[RBW] Re: Drop bar on MIT Atlantis?
Couple of thoughts. On Wednesday, March 4, 2020 , James / Analog Cycles wrote: "*For starters, the effective angle between the center of the usable portion of the saddle rails and the center of the bottom bracket is not the seat tube angle. Let’s call that angle the effective saddle fore and aft position angle, or just saddle angle for short*." I might rethink that, since the phrase "saddle angle" is already in use, interchangeably with saddle tilt. James wrote: "*Never move a saddle toward it's extremes on the rails. I've seen far too many rails break from this. Saddles, esp Brooks, need to be centered within a few mm on the seatpost clamp**."* I've been slamming my Brooks/Belt saddles back since time began, haven't broked one yet. But you've seen more than me, no doubt. A few things about drop bars on Riv's, shortening reach to bars, and short > stems. > >1. Putting a zero offset post on your bike is not a valid way to >shorten reach. It's like cutting the toe box out of your shoes because >they're too short. The answer isn't shoe destruction, it's to get shoes >that fit. Zero offset posts make zero sense unless your bike has a really >slack seat angle to begin with. The following is from a forthcoming >article on Tanglefoot Cycles' website, which I wrote. " > > In the years between 1890 and 1905, bike geometry made a shift. >Bikes in the early 1890’s had really steep seat angles and really short >chainstays, geometry not far from today’s ‘trail bikes’. In the years > that >followed, bike geometry grew up. It settled on angles that reflected the >use of the bike for longer and rougher trips. Bike makers needed to > modify >angles until folks could ride long, hard rides, over really bad terrain. >Slowly, then allofasudden, angles looked normal. The Wright Brothers Van >Cleve, a really nice looking all arounder, has a seat angle that we’d >recognize today as a normal, riding position. Tanglefoot recognizes the >importance of this riding position. People have not physically changed >much in 100 years. The riding position that worked for long, hard rides is >still the riding position we need today. Steep seat angles were discarded >through 20 years of experimentation a long time ago. We don’t need to >relearn the lesson. It’s already been learned. > >By 1900, cycling had transitioned from a rich person’s hobby to a >serious means of transportation. The first roads in the US to be paved >were not paved because of cars, but because cyclists demanded better >surfaces to ride on. Bike racing became incredibly popular, including long >endurance track races and long distance road races. Bike riding clubs >started up all over the country. Riders routinely rode long distances in >these club rides, riding from town to town, city to city. Bike touring >became an affordable way to see the country. All of these factors meant >people were spending more time on their bikes. They needed a riding >position that allowed them to travel these increased distances > comfortably. >Seat angles became slacker and chainstays grew longer because of this. By >1910 or so, seat angles had more or less settled on the standard that was >used as the paradigm for the next 120 years. > >It’s important to note a few things about this seat tube angle. > > For starters, the effective angle between the center of the usable >portion of the saddle rails and the center of the bottom bracket is not > the >seat tube angle. Let’s call that angle the effective saddle fore and aft >position angle, or just saddle angle for short. The saddle angle is > slacker >than the seat tube angle and that’s important. It’s roughly 1.5 >degrees slacker on most bikes. The human body hasn't changed in all >these years.. and the sound fit principals that found this happy medium >have not changed either. The relationship of the hip/knee/pedal happens to >grow as needed by a taller rider’s femur as the saddle goes up and back on >this angled axis, the Mezzo Forte Axis. The Mezzo Forte Axis is the >moderate, but powerful riding position that has proven itself over the >course of history. > >The fastest riders on the planet, the riders who race the Tour and the >Giro and the Vuelta ride this saddle angle. If there was a faster angle > to >ride hard then get up the next day and do it again, they’d use it. Look at >the pro’s road race bikes. The steeper the seat angle, the more saddle >set back there is. This is the reason, very very few pros ride 0mm >setback posts, and only a tiny handful ride posts with negative >setback, ie posts that put your saddle clamp in front of the seatpost. > >We have high-tech technology to see what the best
[RBW] Re: Drop bar on MIT Atlantis?
FWIW, stems are only a part of steering and handling. Bar shape and sweep have as much if not more to do with handling, as well as trail, fork offset, hta, tires, tire pressure and stiffness. Any change on a bike will require getting used to the change. As a long time fitter, I have found that some people, even though they claim they only ride this or that angle or offset or stem length, when put in a blind test scenario, choose the opposite of what they claim to be the magic number. I've had others, with the same blind testing, choose their old, but very bad, saddle position out of a slew of better options. Saddles way to high or low. People adapt. When you change your hands from the drops to the hoods to the tops of a bar, the steering leverage points drastically change, but no one freaks out about the change in handling. Going from your hoods to the bar cons on a set of noodle bars is like going from a 100mm stem to a 0mm in a second. Yet the bike handles fine, through out the change. We instantly adapt. No thought given. The bike is already moving, already in gyroscopic balance. There are cases where people need 0mm offset seatposts, but statistically, those are in the minority. Using the blind test fitting method that the Guru machine employs, I've sold very few 0mm posts compared to the amount of 20mm posts I've installed. This isn't a coincidence, it's born out by a century plus of bike fit knowledge that didn't just get pulled from thin air, it was decided on by trial and error. Look at the change in safety bike geo from 1880 to 1915. By 1915 they had figured it out, and the number has not changed for all of those years, plus or minus a degree. All that said, if you are riding in a position that you KNOW isn't hurting you, keep riding, don't let me tell ya how to be happy on your bike. -James On Wednesday, February 26, 2020 at 7:00:13 AM UTC-5, John G. wrote: > > I have a bunch of parts in need of a 700c frame, so I’ve been pondering my > next build. I miss my old Atlantis, though I traded it for my Roadeo, which > I love. I’m thinking about getting a MIT Atlantis, but the reach on the MIT > model seems longer than the older iterations. Albatrosses aren’t for me—I > get wrist pain on longer rides. Has anyone set up their MIT Atlantis with > drops or Albastaches? Are they really more intended for bars like the > Albastache? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/73823aae-97ac-4de8-b7e9-775563bda218%40googlegroups.com.
Re: [RBW] Re: Drop bar on MIT Atlantis?
I believe James makes a very valid point, as long as one understands it
properly, and it is this: for proper bike set up -- taking into account all
the imponderables such as individual build and personal pedaling style and
personal fit preferences -- one ought to start with saddle setback,
measured from bottom bracket, or better, from the center of pedaling
effort. Get your saddle in the right place as to fore/aft and leg extension
before you do anything else. Once you have your saddle in place, get your
bar in the right place.
Corollaries from this principle are: don't fine-tune your
saddle-reach-to-bar by moving your saddle; get the saddle placed right for
efficient pedaling, then choose the stem and bar needed for comfortable
reach. Or better: get the saddle right, then choose your bar, then choose
the right stem.
I personally have lived out the truth of this *dictum* because: long, long
ago, when I bought my first real road bike, a 1989 *tout* 531C Falcon with
Sante', that had a frame with steep head, short front center, and
relatively long stays, I was committed to obeying the KOPS principle I'd
read about in *Bicycling*, which meant that, with my build and preference
for full leg extention, I built the bike with Ritchey mountain bike
seatpost, saddle shoved *forward* as far as it would go, and *140 mm*
Cinelli 1A stem. Needless to say, with this setup on a bike of this
proportions and my weight was so biased forward, I'd regularly skip the
rear wheel when standing on steepish hills, and tight, winding downhills
were a handling nightmare -- I recall the horror during a particular ride
down Mount Taylor during the 1990 Mount Taylor Quad. But obeying the
conventions, I transfered this setup to other bikes, then complained to
Grant Petersen that I was "losing power at the top of the stroke;" he told
me: shove saddle back and down, bring bar up and back. I ended up ("landed
up" in Northern NM Rio Grande Valley speak") with saddle 2 cm lower, shoved
*all* the way back on the rails (same original issue Flite), and bar 100 mm
higher, with 8 cm stem instead of 140/135. Sure enough, I had ample power
"over top dead center," and I've kept this Grantian saddle/bar setup ever
since.
Looking back on all of this, I mentally kick myself, because I bet that
that Falcon, properly set up, would have been a very sweet-handling road
bike.
On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 12:48 PM LBleriot wrote:
> I'm not sure this true for every rider/circumstance. I've purchased a
> couple of custom bikes over my 40+ years of riding and purchased them with
> setback seatposts and shortish stems to accommodate my somewhat long legs
> and short arms. As I've grown older and suffered injuries which impact how
> I sit on my bikes, my fit has changed. Rather than discard frames and buy
> new ones, I've been able to successfully move from a 20mm offset to a zero
> offset seapost without discomfort or injury. In fact, just the opposite
> occurred. I own and Clem and MIT Atlantis and purchased both using
> guidance from Riv and experience to achieve a comfortable fit on both. My
> drop bar Atlantis is set up with a zero offset post and a 1 cm shorter
> stem. My swept back bar Clem has a 20mm set back post and 1cm longer
> stem. My contact points are nearly identical on the two and I ride both in
> comfort for hours. I have tried short extension stems (less than 4cm) and
> found that they did strange things to steering and my position on the
> bike. Just my $.02.
>
> On Wednesday, March 4, 2020 at 4:33:39 PM UTC-5, James / Analog Cycles
> wrote:
>>
>> A few things about drop bars on Riv's, shortening reach to bars, and
>> short stems.
>>
>>1. Putting a zero offset post on your bike is not a valid way to
>>shorten reach. It's like cutting the toe box out of your shoes because
>>they're too short. The answer isn't shoe destruction, it's to get shoes
>>that fit. Zero offset posts make zero sense unless your bike has a really
>>slack seat angle to begin with. The following is from a forthcoming
>>article on Tanglefoot Cycles' website, which I wrote. "
>>
>> In the years between 1890 and 1905, bike geometry made a shift.
>>Bikes in the early 1890’s had really steep seat angles and really short
>>chainstays, geometry not far from today’s ‘trail bikes’. In the years
>> that
>>followed, bike geometry grew up. It settled on angles that reflected the
>>use of the bike for longer and rougher trips. Bike makers needed to
>> modify
>>angles until folks could ride long, hard rides, over really bad terrain.
>>Slowly, then allofasudden, angles looked normal. The Wright Brothers Van
>>Cleve, a really nice looking all arounder, has a seat angle that we’d
>>recognize today as a normal, riding position. Tanglefoot recognizes the
>>importance of this riding position. People have not physically changed
>>much in 100 years. The riding position that worked for long, hard rides is
>>
[RBW] Re: Drop bar on MIT Atlantis?
I'm not sure this true for every rider/circumstance. I've purchased a couple of custom bikes over my 40+ years of riding and purchased them with setback seatposts and shortish stems to accommodate my somewhat long legs and short arms. As I've grown older and suffered injuries which impact how I sit on my bikes, my fit has changed. Rather than discard frames and buy new ones, I've been able to successfully move from a 20mm offset to a zero offset seapost without discomfort or injury. In fact, just the opposite occurred. I own and Clem and MIT Atlantis and purchased both using guidance from Riv and experience to achieve a comfortable fit on both. My drop bar Atlantis is set up with a zero offset post and a 1 cm shorter stem. My swept back bar Clem has a 20mm set back post and 1cm longer stem. My contact points are nearly identical on the two and I ride both in comfort for hours. I have tried short extension stems (less than 4cm) and found that they did strange things to steering and my position on the bike. Just my $.02. On Wednesday, March 4, 2020 at 4:33:39 PM UTC-5, James / Analog Cycles wrote: > > A few things about drop bars on Riv's, shortening reach to bars, and short > stems. > >1. Putting a zero offset post on your bike is not a valid way to >shorten reach. It's like cutting the toe box out of your shoes because >they're too short. The answer isn't shoe destruction, it's to get shoes >that fit. Zero offset posts make zero sense unless your bike has a really >slack seat angle to begin with. The following is from a forthcoming >article on Tanglefoot Cycles' website, which I wrote. " > > In the years between 1890 and 1905, bike geometry made a shift. >Bikes in the early 1890’s had really steep seat angles and really short >chainstays, geometry not far from today’s ‘trail bikes’. In the years > that >followed, bike geometry grew up. It settled on angles that reflected the >use of the bike for longer and rougher trips. Bike makers needed to > modify >angles until folks could ride long, hard rides, over really bad terrain. >Slowly, then allofasudden, angles looked normal. The Wright Brothers Van >Cleve, a really nice looking all arounder, has a seat angle that we’d >recognize today as a normal, riding position. Tanglefoot recognizes the >importance of this riding position. People have not physically changed >much in 100 years. The riding position that worked for long, hard rides is >still the riding position we need today. Steep seat angles were discarded >through 20 years of experimentation a long time ago. We don’t need to >relearn the lesson. It’s already been learned. > >By 1900, cycling had transitioned from a rich person’s hobby to a >serious means of transportation. The first roads in the US to be paved >were not paved because of cars, but because cyclists demanded better >surfaces to ride on. Bike racing became incredibly popular, including long >endurance track races and long distance road races. Bike riding clubs >started up all over the country. Riders routinely rode long distances in >these club rides, riding from town to town, city to city. Bike touring >became an affordable way to see the country. All of these factors meant >people were spending more time on their bikes. They needed a riding >position that allowed them to travel these increased distances > comfortably. >Seat angles became slacker and chainstays grew longer because of this. By >1910 or so, seat angles had more or less settled on the standard that was >used as the paradigm for the next 120 years. > >It’s important to note a few things about this seat tube angle. > > For starters, the effective angle between the center of the usable >portion of the saddle rails and the center of the bottom bracket is not > the >seat tube angle. Let’s call that angle the effective saddle fore and aft >position angle, or just saddle angle for short. The saddle angle is > slacker >than the seat tube angle and that’s important. It’s roughly 1.5 >degrees slacker on most bikes. The human body hasn't changed in all >these years.. and the sound fit principals that found this happy medium >have not changed either. The relationship of the hip/knee/pedal happens to >grow as needed by a taller rider’s femur as the saddle goes up and back on >this angled axis, the Mezzo Forte Axis. The Mezzo Forte Axis is the >moderate, but powerful riding position that has proven itself over the >course of history. > >The fastest riders on the planet, the riders who race the Tour and the >Giro and the Vuelta ride this saddle angle. If there was a faster angle > to >ride hard then get up the next day and do it again, they’d use it. Look at >the pro’s road
Re: [RBW] Re: Drop bar on MIT Atlantis?
Well...maybe not for everyone. Moving my saddle forward to near KOPS cured some nagging lower back pain for me. I happily use zero setback posts on all my bikes, which are mostly 73 degree seat tubes give or take 1/2 degree. Steve On Wed, Mar 4, 2020 at 4:33 PM James / Analog Cycles wrote: > A few things about drop bars on Riv's, shortening reach to bars, and short > stems. > >1. Putting a zero offset post on your bike is not a valid way to >shorten reach. It's like cutting the toe box out of your shoes because >they're too short. The answer isn't shoe destruction, it's to get shoes >that fit. Zero offset posts make zero sense unless your bike has a really >slack seat angle to begin with. The following is from a forthcoming >article on Tanglefoot Cycles' website, which I wrote. " > > In the years between 1890 and 1905, bike geometry made a shift. >Bikes in the early 1890’s had really steep seat angles and really short >chainstays, geometry not far from today’s ‘trail bikes’. In the years that >followed, bike geometry grew up. It settled on angles that reflected the >use of the bike for longer and rougher trips. Bike makers needed to modify >angles until folks could ride long, hard rides, over really bad terrain. >Slowly, then allofasudden, angles looked normal. The Wright Brothers Van >Cleve, a really nice looking all arounder, has a seat angle that we’d >recognize today as a normal, riding position. Tanglefoot recognizes the >importance of this riding position. People have not physically changed >much in 100 years. The riding position that worked for long, hard rides is >still the riding position we need today. Steep seat angles were discarded >through 20 years of experimentation a long time ago. We don’t need to >relearn the lesson. It’s already been learned. > >By 1900, cycling had transitioned from a rich person’s hobby to a >serious means of transportation. The first roads in the US to be paved >were not paved because of cars, but because cyclists demanded better >surfaces to ride on. Bike racing became incredibly popular, including long >endurance track races and long distance road races. Bike riding clubs >started up all over the country. Riders routinely rode long distances in >these club rides, riding from town to town, city to city. Bike touring >became an affordable way to see the country. All of these factors meant >people were spending more time on their bikes. They needed a riding >position that allowed them to travel these increased distances comfortably. >Seat angles became slacker and chainstays grew longer because of this. By >1910 or so, seat angles had more or less settled on the standard that was >used as the paradigm for the next 120 years. > >It’s important to note a few things about this seat tube angle. > > For starters, the effective angle between the center of the usable >portion of the saddle rails and the center of the bottom bracket is not the >seat tube angle. Let’s call that angle the effective saddle fore and aft >position angle, or just saddle angle for short. The saddle angle is slacker >than the seat tube angle and that’s important. It’s roughly 1.5 >degrees slacker on most bikes. The human body hasn't changed in all >these years.. and the sound fit principals that found this happy medium >have not changed either. The relationship of the hip/knee/pedal happens to >grow as needed by a taller rider’s femur as the saddle goes up and back on >this angled axis, the Mezzo Forte Axis. The Mezzo Forte Axis is the >moderate, but powerful riding position that has proven itself over the >course of history. > >The fastest riders on the planet, the riders who race the Tour and the >Giro and the Vuelta ride this saddle angle. If there was a faster angle to >ride hard then get up the next day and do it again, they’d use it. Look at >the pro’s road race bikes. The steeper the seat angle, the more saddle >set back there is. This is the reason, very very few pros ride 0mm >setback posts, and only a tiny handful ride posts with negative >setback, ie posts that put your saddle clamp in front of the seatpost. > >We have high-tech technology to see what the best position is on a >bike for long distance riding. Before we had the technology, we had >stopwatches and race results. I’ve heard arguments that a more forward >riding position is more powerful for short bursts. That’s true, but it’s > not >sustainable power. If it was, road racers would use it all the time. >The muscles engaged with a more forward position do not have the ability to >grind in a forward position for hours. You use big endurance muscles >when your saddle is further back. They’re not as punchy, but they’re >effective for the long haul. Wanna use
[RBW] Re: Drop bar on MIT Atlantis?
A few things about drop bars on Riv's, shortening reach to bars, and short stems. 1. Putting a zero offset post on your bike is not a valid way to shorten reach. It's like cutting the toe box out of your shoes because they're too short. The answer isn't shoe destruction, it's to get shoes that fit. Zero offset posts make zero sense unless your bike has a really slack seat angle to begin with. The following is from a forthcoming article on Tanglefoot Cycles' website, which I wrote. " In the years between 1890 and 1905, bike geometry made a shift. Bikes in the early 1890’s had really steep seat angles and really short chainstays, geometry not far from today’s ‘trail bikes’. In the years that followed, bike geometry grew up. It settled on angles that reflected the use of the bike for longer and rougher trips. Bike makers needed to modify angles until folks could ride long, hard rides, over really bad terrain. Slowly, then allofasudden, angles looked normal. The Wright Brothers Van Cleve, a really nice looking all arounder, has a seat angle that we’d recognize today as a normal, riding position. Tanglefoot recognizes the importance of this riding position. People have not physically changed much in 100 years. The riding position that worked for long, hard rides is still the riding position we need today. Steep seat angles were discarded through 20 years of experimentation a long time ago. We don’t need to relearn the lesson. It’s already been learned. By 1900, cycling had transitioned from a rich person’s hobby to a serious means of transportation. The first roads in the US to be paved were not paved because of cars, but because cyclists demanded better surfaces to ride on. Bike racing became incredibly popular, including long endurance track races and long distance road races. Bike riding clubs started up all over the country. Riders routinely rode long distances in these club rides, riding from town to town, city to city. Bike touring became an affordable way to see the country. All of these factors meant people were spending more time on their bikes. They needed a riding position that allowed them to travel these increased distances comfortably. Seat angles became slacker and chainstays grew longer because of this. By 1910 or so, seat angles had more or less settled on the standard that was used as the paradigm for the next 120 years. It’s important to note a few things about this seat tube angle. For starters, the effective angle between the center of the usable portion of the saddle rails and the center of the bottom bracket is not the seat tube angle. Let’s call that angle the effective saddle fore and aft position angle, or just saddle angle for short. The saddle angle is slacker than the seat tube angle and that’s important. It’s roughly 1.5 degrees slacker on most bikes. The human body hasn't changed in all these years.. and the sound fit principals that found this happy medium have not changed either. The relationship of the hip/knee/pedal happens to grow as needed by a taller rider’s femur as the saddle goes up and back on this angled axis, the Mezzo Forte Axis. The Mezzo Forte Axis is the moderate, but powerful riding position that has proven itself over the course of history. The fastest riders on the planet, the riders who race the Tour and the Giro and the Vuelta ride this saddle angle. If there was a faster angle to ride hard then get up the next day and do it again, they’d use it. Look at the pro’s road race bikes. The steeper the seat angle, the more saddle set back there is. This is the reason, very very few pros ride 0mm setback posts, and only a tiny handful ride posts with negative setback, ie posts that put your saddle clamp in front of the seatpost. We have high-tech technology to see what the best position is on a bike for long distance riding. Before we had the technology, we had stopwatches and race results. I’ve heard arguments that a more forward riding position is more powerful for short bursts. That’s true, but it’s not sustainable power. If it was, road racers would use it all the time. The muscles engaged with a more forward position do not have the ability to grind in a forward position for hours. You use big endurance muscles when your saddle is further back. They’re not as punchy, but they’re effective for the long haul. Wanna use those power muscles? Slide forward on your saddle. Then... This from a different section: You also never want to admit that by shortening chainstays and steepening seat angles, you are putting the riders’ weight further forward, which decreases traction on the rear wheel and puts more weight on your hands. The forward weight
[RBW] Re: Drop bar on MIT Atlantis?
if anyone is interest, i have a crust BJ stem which is effectively the same as the Analog Wright stem. slip into my DM if u need it. [image: nsilvershortsmallsideview-1024x683.jpg] On Wednesday, February 26, 2020 at 4:00:13 AM UTC-8, John G. wrote: > > I have a bunch of parts in need of a 700c frame, so I’ve been pondering my > next build. I miss my old Atlantis, though I traded it for my Roadeo, which > I love. I’m thinking about getting a MIT Atlantis, but the reach on the MIT > model seems longer than the older iterations. Albatrosses aren’t for me—I > get wrist pain on longer rides. Has anyone set up their MIT Atlantis with > drops or Albastaches? Are they really more intended for bars like the > Albastache? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/e5738122-4815-4c98-9cc6-f0e56e1ef2d4%40googlegroups.com.
[RBW] Re: Drop bar on MIT Atlantis?
This may of interest: https://www.analogcycles.com/product/analog-wright-stem/ On Wednesday, February 26, 2020 at 7:00:13 AM UTC-5, John G. wrote: > > I have a bunch of parts in need of a 700c frame, so I’ve been pondering my > next build. I miss my old Atlantis, though I traded it for my Roadeo, which > I love. I’m thinking about getting a MIT Atlantis, but the reach on the MIT > model seems longer than the older iterations. Albatrosses aren’t for me—I > get wrist pain on longer rides. Has anyone set up their MIT Atlantis with > drops or Albastaches? Are they really more intended for bars like the > Albastache? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/760046cf-fd58-477d-bcd3-f1f9c7d60068%40googlegroups.com.
[RBW] Re: Drop bar on MIT Atlantis?
Hi John, I have a 59 MIT Atlantis set up with the Crust towel rack bars (in the smallest size, which are about 615 wide). I've used a short stem (Nitto Dirt Drop in 8CM) and a zero setback seatpost to minimize the length of the top tube and long effective reach of those bars. It's a comfy set up for me. I'd think that by playing with stem length, you should be able to run drops effectively. Best, Brett in pdx On Wednesday, February 26, 2020 at 4:00:13 AM UTC-8, John G. wrote: > > I have a bunch of parts in need of a 700c frame, so I’ve been pondering my > next build. I miss my old Atlantis, though I traded it for my Roadeo, which > I love. I’m thinking about getting a MIT Atlantis, but the reach on the MIT > model seems longer than the older iterations. Albatrosses aren’t for me—I > get wrist pain on longer rides. Has anyone set up their MIT Atlantis with > drops or Albastaches? Are they really more intended for bars like the > Albastache? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/64ff57c6-b38e-4913-9ed7-cb557cf1eb7d%40googlegroups.com.
[RBW] Re: Drop bar on MIT Atlantis?
Interesting that Riv removed the geo charts and Grant choses not to discuss it with a customer. Does he suspect people overthink subtle geometrical differences? Sort of a rhetorical question but I do wonder. Doug -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/027dc0c7-269e-43c5-8117-29781fc7b22a%40googlegroups.com.
Re: [RBW] Re: Drop bar on MIT Atlantis?
If I were determined to buy a drop bar ruff-stuff touring bike from Rivendell Bicycle Works today, I'd probably buy a 54cm Appaloosa. I could make that work with a drop bar. Bill On Wednesday, February 26, 2020 at 4:33:01 PM UTC-8, Michael Williams wrote: > > Daniel and Bill and others, you can compare different model frames fairly > easily on bikeinsights, assuming that all numbers are correct. > > > https://bikeinsights.com/compare?geometries%5B%5D=5e1faf637f17da00170c6e28%5B%5D=5ad1288a9127aa0014fa1d9c%5B%5D=%5B%5D= > > Sent from my iPhone > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/e197f8ee-be68-41b9-9855-6ff449cd5a2e%40googlegroups.com.
[RBW] Re: Drop bar on MIT Atlantis?
Thanks Bill. Trivially easy for those who know what a way back machine is. Here’s to looking sheepishly back up your nose. D. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/572977cc-859a-4ade-82b9-85ef4c47de60%40googlegroups.com.
Re: [RBW] Re: Drop bar on MIT Atlantis?
Daniel and Bill and others, you can compare different model frames fairly easily on bikeinsights, assuming that all numbers are correct. https://bikeinsights.com/compare?geometries%5B%5D=5e1faf637f17da00170c6e28%5B%5D=5ad1288a9127aa0014fa1d9c%5B%5D=%5B%5D= Sent from my iPhone > On Feb 26, 2020, at 7:28 PM, Bill Lindsay wrote: > > > Daniel Jackson > > It's trivially easy to find the previous geometry chart via the wayback > machine. I just looked it up, on a Sept 23, 2019 snapshot of rivbike.com. > > > > Bill Lindsay > El Cerrito, CA > >> On Wednesday, February 26, 2020 at 4:13:12 PM UTC-8, Daniel Jackson wrote: >> John, >> >> Bill I believe alluded to this, but there now seem to be two generations of >> MIT Atlantis. To my chagrin, the precious geometry charts have disappeared >> from the website and if you ask anyone at Riv about differences between >> generations they either do not know (eg Corey) or will not tell you (Grant). >> >> There was a time, about 2 months ago or so, when there were two different >> MIT Atlantis geo charts on the website. One on the Atlantis site and one on >> the full geo chart listing all current frame geometries. They conflicted >> with one another. I called Riv with clarifying questions and Corey promptly >> removed the geo chart on the Atlantis site from the original gen MIT >> Atlantis. I called back asking Grant about the different geometries and how >> to tell whether a given MIT was of the first or second geometry. He told me >> not to worry about. >> >> So there it is. I believe that the current crop of MIT Atlanti are longer >> and slacker than the original generation. The original are therefore better >> suited to drops. Benedict’s bike, linked to in the Radavist article, is >> first gen and perfect for drops. >> >> Best, >> D. > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "RBW Owners Bunch" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/5906c8bc-3644-4d5f-9232-a20ed8413ffd%40googlegroups.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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/7EF39914-6C82-464D-A445-CCB7840F3DB3%40gmail.com.
[RBW] Re: Drop bar on MIT Atlantis?
Daniel Jackson It's trivially easy to find the previous geometry chart via the wayback machine. I just looked it up, on a Sept 23, 2019 snapshot of rivbike.com. Bill Lindsay El Cerrito, CA On Wednesday, February 26, 2020 at 4:13:12 PM UTC-8, Daniel Jackson wrote: > > John, > > Bill I believe alluded to this, but there now seem to be two generations > of MIT Atlantis. To my chagrin, the precious geometry charts have > disappeared from the website and if you ask anyone at Riv about differences > between generations they either do not know (eg Corey) or will not tell you > (Grant). > > There was a time, about 2 months ago or so, when there were two different > MIT Atlantis geo charts on the website. One on the Atlantis site and one on > the full geo chart listing all current frame geometries. They conflicted > with one another. I called Riv with clarifying questions and Corey promptly > removed the geo chart on the Atlantis site from the original gen MIT > Atlantis. I called back asking Grant about the different geometries and how > to tell whether a given MIT was of the first or second geometry. He told me > not to worry about. > > So there it is. I believe that the current crop of MIT Atlanti are longer > and slacker than the original generation. The original are therefore better > suited to drops. Benedict’s bike, linked to in the Radavist article, is > first gen and perfect for drops. > > Best, > D. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/5906c8bc-3644-4d5f-9232-a20ed8413ffd%40googlegroups.com.
[RBW] Re: Drop bar on MIT Atlantis?
Here's a famous MIT Atlantis with drops: https://theradavist.com/2019/01/ultra-romance-and-his-rivendell-atlantis-mountain-bike/ On Wednesday, February 26, 2020 at 4:00:13 AM UTC-8, John G. wrote: > > I have a bunch of parts in need of a 700c frame, so I’ve been pondering my > next build. I miss my old Atlantis, though I traded it for my Roadeo, which > I love. I’m thinking about getting a MIT Atlantis, but the reach on the MIT > model seems longer than the older iterations. Albatrosses aren’t for me—I > get wrist pain on longer rides. Has anyone set up their MIT Atlantis with > drops or Albastaches? Are they really more intended for bars like the > Albastache? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/4ed80bf9-4d03-4c33-9f2c-94b58f417b18%40googlegroups.com.
[RBW] Re: Drop bar on MIT Atlantis?
Unless you are going for a super upright riding position, I don't see why the bullmoose wouldn't work on your Atlantis. The Whatbar? site shows the grip portion of the bullmoose coming further back than the the center of the head tube. I've ridden a bike with a 60cm ETT (10 less than the Atlantis) and my normal MTB bars are well forward of the head tube. If anything, I would worry about the bullmoose being too close to me. On Wednesday, February 26, 2020 at 1:52:00 PM UTC-6, Steve Cole wrote: > > > When I ordered my MIT Atlantis (a 55cm, 700c), I also wanted a slightly > swept back bar. I spec'd the Nitto Bullmoose but was told by James Johnson > at Analog Cycles (which is building the bike for me) that the Bullmoose > would not work for what I wanted because of the long reach of the MIT > Atlantis. He recommended a shorter stem (80mm) and either a Nitto Wavie or > Velo Orange Curvy handlebar. These are similar in most respects and I've > ended up with the Curvy. I'll be riding it in a few weeks and can let you > know my experience. > > Albastache? > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/fdeb7866-4fda-4f36-9ff1-7c03bd4b33ed%40googlegroups.com.
[RBW] Re: Drop bar on MIT Atlantis?
I set up mine with Nitto B135 drop bars and bar end shifters. First, you'll need to add about 8 links to any chain and you might need a longer rear derailleur cable to accommodate the longer chainstays. Second, I used a zero offset seatpost and a shortish stem to close up the extended reach created by the long top tube. Other than sliding my Brooks saddle a bit forward on the rails, that's all it took to replicate the position from my other bikes. The hardest part was finding a zero offset seatpost in the correct diameter (Thomson or Origin 8). On Wednesday, February 26, 2020 at 7:00:13 AM UTC-5, John G. wrote: > > I have a bunch of parts in need of a 700c frame, so I’ve been pondering my > next build. I miss my old Atlantis, though I traded it for my Roadeo, which > I love. I’m thinking about getting a MIT Atlantis, but the reach on the MIT > model seems longer than the older iterations. Albatrosses aren’t for me—I > get wrist pain on longer rides. Has anyone set up their MIT Atlantis with > drops or Albastaches? Are they really more intended for bars like the > Albastache? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/5d5ba76c-23f6-4000-99c8-13efc51d7022%40googlegroups.com.
[RBW] Re: Drop bar on MIT Atlantis?
Hi John, To start, I am far from being as expert as many of the regulars in this discussion group. That said, I have three Riv bikes now and have an MIT Atlantis that will be coming my way in the next few weeks. When I purchased my first Riv bike, an A. Homer Hilsen, I switched out the handlebars from Nitto Noodles drop bars to Nitto Albatrosses. I also found that drops no longer worked for me -- I found myself only riding on the tops of the bars and the brake hoods. I tried the Albatross since so many in the group and Grant and other RBW staff spoke glowingly about Albatross comfort. I never felt it worked for me. What I found to be less than comfortable is the "handshake" grip that one uses with the Albatross bars (and the drops of drop bars). Prior to discovering RBW, I owned a Scott Sub 20, a very comfortable bike. It had no name bars that were relatively flat that were slightly (20-30 degrees) swept back. They were very comfortable. Rather than a handshake grip, these bars called for a grip like I was grasping a bar that was parallel to the floor in front of me. I never felt aches or pains. After some thought about my Albatross bars, I concluded I needed to trade them out for less swept back handlebars. I chose the Nitto Bullmoose for my AHH. It provided the comfort that I wanted and hoped for. When I ordered my MIT Atlantis (a 55cm, 700c), I also wanted a slightly swept back bar. I spec'd the Nitto Bullmoose but was told by James Johnson at Analog Cycles (which is building the bike for me) that the Bullmoose would not work for what I wanted because of the long reach of the MIT Atlantis. He recommended a shorter stem (80mm) and either a Nitto Wavie or Velo Orange Curvy handlebar. These are similar in most respects and I've ended up with the Curvy. I'll be riding it in a few weeks and can let you know my experience. In the meantime, if you are not familiar with the WhatBars website, I recommend it highly as it allow one to compare the geometry of almost any handlebar you might want. Here's the link: www.whatbars.com. Good luck on your search. Steve Cole Arlington, VA p.s. When my MIT Atlantis arrives, I still plan to see whether a Nitto Bullmoose might work for me. On Wednesday, February 26, 2020 at 5:00:13 AM UTC-7, John G. wrote: > > I have a bunch of parts in need of a 700c frame, so I’ve been pondering my > next build. I miss my old Atlantis, though I traded it for my Roadeo, which > I love. I’m thinking about getting a MIT Atlantis, but the reach on the MIT > model seems longer than the older iterations. Albatrosses aren’t for me—I > get wrist pain on longer rides. Has anyone set up their MIT Atlantis with > drops or Albastaches? Are they really more intended for bars like the > Albastache? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/2948573f-0efd-4a7d-aa82-af574c28743d%40googlegroups.com.
[RBW] Re: Drop bar on MIT Atlantis?
I have a friend that has a 59 MIT Atlantis with drops and he loves it. He just set it up with a shorter stem. gary On Wednesday, February 26, 2020 at 9:45:19 AM UTC-5, Matt Beecher wrote: > > I did on the older 56 and liked it. I normally ride a 58-60 cm frame > though. > > Best regards, > Matt Beecher > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/f12fb676-8fed-44f0-a8aa-d0c50976d86a%40googlegroups.com.
