have to look like racing bikes? ah yes this set up inspired great gasps from some other listserve "how dare she....." http://www.flickr.com/photos/acmebicycle/sets/72157607122820128/ peace
well behaved women rarely make history _ride yr friggin bicycle_ From: dfal...@charter.net To: rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com Subject: [RBW] Re: Rivendell vs. Bridgestone sizing Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 07:30:03 -0800 I'm preaching to the choir here, but the biggest resistance to raising the stem on road bikes comes from the aesthetic of the "racing bike look". Almost no one (please note that I said "almost no one") could rationally claim that having bars significantly lower than the saddle is more comfortable; yet the image of the racing bike is so ingrained in the bike culture that variants are considered freakish and wrong, regardless of comfort or proper fit. I had a beautiful Eisentraut in the 70's and early 80's, and it never felt right so I sold it. Looking back, I had the stem so far down that my back and neck always hurt. It sure looked good, and at the time I would have rather suffered than look non-racy by raising the stem. ----- Original Message ----- From: gr...@rivbike.com To: RBW Owners Bunch Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 10:06 PM Subject: [RBW] Re: Rivendell vs. Bridgestone sizing Basic geo diffs btw RIV roadish bikes & RB-1 The RBs have shorter chainstays and less BB drop, for higher bottom brackets, and less tire clearance. There were many forces a-pulling at the time: Sales reps and dlrs would tolerate no chainstay longer than 41.5. The brakes available were short-reach, which, even if reps-n-dealers would have tolerated bigger tires (and if I were as hip to them then as I am now---I don't want to point fingers only away---well, the short reach brakes forced skinny tires. Still, those Bstones had more clearance than their contemporaries, and judged by their time they looked pretty smart. I've learned a lot since then, and my values have shifted some, and from RIV onward I didn't have to satisfy anybody else---so immediately I went to longer chainstays and more bb drop (lower bbs). I used to believe that longer femurs dictated shallower seat tube angles & shorter 'murs need steeper ones, but I realized that was pish-posh, and so those incrementally shallower-as-they-got-bigger seat tube angles I was so fantastically proud of back then...well, good intentions, but all for naught. I think it was Tony Oliver's book that set me straight on that, and it's so obvious once you understand it. My "high bars" phase came from a guy named Bob Gordon talking my head off about it, and it led to a RR article called Raise Dat Stem. All you have to do is try it...and yep, there may be some who prefer low bars, but I tend to think they're anatomically different in invisible ways, or in denial, or too stubborn. Something. Part of raising the bar is raising the front end of the bike, and the cumulative effects of a slightly upsloping top tube, the extended head tube, the longer steer tube, and the wonderful longer-quilled Nitto stems make a huge difference. An RB-1 56 has a level top tube, short-stack headset, and short-quilled stems resulted in a 56 with the bar height of a 56. A 56 Rambouillet allows a bar height equivalent to an RB-1 65cm---and yet, it don't look wacky. It just feels way better (for most people). It may be "non-classic," by virtue (and I mean virtue) of the aforementioned quirks, but it is better for each of them individually, and bounds better by the cumulation of them. Pino Moronni was my long-chainstay influence. In fractured English, he can make a good case for it. The idea that shorter is faster--more pish-posh! Also: Bstone top tubes/down tubes were 25.4mm/28.6mm. RIVS are generally 28.6/31.8, with the occasional custom that has a downtube that's 28.6 at the top and 31.8 at the bottom. G On Jan 25, 11:51 am, rcnute <rcn...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Certainly the geometries are freely available, but I was curious to > hear about folks' experiences in comparing the sizes. Would a general > rule of thumb to go, say, a size down, or keep it the same? All this > talk about RB-1s, etc. is causing me to consider getting into the > hunt. Thanks. > > Ryan<BR --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
