Re: [RBW] Re: Saddle setback, frame angles, riding position, riding style (was: Can we talk about Riv bike sizing again?)

[Eric Karnes]

I find everything is connected. As I move the seat further back, I need to 
lower the saddle to keep the distance to the pedals (and therefore pedal 
stroke) similar. I've also found that I prefer shorter crank arms (170 or 
even 165) on bikes with the seat further back. I suppose this makes logical 
sense...as you move the saddle back, a shorter crank compensates, keeping 
the distance to the pedals the same. But I just made that theory up on the 
spot and have absolutely no scientific basis for it...

On Thursday, October 13, 2016 at 7:06:35 PM UTC-4, Belopsky wrote:
>
> How do you find having the saddle all the way affects your reach to the 
> pedals / pedal stroke?
>
> On Thursday, October 13, 2016 at 5:57:19 PM UTC-4, Eric Karnes wrote:
>>
>> Patrick: I've also found the same. I like to be back on the saddle when 
>> cranking at a low rpm. But prefer to be a bit further forward when I'm 
>> spinning with less resistance. Just my (completely unscientific) 
>> observations.
>>
>> Rene: For you're sake, lets hope they graded on a curve! I've definitely 
>> found the same. The B17 always needed to be all the way back for me...even 
>> on a Riv. One of the reasons I think I'm more comfortable on the C17.
>>
>> As for choosing the bike for drop versus upright... 
>>
>> I just picked up a used Hilsen for a second bike...Woohoo! I ended up 
>> going with a 61cm, even though Riv sizing says my 89.75 pbh would be better 
>> on a 63. Though there is a bit more seatpost/stem showing then I like, I 
>> went with the 61 for a few reasons: (1) My 62cm SimpleOne fits me perfectly 
>> and shares the same top tube length as the 61 Hilsen. I know Riv downplays 
>> this, but for a long-legged, short-torsoed gentleman like myself, I try to 
>> pay attention to it; (2) I feel like I could use drops or upright bars on 
>> the 61, while the 63 would be too long and require a ridiculously short 
>> stem. Granted, I probably won't put drop bars on it anytime soon, but I 
>> like the feeling that it's possible; and (3) it was available at a good 
>> price and is a beautiful bike. That said, I may live to regret the choice. 
>> But like I say to my students when they ask if something will work, 
>> 'there's only one way to find out.'
>>
>> Eric
>>
>> On Wednesday, October 12, 2016 at 10:52:15 PM UTC-4, Patrick Moore wrote:
>>>
>>> Eric: this agrees with what I read about saddle setback and weight on 
>>> hands; that a butt position behind the bb, no matter how this is achieved, 
>>> makes your torso muscles carry more weight and leaves less on your hands. 
>>> It certainly agrees, too, with my own experience -- a saddle too far 
>>> forward makes you support yourself on the bar.
>>>
>>> Of course there are other reasons for having more saddle setback; 
>>> pedaling torque is one that I notice -- I find myself scooting back when I 
>>> want to shove the pedals around at low rpm, for example, when climbing in a 
>>> fixed gear. 
>>>
>>> And the classic bolt-upright bikes certainly seem to "encourage" a 
>>> setback saddle. Look at the 3 photos below and see where the saddle nose 
>>> falls wrt the cranks.
>>>
>>> The omafiets looks horrible; yet, when I've ridden one -- no more than a 
>>> few hundred yards -- I have been surprised at how "lively" it feels; though 
>>> the bars hit my knees when I turn sharply.
>>>
>>> [image: Inline image 1]
>>>
>>> [image: Inline image 2]
>>>
>>> [image: Inline image 3]
>>>
>>> Ok, ok, yes, this is extreme, but whatta bout this one? Froome, 2016.
>>>
>>> [image: Inline image 4]
>>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 9:12 AM, Eric Karnes  wrote:
>>>
 Very good question. I have a similar understanding of geometry as I 
 have of macroeconomics. Which is to say, none. So I'll leave the 
 theorizing 
 to others.

 But I will say (as a few others have opined in other conversations) 
 that I have never been able to get older racing bikes to work well with 
 upright bars. On my mid-eighties Trek for example (73.5 sta and 73 hta), I 
 always felt like all of my weight was resting on my hands. This occurred 
 even with different bars (albatross, jitensha, vo porteur), different stem 
 lengths (everything from 8mm to 12mm), and different bar heights (below, 
 even with, and above the saddle). It turned out the most expensive 200 
 dollar Craigslist bike I've ever come across.

 My SimpleOne on the other hand (72 and 72 if I remember correctly), 
 works beautifully with upright bars. Right now it's sporting VO Porteurs 
 even with the saddle height, so it's not like I even have to be bolt 
 upright to be comfortable. It took a little bit of noodling to get it 
 dialed in, but honestly not a whole lot. I'm even thinking of getting a 
 Hilsen with the same tt length and trying out some drop bars (which have 
 always intimidated my long-legged, short-torsoed self).

 Eric



 On Wednesday, 

Re: [RBW] Re: Saddle setback, frame angles, riding position, riding style (was: Can we talk about Riv bike sizing again?)

[Belopsky]

How do you find having the saddle all the way affects your reach to the 
pedals / pedal stroke?

On Thursday, October 13, 2016 at 5:57:19 PM UTC-4, Eric Karnes wrote:
>
> Patrick: I've also found the same. I like to be back on the saddle when 
> cranking at a low rpm. But prefer to be a bit further forward when I'm 
> spinning with less resistance. Just my (completely unscientific) 
> observations.
>
> Rene: For you're sake, lets hope they graded on a curve! I've definitely 
> found the same. The B17 always needed to be all the way back for me...even 
> on a Riv. One of the reasons I think I'm more comfortable on the C17.
>
> As for choosing the bike for drop versus upright... 
>
> I just picked up a used Hilsen for a second bike...Woohoo! I ended up 
> going with a 61cm, even though Riv sizing says my 89.75 pbh would be better 
> on a 63. Though there is a bit more seatpost/stem showing then I like, I 
> went with the 61 for a few reasons: (1) My 62cm SimpleOne fits me perfectly 
> and shares the same top tube length as the 61 Hilsen. I know Riv downplays 
> this, but for a long-legged, short-torsoed gentleman like myself, I try to 
> pay attention to it; (2) I feel like I could use drops or upright bars on 
> the 61, while the 63 would be too long and require a ridiculously short 
> stem. Granted, I probably won't put drop bars on it anytime soon, but I 
> like the feeling that it's possible; and (3) it was available at a good 
> price and is a beautiful bike. That said, I may live to regret the choice. 
> But like I say to my students when they ask if something will work, 
> 'there's only one way to find out.'
>
> Eric
>
> On Wednesday, October 12, 2016 at 10:52:15 PM UTC-4, Patrick Moore wrote:
>>
>> Eric: this agrees with what I read about saddle setback and weight on 
>> hands; that a butt position behind the bb, no matter how this is achieved, 
>> makes your torso muscles carry more weight and leaves less on your hands. 
>> It certainly agrees, too, with my own experience -- a saddle too far 
>> forward makes you support yourself on the bar.
>>
>> Of course there are other reasons for having more saddle setback; 
>> pedaling torque is one that I notice -- I find myself scooting back when I 
>> want to shove the pedals around at low rpm, for example, when climbing in a 
>> fixed gear. 
>>
>> And the classic bolt-upright bikes certainly seem to "encourage" a 
>> setback saddle. Look at the 3 photos below and see where the saddle nose 
>> falls wrt the cranks.
>>
>> The omafiets looks horrible; yet, when I've ridden one -- no more than a 
>> few hundred yards -- I have been surprised at how "lively" it feels; though 
>> the bars hit my knees when I turn sharply.
>>
>> [image: Inline image 1]
>>
>> [image: Inline image 2]
>>
>> [image: Inline image 3]
>>
>> Ok, ok, yes, this is extreme, but whatta bout this one? Froome, 2016.
>>
>> [image: Inline image 4]
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 9:12 AM, Eric Karnes  wrote:
>>
>>> Very good question. I have a similar understanding of geometry as I have 
>>> of macroeconomics. Which is to say, none. So I'll leave the theorizing to 
>>> others.
>>>
>>> But I will say (as a few others have opined in other conversations) that 
>>> I have never been able to get older racing bikes to work well with upright 
>>> bars. On my mid-eighties Trek for example (73.5 sta and 73 hta), I always 
>>> felt like all of my weight was resting on my hands. This occurred even with 
>>> different bars (albatross, jitensha, vo porteur), different stem lengths 
>>> (everything from 8mm to 12mm), and different bar heights (below, even with, 
>>> and above the saddle). It turned out the most expensive 200 dollar 
>>> Craigslist bike I've ever come across.
>>>
>>> My SimpleOne on the other hand (72 and 72 if I remember correctly), 
>>> works beautifully with upright bars. Right now it's sporting VO Porteurs 
>>> even with the saddle height, so it's not like I even have to be bolt 
>>> upright to be comfortable. It took a little bit of noodling to get it 
>>> dialed in, but honestly not a whole lot. I'm even thinking of getting a 
>>> Hilsen with the same tt length and trying out some drop bars (which have 
>>> always intimidated my long-legged, short-torsoed self).
>>>
>>> Eric
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, October 12, 2016 at 10:37:29 AM UTC-4, Patrick Moore wrote:

 Starting a new thread about a topic that has interested me for a long 
 time, with a question: do slack angles and therefore (all else equal) 
 saddles well back of bb, work better with upright positions? Or perhaps, 
 an 
 upright position works best with a rearward saddle and thus slack angles?

 I recall dithering about a nice Dave Moulton, at a very good price, 
 because of the 74* st angle, and being told that a racing position on a 
 racing bike means being forward over the crank assembly/bb shell. This was 
 confirmed by several experienced ex racers. I 

Re: [RBW] Re: Saddle setback, frame angles, riding position, riding style (was: Can we talk about Riv bike sizing again?)

[Eric Karnes]

Patrick: I've also found the same. I like to be back on the saddle when 
cranking at a low rpm. But prefer to be a bit further forward when I'm 
spinning with less resistance. Just my (completely unscientific) 
observations.

Rene: For you're sake, lets hope they graded on a curve! I've definitely 
found the same. The B17 always needed to be all the way back for me...even 
on a Riv. One of the reasons I think I'm more comfortable on the C17.

As for choosing the bike for drop versus upright... 

I just picked up a used Hilsen for a second bike...Woohoo! I ended up going 
with a 61cm, even though Riv sizing says my 89.75 pbh would be better on a 
63. Though there is a bit more seatpost/stem showing then I like, I went 
with the 61 for a few reasons: (1) My 62cm SimpleOne fits me perfectly and 
shares the same top tube length as the 61 Hilsen. I know Riv downplays 
this, but for a long-legged, short-torsoed gentleman like myself, I try to 
pay attention to it; (2) I feel like I could use drops or upright bars on 
the 61, while the 63 would be too long and require a ridiculously short 
stem. Granted, I probably won't put drop bars on it anytime soon, but I 
like the feeling that it's possible; and (3) it was available at a good 
price and is a beautiful bike. That said, I may live to regret the choice. 
But like I say to my students when they ask if something will work, 
'there's only one way to find out.'

Eric

On Wednesday, October 12, 2016 at 10:52:15 PM UTC-4, Patrick Moore wrote:
>
> Eric: this agrees with what I read about saddle setback and weight on 
> hands; that a butt position behind the bb, no matter how this is achieved, 
> makes your torso muscles carry more weight and leaves less on your hands. 
> It certainly agrees, too, with my own experience -- a saddle too far 
> forward makes you support yourself on the bar.
>
> Of course there are other reasons for having more saddle setback; pedaling 
> torque is one that I notice -- I find myself scooting back when I want to 
> shove the pedals around at low rpm, for example, when climbing in a fixed 
> gear. 
>
> And the classic bolt-upright bikes certainly seem to "encourage" a setback 
> saddle. Look at the 3 photos below and see where the saddle nose falls wrt 
> the cranks.
>
> The omafiets looks horrible; yet, when I've ridden one -- no more than a 
> few hundred yards -- I have been surprised at how "lively" it feels; though 
> the bars hit my knees when I turn sharply.
>
> [image: Inline image 1]
>
> [image: Inline image 2]
>
> [image: Inline image 3]
>
> Ok, ok, yes, this is extreme, but whatta bout this one? Froome, 2016.
>
> [image: Inline image 4]
>
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 9:12 AM, Eric Karnes  > wrote:
>
>> Very good question. I have a similar understanding of geometry as I have 
>> of macroeconomics. Which is to say, none. So I'll leave the theorizing to 
>> others.
>>
>> But I will say (as a few others have opined in other conversations) that 
>> I have never been able to get older racing bikes to work well with upright 
>> bars. On my mid-eighties Trek for example (73.5 sta and 73 hta), I always 
>> felt like all of my weight was resting on my hands. This occurred even with 
>> different bars (albatross, jitensha, vo porteur), different stem lengths 
>> (everything from 8mm to 12mm), and different bar heights (below, even with, 
>> and above the saddle). It turned out the most expensive 200 dollar 
>> Craigslist bike I've ever come across.
>>
>> My SimpleOne on the other hand (72 and 72 if I remember correctly), works 
>> beautifully with upright bars. Right now it's sporting VO Porteurs even 
>> with the saddle height, so it's not like I even have to be bolt upright to 
>> be comfortable. It took a little bit of noodling to get it dialed in, but 
>> honestly not a whole lot. I'm even thinking of getting a Hilsen with the 
>> same tt length and trying out some drop bars (which have always intimidated 
>> my long-legged, short-torsoed self).
>>
>> Eric
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, October 12, 2016 at 10:37:29 AM UTC-4, Patrick Moore wrote:
>>>
>>> Starting a new thread about a topic that has interested me for a long 
>>> time, with a question: do slack angles and therefore (all else equal) 
>>> saddles well back of bb, work better with upright positions? Or perhaps, an 
>>> upright position works best with a rearward saddle and thus slack angles?
>>>
>>> I recall dithering about a nice Dave Moulton, at a very good price, 
>>> because of the 74* st angle, and being told that a racing position on a 
>>> racing bike means being forward over the crank assembly/bb shell. This was 
>>> confirmed by several experienced ex racers. I finally passed.
>>>
>>> The classic bolt upright ride seems to be the Raleigh DL-1, perhaps 
>>> Dutch city bikes (but I've no experience with them). Such slack angles, 
>>> high bb shell, and ends of grips practically bumping your knees. I've 
>>> ridden many such bikes and I've watched others 

Re: [RBW] Re: Saddle setback, frame angles, riding position, riding style (was: Can we talk about Riv bike sizing again?)

[Bill Lindsay]

I believe that the super-slack Dutch bikes are as much about in-city 
utility than 'fit' while riding.  With a really laid back seat tube angle, 
it makes it extremely easy to put your foot on the ground while remaining 
seated on the saddle.  For stop lights and stop signs and such, it's very 
civilized.  

Bill Lindsay
El Cerrito, Ca

On Wednesday, October 12, 2016 at 7:52:15 PM UTC-7, Patrick Moore wrote:
>
> Eric: this agrees with what I read about saddle setback and weight on 
> hands; that a butt position behind the bb, no matter how this is achieved, 
> makes your torso muscles carry more weight and leaves less on your hands. 
> It certainly agrees, too, with my own experience -- a saddle too far 
> forward makes you support yourself on the bar.
>
> Of course there are other reasons for having more saddle setback; pedaling 
> torque is one that I notice -- I find myself scooting back when I want to 
> shove the pedals around at low rpm, for example, when climbing in a fixed 
> gear. 
>
> And the classic bolt-upright bikes certainly seem to "encourage" a setback 
> saddle. Look at the 3 photos below and see where the saddle nose falls wrt 
> the cranks.
>
> The omafiets looks horrible; yet, when I've ridden one -- no more than a 
> few hundred yards -- I have been surprised at how "lively" it feels; though 
> the bars hit my knees when I turn sharply.
>
> [image: Inline image 1]
>
> [image: Inline image 2]
>
> [image: Inline image 3]
>
> Ok, ok, yes, this is extreme, but whatta bout this one? Froome, 2016.
>
> [image: Inline image 4]
>
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 9:12 AM, Eric Karnes  > wrote:
>
>> Very good question. I have a similar understanding of geometry as I have 
>> of macroeconomics. Which is to say, none. So I'll leave the theorizing to 
>> others.
>>
>> But I will say (as a few others have opined in other conversations) that 
>> I have never been able to get older racing bikes to work well with upright 
>> bars. On my mid-eighties Trek for example (73.5 sta and 73 hta), I always 
>> felt like all of my weight was resting on my hands. This occurred even with 
>> different bars (albatross, jitensha, vo porteur), different stem lengths 
>> (everything from 8mm to 12mm), and different bar heights (below, even with, 
>> and above the saddle). It turned out the most expensive 200 dollar 
>> Craigslist bike I've ever come across.
>>
>> My SimpleOne on the other hand (72 and 72 if I remember correctly), works 
>> beautifully with upright bars. Right now it's sporting VO Porteurs even 
>> with the saddle height, so it's not like I even have to be bolt upright to 
>> be comfortable. It took a little bit of noodling to get it dialed in, but 
>> honestly not a whole lot. I'm even thinking of getting a Hilsen with the 
>> same tt length and trying out some drop bars (which have always intimidated 
>> my long-legged, short-torsoed self).
>>
>> Eric
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, October 12, 2016 at 10:37:29 AM UTC-4, Patrick Moore wrote:
>>>
>>> Starting a new thread about a topic that has interested me for a long 
>>> time, with a question: do slack angles and therefore (all else equal) 
>>> saddles well back of bb, work better with upright positions? Or perhaps, an 
>>> upright position works best with a rearward saddle and thus slack angles?
>>>
>>> I recall dithering about a nice Dave Moulton, at a very good price, 
>>> because of the 74* st angle, and being told that a racing position on a 
>>> racing bike means being forward over the crank assembly/bb shell. This was 
>>> confirmed by several experienced ex racers. I finally passed.
>>>
>>> The classic bolt upright ride seems to be the Raleigh DL-1, perhaps 
>>> Dutch city bikes (but I've no experience with them). Such slack angles, 
>>> high bb shell, and ends of grips practically bumping your knees. I've 
>>> ridden many such bikes and I've watched others ride them, and I know for a 
>>> fact that they very strongly discourage an energetic riding style -- if you 
>>> try to ride hard, you always (and I see others always) reposition the body 
>>> to negate the design -- lean forward, grab bar next to stem, sit on nose of 
>>> saddle).
>>>
>>> And then there's the gearing: stock on the DL-1 was 46/18 or 72 gi, 
>>> iirc. Even if 44/18, that's still 68". Even 68" on a very tall, 50 lb bike 
>>> is damned high.
>>>
>>> So the design must have been built with a (1) relaxed or energy 
>>> conserving and (2) ponderous or high torque/low rpm
>>>
>>> It's hard to understand why the DL-1 remained in production for so long; 
>>> I don't think that this extended product life can't be explained solely on 
>>> failing-socialist Indian and Chinese economic practices, or pure inertia.
>>>
>>> So something about this sort of riding position must work, and therefore 
>>> one presumes that Raleigh had worked out the riding style, and then the 
>>> position, and then the angles and lengths that were most efficient with 
>>> this position.
>>>
>>> 

[RBW] Re: Saddle setback, frame angles, riding position, riding style (was: Can we talk about Riv bike sizing again?)

[Belopsky]

Also, rode my Macho King yesterday and wasn't as comfortable as on my Sam 
Marcos, so the other question is what's off in the fit. I'm flexible enough 
for a lower handlebar setup, but that definitely puts more weight on the 
bars (if a person is more stretched 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 https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[RBW] Re: Saddle setback, frame angles, riding position, riding style (was: Can we talk about Riv bike sizing again?)

[Belopsky]

How do drop bars change stem length/setup for those with their seats way, 
way back? Do you account for that when picking the frame or are there 
frames where you can do both upright/pull back bars AND drop bars?

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [RBW] Re: Saddle setback, frame angles, riding position, riding style (was: Can we talk about Riv bike sizing again?)

[René Sterental]

I studied macroeconomics with Eric, and then we both did graduate studies
on bike geometry.

I can't say that you are all right or wrong, but I can say that on all my
Rivendell bikes and also on my custom, which has a slacker head tube, the
only position I'm comfortable in is with the extended set back Nitto lugged
seat post and the Brooks leather saddles, B17 or B67 pushed fully back.
Only then, do I feel my weight is not all resting on my hands. If I could,
I might still push them further back a bit. With the C17 on my Atlantis,
since the rails are longer, I didn't need to push it all the way to the
end. Without the extended set back on the lugged post, which was the main
reason for me to go from the 58 Betty to the 60 Cheviot, I cannot get as
far back as I need to.

Is that because I'm still quite overweight? Maybe. My weight loss which has
slipped back noticeably this year, allowed me to lean forward more and get
overall more comfortable. I still need that saddle set back quite a bit.
Maybe I'm just weird.

When I figure the root causes and theories behind it all, I'll make a
significant impact on the macroeconomics theory as well. Don't wait
standing up for me to figure it out... :-)

René

On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 8:02 PM, Patrick Moore  wrote:

> That actually seems to fit with the bikes and the setups discussed. No one
> in the world is going to spin a 72" gear, let alone a 96" gear (Sturmey
> Archer 3d, 133% of direct) on a DL-1; and the DL-1 has the saddle wy
> back.
>
> And this also fits with what I've heard from racers: when you want to
> generate power -- ie, when you are spinning all out -- you are "on the
> rivet" -- ie, sitting on the nose of the saddle, where, back when racers
> rode Brooks Pros or Swallows, there was a rivet attaching the leather to
> the front of the saddle frame. And see the TT and pro road race bikes in
> the post immediately prioer to this one.
>
> I recall setting up what would have been a very nice 1989 Falcon, toute
> 531C with cool '80s painted Sante group. This was a bike with long stays
> and very short front/center (hard to fit a thumb between 20" tire and down
> tube).
>
> I was chasing KOPS (knee over pedal spindle) with short femurs (my mother
> was Filipino) and a liking for full leg extension on the downstroke. I had
> to buy a mtb seatpost to get the saddle high enough, and I had the Turbo or
> Flite so far forward that it would tilt under my weight; I had to use blue
> Loctite on the cradle to hold it level. Of course, this also meant a 140 mm
> stem (6" below saddle).
>
>  I was sure fast spinning on the level -- these were the days when I could
> maintain 20-21 in a 42/17 with a 20 mm tire -- but downhills were scary,
> especially with gusty winds. And, standing on climbs, I'd skip the rear
> wheel when I torqued down. (Grant later advised me to get bar up and back,
> and saddle back and down; and I've been happy ever since.) Now the lowest I
> go on our local 5 mile Tramway climb is 60", and usually 66" -- and I've
> done it in a 76" gear.
>
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 7:44 PM, GAJett  wrote:
>
>> For various reasons my main bikes, over 40 years, have always had the
>> saddle slammed FORWARD.  On my AHH with a Nitto seatpost, the Brooks Pro is
>> as far forward as possible.  My old Raleigh Competition came with a
>> straight seatpost and separate saddle clamp.  In this case I was most
>> comfortable with the saddle clamp FORWARD of the seatpost, instead of being
>> behind.  This may have been the result of a too large frame and stem, but I
>> find I like to be forward over the bottom bracket allowing me to spin more
>> easily.  Further back I find I'm more of a stomper, which I've never
>> liked.  I bike fitter would probably have a field day with my position (if
>> not running away crying!).
>>
>> --
> 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 https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [RBW] Re: Saddle setback, frame angles, riding position, riding style (was: Can we talk about Riv bike sizing again?)

[Patrick Moore]

That actually seems to fit with the bikes and the setups discussed. No one
in the world is going to spin a 72" gear, let alone a 96" gear (Sturmey
Archer 3d, 133% of direct) on a DL-1; and the DL-1 has the saddle wy
back.

And this also fits with what I've heard from racers: when you want to
generate power -- ie, when you are spinning all out -- you are "on the
rivet" -- ie, sitting on the nose of the saddle, where, back when racers
rode Brooks Pros or Swallows, there was a rivet attaching the leather to
the front of the saddle frame. And see the TT and pro road race bikes in
the post immediately prioer to this one.

I recall setting up what would have been a very nice 1989 Falcon, toute
531C with cool '80s painted Sante group. This was a bike with long stays
and very short front/center (hard to fit a thumb between 20" tire and down
tube).

I was chasing KOPS (knee over pedal spindle) with short femurs (my mother
was Filipino) and a liking for full leg extension on the downstroke. I had
to buy a mtb seatpost to get the saddle high enough, and I had the Turbo or
Flite so far forward that it would tilt under my weight; I had to use blue
Loctite on the cradle to hold it level. Of course, this also meant a 140 mm
stem (6" below saddle).

 I was sure fast spinning on the level -- these were the days when I could
maintain 20-21 in a 42/17 with a 20 mm tire -- but downhills were scary,
especially with gusty winds. And, standing on climbs, I'd skip the rear
wheel when I torqued down. (Grant later advised me to get bar up and back,
and saddle back and down; and I've been happy ever since.) Now the lowest I
go on our local 5 mile Tramway climb is 60", and usually 66" -- and I've
done it in a 76" gear.

On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 7:44 PM, GAJett  wrote:

> For various reasons my main bikes, over 40 years, have always had the
> saddle slammed FORWARD.  On my AHH with a Nitto seatpost, the Brooks Pro is
> as far forward as possible.  My old Raleigh Competition came with a
> straight seatpost and separate saddle clamp.  In this case I was most
> comfortable with the saddle clamp FORWARD of the seatpost, instead of being
> behind.  This may have been the result of a too large frame and stem, but I
> find I like to be forward over the bottom bracket allowing me to spin more
> easily.  Further back I find I'm more of a stomper, which I've never
> liked.  I bike fitter would probably have a field day with my position (if
> not running away crying!).
>
>

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[RBW] Re: Saddle setback, frame angles, riding position, riding style (was: Can we talk about Riv bike sizing again?)

[GAJett]

For various reasons my main bikes, over 40 years, have always had the 
saddle slammed FORWARD.  On my AHH with a Nitto seatpost, the Brooks Pro is 
as far forward as possible.  My old Raleigh Competition came with a 
straight seatpost and separate saddle clamp.  In this case I was most 
comfortable with the saddle clamp FORWARD of the seatpost, instead of being 
behind.  This may have been the result of a too large frame and stem, but I 
find I like to be forward over the bottom bracket allowing me to spin more 
easily.  Further back I find I'm more of a stomper, which I've never 
liked.  I bike fitter would probably have a field day with my position (if 
not running away crying!).

On Wednesday, October 12, 2016 at 7:37:29 AM UTC-7, Patrick Moore wrote:
>
> Starting a new thread about a topic that has interested me for a long 
> time, with a question: do slack angles and therefore (all else equal) 
> saddles well back of bb, work better with upright positions? Or perhaps, an 
> upright position works best with a rearward saddle and thus slack angles?
>
> I recall dithering about a nice Dave Moulton, at a very good price, 
> because of the 74* st angle, and being told that a racing position on a 
> racing bike means being forward over the crank assembly/bb shell. This was 
> confirmed by several experienced ex racers. I finally passed.
>
> The classic bolt upright ride seems to be the Raleigh DL-1, perhaps Dutch 
> city bikes (but I've no experience with them). Such slack angles, high bb 
> shell, and ends of grips practically bumping your knees. I've ridden many 
> such bikes and I've watched others ride them, and I know for a fact that 
> they very strongly discourage an energetic riding style -- if you try to 
> ride hard, you always (and I see others always) reposition the body to 
> negate the design -- lean forward, grab bar next to stem, sit on nose of 
> saddle).
>
> And then there's the gearing: stock on the DL-1 was 46/18 or 72 gi, iirc. 
> Even if 44/18, that's still 68". Even 68" on a very tall, 50 lb bike is 
> damned high.
>
> So the design must have been built with a (1) relaxed or energy conserving 
> and (2) ponderous or high torque/low rpm
>
> It's hard to understand why the DL-1 remained in production for so long; I 
> don't think that this extended product life can't be explained solely on 
> failing-socialist Indian and Chinese economic practices, or pure inertia.
>
> So something about this sort of riding position must work, and therefore 
> one presumes that Raleigh had worked out the riding style, and then the 
> position, and then the angles and lengths that were most efficient with 
> this position.
>
> Translate this into the upright Rivendells. These have low bbs, so that's 
> different; they also come with low gearing -- I get the impression that 
> these favor spinning, and not mashing?
>
> And the Rivs have startlingly long tts -- to countereffect the rearward 
> sweep of the bar and the slacker heads? So, this would mean a more 
> aggressive riding position, and therefore more spirited riding style, than 
> what the DL-1 was designed for.
>
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 2:19 PM, Eric Karnes  > wrote:
>
>> My guess that this is mostly a commentary on the use of fairly steep seat 
>> tube angles (73–75 degrees) on many road/sport/touring bikes from (very 
>> roughly) the 80s to present. This can make it very hard for some people to 
>> get a proper weight distribution without slamming the seat back, using an 
>> ultra-setback seatpost, or a combination of both. I had a mid-eighties Trek 
>> sport touring bike like this. I loved the way the frame rode, but the 73.5 
>> degree sta made it impossible for me to get comfortable.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 2:27:41 PM UTC-4, Belopsky wrote:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>> As a follow-up, I saw somewhere Grant writing that people like to slam 
>>> the seats ALL the way back - is this due to the upright bars / higher than 
>>> seat bars / upright posture on a bike?
>>>
>>
On Wednesday, October 12, 2016 at 7:37:29 AM UTC-7, Patrick Moore wrote:
>
> Starting a new thread about a topic that has interested me for a long 
> time, with a question: do slack angles and therefore (all else equal) 
> saddles well back of bb, work better with upright positions? Or perhaps, an 
> upright position works best with a rearward saddle and thus slack angles?
>
> I recall dithering about a nice Dave Moulton, at a very good price, 
> because of the 74* st angle, and being told that a racing position on a 
> racing bike means being forward over the crank assembly/bb shell. This was 
> confirmed by several experienced ex racers. I finally passed.
>
> The classic bolt upright ride seems to be the Raleigh DL-1, perhaps Dutch 
> city bikes (but I've no experience with them). Such slack angles, high bb 
> shell, and ends of grips practically bumping your knees. I've ridden many 
> such bikes and I've watched others ride them, and I 

[RBW] Re: Saddle setback, frame angles, riding position, riding style (was: Can we talk about Riv bike sizing again?)

[Bill Lindsay]

Patrick Moore asked two questions.  Others were implied but I think these 
were the three he sincerely meant to ask:

1.  do slack angles and therefore (all else equal) saddles well back of bb, 
work better with upright positions?

In my humble opinion, no.  I use the full length mirror to illustrate. 
 Stand in front of the full length mirror, sideways.  Bolt upright your 
head is stacked over your shoulders, down through your spine and hips down 
to your feet.  Keep your spine straight and bend forward.  As you bend 
forward reach your relaxed arms towards imaginary handlebars.  As you reach 
for various different handlebar positions, and different spine and arm 
positions, look at what your hips are doing.  The further down you reach 
and the further away you reach, the further back your hips need to go. 
 Slack angles allow you to get your hips back more easily.  An upright 
position doesn't need to have your hips get so far back.  

2.  Or perhaps, an upright position works best with a rearward saddle and 
thus slack angles?

In my opinion, this is incorrect.  Its the opposite.  You don't need to 
slam your saddle back on an upright.  You need to get your hips back with a 
sporting riding position.  The case for a steep STA is for an aero riding 
position with aero bars where you rest substantial weight on your forearms. 
  

P.S.  Grant wrote two things about saddle slamming.   First, he noticed 
that everybody slams their Brooks saddles all the way back, because Brooks 
saddles have very short rails.  Rivendell pretty much single handedly kept 
Brooks afloat for a while before Brooks became hipster-tweed-cool.  Grant 
wanted to offer frames that did not require 100% of people to slam their 
Brooks saddles all the way back and handwring that they couldn't go 
farther.  Second, Grant thinks a long setback seatpost and a slammed all 
the way back saddle just doesn't look good.  On all my Rivendells, the 
saddle is very near the middle of the rails, with normal setback posts, and 
I think that's a nice look.  That's why Rivendells' "long" top tubes are 
not actually all that long, because you are running your saddle farther 
forward.

Bill Lindsay
El Cerrito, CA


-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[RBW] Re: Saddle setback, frame angles, riding position, riding style (was: Can we talk about Riv bike sizing again?)

[Eric Karnes]

Very good question. I have a similar understanding of geometry as I have of 
macroeconomics. Which is to say, none. So I'll leave the theorizing to 
others.

But I will say (as a few others have opined in other conversations) that I 
have never been able to get older racing bikes to work well with upright 
bars. On my mid-eighties Trek for example (73.5 sta and 73 hta), I always 
felt like all of my weight was resting on my hands. This occurred even with 
different bars (albatross, jitensha, vo porteur), different stem lengths 
(everything from 8mm to 12mm), and different bar heights (below, even with, 
and above the saddle). It turned out the most expensive 200 dollar 
Craigslist bike I've ever come across.

My SimpleOne on the other hand (72 and 72 if I remember correctly), works 
beautifully with upright bars. Right now it's sporting VO Porteurs even 
with the saddle height, so it's not like I even have to be bolt upright to 
be comfortable. It took a little bit of noodling to get it dialed in, but 
honestly not a whole lot. I'm even thinking of getting a Hilsen with the 
same tt length and trying out some drop bars (which have always intimidated 
my long-legged, short-torsoed self).

Eric



On Wednesday, October 12, 2016 at 10:37:29 AM UTC-4, Patrick Moore wrote:
>
> Starting a new thread about a topic that has interested me for a long 
> time, with a question: do slack angles and therefore (all else equal) 
> saddles well back of bb, work better with upright positions? Or perhaps, an 
> upright position works best with a rearward saddle and thus slack angles?
>
> I recall dithering about a nice Dave Moulton, at a very good price, 
> because of the 74* st angle, and being told that a racing position on a 
> racing bike means being forward over the crank assembly/bb shell. This was 
> confirmed by several experienced ex racers. I finally passed.
>
> The classic bolt upright ride seems to be the Raleigh DL-1, perhaps Dutch 
> city bikes (but I've no experience with them). Such slack angles, high bb 
> shell, and ends of grips practically bumping your knees. I've ridden many 
> such bikes and I've watched others ride them, and I know for a fact that 
> they very strongly discourage an energetic riding style -- if you try to 
> ride hard, you always (and I see others always) reposition the body to 
> negate the design -- lean forward, grab bar next to stem, sit on nose of 
> saddle).
>
> And then there's the gearing: stock on the DL-1 was 46/18 or 72 gi, iirc. 
> Even if 44/18, that's still 68". Even 68" on a very tall, 50 lb bike is 
> damned high.
>
> So the design must have been built with a (1) relaxed or energy conserving 
> and (2) ponderous or high torque/low rpm
>
> It's hard to understand why the DL-1 remained in production for so long; I 
> don't think that this extended product life can't be explained solely on 
> failing-socialist Indian and Chinese economic practices, or pure inertia.
>
> So something about this sort of riding position must work, and therefore 
> one presumes that Raleigh had worked out the riding style, and then the 
> position, and then the angles and lengths that were most efficient with 
> this position.
>
> Translate this into the upright Rivendells. These have low bbs, so that's 
> different; they also come with low gearing -- I get the impression that 
> these favor spinning, and not mashing?
>
> And the Rivs have startlingly long tts -- to countereffect the rearward 
> sweep of the bar and the slacker heads? So, this would mean a more 
> aggressive riding position, and therefore more spirited riding style, than 
> what the DL-1 was designed for.
>
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 2:19 PM, Eric Karnes  > wrote:
>
>> My guess that this is mostly a commentary on the use of fairly steep seat 
>> tube angles (73–75 degrees) on many road/sport/touring bikes from (very 
>> roughly) the 80s to present. This can make it very hard for some people to 
>> get a proper weight distribution without slamming the seat back, using an 
>> ultra-setback seatpost, or a combination of both. I had a mid-eighties Trek 
>> sport touring bike like this. I loved the way the frame rode, but the 73.5 
>> degree sta made it impossible for me to get comfortable.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 2:27:41 PM UTC-4, Belopsky wrote:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>> As a follow-up, I saw somewhere Grant writing that people like to slam 
>>> the seats ALL the way back - is this due to the upright bars / higher than 
>>> seat bars / upright posture on a bike?
>>>
>>

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit 

[RBW] Re: Saddle setback, frame angles, riding position, riding style (was: Can we talk about Riv bike sizing again?)

[Belopsky]

This all seems to make sense to me, but I will wait on others to chime in - 
I still have questions about seat position and stem lengths - Is there any 
reason to ride the biggest you can, if you're *not* touring - if I want a 
'go fast' Rivendell, do I size down rather than up?

Comparing my San Marcos to my Hillborne, the former looks rather small, or 
the latter looks rather big, but they are also set up differently - doing 
some measurements however seems like I can ride the Hillborne with drops, 
with a shorter stem and be fine, albeit probably not as fast as my Macho 
King

On Wednesday, October 12, 2016 at 10:37:29 AM UTC-4, Patrick Moore wrote:
>
> Starting a new thread about a topic that has interested me for a long 
> time, with a question: do slack angles and therefore (all else equal) 
> saddles well back of bb, work better with upright positions? Or perhaps, an 
> upright position works best with a rearward saddle and thus slack angles?
>
> I recall dithering about a nice Dave Moulton, at a very good price, 
> because of the 74* st angle, and being told that a racing position on a 
> racing bike means being forward over the crank assembly/bb shell. This was 
> confirmed by several experienced ex racers. I finally passed.
>
> The classic bolt upright ride seems to be the Raleigh DL-1, perhaps Dutch 
> city bikes (but I've no experience with them). Such slack angles, high bb 
> shell, and ends of grips practically bumping your knees. I've ridden many 
> such bikes and I've watched others ride them, and I know for a fact that 
> they very strongly discourage an energetic riding style -- if you try to 
> ride hard, you always (and I see others always) reposition the body to 
> negate the design -- lean forward, grab bar next to stem, sit on nose of 
> saddle).
>
> And then there's the gearing: stock on the DL-1 was 46/18 or 72 gi, iirc. 
> Even if 44/18, that's still 68". Even 68" on a very tall, 50 lb bike is 
> damned high.
>
> So the design must have been built with a (1) relaxed or energy conserving 
> and (2) ponderous or high torque/low rpm
>
> It's hard to understand why the DL-1 remained in production for so long; I 
> don't think that this extended product life can't be explained solely on 
> failing-socialist Indian and Chinese economic practices, or pure inertia.
>
> So something about this sort of riding position must work, and therefore 
> one presumes that Raleigh had worked out the riding style, and then the 
> position, and then the angles and lengths that were most efficient with 
> this position.
>
> Translate this into the upright Rivendells. These have low bbs, so that's 
> different; they also come with low gearing -- I get the impression that 
> these favor spinning, and not mashing?
>
> And the Rivs have startlingly long tts -- to countereffect the rearward 
> sweep of the bar and the slacker heads? So, this would mean a more 
> aggressive riding position, and therefore more spirited riding style, than 
> what the DL-1 was designed for.
>
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 2:19 PM, Eric Karnes  > wrote:
>
>> My guess that this is mostly a commentary on the use of fairly steep seat 
>> tube angles (73–75 degrees) on many road/sport/touring bikes from (very 
>> roughly) the 80s to present. This can make it very hard for some people to 
>> get a proper weight distribution without slamming the seat back, using an 
>> ultra-setback seatpost, or a combination of both. I had a mid-eighties Trek 
>> sport touring bike like this. I loved the way the frame rode, but the 73.5 
>> degree sta made it impossible for me to get comfortable.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 2:27:41 PM UTC-4, Belopsky wrote:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>> As a follow-up, I saw somewhere Grant writing that people like to slam 
>>> the seats ALL the way back - is this due to the upright bars / higher than 
>>> seat bars / upright posture on a bike?
>>>
>>

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.