I suppose at some point if you made them really really *really* long, you'd be in danger of the front of the bike running into the back of the bike. But this is probably only a theoretical problem. Just remember what the good Duchess of Windsor said, "You can never have too many Rivs, and chainstays can never be too long." (I may be paraphrasing somewhat.)
So long, Mark "the long and the short of it" Roland On Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 7:46:23 PM UTC-4, Hugh Flynn wrote: > > I’m still interested in the answers to “how long is too long?” and “what > are the drawbacks to long, as long as it’s not too long?” > > My recent Appaloosa experience only confirms (for me at least) that Riv > long doesn’t seem to be too long. > > Hugh “long in the tooth” Flynn > Newburyport, MA > > > On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 7:40 PM Metin Uz <[email protected] <javascript:>> > wrote: > >> One thing to note is that Jobst rode a very large frame, 64cm or maybe >> taller. So shorter chainstays had him sitting over the rear wheel. We all >> experience our own reality, and generalize from there. I remember Brian >> Baylis claiming that Colnago's rode significantly better than other Italian >> frames in 50cm or smaller sizes. Perhaps most designs were (are) based on >> 56cm, than extrapolated. >> >> --Metin >> >> >> On Monday, May 28, 2018 at 8:53:46 AM UTC-7, Jeremy Till wrote: >>> >>> Further comments by Jobst on chainstay length can be found here: >>> >>> http://yarchive.net/bike/frame_dimensions.html >>> http://yarchive.net/bike/short_chainstays.html >>> >>> A couple of good quotes: >>> >>> For road bikes in the range that is available, the longer the >>>> chainstays the better the bike handles in all but 10mph turns. >>>> >>>> >>> and: >>> >>> Chainstay length is primarily a comfort effect of sitting directly >>>> over the rear wheel or not. Secondarily, a short wheelbase makes >>>> weight transfer on braking less advantageous and least of all steering >>>> motions more disruptive to straight line riding. >>> >>> >>> In the frame dimensions thread Jobst also says that when he was speccing >>> his custom frames, he would basically have the builders (Tom Ritchey and >>> Peter Johnson) leave the chainstays as long as possible, which I would >>> guess put them somewhere around 45cm or more, so long for a traditional >>> road or touring bike but not into the territory that Grant has pioneered, >>> mainly because I don't think chainstays that long were available from tube >>> manufacturers. Pictures of his Peter Johnson show that there was clearly >>> more than adequate space behind the seat tube for a frame pump: >>> >>> http://bikecult.com/works/archive/04bicycles/pjohnsonJB04.html >>> >>> I wonder what Jobst would have made of Grant's recent designs. >>> >>> I ride my long chainstay bike (Clem) mainly as a MTB and I would say all >>> of this holds true for off-road riding as well, where you are far more >>> likely to encounter grades of 10% or more, and the bikes ability to keep >>> the front wheel down while going up without significant body english feels >>> like a real boon. On the way down, it feels stable and like it has a huge >>> "sweet spot" where I am well balanced between the wheels. >>> >>> On Monday, May 28, 2018 at 7:09:16 AM UTC-7, iamkeith wrote: >>>> >>>> I was daydreaming about a bike project and looking for information >>>> about some old IGHs this memorial day morning, and stumbled on a google >>>> group thread from 1991 in which Jobst Brandt participated. I thought this >>>> off-topic comment about chainstay length was interesting. Echoes >>>> everything Rivendell (or vice versa, given the chronology), but it is the >>>> first time I've heard the 'drafting' component of the racer-driven designs >>>> explained. >>>> >>>> [email protected] >>>> >>>> K---- C----- writes: >>>> >>>> > Try as I might, I just cannot for the life of me figure out how short >>>> > chainstays are going to help climbing. Someone enlighten me before I >>>> go >>>> > nuts with this one!! >>>> >>>> That's simple. Short chainstays help you do wheelies if the hill gets >>>> steep. It's this kind of thinking that brought us bike with so little >>>> tire clearance that a one inch cross section damn near scrapes the fork >>>> crown and requires letting the air out of the rear tire for removal. >>>> >>>> I think someone noticed that the fastest road bikes are the ones >>>> ridden by TTT riders. These bikes are the shortest road bikes and >>>> therefore, short bikes are fast. The trouble is, they are short to >>>> allow four riders to draft as close together as possible, not because >>>> a short bike is inherently fast. This concept seems to have escaped >>>> the advocates of short bikes. They use terms like " they're >>>> rsponsive" amd "accelerate quickly". What can you say to such a >>>> claim? It is so patently unfounded that a response is difficult to >>>> construct without being argumetative without just playing stupid. >>>> >>>> Bicycle lore is great, and shave those legs before climbing hills. >>>> >>>> [email protected] >>>> >>>> >>>> R.I.P., Jobst. >>>> >>>> -- >> 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 [email protected] <javascript:>. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected] >> <javascript:>. >> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > -- > Hugh Flynn > Newburyport, MA > -- 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
