55:14 PM UTC-7, Matt Beebe wrote: On Wednesday, July 31, 2013 4:12:22 PM UTC-4, Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery wrote: What constitutes a fistful, and why does such an arbitrary dimension lead us around by the short hairs? Can't we go 2 cm either way and still have an approximate fistful? I would say that in general, with Long Haul Truckers and Cross-checks, go one size down from the Riv recommendation simply because the way the two brands measure frame size is slightly different. I dunno I guess fistful is what you end up with for seatpost exposure when you subtract ~17cm from your saddle height and get your frame size, since that is what Rivendell/Grant recommendshttp://www.rivbike.com/kb_results.asp?ID=41, a fistful, and that is the way he recommends arriving at it.I'm sure you could go 2cm either way under this system, but this post began about a guy being sold a frame that was 4cm too small for him by his own estimation, and that of his friend (the OP, Ian). He wanted a 62, and the shop was adamant that he should ride a 58.In this case I'd guess Grant's and Ian's sizing system/recommendation have served him well. Also, Surly measures their Crosscheck and LHT frame sizes *exactly* the same way Rivendell measures theirs: Center-to-top (i.e., top of TT). My better half owns one of the early crosschecks which is sitting in our living room, and this is how it's measured/sized. You'll still have an approximate fistful (depending on the size of your fist), and the bike will better approximate the fit of the recommended Riv size. The geometries of the 58cm LHT and 58cm Atlantis are virtually identical, so I'd guess if you wanted your LHT to fit approximately like an Atlantis (as the Riv chart recommends sizing it), you'd couldn't get any closer than by purchasing the same size.Sure the BB is spec'd at 2mm higher on the LHT http://surlybikes.com/bikes/disc_trucker/geometry, with a 78mm drop rather than 80mm of the Riv, but I don't reckon that makes an appreciable difference in how big the bike feels. Matt If you measure a LHT the same way you measure an Atlantis, a 56 LHT is more equivalent to a 58 cm Atlantis. I had a 58 Atlantis for years, but a 58 Trucker felt big to me. On Wednesday, July 31, 2013 7:38:53 AM UTC-5, Matt Beebe wrote: Buying a Surly using the Riv sizing guideline apples-to-apples is quite likely to result in a bike that's on the too-big side. I could see that if you aimed for a fistful of seatpost on a Karate-Monkey, you'd end up with a bike that is too big.But it seems the Cross-check and LHT have similar geometries to say a Quickbeam or Atlantis, and could be sized using the basic Rivendell guidelines of seat-height minus 17cm or so.In my experience, they could, and it would not result in a bike that is too big at all. On Wednesday, July 31, 2013 8:17:53 AM UTC-4, Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery wrote: All Cross-checks in all sizes come out of the box with 300 mm steerers. With a 62 cm frame, there is nothing to cut off because the head tube is long enough to allow a stem and maybe an inch or two of spacers. The old Surly warranty stipulated that stem plus spacers shouldn't exceed 100 mm, but last year they changed that, and now they say there is no limit on steerer length. But this is important: with threaded steerers, the size of the frame determines how high you can get the bars. If you want high bars, get a big frame. This is the Rivendell way. This advice is completely worthless with threadless steerers like Surly uses, because all sizes can have the same handlebar height if you don't cut the steerer. So a 52 cm frame can theoretically fit exactly the same as a 58 cm frame if the stem length is long enough to make up the difference. Buying a Surly using the Riv sizing guideline apples-to-apples is quite likely to result in a bike that's on the too-big side. I will tell you that uncut steerers with a lot of spacers tend to get a lot of negative commentary. Our Surly floor bikes usually sport this feature, and everyday somebody asks me to justify it or comments that they don't like the look. Yet of the bikes that sell, only a small fraction come back to have the steerer shortened. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners
[RBW] Re: Bike Fitting - A Mine Field
On Wednesday, July 31, 2013 5:21:24 PM UTC-4, David Craig wrote: Matt: Also, Surly measures their Crosscheck and LHT frame sizes *exactly* the same way Rivendell measures theirs: Center-to-top (i.e., top of TT). My better half owns one of the early crosschecks which is sitting in our living room, and this is how it's measured/sized. From the Riv site: Sizing Rivendells (the bikes we design) -- frame sizes measured center of crank to top of seat tube * * Not saying you didn't see what you saw, but I just measured my AHH and it's 65 cm at the top of the seat tube. Dave, the top of the seat tube on a Riv corresponds to the top of the top-tube, because their frames are lugged, and as such there is no extension of seat-tube above the top-tube.The Surly LHT and CC models are sized exactly the same way that Riv does their sizes, even though they * do* have that extension (an artifact of their tig-welded joinery).They do not include the extension of ST beyond the TT, but measure from the center of the BB to the top of the TT, just as Riv does. Matt -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
[RBW] Re: Bike Fitting - A Mine Field
gotta agree with Matt on this one.. the diagram on Surly's site is pretty clear. and while I'm at it... Seems to me Grant ought to say more about top tube length as part of the bike fit info. Especially with his sloping top tube models. For me I look at that 1st and seat tube length second. It's a balance between the two that gets the best bike fit. I see too many people with 60 or 70mm stems. First sign that the bike is too big. ~mike -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
[RBW] Re: Bike Fitting - A Mine Field
Point taken, Matt. On the topic of tt's, I seem to recall reading in something from RBW that they list only the effective tt on the geometry charts. Is that true? If so, does it apply to the Atlantis as well as the bikes with more angle to the tt (Hilborne).? -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Re: Bike Fitting - A Mine Field
Query: Why do most manufacturers use the C-T measurement, when the top is sorta' ambiguous? Seems like C-C is a more consistent measurement, and the way top tubes are measured as well. Juster wondering. On 7/31/13, David Craig neritic.mari...@gmail.com wrote: Point taken, Matt. On the topic of tt's, I seem to recall reading in something from RBW that they list only the effective tt on the geometry charts. Is that true? If so, does it apply to the Atlantis as well as the bikes with more angle to the tt (Hilborne).? -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- Cheers, David it isn't a contest. Just enjoy the ride. - Seth Vidal -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Re: Bike Fitting - A Mine Field
For that matter, in the industry in general why are so few TT upslope angles included in geometry info? With Rivs, for example, it's important to know that some models slope about 2 degrees, while others slope 6 degrees. The 6 degree ones shoot those bars up about 4 extra centimeters relative to the seat. (It's about a cm of height per degree.) fortunately, Rivendell is one company that does provide TT upslope numbers. Sent from my iPhone On Jul 31, 2013, at 9:24 PM, cyclotourist cyclotour...@gmail.com wrote: Query: Why do most manufacturers use the C-T measurement, when the top is sorta' ambiguous? Seems like C-C is a more consistent measurement, and the way top tubes are measured as well. Juster wondering. On 7/31/13, David Craig neritic.mari...@gmail.com wrote: Point taken, Matt. On the topic of tt's, I seem to recall reading in something from RBW that they list only the effective tt on the geometry charts. Is that true? If so, does it apply to the Atlantis as well as the bikes with more angle to the tt (Hilborne).? -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- Cheers, David it isn't a contest. Just enjoy the ride. - Seth Vidal -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Re: Bike Fitting - A Mine Field
To David Craig's question: no, for Atlantis and AHH, the TT listings are actual, not effective. So with those two, the effective TT is a bit longer, but the effect is relatively small due to low angles. But yes it's true that the expanded frames (6 degree upslope ones) only list the effective TT, not actual. If you like geometry and trigonometry, I figured our how to calculate effective TT length. If you're interested, send me a private message. -Jim W. Sent from my iPhone On Jul 31, 2013, at 4:23 PM, David Craig neritic.mari...@gmail.com wrote: Point taken, Matt. On the topic of tt's, I seem to recall reading in something from RBW that they list only the effective tt on the geometry charts. Is that true? If so, does it apply to the Atlantis as well as the bikes with more angle to the tt (Hilborne).? -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Re: Bike Fitting - A Mine Field
Surly measures center to top, but the seat tube extends past the toptube a bit. You can kindof see what I mean in this geometry diagram: http://surlybikes.com/bikes/cross_check_ss/geometry Pre-cutting a steel steerer (unlike a carbon fiber one that has a maximum recommended number of spacers from the manufacturer) is nearly criminal, IMO. Steve On Saturday, July 27, 2013 7:47:00 AM UTC-4, EricP wrote: Actually, it sounds to me like everyone knew what they were doing. I've owned a number of Surly bikes over the years. The first one, a Cross Check, was 62cm. Realized after about 2 months I'd never get comfortable with the handlebars so far away. Ended up putting Albatross bars on that bike and was able to ride it for a while. Still, it ended up being too big. Surly bikes seem to have a longer top tube and reach than a comparable Rivendell. They also measure bikes differently than Rivendell. Center to center, as opposed to center to top. My 62cm Rivendell SimpleOne has roughly the same amount of seatpost showing as my 58cm Long Haul Trucker. When it was built up, my 58cm Cross Check had even less post showing. The only thing I'd fault the shop on is cutting the steerer tube before selling the bike. Glad it worked out for everyone. Eric Platt St. Paul, MN On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 5:18 AM, Michael Hechmer mhec...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: Size Matters. And not just in the bike. My experience has been that the larger the shop the smaller the level of knowledge. There are of course exceptions to this, e.g. Harris Cyclery. But most often very large bike shops survive by hiring college age guys, usually steeped in racing, to push a hi volume of Treks, Cannondales, Specialized, etc out the door. One rainy Sunday afternoon I browsed through a large local bike shop and watched a middle age women tell a very young sales clerk she wanted a bike to ride on paths. He steered her to a full suspension mt. bike! Yesterday the latest issue of Buycycle magazine arrived (uninvited) into my home. The cover headline was Have More Fun and pictured a man riding in shorts and a polo shirt, but the bike had 16 spoke radial wheels, road pedals, and bars about 6 below the seat. It didn't look like fun; it looked silly. Moral of the story - Newbies shouldn't buy solo. Michael On Saturday, July 27, 2013 5:02:48 AM UTC-4, IanA wrote: My friend was in the market for a new bicycle with a budget of around $800.00. He'd looked at various aluminum mountain bikes and talked to me about it - he'd mentioned that he'd possibly like a single speed. I suggested he check out the Surly line of bikes and maybe push his budget a little and get something he'd really enjoy. Being a Rivendell owner (recent acquisition) and having followed this list and GP's writings for the last few years, I have certain ideas about bicycle fit. Not being a crotch-worrier, I like to start with the largest straddle-able frame and work from there. A fist-full of seat post, bars around saddle height etc. Using this formula as a starting basis, I urged my friend to try a 62cm Crosscheck (a single speed). He loved it. The store was adamant that a 58cm was he needed, with the saddle jacked up a good two fist-fulls and the bars well below the saddle height, because that's where the power is. My friend test rode the 58, the 60 and then the 62cm and there was no way he was going back. The steerer tubes on all sizes had been cut quite low, but on the 62cm, the set-up worked perfectly for my friend. The mechanic was not happy about this and I was the unwelcome expert-friend, even though they made the sale and my friend rode out the store on his new bike. The one he wanted. I suppose we all get locked into ideas and philosophies, but without my input (as right or wrong as it may be), they would have sized him by putting the saddle height above his hip bone and made the bars a few inches below saddle height. This was their fitting method. At the end of the day, my friend is delighted - he exceeded his budget by $175 and got a very pretty bicycle that has clearance for 700 x 45 with fenders. Even with my pretty LL there, I was jealous of his purchase. The shop had never heard of Rivendell, which made me wonder just how small a corner of the bike world I must live in, hanging out here on the RBW list. -- 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-bun...@googlegroups.com javascript:. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you
Re: [RBW] Re: Bike Fitting - A Mine Field
in a perfect world, we'd all have custom-made frames with top tubes and seat tubes made just for us. Most of us can't. My buddy and I are both 6'3, but my legs are 5 longer than his, and his torso is 5 longer than mine. He rides a 59cm and needs a long top tube, I ride a 64cm and need a short top tube. So you get close and dial it in with seat and stem. It really isn't rocket science. The Snow Job is what marketers call using science to sell - it's a strategy you see prevalent in competitive markets. Bicycling happens to be the single largest sports entertainment market on the planet. On Tuesday, July 30, 2013 7:37:51 AM UTC-5, stevef wrote: Surly measures center to top, but the seat tube extends past the toptube a bit. You can kindof see what I mean in this geometry diagram: http://surlybikes.com/bikes/cross_check_ss/geometry Pre-cutting a steel steerer (unlike a carbon fiber one that has a maximum recommended number of spacers from the manufacturer) is nearly criminal, IMO. Steve On Saturday, July 27, 2013 7:47:00 AM UTC-4, EricP wrote: Actually, it sounds to me like everyone knew what they were doing. I've owned a number of Surly bikes over the years. The first one, a Cross Check, was 62cm. Realized after about 2 months I'd never get comfortable with the handlebars so far away. Ended up putting Albatross bars on that bike and was able to ride it for a while. Still, it ended up being too big. Surly bikes seem to have a longer top tube and reach than a comparable Rivendell. They also measure bikes differently than Rivendell. Center to center, as opposed to center to top. My 62cm Rivendell SimpleOne has roughly the same amount of seatpost showing as my 58cm Long Haul Trucker. When it was built up, my 58cm Cross Check had even less post showing. The only thing I'd fault the shop on is cutting the steerer tube before selling the bike. Glad it worked out for everyone. Eric Platt St. Paul, MN On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 5:18 AM, Michael Hechmer mhec...@gmail.comwrote: Size Matters. And not just in the bike. My experience has been that the larger the shop the smaller the level of knowledge. There are of course exceptions to this, e.g. Harris Cyclery. But most often very large bike shops survive by hiring college age guys, usually steeped in racing, to push a hi volume of Treks, Cannondales, Specialized, etc out the door. One rainy Sunday afternoon I browsed through a large local bike shop and watched a middle age women tell a very young sales clerk she wanted a bike to ride on paths. He steered her to a full suspension mt. bike! Yesterday the latest issue of Buycycle magazine arrived (uninvited) into my home. The cover headline was Have More Fun and pictured a man riding in shorts and a polo shirt, but the bike had 16 spoke radial wheels, road pedals, and bars about 6 below the seat. It didn't look like fun; it looked silly. Moral of the story - Newbies shouldn't buy solo. Michael On Saturday, July 27, 2013 5:02:48 AM UTC-4, IanA wrote: My friend was in the market for a new bicycle with a budget of around $800.00. He'd looked at various aluminum mountain bikes and talked to me about it - he'd mentioned that he'd possibly like a single speed. I suggested he check out the Surly line of bikes and maybe push his budget a little and get something he'd really enjoy. Being a Rivendell owner (recent acquisition) and having followed this list and GP's writings for the last few years, I have certain ideas about bicycle fit. Not being a crotch-worrier, I like to start with the largest straddle-able frame and work from there. A fist-full of seat post, bars around saddle height etc. Using this formula as a starting basis, I urged my friend to try a 62cm Crosscheck (a single speed). He loved it. The store was adamant that a 58cm was he needed, with the saddle jacked up a good two fist-fulls and the bars well below the saddle height, because that's where the power is. My friend test rode the 58, the 60 and then the 62cm and there was no way he was going back. The steerer tubes on all sizes had been cut quite low, but on the 62cm, the set-up worked perfectly for my friend. The mechanic was not happy about this and I was the unwelcome expert-friend, even though they made the sale and my friend rode out the store on his new bike. The one he wanted. I suppose we all get locked into ideas and philosophies, but without my input (as right or wrong as it may be), they would have sized him by putting the saddle height above his hip bone and made the bars a few inches below saddle height. This was their fitting method. At the end of the day, my friend is delighted - he exceeded his budget by $175 and got a very pretty bicycle that has clearance for 700 x 45 with fenders. Even with my pretty LL there, I was jealous of his purchase.
Re: [RBW] Re: Bike Fitting - A Mine Field
It's tough to fit a bike. Really, it's much tougher than I think it seems to many of us. It's way tougher than selling shoes and even that isn't straightforward. Can we give well-intentioned shop owners, manufacturers and bike shop kids the benefit of the doubt? That doesn't mean we should blindly accept their views as truth. Caveat emptor. Regarding the challenges of bike fitting: First, there are the assumptions and values that go along with any fit system - including Grant's. There's the problem that there somehow needs to be any system and that we somehow feel better if we've been sized by a system rather than trusting ourselves. As Ron points out, science sells. Why do we need science to tell us a bike fits? Just ride, right? In a perfect world, we'd each have bodies that were perfectly proportioned, with no underlying injuries or anatomical quirks and any bike we'd buy would instantly adapt to us as we age, get fitter, decided to ride more or less, gain experience, or use the bike for different purposes. So, even a bike that's perfectly fitted and comfortable at the moment of purchase may not continue to be so after the glow of the purchase has faded or conditions change. It's funny that we'd expect anyone to fit a bike properly when proper fit is all about our own subjective feelings of comfort. The problem is exacerbated when the prospective rider hasn't really ridden since he or she was a kid. While I'll bet most of us on this list can no longer recall a time when virtually ANY bike would have felt uncomfortable, the beginner is completely dependent on someone else saying this should work so they discount their own misgivings. Or . . . contrary folks with their own minds that they are, they resist our well intentioned advice because what we're suggesting just doesn't *feel* right. Ever tried to convince a child that her or his seat height is wrong? There's also the complication of dealing with what people believe they want and need. Folks look at a bike with fat tires, a stack o spacers, bars way up there, triple chainrings or even a perfectly good bike without lugs and think that bike ain't for me. There are these individually defined aesthetics to consider and there's also the psychology of our own ego's. There are the influences we value over others or that we unconsciously accept. The issue isn't limited to bikes. I can't tell you how many folks I've met with outdoor gear that really isn't suited to who they are and what they actually do. Rather, they bought the gear (encouraged by a friend, a salesperson, an instructor, someone on a list like this . . .) to fit who they want to be. Nothing against instructors, salespeople, friends, etc., but we all also have our own biases and sometimes people ask us for our advice without accepting it as tentatively as they should. For our part, sometimes we speak our own truths a little too confidently. In the end, folks end up with too-tippy beautiful kayaks that the expert said they'd grow into or overly complex stoves that use multiple fuel types for imaginary expeditions, or steel bikes that can be repaired by a guy with a turban and a torch . . . just in case. Gosh, there are people in Walnut Creek buying the best axes in the world who have never used any axe and will probably never use the axe they buy from RBW. Manufacturers and retailers stay in business by selling a substantial amount of stuff that people don't actually *need, *that actually doesn't fit and that they really can't afford. Advertisers discovered long ago that most of us are immature enough to think that our possessions define who we are. We are funny and fickle creatures and I can't imagine trying to make a living catering to our likes as a manufacturer or retailer. Although their actions irritate me constantly, I'm willing to cut folks in the bike business some slack because they wouldn't do what they do if it caused them to go out of business - somebody buys the stuff - more do than don't. They are trying to stay in business by building and selling what actually sells. I'm truly glad that Ian was able to positively influence the purchase of his friend's bike. Perhaps his friend will continue to ride his new bike and it will continue to fit. DC On Tuesday, July 30, 2013 5:46:03 AM UTC-7, Ron Mc wrote: in a perfect world, we'd all have custom-made frames with top tubes and seat tubes made just for us. Most of us can't. My buddy and I are both 6'3, but my legs are 5 longer than his, and his torso is 5 longer than mine. He rides a 59cm and needs a long top tube, I ride a 64cm and need a short top tube. So you get close and dial it in with seat and stem. It really isn't rocket science. The Snow Job is what marketers call using science to sell - it's a strategy you see prevalent in competitive markets. Bicycling happens to be the single largest sports entertainment market on the planet. On
Re: [RBW] Re: Bike Fitting - A Mine Field
I do, though, use my Gransfors-Bruk Mini Hatchet. ;) -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Re: Bike Fitting - A Mine Field
Lets not have this degrade into something where people have to justify to whoever that they use what they buy or deserve to own something. I buy stuff because I like it, what I do or don't do with it is my own business. I might buy that hatchet and just hang it on a wall for the next 20 years because I think its pretty. I ride my Bombadil maybe once a week, do I deserve to own it less? Good luck on the bike fitting, its why I bought used for years until I found a fit that was just right for me, saves a lot of sticker shock when you get a new frame from the LBS. On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 6:02 PM, Liesl li...@smm.org wrote: I do, though, use my Gransfors-Bruk Mini Hatchet. ;) -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Re: Bike Fitting - A Mine Field
Lets not have this degrade into something where people have to justify to whoever that they use what they buy or deserve to own something. Yep, I agree 100%. I'm truly sorry if I offended anyone. I have nothin' against hatchet buyers or sellers, would-be woodspeople in Walnut Creek, or anybody who buys something they don't strictly need - especially things as benign as bicycles and and nicely made hatchets. My message had more to do with *tolerance and understanding* for people in the bike industry. I meant to highlight that bike fitting is complicated by a whole range of factors that includes the nature of expert advice, advertising hype, what sells, and a view of our possessions as a means of defining who we are. Folks buy often buy stuff based on an image of themselves they find appealing and what that sort of person might do someday. Those self images and desires can complicate fitting customers out in outdoor gear that is appropriate. Of course, it's only a complication for a salesperson who actually cares that the customer is well served by the purchase. The hatchet comment wasn't necessary to make my point. Sorry, but the image of suburban, Riv-riding, hatchet-toting bike riders does strike me as a little bit funny. Thanks for being forgiving about that, Liesl. Peter - I must admit that I might buy one of those nice hatchets BECAUSE it would make a lovely wall hanging. I'm also a guy who, until recently, owned seven bikes and at least a couple of those NEVER got ridden. Nope, it won't be me who will be throwing stones . . . or hatchets. Dave On Tuesday, July 30, 2013 3:45:07 PM UTC-7, Peter M wrote: Lets not have this degrade into something where people have to justify to whoever that they use what they buy or deserve to own something. I buy stuff because I like it, what I do or don't do with it is my own business. I might buy that hatchet and just hang it on a wall for the next 20 years because I think its pretty. I ride my Bombadil maybe once a week, do I deserve to own it less? Good luck on the bike fitting, its why I bought used for years until I found a fit that was just right for me, saves a lot of sticker shock when you get a new frame from the LBS. On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 6:02 PM, Liesl li...@smm.org javascript:wrote: I do, though, use my Gransfors-Bruk Mini Hatchet. ;) -- 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-bun...@googlegroups.com javascript:. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Re: Bike Fitting - A Mine Field
David, Wow! Kudos to you. You just saved me a a lot of typing. Everything, everything you just stated I agree with. Extremely well said. Advertisers, use the notion that we make decisions based on emotion and we rectify those decisions by believing we came to those decisions by way of rational thought. Hence having someone we trust to tell us what we should hear when making a large purchase is valuable especially when there can be so much noise from so called experts. I have spent time in many bike shops and have heard both inane and sage advice from bicycle sales people. ~Hugh -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Re: Bike Fitting - A Mine Field
Excellent points made. I hope that I positively influenced the purchase of the bike. Only time will (may?) tell. After the positive and thoughtful comments from all listers on this thread, I might have been a lot more circumspect in helping my friend. Perhaps I would have just presented opinions of frame size, fit, tire clearance etc., based solely on my own experience of riding the actual bikes I own/have owned (I think I mostly did). I believe that following a certain amount of randonneur experience (more on the modest distance spectrum), extensive touring experience and extensive commuting that I have a pretty good handle on what works for me. As David rightly implies, what works for one is a subjective finding and might not work for someone else. In retrospect, perhaps it would have been better if my friend had bought a 60cm frame with an uncut steerer, or perhaps not. Perhaps either bike frame would serve equally as well. I do hope my friend enjoys the ownership of his new bike, I feel somewhat invested in it. In future, I will bear in mind all the points put forward in this thread and wade the waters of advice/opinion with great trepidation. Ian A. On Tuesday, July 30, 2013 2:46:30 PM UTC-6, David Craig wrote: It's tough to fit a bike. Really, it's much tougher than I think it seems to many of us. It's way tougher than selling shoes and even that isn't straightforward. Can we give well-intentioned shop owners, manufacturers and bike shop kids the benefit of the doubt? That doesn't mean we should blindly accept their views as truth. Caveat emptor. Regarding the challenges of bike fitting: First, there are the assumptions and values that go along with any fit system - including Grant's. There's the problem that there somehow needs to be any system and that we somehow feel better if we've been sized by a system rather than trusting ourselves. As Ron points out, science sells. Why do we need science to tell us a bike fits? Just ride, right? In a perfect world, we'd each have bodies that were perfectly proportioned, with no underlying injuries or anatomical quirks and any bike we'd buy would instantly adapt to us as we age, get fitter, decided to ride more or less, gain experience, or use the bike for different purposes. So, even a bike that's perfectly fitted and comfortable at the moment of purchase may not continue to be so after the glow of the purchase has faded or conditions change. It's funny that we'd expect anyone to fit a bike properly when proper fit is all about our own subjective feelings of comfort. The problem is exacerbated when the prospective rider hasn't really ridden since he or she was a kid. While I'll bet most of us on this list can no longer recall a time when virtually ANY bike would have felt uncomfortable, the beginner is completely dependent on someone else saying this should work so they discount their own misgivings. Or . . . contrary folks with their own minds that they are, they resist our well intentioned advice because what we're suggesting just doesn't *feel* right. Ever tried to convince a child that her or his seat height is wrong? There's also the complication of dealing with what people believe they want and need. Folks look at a bike with fat tires, a stack o spacers, bars way up there, triple chainrings or even a perfectly good bike without lugs and think that bike ain't for me. There are these individually defined aesthetics to consider and there's also the psychology of our own ego's. There are the influences we value over others or that we unconsciously accept. The issue isn't limited to bikes. I can't tell you how many folks I've met with outdoor gear that really isn't suited to who they are and what they actually do. Rather, they bought the gear (encouraged by a friend, a salesperson, an instructor, someone on a list like this . . .) to fit who they want to be. Nothing against instructors, salespeople, friends, etc., but we all also have our own biases and sometimes people ask us for our advice without accepting it as tentatively as they should. For our part, sometimes we speak our own truths a little too confidently. In the end, folks end up with too-tippy beautiful kayaks that the expert said they'd grow into or overly complex stoves that use multiple fuel types for imaginary expeditions, or steel bikes that can be repaired by a guy with a turban and a torch . . . just in case. Gosh, there are people in Walnut Creek buying the best axes in the world who have never used any axe and will probably never use the axe they buy from RBW. Manufacturers and retailers stay in business by selling a substantial amount of stuff that people don't actually *need, *that actually doesn't fit and that they really can't afford. Advertisers discovered long ago that most of us are immature enough to think that our possessions define who we are. We
Re: [RBW] Re: Bike Fitting - A Mine Field
The only thing I'd fault the shop on is cutting the steerer tube before selling the bike. This! I'm sorry but the only way to explain this (pre-fitting) is stupid, lazy or both. • Perry -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Re: Bike Fitting - A Mine Field
Seems silly to cut down all those steerers. But I am impressed that a bike shop carries multiple sizes of Cross Checks on the floor. That's pretty cool in and of itself. On 7/28/13, bobish bob...@gmail.com wrote: The only thing I'd fault the shop on is cutting the steerer tube before selling the bike. This! I'm sorry but the only way to explain this (pre-fitting) is stupid, lazy or both. • Perry -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- Cheers, David it isn't a contest. Just enjoy the ride. - Seth Vidal -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Re: Bike Fitting - A Mine Field
Couple o' points - - Yeah, I do think that a lot of large-scale manufacturers send the bikes with shorter steerers. Forks and frames don't necessarily come from the same production facility, and they are often cut to spec before packaging them. - Grant's fitting guidelines are ostensibly for Rivendell designs. Lowish BB. Long chainstays. Assumption that you can actually put the bars up. There are a lot of inherent aspects to his designs which are subtle but combine to the overall Rivendell bike fit. - The above is NOT to say you can't approach a non-RBW bicycle in the same manner, particularly those which were heavily influenced by Grant's designs. But, if you tried to fit an early mtb (pre-93) using that method, you would end up with a very different animal. (LNG frames designed for maximum standover) than if you used that on an LHT or a Sam. - You did a good thing, ya did. - Jim cyclofiend.com -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
[RBW] Re: Bike Fitting - A Mine Field
Well at least this encounter with the bike-fit establishment ended well, despite their best efforts :)I give your friend a lot of credit for sticking with what he felt was the best size. Perhaps what happened here is an instance of a phenomenon Grant Petersen explains in his essay about frame sizes and the typical 'racing' fit that happens to blend so conveniently with three-sizes-fits-all manufacturing: In addition to going against what the store clerks adamantly believe, by choosing the 62cm size your friend was implicitly telling the guys at the bike shop that the bikes THEY ride are too small, and that's got to sting a little, especially if one (the shop clerk) is the expert. Hence you may have unintentionally triggered some defensiveness. Anyway I'm glad your buddy made the right choice. good work! Matt On Saturday, July 27, 2013 5:02:48 AM UTC-4, IanA wrote: My friend was in the market for a new bicycle with a budget of around $800.00. He'd looked at various aluminum mountain bikes and talked to me about it - he'd mentioned that he'd possibly like a single speed. I suggested he check out the Surly line of bikes and maybe push his budget a little and get something he'd really enjoy. Being a Rivendell owner (recent acquisition) and having followed this list and GP's writings for the last few years, I have certain ideas about bicycle fit. Not being a crotch-worrier, I like to start with the largest straddle-able frame and work from there. A fist-full of seat post, bars around saddle height etc. Using this formula as a starting basis, I urged my friend to try a 62cm Crosscheck (a single speed). He loved it. The store was adamant that a 58cm was he needed, with the saddle jacked up a good two fist-fulls and the bars well below the saddle height, because that's where the power is. My friend test rode the 58, the 60 and then the 62cm and there was no way he was going back. The steerer tubes on all sizes had been cut quite low, but on the 62cm, the set-up worked perfectly for my friend. The mechanic was not happy about this and I was the unwelcome expert-friend, even though they made the sale and my friend rode out the store on his new bike. The one he wanted. I suppose we all get locked into ideas and philosophies, but without my input (as right or wrong as it may be), they would have sized him by putting the saddle height above his hip bone and made the bars a few inches below saddle height. This was their fitting method. At the end of the day, my friend is delighted - he exceeded his budget by $175 and got a very pretty bicycle that has clearance for 700 x 45 with fenders. Even with my pretty LL there, I was jealous of his purchase. The shop had never heard of Rivendell, which made me wonder just how small a corner of the bike world I must live in, hanging out here on the RBW list. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
[RBW] Re: Bike Fitting - A Mine Field
Size Matters. And not just in the bike. My experience has been that the larger the shop the smaller the level of knowledge. There are of course exceptions to this, e.g. Harris Cyclery. But most often very large bike shops survive by hiring college age guys, usually steeped in racing, to push a hi volume of Treks, Cannondales, Specialized, etc out the door. One rainy Sunday afternoon I browsed through a large local bike shop and watched a middle age women tell a very young sales clerk she wanted a bike to ride on paths. He steered her to a full suspension mt. bike! Yesterday the latest issue of Buycycle magazine arrived (uninvited) into my home. The cover headline was Have More Fun and pictured a man riding in shorts and a polo shirt, but the bike had 16 spoke radial wheels, road pedals, and bars about 6 below the seat. It didn't look like fun; it looked silly. Moral of the story - Newbies shouldn't buy solo. Michael On Saturday, July 27, 2013 5:02:48 AM UTC-4, IanA wrote: My friend was in the market for a new bicycle with a budget of around $800.00. He'd looked at various aluminum mountain bikes and talked to me about it - he'd mentioned that he'd possibly like a single speed. I suggested he check out the Surly line of bikes and maybe push his budget a little and get something he'd really enjoy. Being a Rivendell owner (recent acquisition) and having followed this list and GP's writings for the last few years, I have certain ideas about bicycle fit. Not being a crotch-worrier, I like to start with the largest straddle-able frame and work from there. A fist-full of seat post, bars around saddle height etc. Using this formula as a starting basis, I urged my friend to try a 62cm Crosscheck (a single speed). He loved it. The store was adamant that a 58cm was he needed, with the saddle jacked up a good two fist-fulls and the bars well below the saddle height, because that's where the power is. My friend test rode the 58, the 60 and then the 62cm and there was no way he was going back. The steerer tubes on all sizes had been cut quite low, but on the 62cm, the set-up worked perfectly for my friend. The mechanic was not happy about this and I was the unwelcome expert-friend, even though they made the sale and my friend rode out the store on his new bike. The one he wanted. I suppose we all get locked into ideas and philosophies, but without my input (as right or wrong as it may be), they would have sized him by putting the saddle height above his hip bone and made the bars a few inches below saddle height. This was their fitting method. At the end of the day, my friend is delighted - he exceeded his budget by $175 and got a very pretty bicycle that has clearance for 700 x 45 with fenders. Even with my pretty LL there, I was jealous of his purchase. The shop had never heard of Rivendell, which made me wonder just how small a corner of the bike world I must live in, hanging out here on the RBW list. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Re: Bike Fitting - A Mine Field
Actually, it sounds to me like everyone knew what they were doing. I've owned a number of Surly bikes over the years. The first one, a Cross Check, was 62cm. Realized after about 2 months I'd never get comfortable with the handlebars so far away. Ended up putting Albatross bars on that bike and was able to ride it for a while. Still, it ended up being too big. Surly bikes seem to have a longer top tube and reach than a comparable Rivendell. They also measure bikes differently than Rivendell. Center to center, as opposed to center to top. My 62cm Rivendell SimpleOne has roughly the same amount of seatpost showing as my 58cm Long Haul Trucker. When it was built up, my 58cm Cross Check had even less post showing. The only thing I'd fault the shop on is cutting the steerer tube before selling the bike. Glad it worked out for everyone. Eric Platt St. Paul, MN On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 5:18 AM, Michael Hechmer mhech...@gmail.com wrote: Size Matters. And not just in the bike. My experience has been that the larger the shop the smaller the level of knowledge. There are of course exceptions to this, e.g. Harris Cyclery. But most often very large bike shops survive by hiring college age guys, usually steeped in racing, to push a hi volume of Treks, Cannondales, Specialized, etc out the door. One rainy Sunday afternoon I browsed through a large local bike shop and watched a middle age women tell a very young sales clerk she wanted a bike to ride on paths. He steered her to a full suspension mt. bike! Yesterday the latest issue of Buycycle magazine arrived (uninvited) into my home. The cover headline was Have More Fun and pictured a man riding in shorts and a polo shirt, but the bike had 16 spoke radial wheels, road pedals, and bars about 6 below the seat. It didn't look like fun; it looked silly. Moral of the story - Newbies shouldn't buy solo. Michael On Saturday, July 27, 2013 5:02:48 AM UTC-4, IanA wrote: My friend was in the market for a new bicycle with a budget of around $800.00. He'd looked at various aluminum mountain bikes and talked to me about it - he'd mentioned that he'd possibly like a single speed. I suggested he check out the Surly line of bikes and maybe push his budget a little and get something he'd really enjoy. Being a Rivendell owner (recent acquisition) and having followed this list and GP's writings for the last few years, I have certain ideas about bicycle fit. Not being a crotch-worrier, I like to start with the largest straddle-able frame and work from there. A fist-full of seat post, bars around saddle height etc. Using this formula as a starting basis, I urged my friend to try a 62cm Crosscheck (a single speed). He loved it. The store was adamant that a 58cm was he needed, with the saddle jacked up a good two fist-fulls and the bars well below the saddle height, because that's where the power is. My friend test rode the 58, the 60 and then the 62cm and there was no way he was going back. The steerer tubes on all sizes had been cut quite low, but on the 62cm, the set-up worked perfectly for my friend. The mechanic was not happy about this and I was the unwelcome expert-friend, even though they made the sale and my friend rode out the store on his new bike. The one he wanted. I suppose we all get locked into ideas and philosophies, but without my input (as right or wrong as it may be), they would have sized him by putting the saddle height above his hip bone and made the bars a few inches below saddle height. This was their fitting method. At the end of the day, my friend is delighted - he exceeded his budget by $175 and got a very pretty bicycle that has clearance for 700 x 45 with fenders. Even with my pretty LL there, I was jealous of his purchase. The shop had never heard of Rivendell, which made me wonder just how small a corner of the bike world I must live in, hanging out here on the RBW list. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
[RBW] Re: Bike Fitting - A Mine Field
Even shops that are aware of and support Rivendell sizing techniques can sometimes lead you astray. I once had my PBH measured at such a shop, an otherwise really great shop which shall remain unnamed, and they measured it at 88cm, which in retrospect I think is definitely about 2cm too low, since I can easily ride a 64cm quickbeam which has about 89cm of standover height with 700x35 tires.I put this down to the device they used to measure- it was a telescoping rod that came to a T at the top, with a* *lot of padding there, and I think this padding skewed the measurement. As for Surly top-tube sizes, they may be longish, but don't seem too out of line with Rivendell's designs.The 62cm Cross-check has a 61cm top-tube if you go by their geometry chartshttp://surlybikes.com/bikes/cross_check_ss/geometry. The 62cm SimpleOne, by comparison, had an effective top tube of about 60cm (though the geometry chart shows 59cm, that is the actual measurement, not effective).I think the 60cm Hillborne originally had an effective TT of 62.5cm, although I think they scaled that back to 61cm. The 58cm Hunqapillar has an ETT of about 62.5, and the 62 has an ETT of about 65cm. On Saturday, July 27, 2013 6:18:17 AM UTC-4, Michael Hechmer wrote: Size Matters. And not just in the bike. My experience has been that the larger the shop the smaller the level of knowledge. There are of course exceptions to this, e.g. Harris Cyclery. But most often very large bike shops survive by hiring college age guys, usually steeped in racing, to push a hi volume of Treks, Cannondales, Specialized, etc out the door. One rainy Sunday afternoon I browsed through a large local bike shop and watched a middle age women tell a very young sales clerk she wanted a bike to ride on paths. He steered her to a full suspension mt. bike! Yesterday the latest issue of Buycycle magazine arrived (uninvited) into my home. The cover headline was Have More Fun and pictured a man riding in shorts and a polo shirt, but the bike had 16 spoke radial wheels, road pedals, and bars about 6 below the seat. It didn't look like fun; it looked silly. Moral of the story - Newbies shouldn't buy solo. Michael On Saturday, July 27, 2013 5:02:48 AM UTC-4, IanA wrote: My friend was in the market for a new bicycle with a budget of around $800.00. He'd looked at various aluminum mountain bikes and talked to me about it - he'd mentioned that he'd possibly like a single speed. I suggested he check out the Surly line of bikes and maybe push his budget a little and get something he'd really enjoy. Being a Rivendell owner (recent acquisition) and having followed this list and GP's writings for the last few years, I have certain ideas about bicycle fit. Not being a crotch-worrier, I like to start with the largest straddle-able frame and work from there. A fist-full of seat post, bars around saddle height etc. Using this formula as a starting basis, I urged my friend to try a 62cm Crosscheck (a single speed). He loved it. The store was adamant that a 58cm was he needed, with the saddle jacked up a good two fist-fulls and the bars well below the saddle height, because that's where the power is. My friend test rode the 58, the 60 and then the 62cm and there was no way he was going back. The steerer tubes on all sizes had been cut quite low, but on the 62cm, the set-up worked perfectly for my friend. The mechanic was not happy about this and I was the unwelcome expert-friend, even though they made the sale and my friend rode out the store on his new bike. The one he wanted. I suppose we all get locked into ideas and philosophies, but without my input (as right or wrong as it may be), they would have sized him by putting the saddle height above his hip bone and made the bars a few inches below saddle height. This was their fitting method. At the end of the day, my friend is delighted - he exceeded his budget by $175 and got a very pretty bicycle that has clearance for 700 x 45 with fenders. Even with my pretty LL there, I was jealous of his purchase. The shop had never heard of Rivendell, which made me wonder just how small a corner of the bike world I must live in, hanging out here on the RBW list. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
[RBW] Re: Bike Fitting - A Mine Field
I used to work in a bike shop and fitting can be tricky. There are thousands of bike fitting philosophies, so it is impossible to be up to speed on all of them. I had people come in to by a $400 hybrid with a printed out article on how carbon race bikes should fit. But your friend did the right thing, try a few sizes and pick what felt best to him. In the end that is what I always did with people. On Saturday, July 27, 2013 5:02:48 AM UTC-4, IanA wrote: My friend was in the market for a new bicycle with a budget of around $800.00. He'd looked at various aluminum mountain bikes and talked to me about it - he'd mentioned that he'd possibly like a single speed. I suggested he check out the Surly line of bikes and maybe push his budget a little and get something he'd really enjoy. Being a Rivendell owner (recent acquisition) and having followed this list and GP's writings for the last few years, I have certain ideas about bicycle fit. Not being a crotch-worrier, I like to start with the largest straddle-able frame and work from there. A fist-full of seat post, bars around saddle height etc. Using this formula as a starting basis, I urged my friend to try a 62cm Crosscheck (a single speed). He loved it. The store was adamant that a 58cm was he needed, with the saddle jacked up a good two fist-fulls and the bars well below the saddle height, because that's where the power is. My friend test rode the 58, the 60 and then the 62cm and there was no way he was going back. The steerer tubes on all sizes had been cut quite low, but on the 62cm, the set-up worked perfectly for my friend. The mechanic was not happy about this and I was the unwelcome expert-friend, even though they made the sale and my friend rode out the store on his new bike. The one he wanted. I suppose we all get locked into ideas and philosophies, but without my input (as right or wrong as it may be), they would have sized him by putting the saddle height above his hip bone and made the bars a few inches below saddle height. This was their fitting method. At the end of the day, my friend is delighted - he exceeded his budget by $175 and got a very pretty bicycle that has clearance for 700 x 45 with fenders. Even with my pretty LL there, I was jealous of his purchase. The shop had never heard of Rivendell, which made me wonder just how small a corner of the bike world I must live in, hanging out here on the RBW list. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Re: Bike Fitting - A Mine Field
An excellent point about the measurement system. The CC SS comes with flat bars with a bit of a backwards sweep, so maybe the longer top tube was what my friend found so comfortable. Curiously, the store was of the opinion that if you have drops, then a longer top tube is better so you can get really stretched out for the power and comfort. Bars low down. This was based on their own experience of riding a lot. That seems utterly counter-intuitive to me. I agree that fundamentally they are a very good shop and they work with people and bikes all day long, so their opinion is well earned (I never claimed to be an expert!). They certainly never pointed to a carbon race bike and suggested he try that. But, I can't get over the habit of cutting the steerer tube before the bike has sold. That would be better left uncut pending the customer's preference, considering that the fork is so expensive to replace. I suppose the acid-test is whether my friend is still talking to me next week. On Saturday, July 27, 2013 5:47:00 AM UTC-6, EricP wrote: Actually, it sounds to me like everyone knew what they were doing. I've owned a number of Surly bikes over the years. The first one, a Cross Check, was 62cm. Realized after about 2 months I'd never get comfortable with the handlebars so far away. Ended up putting Albatross bars on that bike and was able to ride it for a while. Still, it ended up being too big. Surly bikes seem to have a longer top tube and reach than a comparable Rivendell. They also measure bikes differently than Rivendell. Center to center, as opposed to center to top. My 62cm Rivendell SimpleOne has roughly the same amount of seatpost showing as my 58cm Long Haul Trucker. When it was built up, my 58cm Cross Check had even less post showing. The only thing I'd fault the shop on is cutting the steerer tube before selling the bike. e Glad it worked out for everyone. Eric Platt St. Paul, MN On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 5:18 AM, Michael Hechmer mhec...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: Size Matters. And not just in the bike. My experience has been that the larger the shop the smaller the level of knowledge. There are of course exceptions to this, e.g. Harris Cyclery. But most often very large bike shops survive by hiring college age guys, usually steeped in racing, to push a hi volume of Treks, Cannondales, Specialized, etc out the door. One rainy Sunday afternoon I browsed through a large local bike shop and watched a middle age women tell a very young sales clerk she wanted a bike to ride on paths. He steered her to a full suspension mt. bike! Yesterday the latest issue of Buycycle magazine arrived (uninvited) into my home. The cover headline was Have More Fun and pictured a man riding in shorts and a polo shirt, but the bike had 16 spoke radial wheels, road pedals, and bars about 6 below the seat. It didn't look like fun; it looked silly. Moral of the story - Newbies shouldn't buy solo. Michael On Saturday, July 27, 2013 5:02:48 AM UTC-4, IanA wrote: My friend was in the market for a new bicycle with a budget of around $800.00. He'd looked at various aluminum mountain bikes and talked to me about it - he'd mentioned that he'd possibly like a single speed. I suggested he check out the Surly line of bikes and maybe push his budget a little and get something he'd really enjoy. Being a Rivendell owner (recent acquisition) and having followed this list and GP's writings for the last few years, I have certain ideas about bicycle fit. Not being a crotch-worrier, I like to start with the largest straddle-able frame and work from there. A fist-full of seat post, bars around saddle height etc. Using this formula as a starting basis, I urged my friend to try a 62cm Crosscheck (a single speed). He loved it. The store was adamant that a 58cm was he needed, with the saddle jacked up a good two fist-fulls and the bars well below the saddle height, because that's where the power is. My friend test rode the 58, the 60 and then the 62cm and there was no way he was going back. The steerer tubes on all sizes had been cut quite low, but on the 62cm, the set-up worked perfectly for my friend. The mechanic was not happy about this and I was the unwelcome expert-friend, even though they made the sale and my friend rode out the store on his new bike. The one he wanted. I suppose we all get locked into ideas and philosophies, but without my input (as right or wrong as it may be), they would have sized him by putting the saddle height above his hip bone and made the bars a few inches below saddle height. This was their fitting method. At the end of the day, my friend is delighted - he exceeded his budget by $175 and got a very pretty bicycle that has clearance for 700 x 45 with fenders. Even with my pretty LL there, I was jealous of his purchase. The shop
