The point of my post (point? point? we don't need no stinking point!) is that experimentum trumps theoria every time.
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 1:54 PM, PATRICK MOORE <bertin...@gmail.com> wrote: > For 15 years I have manfully resisted the "don't worry about tt, st angle > and bar height compensate" message from Grant. I asked for a 56-57 cm c-c tt > on my customs and set them up with 8 cm stems and bars 4-5 cm below saddle; > very, very nice. Then I got, seriatim, a medium (17"!!) Monocog 29er with a, > what, 24" c-c tt and, a couple of years later, just a couple of months ago, > a 56 cm Sam Hill, with (gad!) a 59 cm tt and (gad!) a 10 cm stem. > > I simply raised the bars. On the Monocog they are a good 2-3 cm above the > saddle; on the SH they are about 1 cm above the saddle. > > Result? Very nice, and on those two bikes I can ride in the hooks almost > indefinitely, while with the other Rivs and other bikes (8 cm stems, bars 5 > cm below saddle) the hooks are wonderful for 5 miles and tolerable for 10 > miles (at my usual 25 mph cruising speed). > > Conclusion? For bikes on which I want higher bars -- off road, Monocog; > touring, SH -- long tt and high bars are just fine. For fixed gear, urban, > short (30 miles or less) rides, which makes up most of my riding, and the > headwinds we have in high desert, no tree Albuquerque (the horizon is always > 80 miles away), I'd insist on a shorter tt. > > YM may, will, nay, ineluctibly must vary. > -- Patrick Moore Albuquerque, NM For professional resumes, contact Patrick Moore, ACRW at resumespecialt...@gmail.com (505) 227-0523 -- 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-bu...@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.
