Do we know the crank lengths on the forthcoming Appaloosas? Is it possible they'll be slightly longer, and that's what's bringing the BB up a few millimeters - frame designed with longer cranks in mind?
-James On Nov 22, 2015, at 10:29 AM, Bill Lindsay wrote: > Keith > > I went ahead and drew a 50cm Rambouillet, with a 46 Appaloosa and a 51 > Appaloosa on top of it. The three drawings all have ground zero at the > center of the BB. I can send you pictures, but photos of pencil on white > paper don't show up all that well. At any rate, I can tell you standover > height now. > > With identical 310mm radius tires (26x1.25), the standover of the 46 > Appaloosa is about 3cm lower at the back of the top tube. At the front of > the top tube, the 46 Appaloosa is about 1.2cm lower. At the middle of the > top tube, the Appaloosa is about 2.1cm lower. > > If you put 25mm larger tires on the 46 Appaloosa, then at the back of the top > tube, the 46 Appaloosa would still be about 5mm lower. At the front of the > TT, the Appaloosa would be about 1.3cm higher than the Ram. At the middle of > the top tube, the 46cm Appaloosa would be about 4mm higher. > > The insertion point for the handlebars also differ somewhat. The insertion > point for the handlebar stem on the Appaloosa is about 2.4cm farther away, > and about 1.2cm lower, relative to the Ram. So, if your handlebars have a > lot more rise and also have a lot more sweep back (like the choco-moose bars) > then the rider will still be significantly more upright on the bike than on > the Ram. You would almost certainly not run drop bars on the 46 Appaloosa. > It's too low and too far away. The bike is ideal for swept back handlebars. > > I didn't finish the 51 Appaloosa because it's quite a bit bigger. It will be > about 5cm taller everywhere along its Top Tube than the 46 will be. So, if > your wife has more than 2" of standover clearance, and is willing to > sacrifice a full 2", then consider the 51. I haven't seen her Ram setup, but > it sounds to me like the 51 will be quite a bit too big. The 46 will have a > full 35mm MORE seatpost showing than the Ram does, which you've said bums you > out. > > Bill > > On Saturday, November 21, 2015 at 2:08:36 PM UTC-8, Bill Lindsay wrote: > I guess I would start off with stating the obvious that small bikes with > large tires are incredibly difficult to design and fit. That's a fact. But > I'm not suggesting anything about which size Appaloosa you should buy your > wife. I only wanted to bottom out on what about the BB drop had thrown you > for a loop. It sounds like it would be useful to draw your four bikes all on > top of each other on a big piece of paper. > > 1. Rambouillet > 2. XO-1 > 3. 46 Appa > 4. 51 Appa > > Grant did a great step by step frame drawing exercise on the predecessor of > the BLUG. Maybe somebody has it archived. That would be a great exercise > for you to walk through, possibly. Otherwise, if you are eager to buy an > Appaloosa on the pre-sale, then at least talk it over with Riv. Let me know > if you want help drawing your bikes. > > Bill > > On Saturday, November 21, 2015 at 11:32:39 AM UTC-8, iamkeith wrote: > I guess I get that explanation. And that would probably suggest that the 46 > might be the best choice. The on-the-bike fit would feel familiar, even > though the seatpost would be extended a lot further than I currently perceive > as "correct," and she'd be higher in the air (the whole point of doing this > would be specifically to get her on significantly fatter tires, so she can > carry more and ride more comfortably on rougher roads), and there would also > be way more standover clearance than she needs. Hopefully, the sloped top > tube would yield a higher headtube than the 50 Ram, so that her stem could > even extend a little less. The 51, on the other hand, might not give her > enough standover clearance. Since there are (intentionally?) no standover > heights listed, its hard to know for sure. You guys who can test-ride are > fortunate. > > I guess, now that you point out the error of my thinking, what I'm really > still having trouble with is trying to relate the new limited/expanded sizing > system to the old system that had more increments and, in this case, looking > incorrectly to the bottom bracket drop and standover height for explanations > as to why they fit so differently. That's been hard enough to understand > even for me, but even harder trying to speculate on her behalf since she > doesn't think about this stuff enough to be able to articulate what works and > what doesn't. > > I've long felt like I had a good handle on what her next Rivendell would be, > based on this current bike that fits fairly well, combined with the thought > that I could ratchet it UP one more small increment. But I probably just > need to let go of those preconceptions. Not unlike my old WTB phoenix which, > numerically, is 3" or more smaller than would fit me on any other bike of the > era but actually works great, maybe the way to properly size a Rivendell > nowadays is NOT to get the biggest frame you can straddle. > > > On Saturday, November 21, 2015 at 10:42:49 AM UTC-7, Bill Lindsay wrote: > OK, so since your small roadish 559 wheeled Rambouillet has 55mm of drop, > then all other Rivendells with 559 wheels throw you for a loop, because all > of those bikes take wider tires and all of them have 55-57mm of drop? I'm > with Grant that fit is about how your body fits in relation to the bike when > you are riding. BB drop effects how my body fits in relation to the bike. > BB drop is about fit. Tire size changes standover, to be sure, but tire size > does not affect fit, in my opinion. BB height is about clearances: your > pedals striking the ground, and your crotch to the top tube. These are > clearance issues, not fit issues, in my opinion. > > I know about the "on the bike" vs "in the bike" feel. That handling feel is > about how the rider's body is positioned relative to the bike while riding, > in my opinion. It is not about how your center of mass is positioned above > the ground, in my opinion. Jan Heine and Grant are the two who folks on this > group tend to respect the most. Jan thinks BB height and BB drop don't > matter at all. Grant thinks BB drop should be as low as practically possible > for the minimum tire width, and that you shouldn't get too hung up about > standover. > > More directly to the point. Have you ever seen a 559-wheeled frame with more > that 57mm of drop? The Surly Long Haul Trucker 26", a dedicated touring > bike, has only 47mm of drop. Maybe Alex Wetmore's Travel Gifford with 26" > wheels might have more drop, and the category that has inspired: the All-Road > Enduro, may evolve with 65-70mm of drop and will only work with Rat Trap Pass > tires. But I don't know of anything off the shelf that will do that for you. > > > 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 http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. James Warren jimcwar...@earthlink.net - 700x33 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
