Rivendell on bike fit?

Quoted message said:

Not sure about the saddle all the way back advice, but the rest seems
pretty practical (one I got past the flat pedal advice).

What's cycling advice without idiosyncrasies?
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Quoted message said:

======================================

Quoted message said:

From Rivendell Reader 39, Spring 2007

Brushing out the Maypo with Ipana

There have been recent articles in fat & famous newspapers about bike-
fitting sessions that last 5 hours and cost up to 400 dollars. Our fit-
sessions would never make the newspapers, not even the local Contra
Costa Times, but this thin pub isn't as picky, plus, it has the
insider-thing going for it.

It's easy to rationalize five hours when you're looking at a bike that
costs $6,000 to $10,000 and you believe an imperfect fit could lead to
long-term injuries. Maybe in special cases it will, but most of us
riders have well-lubed ball-and-socket joints that evolved to let us
run away from fierce animals over rough terrain. We don't have rigid
robot joints that grind, squeak, & spark when something isn't laser-
aligned. Pedaling is low-to-no impact and is easy on joints, which is
why you can ride a bicycle into your eighties, and is why riding is
the exercise of choice for injured athletes in rehab.
Anyway, whether a fit session lasts five hours or fifteen minutes, the
goal, is still a position that lets you ride comfortably, efficiently,
and injury-free. That position is determined only by how you rest on
the bike's contact points-the saddle, handlebar, and pedals.

The thing is, you can be comfortable & efficient in more than one
precise position. That's good, because different surfaces, conditions,
loads, traffic, effort, & weather call for adjustments in position.

Here at Rivendell a fit-session starts with measuring your Pubic Bone
Height (PBH). Our site and our catalogue show how to measure it, but
it's easy to explain without pictures, and I've done it a hundred
times: Bare feet ten inches apart on a hard floor. Hook a metric
measuring tape over a thin edge (a hardcover book for instance), and
pull it all the way up until it's pressing hard against your pubic
bone. Have a math whiz take the reading on the floor.

PBH minus 10 to 10.5cm is your Saddle Height (center of crank to top
of saddle). Your frame size depends partly upon the frame's design,
but if we're talking about a bike with 700C road wheels, then take
away another 15cm if you're under 5' 8" & up to 19cm if you're 6' 5"
or taller, to get frame size. If you're in-between, subtract something
in-between.

Saddle fore-and-aft is a quickie. When they go at your knee with the
plumb bob, shifting your saddle back and forth until the bump just
below your knee is directly above the ball of your foot and the pedal
axle, they're working with old information (that you need to center
the ball of your foot below the knee-bump and just above the pedal
axle). I just shove the saddle all or almost all the way back on the
seat post, and 99 percent of the time it's good enough to send you out
on the road with, and you can work out the details there. We like the
knee-bump behind the pedal spindle, for reasons I don't have space to
go into here without having to shrink the type smaller than the 8.5
point it is already.

Saddle angle: Start with the saddle level, and see if that feels
right. It probably will, but now and then some riders like it nose-up
or nose-down a bit. You won't determine the absolute best saddle angle
during an indoor filling session. It has to happen outside.

Handlebar width is the easiest of all. In the old days the common
advice was to get the bars as wide as your shoulders. To me, it's
fishy. People say if the bars aren't wide enough, your chest won't
open up enough and you won't be able to breathe as well, but lungs
don't get squished that easily. You can prove that right now as you're
reading this. Press palm to palm: now breathe.

Still, I'm anti-narrow handlebars. Women usually get 38 cm & 40 cm,
and some go as narrow as 36 cm. That's what happens when you go by
shoulder-width. But when you think of the bar as a lever to control a
bike that wants to fall left or right with every stroke, a wider bar
makes sense, because it's a longer lever. Most riders who are open to
a wider bar and actually try it like it, and they never go back to
narrow after that. Try 2 cm wider than you ride right now.

The best thing I've read about crank length was a few years ago in
VeloNews, when Technical editor Lennard Zinn put riders with various
leg lengths on bikes with various crank lengths and somewhat
scientifically tested their performance cardiovascularly and
otherwise. The test showed most people, even tallies, do better with
165 mm cranks, generally favored by petites. That was a disconcerting
result. Nobody debates 165 mm cranks or 180 mm ones, though. It's
always a 2.5-5 mm debate.

It seems that crank length should grow or shrink according to your leg
length (or PBH), but if average-legged riders (PBH 51-57 cm) rode 170
mm or 172.5 mm, shorties (PBH 70-74 cm) would ride 120 mm, and tallies
(PBH 94-99 cm) would ride 210 mm, and that's not a world we live in.
Here's a guide that won't steer you far wrong: Under 5' 3"? Ride 165
mm. Over 6' 3"? Ride 175 mm. In between? Ride 170 mm or 172.5 mm. If
your legs are long or short for your height, go up or down a notch. If
you have long legs and can't stand the thought of riding 175s, find
some 180s, but be careful around corners. Main thing: don't fret about
a 5mm difference.

Stem length: The old way of sizing the stem - so your view of the
front hub is blocked by the handlebar - doesn't make sense because it
doesn't consider head tube angle & fork rake or upper body position.
You could have a blocked hub with a 74° head tube angle and 40 mm of
fork rake, but the same position with a 72°/50mm combo will push the
hub out in front. It's best to go by what feels good to you, not by
what looks right to somebody else, or an old Italian formula - that
with all due respect to the old Italians - never made sense in the
first place.

Stem length is always a compromise, anyway. A long stem feels better
climbing out of the saddle, because when you do that you lean forward,
so a long reach is no big deal, even feels good and non-cramping. A
short stem feels better down hills, because it makes it easier to push
your butt back, for safer braking.

Most of the women we fit with drop bars get an 8 cm or 9 cm stem, and
most men get a 9 cm to 11 cm, and subsequent stem changes of more than
a centimeter are rare.

Bar height: Most riders are super comfortable when the handlebar is
2-3 cm higher than the saddle, but that's hard to achieve with most
modern bikes. Shoot for getting the bars & saddle the same height,
ride the bike a lot, and raise or lower them as you need to. I like
mine 3-4 cm higher than the saddle, but that's me.

Shoe and cleat positioning can take hours or even days. One of the
goals is efficiency and just riding your bike enough will train that.
I strongly suspect pedaling unplugged (not strapped or clicked to the
pedals) trains your feet to move in circles better than if you're
solidly fixed to the pedal. You don't train a dog to come by pulling
on the leash. The other goal is preventing injuries. Most pedaling
injuries are repetitive stress injuries, from doing the same slightly
bad thing over and over and over again. Pedaling injuries most often
happen to thousand-miles-a-month riders who are plugged into the
pedals. Is it the shoes or the miles? I don't know, but the normal fix
is to reevaluate the position just in case the first plug-in position
didn't thread the needle exactly right, and then try a different
position and see if that works.

I think the best way to avoid pedaling-born knee problems is to ride
unplugged in non-clicky shoes on double-sided flat pedals that allow
you to find your perfect home without locking it there. When your foot
is free to roam a bit, you're less likely to repeat the same exact
motion until a tendon or something goes twang.

It's the difference between rigid robots and loose geese. With a
robot, if you don't align and lube a moving arm or a leg just right,
it grinds & sparks & squeaks until way to go, you wrecked the robot.
That's why robots have never fulfilled their promise of helping with
the housework. Geese, on the other hand, have such wing flexation that
- you can take this waterfowl fact to the bank - they've been known to
fly upside down on super long flights when they can't take a break.
Flying upside down uses different muscles, and when they get tired
they flip back over & feel like new, vivaciously refreshed men & women
all over again.

It's hard to believe how great pedaling unplugged is until you try it.
It's a high hurdle for beginners who are just getting into "serious"
riding and don't want to be held back; and for veterans who have
decades invested in pedaling plugged in, and who have spent a thousand
dollars on special shoes and pedals. If you have a hard time with it,
think about the feet-training again, in paragraph 17.

Getting a bike-fit can be a simple, logical, flowing process. You
don't need five hours inside searching for magic numbers that activate
your turbocharger. The main things are to get the handlebars high
enough & wide enough & the saddle at the right height, scooched back &
level or close to it. It may take one to three tries to find the right
stem length, but don't overthink it. Get a saddle you like, bar tape
that feels good, put the brake levers & shifters where you like them,
don some comfortable clothes, and then just go out & pedal loose like
a goose, not rigid like a 'bot. - Grant

======================================

almost_fast said:

Not sure about the saddle all the way back advice, but the rest seems
pretty practical (one I got past the flat pedal advice).

I agree that bike fit shouldn't be rocket science, and the advice
about saddle height and frame size sounds reasonable. The stuff about
handlebars higher than the saddle, saddle all the way back, and no
cleats or toe clips is a bit extreme.

Art Harris

Art Harris said:

almost_fast said:

Not sure about the saddle all the way back advice, but the rest seems
pretty practical (one I got past the flat pedal advice).

I agree that bike fit shouldn't be rocket science, and the advice
about saddle height and frame size sounds reasonable. The stuff about
handlebars higher than the saddle, saddle all the way back, and no
cleats or toe clips is a bit extreme.

Art Harris

If you don't care about aerodynamics, speed, or high speed cornering, then sure,
why not?

I and many others do. But even more don't, yet force themselves into contorted
positions, failing to do the general fitness maintenance (flexibility and core
strength) to ride this position well. 5 hour fit? Hardly. 1 hour goes a long
way. Plus, a sense of how to respond to the body's feedback when things are
wrong. For example, knee pain often indicates the seat is too low.

Dan

On Mar 13, 9:09 pm, "[email hidden]" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Not sure about the saddle all the way back advice, but the rest seems
pretty practical (one I got past the flat pedal advice).

======================================

Quoted message said:

From Rivendell Reader 39, Spring 2007

Brushing out the Maypo with Ipana

There have been recent articles in fat & famous newspapers about bike-
fitting sessions that last 5 hours and cost up to 400 dollars. Our fit-
sessions would never make the newspapers, not even the local Contra
Costa Times, but this thin pub isn't as picky, plus, it has the
insider-thing going for it.

It's easy to rationalize five hours when you're looking at a bike that
costs $6,000 to $10,000 and you believe an imperfect fit could lead to
long-term injuries. Maybe in special cases it will, but most of us
riders have well-lubed ball-and-socket joints that evolved to let us
run away from fierce animals over rough terrain. We don't have rigid
robot joints that grind, squeak, & spark when something isn't laser-
aligned. Pedaling is low-to-no impact and is easy on joints, which is
why you can ride a bicycle into your eighties, and is why riding is
the exercise of choice for injured athletes in rehab.
Anyway, whether a fit session lasts five hours or fifteen minutes, the
goal, is still a position that lets you ride comfortably, efficiently,
and injury-free. That position is determined only by how you rest on
the bike's contact points-the saddle, handlebar, and pedals.

The thing is, you can be comfortable & efficient in more than one
precise position. That's good, because different surfaces, conditions,
loads, traffic, effort, & weather call for adjustments in position.

Here at Rivendell a fit-session starts with measuring your Pubic Bone
Height (PBH). Our site and our catalogue show how to measure it, but
it's easy to explain without pictures, and I've done it a hundred
times: Bare feet ten inches apart on a hard floor. Hook a metric
measuring tape over a thin edge (a hardcover book for instance), and
pull it all the way up until it's pressing hard against your pubic
bone. Have a math whiz take the reading on the floor.

PBH minus 10 to 10.5cm is your Saddle Height (center of crank to top
of saddle). Your frame size depends partly upon the frame's design,
but if we're talking about a bike with 700C road wheels, then take
away another 15cm if you're under 5' 8" & up to 19cm if you're 6' 5"
or taller, to get frame size. If you're in-between, subtract something
in-between.

Saddle fore-and-aft is a quickie. When they go at your knee with the
plumb bob, shifting your saddle back and forth until the bump just
below your knee is directly above the ball of your foot and the pedal
axle, they're working with old information (that you need to center
the ball of your foot below the knee-bump and just above the pedal
axle). I just shove the saddle all or almost all the way back on the
seat post, and 99 percent of the time it's good enough to send you out
on the road with, and you can work out the details there. We like the
knee-bump behind the pedal spindle, for reasons I don't have space to
go into here without having to shrink the type smaller than the 8.5
point it is already.

Saddle angle: Start with the saddle level, and see if that feels
right. It probably will, but now and then some riders like it nose-up
or nose-down a bit. You won't determine the absolute best saddle angle
during an indoor filling session. It has to happen outside.

Handlebar width is the easiest of all. In the old days the common
advice was to get the bars as wide as your shoulders. To me, it's
fishy. People say if the bars aren't wide enough, your chest won't
open up enough and you won't be able to breathe as well, but lungs
don't get squished that easily. You can prove that right now as you're
reading this. Press palm to palm: now breathe.

Still, I'm anti-narrow handlebars. Women usually get 38 cm & 40 cm,
and some go as narrow as 36 cm. That's what happens when you go by
shoulder-width. But when you think of the bar as a lever to control a
bike that wants to fall left or right with every stroke, a wider bar
makes sense, because it's a longer lever. Most riders who are open to
a wider bar and actually try it like it, and they never go back to
narrow after that. Try 2 cm wider than you ride right now.

The best thing I've read about crank length was a few years ago in
VeloNews, when Technical editor Lennard Zinn put riders with various
leg lengths on bikes with various crank lengths and somewhat
scientifically tested their performance cardiovascularly and
otherwise. The test showed most people, even tallies, do better with
165 mm cranks, generally favored by petites. That was a disconcerting
result. Nobody debates 165 mm cranks or 180 mm ones, though. It's
always a 2.5-5 mm debate.

It seems that crank length should grow or shrink according to your leg
length (or PBH), but if average-legged riders (PBH 51-57 cm) rode 170
mm or 172.5 mm, shorties (PBH 70-74 cm) would ride 120 mm, and tallies
(PBH 94-99 cm) would ride 210 mm, and that's not a world we live in.
Here's a guide that won't steer you far wrong: Under 5' 3"? Ride 165
mm. Over 6' 3"? Ride 175 mm. In between? Ride 170 mm or 172.5 mm. If
your legs are long or short for your height, go up or down a notch. If
you have long legs and can't stand the thought of riding 175s, find
some 180s, but be careful around corners. Main thing: don't fret about
a 5mm difference.

Stem length: The old way of sizing the stem - so your view of the
front hub is blocked by the handlebar - doesn't make sense because it
doesn't consider head tube angle & fork rake or upper body position.
You could have a blocked hub with a 74° head tube angle and 40 mm of
fork rake, but the same position with a 72°/50mm combo will push the
hub out in front. It's best to go by what feels good to you, not by
what looks right to somebody else, or an old Italian formula - that
with all due respect to the old Italians - never made sense in the
first place.

Stem length is always a compromise, anyway. A long stem feels better
climbing out of the saddle, because when you do that you lean forward,
so a long reach is no big deal, even feels good and non-cramping. A
short stem feels better down hills, because it makes it easier to push
your butt back, for safer braking.

Most of the women we fit with drop bars get an 8 cm or 9 cm stem, and
most men get a 9 cm to 11 cm, and subsequent stem changes of more than
a centimeter are rare.

Bar height: Most riders are super comfortable when the handlebar is
2-3 cm higher than the saddle, but that's hard to achieve with most
modern bikes. Shoot for getting the bars & saddle the same height,
ride the bike a lot, and raise or lower them as you need to. I like
mine 3-4 cm higher than the saddle, but that's me.

Shoe and cleat positioning can take hours or even days. One of the
goals is efficiency and just riding your bike enough will train that.
I strongly suspect pedaling unplugged (not strapped or clicked to the
pedals) trains your feet to move in circles better than if you're
solidly fixed to the pedal. You don't train a dog to come by pulling
on the leash. The other goal is preventing injuries. Most pedaling
injuries are repetitive stress injuries, from doing the same slightly
bad thing over and over and over again. Pedaling injuries most often
happen to thousand-miles-a-month riders who are plugged into the
pedals. Is it the shoes or the miles? I don't know, but the normal fix
is to reevaluate the position just in case the first plug-in position
didn't thread the needle exactly right, and then try a different
position and see if that works.

I think the best way to avoid pedaling-born knee problems is to ride
unplugged in non-clicky shoes on double-sided flat pedals that allow
you to find your perfect home without locking it there. When your foot
is free to roam a bit, you're less likely to repeat the same exact
motion until a tendon or something goes twang.

It's the difference between rigid robots and loose geese. With a
robot, if you don't align and lube a moving arm or a leg just right,
it grinds & sparks & squeaks until way to go, you wrecked the robot.
That's why robots have never fulfilled their promise of helping with
the housework. Geese, on the other hand, have such wing flexation that
- you can take this waterfowl fact to the bank - they've been known to
fly upside down on super long flights when they can't take a break.
Flying upside down uses different muscles, and when they get tired
they flip back over & feel like new, vivaciously refreshed men & women
all over again.

It's hard to believe how great pedaling unplugged is until you try it.
It's a high hurdle for beginners who are just getting into "serious"
riding and don't want to be held back; and for veterans who have
decades invested in pedaling plugged in, and who have spent a thousand
dollars on special shoes and pedals. If you have a hard time with it,
think about the feet-training again, in paragraph 17.

Getting a bike-fit can be a simple, logical, flowing process. You
don't need five hours inside searching for magic numbers that activate
your turbocharger. The main things are to get the handlebars high
enough & wide enough & the saddle at the right height, scooched back &
level or close to it. It may take one to three tries to find the right
stem length, but don't overthink it. Get a saddle you like, bar tape
that feels good, put the brake levers & shifters where you like them,
don some comfortable clothes, and then just go out & pedal loose like
a goose, not rigid like a 'bot. - Grant

======================================

Thanks Grant...BUT I think Grant needs to get out more cuz what he
described is pretty much what most fit people do here in the republic
with only one bike shop as an exception and they are pretty impressed
with themselves.

Not science, not hard and not expensive.

Dan Connelly said:

Quoted message said:

I agree that bike fit shouldn't be rocket science, and the advice
about saddle height and frame size sounds reasonable. The stuff about
handlebars higher than the saddle, saddle all the way back, and no
cleats or toe clips is a bit extreme.
Art Harris

If you don't care about aerodynamics, speed, or high speed cornering, then sure,
why not?

For one thing, having the bars higher than the saddle is going to put
more of the rider's weight on the saddle. That won't be comfortable on
rides over 40-50 miles. Riding without toe clips or clipless pedals
means feet can slip off the pedals. I guess this is ok for someone
tootling around the neighborhood at 10 mph at a slow cadence, but I
don't think that's the crowd Rivendell is targeting.

Quoted message said:

I and many others do. But even more don't, yet force themselves into contorted
positions, failing to do the general fitness maintenance (flexibility and core
strength) to ride this position well. 5 hour fit? Hardly. 1 hour goes a long
way. Plus, a sense of how to respond to the body's feedback when things are
wrong. For example, knee pain often indicates the seat is too low.

Of course. Going to the opposite extreme (of Grant Peterson's advice)
is to have the bars 4" below the saddle, and the rider stretched out
to the max. But there's a reasonble middle ground between those
extremes that is right for most people.

Art Harris

I tried setting my bike up following Grant's theories about saddle
positioning and handlebar height. It was miserable. It placed too
much weight on the saddle and made the bike handle like an overloaded
pick-up truck. I found his positioning ideas placed me in a position
that was neither comfortable not efficient.

Olebiker said:

I tried setting my bike up following Grant's theories about saddle
positioning and handlebar height. It was miserable. It placed too
much weight on the saddle and made the bike handle like an overloaded
pick-up truck. I found his positioning ideas placed me in a position
that was neither comfortable not efficient.

The Grant & Co are trying to market (fairly) expensive bikes to casual
riders. Given that fact, the high handlbars, no clips, etc., stuff
makes some sense.

Quoted message said:

Not sure about the saddle all the way back advice, but the rest seems
pretty practical (one I got past the flat pedal advice).

He pens a great sales pitch, but unfortunately (for them) my standards
are quite a bit beyond anything that Rivendell sells.

I only own recumbents now, that don't hurt to ride at all.
I didn't need a "fitting", and no part of me needed any time to "get
used to" the bike.

Matter of fact, after being off the bike for ~5 months (due to [censored]
winter weather) I went out for the first time this year today: a casual
14.5 miles, ~80 minutes--and still, no ass, hand or neck pain.

-----

I kinda feel sorry for people who believe this crock--that dumping a
bunch of money for a "custom" upright bike will get them something that
doesn't hurt to ride.

A $5000 bike will weigh less than a $200 wal-mart bike will, but both
will make your ass, hands and neck hurt just the same.
~

DougC said:

Quoted message said:

Not sure about the saddle all the way back advice, but the rest seems
pretty practical (one I got past the flat pedal advice).

He pens a great sales pitch, but unfortunately (for them) my standards
are quite a bit beyond anything that Rivendell sells.

I only own recumbents now, that don't hurt to ride at all.
I didn't need a "fitting", and no part of me needed any time to "get
used to" the bike.

Matter of fact, after being off the bike for ~5 months (due to [censored]
winter weather) I went out for the first time this year today: a casual
14.5 miles, ~80 minutes--and still, no ass, hand or neck pain.

-----

I kinda feel sorry for people who believe this crock--that dumping a
bunch of money for a "custom" upright bike will get them something that
doesn't hurt to ride.

A $5000 bike will weigh less than a $200 wal-mart bike will, but both
will make your ass, hands and neck hurt just the same.
~

Troll alert!

Wayne

Wayne Pein said:

DougC said:

[email hidden] wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Not sure about the saddle all the way back advice, but the rest seems
pretty practical (one I got past the flat pedal advice).

Quoted message said:

He pens a great sales pitch, but unfortunately (for them) my standards
are quite a bit beyond anything that Rivendell sells.

Quoted message said:

I only own recumbents now, that don't hurt to ride at all.
I didn't need a "fitting", and no part of me needed any time to "get
used to" the bike.

Quoted message said:

Matter of fact, after being off the bike for ~5 months (due to [censored]
winter weather) I went out for the first time this year today: a casual
14.5 miles, ~80 minutes--and still, no ass, hand or neck pain.

Quoted message said:

-----

Quoted message said:

I kinda feel sorry for people who believe this crock--that dumping a
bunch of money for a "custom" upright bike will get them something that
doesn't hurt to ride.

Quoted message said:

A $5000 bike will weigh less than a $200 wal-mart bike will, but both
will make your ass, hands and neck hurt just the same.
~

Troll alert!

Why do recumbent riders feel it necessary to behave like religious
fanatics?

"DougC" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Not sure about the saddle all the way back advice, but the rest seems
pretty practical (one I got past the flat pedal advice).

He pens a great sales pitch, but unfortunately (for them) my standards are
quite a bit beyond anything that Rivendell sells.

I only own recumbents now, that don't hurt to ride at all.
I didn't need a "fitting", and no part of me needed any time to "get used
to" the bike.

Matter of fact, after being off the bike for ~5 months (due to [censored] winter
weather) I went out for the first time this year today: a casual 14.5
miles, ~80 minutes--and still, no ass, hand or neck pain.

Where you on the bike or walking? Is 80 minutes for 14.5 miles a good pace
for recumbents?

Quoted message said:

I kinda feel sorry for people who believe this crock--that dumping a bunch
of money for a "custom" upright bike will get them something that doesn't
hurt to ride.

A $5000 bike will weigh less than a $200 wal-mart bike will, but both will
make your ass, hands and neck hurt just the same.

Quoted message said:

~

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] wrote:
> Not sure about the saddle all the way back advice, but the rest seems
> pretty practical (one I got past the flat pedal advice).

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

DougC said:

He pens a great sales pitch, but unfortunately (for them) my standards
are quite a bit beyond anything that Rivendell sells.
I only own recumbents now, that don't hurt to ride at all.
I didn't need a "fitting", and no part of me needed any time to "get
used to" the bike.
Matter of fact, after being off the bike for ~5 months (due to [censored]
winter weather) I went out for the first time this year today: a casual
14.5 miles, ~80 minutes--and still, no ass, hand or neck pain.
I kinda feel sorry for people who believe this crock--that dumping a
bunch of money for a "custom" upright bike will get them something that
doesn't hurt to ride.
A $5000 bike will weigh less than a $200 wal-mart bike will, but both
will make your ass, hands and neck hurt just the same.

Quoted message said:

Wayne Pein said:

Troll alert!

Ozark Bicycle said:

Why do recumbent riders feel it necessary to behave like religious
fanatics?

"Behave like" ???

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

"Ozark Bicycle" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Wayne Pein said:

DougC said:

[email hidden] wrote:

Quoted message said:

> Not sure about the saddle all the way back advice, but the rest seems
> pretty practical (one I got past the flat pedal advice).

Quoted message said:

He pens a great sales pitch, but unfortunately (for them) my standards
are quite a bit beyond anything that Rivendell sells.

Quoted message said:

I only own recumbents now, that don't hurt to ride at all.
I didn't need a "fitting", and no part of me needed any time to "get
used to" the bike.

Quoted message said:

Matter of fact, after being off the bike for ~5 months (due to [censored]
winter weather) I went out for the first time this year today: a

casual

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

14.5 miles, ~80 minutes--and still, no ass, hand or neck pain.

Quoted message said:

-----

Quoted message said:

I kinda feel sorry for people who believe this crock--that dumping a
bunch of money for a "custom" upright bike will get them something

that

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

doesn't hurt to ride.

Quoted message said:

A $5000 bike will weigh less than a $200 wal-mart bike will, but both
will make your ass, hands and neck hurt just the same.
~

Troll alert!

Why do recumbent riders feel it necessary to behave like religious
fanatics?

They probably started off with bike fit that was so bad that what was left
couldn't be contained by anything but a sack.
Bill

Neal said:

Where you on the bike or walking? Is 80 minutes for 14.5 miles a good pace
for recumbents?

My guess is that his point is that riding a bike very slowly (and
coasting a lot) is when you're mostly likely to get hand, butt or
crotch pain because you're putting your weight on the narrow saddle
and handlebars more, on the pedals less. With a recumbent, it doesn't
matter what speed you're going since your weight is always being borne
by a larger area of your body, and there's no weight on your hands.

I ride both "safety" and recumbent bikes and on the same routes I'm
faster overall on the recumbent (mainly for aero reasons), but that's
just me and my particular bikes.

Ozark Bicycle said:

Why do recumbent riders feel it necessary to behave like religious
fanatics?

Because "regular" companies (and LBS's) insist on selling something they
cannot provide. 😉
~

I believe that Grant Petersen's concept of a bicycle can be compared
to different kinds of cars. Grant is looking for suburban bikes that
can be used around town and taken into the country or even camping in
the rear. Sort of the old line station wagons. He's not thinking of
paceline riding or trying to 'beat' someone up a hill. He's not
thinking of a time trial. His bicycles are practical for that.

Most of us are thinking of something more sporting. Sports cars that
not particularly practical for all around use but another kind of fun.

When I was a bicycle commuter, I used a touring style bike just like
Grant recommends.

A Muzi said:

Quoted message said:

Not sure about the saddle all the way back advice, but the rest seems
pretty practical (one I got past the flat pedal advice).

What's cycling advice without idiosyncrasies?

I think the whole thing is not only condescending, but plays into the
Rivendell chic of --- whatever the poseurs do (or those we label as
poseurs, being anyone who doesn't ride our bikes) is wrong.

Not only is not everyone comfortable with the bars 2-3cm higher than the
saddle. For one thing, that concentrates a whole lot of your weight on
the saddle. No thanks, not for me. And IMNSHO not good advice for
anyone who plans to ride long distances. Utility biking or jaunts
around the neighborhood are different issues, but that is what upright
bars are for. And the saddle all the way back part is just painful to
think about (especially since they also recommend a frame about 3cm
larger than I would, which gives folks a very, very long reach to the
bars.).

I actually tried platform pedals on my commuter, but hated them. Not
what I would recommend to anyone who is "serious" enough about riding to
plunk down the money for a Rivendell bike, with or without supposedly
thousand-dollar pedals.

True, all of this is just my opinion. But the thing that bothers me
about this is the air of expertise that the article projects as it
spouts WAGs and prejudice as facts.

--

David L. Johnson

"Business!" cried the Ghost. "Mankind was my business. The common
welfare was my business; charity, mercy, forbearance, and
benevolence, were, all, my business. The dealings of my trade were but
a drop of water in the comprehensive ocean of my business!" --Dickens,

On Mar 14, 9:01 pm, "David L. Johnson" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

A Muzi said:

Quoted message said:

Not sure about the saddle all the way back advice, but the rest seems
pretty practical (one I got past the flat pedal advice).

Quoted message said:

What's cycling advice without idiosyncrasies?

I think the whole thing is not only condescending, but plays into the
Rivendell chic of --- whatever the poseurs do (or those we label as
poseurs, being anyone who doesn't ride our bikes) is wrong.

Not only is not everyone comfortable with the bars 2-3cm higher than the
saddle. For one thing, that concentrates a whole lot of your weight on
the saddle. No thanks, not for me. And IMNSHO not good advice for
anyone who plans to ride long distances. Utility biking or jaunts
around the neighborhood are different issues, but that is what upright
bars are for. And the saddle all the way back part is just painful to
think about (especially since they also recommend a frame about 3cm
larger than I would, which gives folks a very, very long reach to the
bars.).

I actually tried platform pedals on my commuter, but hated them. Not
what I would recommend to anyone who is "serious" enough about riding to
plunk down the money for a Rivendell bike, with or without supposedly
thousand-dollar pedals.

True, all of this is just my opinion. But the thing that bothers me
about this is the air of expertise that the article projects as it
spouts WAGs and prejudice as facts.

I think you're reading stuff that's not there. For every
recommendation he makes, he qualifies it with saying that his
suggestions are just that: suggestions, and you should adjust to your
own comfort level. I can tell you that by raising my bars to level
with the saddle had increased my hand, neck and back comfort
significantly without compromising saddle comfort. I set up my
brother's bike the same way, and he liked the results, saying it was
the most comfortable any bike of his had ever been.

Grant would not have the number of disciples he has if he was just
making stuff up. He's the first to say that he's not talking to
competitive riders, and if his suggestions were harmful to loaded
tourers, they wouldn't be among his strongest supporters.

I don't agree with much of what he says; like I say, I like my bars
level with, not above, the saddle. I also think his proselytising for
platform pedals and friction shifting are a little weird. But I like
most of what he says about clothes (street clothes are better in most
cases than lycra).

Read the article again. He says:

"It's best to go by what feels good to you, not by
what looks right to somebody else, or an old Italian formula - that
with all due respect to the old Italians - never made sense in the
first place."

He's throwing out some stuff to try that you may like, that you may
not have thought to try. If it's not right for you, he just said, do
what's right for you.

Hank Wirtz said:

I think you're reading stuff that's not there.

And perhaps you are choosing from what you agree with.

Quoted message said:

I don't agree with much of what he says; like I say, I like my bars
level with, not above, the saddle. I also think his proselytising for
platform pedals and friction shifting are a little weird. But I like
most of what he says about clothes (street clothes are better in most
cases than lycra).

Why would you say that? I think this is more of the anti-poseur, or
anti-club-rider attitude. Go on and ride in jeans if you want, but that
is not for me (except, of course, for commuting and utility riding,
where the appropriateness of clothing for off-bike wear is more
important than comfort on the bike). Those seams on the jeans hit me
right where the saddle does, and that hurts. As do all the folds of
fabric. That's why I wear bike shorts; they are more comfortable for
longer rides.

Quoted message said:

Read the article again. He says:

"It's best to go by what feels good to you, not by
what looks right to somebody else, or an old Italian formula - that
with all due respect to the old Italians - never made sense in the
first place."

You look at it again. Avoid what old Italians (racer wannabe's??) do,
which doesn't make sense. That is even-handed?

Quoted message said:

He's throwing out some stuff to try that you may like, that you may
not have thought to try. If it's not right for you, he just said, do
what's right for you.

Just so you don't wear bike clothes, use cleats or toestraps, or have
the bars lower than the saddle.

he may have 30 years of experience to share, but then, so do I, and I am
not trying to sell anything.

--

David L. Johnson

"Business!" cried the Ghost. "Mankind was my business. The common
welfare was my business; charity, mercy, forbearance, and
benevolence, were, all, my business. The dealings of my trade were but
a drop of water in the comprehensive ocean of my business!" --Dickens,