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 <epka...@gmail.com > <javascript:>> 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 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 <epka...@gmail.com > <javascript:>> 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 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 <epka...@gmail.com > <javascript:>> 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.
