I think it was pretty clear based on context that 465mm is my approximate / estimated "upper limit" based on the equilibrium of the various trade-offs. I also prefaced that this is for an "all rounder" type bike specifically, and that it's approximate because there are a lot of other geometry / build factors that come into play, such as BB height, seat tube angle, etc.
It's based on my experience over 30 years of being a bike nerd and owning more bikes than I can count, although my experience on long-stay bikes is a shorter list. I don't see any pay-off after ~46cm stays - it's as stable as I could want, as comfortable as I could expect, and going longer makes it less maneuverable and does tend to feel more sluggish (not scientific, but you can feel it, and that's more important IMO) On Friday, 31 January 2020 13:55:51 UTC-8, Mark Roland wrote: > > Again, why do you believe this? Why do you pick 46.5? I ask because I find > it puzzling that these kinds of statements get made but with no explanation > as to why, not even anecdotal experiences. I of course have no problem if > you only want to ride bikes with ,46.5 chainstays (a couple of my vintage > mt. bikes would not make the cut), but in a discussion about long > chainstays on a site devoted to a designer who champions this design > element, and has written extensively as to why, it would be good to get > your input other than because you believe or think something. > > -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/e4b7026b-5f91-46fa-81b9-3cd04aaee85b%40googlegroups.com.
