C
On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 18:00:04 -0800, landotter <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Nov 7, 7:21 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Nov 7, 11:58 am, Chalo <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > DougC wrote:
>>
>> > > A Muzi wrote:
>>
>> > > > something like this steel bike?
>> > > >http://gunnarbikes.com/newsletters/10-29-04_clip_clip_image006.jpg
>> > > > story:
>> > > >http://gunnarbikes.com/newsletters/10-29-04.htm
>>
>> > > Two points:
>> > > ...the weight bias looks far to much on the rear--at least two-thirds,
>> > > I'd bet. Although this may just be unfamiliarity with the matter--you
>> > > don't see too many upright frames that have the seatstays more-vertical
>> > > than the seat tube...
>>
>> > I don't know why, but most framebuilders-- even those who exclusively
>> > do custom bikes-- are utterly retarded about chainstay lengths on tall
>> > bikes. Why don't people get that what they're trying to establish is
>> > a certain geometric relationship between the saddle and the rear
>> > contact patch, and not just an arbitrary and fixed chainstay length?
>>
>> > Using the same length chainstays for short and tall riders is like
>> > using the same fork length, rake, and head angle regardless of wheel
>> > size. It just doesn't work right that way.
>>
>> > I hunted around until I found a custom builder who would make a frame
>> > with proportionally long chainstays. In my case, they were 21" long
>> > (533mm).
>>
>> > > ...also the stock-length cranks would seem to be far too short for
>> > > someone so tall.
>>
>> > Yes and no. I like my proportionally sized cranks (196mm and 205mm),
>> > but I also like my 165mm and 170mm cranks. And I do just fine with
>> > the 127mm cranks on my Big Wheel, too. Longer legs in principle
>> > should have longer cranks, but with longer cranks comes lower cadence
>> > and (all else equal) taller gears. That doesn't suit everybody, so
>> > folks who want to spin fast should bias towards commonly available (or
>> > shorter) crank lengths even if they are tall.
>>
>> > When you get as tall as YaoMing, you pretty much have to choose
>> > normal or superlong cranks from the outset, because the requisite
>> > bottom bracket heights are so different. Then again, he can afford to
>> > try both, even if that means two custom frames.
>>
>> > Chalo
>>
>> Dear Chalo,
>>
>> Given the topic and your tall-bike interest, you might find this older
>> model attractive:
>>
>> http://books.google.com/books?id=6Kk1AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA159&dq=giraffe+new...
>>
>> or http://tinyurl.com/3a4o4c
>
>Is it possible to ride the bike on page 163 w/o sucking face?
Dear LD,
Don't let the side view of old-fashioned saddles mislead you--look at
where the handlebars are.
Both riders are facing forward on that tandem.
The seating is the same as the seating on the tandem on page 162 and
the famous tandem highwheeler on page 161.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
wrote:
>On Nov 7, 7:21 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Nov 7, 11:58 am, Chalo <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > DougC wrote:
>>
>> > > A Muzi wrote:
>>
>> > > > something like this steel bike?
>> > > >http://gunnarbikes.com/newsletters/10-29-04_clip_clip_image006.jpg
>> > > > story:
>> > > >http://gunnarbikes.com/newsletters/10-29-04.htm
>>
>> > > Two points:
>> > > ...the weight bias looks far to much on the rear--at least two-thirds,
>> > > I'd bet. Although this may just be unfamiliarity with the matter--you
>> > > don't see too many upright frames that have the seatstays more-vertical
>> > > than the seat tube...
>>
>> > I don't know why, but most framebuilders-- even those who exclusively
>> > do custom bikes-- are utterly retarded about chainstay lengths on tall
>> > bikes. Why don't people get that what they're trying to establish is
>> > a certain geometric relationship between the saddle and the rear
>> > contact patch, and not just an arbitrary and fixed chainstay length?
>>
>> > Using the same length chainstays for short and tall riders is like
>> > using the same fork length, rake, and head angle regardless of wheel
>> > size. It just doesn't work right that way.
>>
>> > I hunted around until I found a custom builder who would make a frame
>> > with proportionally long chainstays. In my case, they were 21" long
>> > (533mm).
>>
>> > > ...also the stock-length cranks would seem to be far too short for
>> > > someone so tall.
>>
>> > Yes and no. I like my proportionally sized cranks (196mm and 205mm),
>> > but I also like my 165mm and 170mm cranks. And I do just fine with
>> > the 127mm cranks on my Big Wheel, too. Longer legs in principle
>> > should have longer cranks, but with longer cranks comes lower cadence
>> > and (all else equal) taller gears. That doesn't suit everybody, so
>> > folks who want to spin fast should bias towards commonly available (or
>> > shorter) crank lengths even if they are tall.
>>
>> > When you get as tall as YaoMing, you pretty much have to choose
>> > normal or superlong cranks from the outset, because the requisite
>> > bottom bracket heights are so different. Then again, he can afford to
>> > try both, even if that means two custom frames.
>>
>> > Chalo
>>
>> Dear Chalo,
>>
>> Given the topic and your tall-bike interest, you might find this older
>> model attractive:
>>
>> http://books.google.com/books?id=6Kk1AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA159&dq=giraffe+new...
>>
>> or http://tinyurl.com/3a4o4c
>
>Is it possible to ride the bike on page 163 w/o sucking face?
Dear LD,
Don't let the side view of old-fashioned saddles mislead you--look at
where the handlebars are.
Both riders are facing forward on that tandem.
The seating is the same as the seating on the tandem on page 162 and
the famous tandem highwheeler on page 161.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
