Geo charts here: https://www.rivbike.com/kb_results.asp?ID=99
I like the idea of a Google doc mentioned above. We may do that next go round. On Oct 28, 8:37 am, Roger <rogerdhod...@gmail.com> wrote: > Oh, that wonderful, wonderful slack seat tube! > > On my two bespoke bikes, the only deviations I've had done from > "normal" were to increasingly slacken the seat tube angle(and lengthen > chainstay and top tube accordingly). 72 was better for me than 73, but > it was 71 that really made things right. > > I've test ridden a 64cm Sam, and I do believe it was the most stable > for me at very low speed/almost stopped of any bike I've ever been on, > and riding at speed is great as well. I attribute this to balancing my > weight more easily from the saddle without hands, and saddle setback > has everything to do with that. Long chainstays moving the rear wheel > further behind the saddle is important, too. > > This is in delightful contrast to my early days of unsteadily trying > to balance on steep seat tubes (73+) and too short top tubes that put > my weight out over the front wheel. The Sam was even noticeably more > set back and delightful than the Hunqapillar setup I tried the same > day. The Hunq may or may not have maxed its setback, but it was > noticeably and less delightfully less set back on that day. > > Beyond proper setback improving balance, it also is critical in > relationship to the pedal. Using unfastened footwear, even if just > occasionally, is instructive in allowing your feet to tell you where > they actually want to meet the pedal. On 72+ seat tubes and my B17 > pushed as far back as I can, my feet still want to extend forward and > contact the pedal across the instep, not at the balls. My 71 allows my > feet to be happy with the balls on the pedal, which I prefer most. > > I am so, so happy that even just this one designer is daring to go > below 72 and very much hope it isn't squashed by skepticism. > > Now that tires are allowed to be wider for those who want it, and bars > can be raised higher for those who want it, the new frontier is more > saddle setback, for those who want that. And those who don't are still > well-served by merely mounting their choice of narrower tires, > lowering their stems, or scootching their seats forward on the rails. > > On Oct 28, 4:31 am, Steven Frederick <stl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Speaking of Riv geometry, I see the Soma San Marcos geometry is up at > > Somfab's web page--that is a pretty slack seattube! > > >http://www.somafab.com/archives/product/san-marcos-frame-set > > > Steve "Too slack for me," Frederick, East Lansing, MI > > > On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 2:33 PM, William <tapebu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Seth > > > > Of course I'll send it to you. I think Jim has already done something to > > > make it, or the historical model charts, public. We should be able to > > > solve > > > that without much trouble. > > > > -- > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > > "RBW Owners Bunch" group. > > > To view this discussion on the web visit > > >https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rbw-owners-bunch/-/ddPpGU0RqzcJ. > > > To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@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. -- 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-bunch@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.
