Dirt road touring frames"

Quoted message said:

So which one has aggressive geometry? which grizzzzly likes budweiser in cans?

how does the average consumer of the bikes in these categories develop
an informed opinion of the top 3 choices?
I am overwhelemd.
the geometry mind set allowing the consumer to quickly evaluate one
frame to the other is not easily formed.
take the example you offer: quickly i go to actual seat post length
but get lost on ASPL's relationship to headtube angle and trail
quicksanding into the mental abyss caused by forming the pack weight f/
r subset. the only grip I have is backwards yeilds better always
uphill (maybe given all those tire knobs) while forwards ASPL yields
better acceleration.
Confusion on frame spec is deviously exacerbated when avoidong a full
flat sideon frame view, instead as with Surly and Redline, pivoting
the frame shot so no one can interpret it due to the warped
perspective.

I am pleased that cannondale offers a rock mtn shpt of the C-ville
29er with ludicruse monoposto fork AND C-ville people write good like
me.

does your Redline moncog adapt to 8 speed deore with a drill and
adapter plate for rear deray, then triple CR BB?
how wide a tire can it take? a 2.1"

the tire width sand gravel problem. gravel roads and loose sand roads
have a solid berm. beach sand is wet and hard. the riding problem is
patchs of looser stuff and the lowering of endo odds with a wider
tire. For example, if in the hypothetic riding day the rider stumbles
thru 3-4 loose patchs per hour causing loss of control then that is
literally out of hand. Butbutbut if control loss from loose surface
occurs 2-3 times a day then maybe we can cope, probbbabbbly thru
paying more attention to the road surface and less time spacing out on
the scenery-and off course that raises a critical point! WHAT ARE WE
DOING THERE? enjoying the environment or running the trans canada
winter rally?

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Nate Knutson said:

datakoll said:

Nate- what do have in mind with "aggressive geometry"?
sand, cinders, gravel: Conti and Michelin make tires around 2". 2''
should handle packed surfaces or wet surfaces but if not loose
surfaces.
the total idea is to ROLL along not fight the bike thru it as happpens
with a 700x32c eventually planting your head into the road surface.

29'ers and cyclocross bikes, in general, all have race-oriented
geometry with short chainstays, steep head- and seat- tube angles, and
high bottom brackets. They're oriented towards nimbleness, technical
handling, and generous ground clearance. For some definitions of off-
road touring, those characteristics are perfectly desirable - but for
others, the tradeoffs required to attain them might be a dealbreaker.
For example, carrying panniers on a lot of the bikes in question might
be tricky because of heel clearance issues, because of the short
chainstays. And the weight you carry as well as your own weight will
be higher off the ground, decreasing your stability, which is why true
touring bikes have low BB height.

What stability do you speak of? A higher bottom bracket
provides better dynamic stability. A lower bottom
bracket makes it easier to get your feet on the road
surface to prop up a heavily loaded bicycle at a
standstill.

--
Michael Press

WHAT ARE WE

Quoted message said:

DOING THERE? enjoying the environment or running the trans canada
winter rally?

good cartoon foundation.
waterfall/trestle
bear wearing giro helmet digs hole in cinders
bear hides in woods with buddy bear
cyclist approachs
bear pulls up sixpack ...

In article
<[email hidden]>
,

Chalo said:

Nate Knutson said:

...whether you actually want the kind of
aggressive geometry that 9'ers and cross bikes all have....

As it so happens, my newest two frames are a touring bike and a 29er
MTB. I'll furnish some dimensions for you so you can discern for
yourself which one is more "aggressive":

Cannondale CAAD Touring frame, size Jumbo:
head angle 73
seat angle 72.5
chainstays 18.0"
top tube (effective) 23.5"
BB drop 2.6"
wheelbase 42.5"
trail 2.0"

Redline Monocog 29er, size 21"
head angle 72
seat angle 73
chainstays 17.5"
top tube 25.2"
BB drop 2.5" (extrapolated from 29" wheel)
wheelbase 44.5"
trail 3.2" (extrapolated from 29" wheel)

So which one has aggressive geometry?

What are the fork offsets?

head angle 73
seat angle 72.5
chainstays 18.0" 457 mm
top tube (effective) 23.5" 597
BB drop 2.6" 66
wheelbase 42.5" 1080
trail 2.0" 51

Redline Monocog 29er, size 21" 533
head angle 72
seat angle 73
chainstays 17.5" 444
top tube 25.2" 640
BB drop 2.5" (extrapolated from 29" wheel) 65
wheelbase 44.5" 1130
trail 3.2" (extrapolated from 29" wheel) 81

--
Michael Press

In article <[email hidden]>,

datakoll said:

Suggestions on best steel 29er (or cylcocross) frame for fireroad,
dirt road, gravel road, sand track, railroad roadbed touring? No
suspension except for the tires.

Why not stick with a 26" wheel for this? While 29'ers might have
some advantages for rough stuff, I can't see it for your
basic dirt road.

There are 26" steel tourers around ( Bruce Gordon, LHT in the
small sizes), they take fatter tires and for the same amount
of suspension( ie. tire width ), the wheels are either stronger
or lighter.

The problem as I see it is tires, outside of the swable big Apple
there really isn't much in the way of tires bigger than 38mm
that aren't super knobbies. You can get minimal tread 48mm[1]
in 26" size that will work well for this kind of use and not
be a dog for the occasional section of paved road. IMHO, you
want fat and minimal tread for this kind of stuff.

_ Booker C. Bense

[1]- Avocet Cross II's

Michael Press of Possum Lodge said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Nate Knutson said:

datakoll said:

Nate- what do have in mind with "aggressive geometry"?
sand, cinders, gravel: Conti and Michelin make tires around 2". 2''
should handle packed surfaces or wet surfaces but if not loose
surfaces.
the total idea is to ROLL along not fight the bike thru it as happpens
with a 700x32c eventually planting your head into the road surface.

29'ers and cyclocross bikes, in general, all have race-oriented
geometry with short chainstays, steep head- and seat- tube angles, and
high bottom brackets. They're oriented towards nimbleness, technical
handling, and generous ground clearance. For some definitions of off-
road touring, those characteristics are perfectly desirable - but for
others, the tradeoffs required to attain them might be a dealbreaker.
For example, carrying panniers on a lot of the bikes in question might
be tricky because of heel clearance issues, because of the short
chainstays. And the weight you carry as well as your own weight will
be higher off the ground, decreasing your stability, which is why true
touring bikes have low BB height.

What stability do you speak of? A higher bottom bracket
provides better dynamic stability....

Better is a subjective matter. It is certainly easier to balance at very
low speeds with a high combined bicycle/rider CG, but this also slows
the response. With a very low combined CG (e.g. 50 cm), the bike can be
steered with very little input, which is its own kind of fun.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"I didn't expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition!"

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

datakoll aka gene daniels said:

...
the tire width sand gravel problem. gravel roads and loose sand roads
have a solid berm. beach sand is wet and hard. the riding problem is
patchs of looser stuff and the lowering of endo odds with a wider
tire. For example, if in the hypothetic riding day the rider stumbles
thru 3-4 loose patchs per hour causing loss of control then that is
literally out of hand. Butbutbut if control loss from loose surface
occurs 2-3 times a day then maybe we can cope, probbbabbbly thru
paying more attention to the road surface and less time spacing out on
the scenery-and off course that raises a critical point! WHAT ARE WE
DOING THERE? enjoying the environment or running the trans canada
winter rally?

If gene is riding along the beach, it is not surprising that the scenery
is distracting him from the road ahead. 😉

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"I didn't expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition!"

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

i agree: read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/29er_(bicycle)

i'm 6'4" looking to ride fire road/dirt road/beach road/railroad with
camping load that is nooooo tree dodgem, no careeening downhill,
definitely noooooo careening uphill
ROLLING! NEWTON.
Does wiki deal with centripital and/or centrifugal effect? ask the
fallen in the TdF rain trial. A mighty tool for sand traps?
Chosing a rim with steel eyelets having width for 2.1" low profile
knobs and width for the widest slick is no problem in 700c. Granted
the wild assortment of 26" isn't there but that lessens the potential
for buying [censored].
super knobby? take a look at the conti vapor.
choosing geometry is the problem.
I'll try using the exotic cannondale as a template for the lesser rigs
and sample that method a few times.
there's Chalo's Redline single suggestion but I don't know if the
dropouts and dropout spacing can be modified to 135mm 8 speed with
deray tab? it's got the real price from which all others could be
judged even if the welders escaped from an asylum not packed in
Wisconsin made in China price.

datakoll said:

Suggestions on best steel 29er (or cylcocross) frame for fireroad,
dirt road, gravel road, sand track, railroad roadbed touring? No
suspension except for the tires.

You might want to look at Rivendell's new 700c Hilson. Lots of fender and
tire room I understand. Made for all around adventure riding.

Phil

Quoted message said:

Your Name Here aka Phil Bickford said:

datakoll said:

Suggestions on best steel 29er (or cylcocross) frame for fireroad,
dirt road, gravel road, sand track, railroad roadbed touring? No
suspension except for the tires.

You might want to look at Rivendell's new 700c Hilson. Lots of fender and
tire room I understand. Made for all around adventure riding.

gene buying a Rivendell [1]? The idea boggles the mind!

[1] "Riverdwell" in gene-speak.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"I didn't expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition"

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Michael Press said:

What are the fork offsets?

Cannondale touring - 2.1"
Redline Monocog 29er - 1.5"

Michael Press said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Nate Knutson said:

datakoll said:

Nate- what do have in mind with "aggressive geometry"?
sand, cinders, gravel: Conti and Michelin make tires around 2". 2''
should handle packed surfaces or wet surfaces but if not loose
surfaces.
the total idea is to ROLL along not fight the bike thru it as happpens
with a 700x32c eventually planting your head into the road surface.

Quoted message said:

29'ers and cyclocross bikes, in general, all have race-oriented
geometry with short chainstays, steep head- and seat- tube angles, and
high bottom brackets. They're oriented towards nimbleness, technical
handling, and generous ground clearance. For some definitions of off-
road touring, those characteristics are perfectly desirable - but for
others, the tradeoffs required to attain them might be a dealbreaker.
For example, carrying panniers on a lot of the bikes in question might
be tricky because of heel clearance issues, because of the short
chainstays. And the weight you carry as well as your own weight will
be higher off the ground, decreasing your stability, which is why true
touring bikes have low BB height.

What stability do you speak of? A higher bottom bracket
provides better dynamic stability. A lower bottom
bracket makes it easier to get your feet on the road
surface to prop up a heavily loaded bicycle at a
standstill.

--
Michael Press- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

In a straight line, a lower BB is more stable because the largest
portion of weight (the rider) has a lower center of gravity.

datakoll said:

i agree: readhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/29er_(bicycle)

i'm 6'4" looking to ride fire road/dirt road/beach road/railroad with
camping load that is nooooo tree dodgem, no careeening downhill,
definitely noooooo careening uphill
ROLLING! NEWTON.
Does wiki deal with centripital and/or centrifugal effect? ask the
fallen in the TdF rain trial. A mighty tool for sand traps?
Chosing a rim with steel eyelets having width for 2.1" low profile
knobs and width for the widest slick is no problem in 700c. Granted
the wild assortment of 26" isn't there but that lessens the potential
for buying [censored].
super knobby? take a look at the conti vapor.
choosing geometry is the problem.
I'll try using the exotic cannondale as a template for the lesser rigs
and sample that method a few times.
there's Chalo's Redline single suggestion but I don't know if the
dropouts and dropout spacing can be modified to 135mm 8 speed with
deray tab? it's got the real price from which all others could be
judged even if the welders escaped from an asylum not packed in
Wisconsin made in China price.

The Redline Monocog is already spaced 135, but there's no good way to
mount a rear derailleur on it. If you're only shooting for 8 speeds,
then maybe a Nexus 8 hub would do the trick? I have one that I put on
my oldest mountain bike, and it's endless fun to ride. With 42-19
native gearing, I have a 35-90 inch range, which gets me up the
steepest hills I need to, and I only spin out my big gear going down
that same steep hill. Cruising the flats, I'm usually in 6th or 7th,
and on most hills, I don't go below 2nd.

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Hank Wirtz said:

Michael Press said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Nate Knutson said:

On Aug 12, 8:35 pm, datakoll <[email hidden]> wrote:
> Nate- what do have in mind with "aggressive geometry"?
> sand, cinders, gravel: Conti and Michelin make tires around 2". 2''
> should handle packed surfaces or wet surfaces but if not loose
> surfaces.
> the total idea is to ROLL along not fight the bike thru it as happpens
> with a 700x32c eventually planting your head into the road surface.

Quoted message said:

29'ers and cyclocross bikes, in general, all have race-oriented
geometry with short chainstays, steep head- and seat- tube angles, and
high bottom brackets. They're oriented towards nimbleness, technical
handling, and generous ground clearance. For some definitions of off-
road touring, those characteristics are perfectly desirable - but for
others, the tradeoffs required to attain them might be a dealbreaker.
For example, carrying panniers on a lot of the bikes in question might
be tricky because of heel clearance issues, because of the short
chainstays. And the weight you carry as well as your own weight will
be higher off the ground, decreasing your stability, which is why true
touring bikes have low BB height.

What stability do you speak of? A higher bottom bracket
provides better dynamic stability. A lower bottom
bracket makes it easier to get your feet on the road
surface to prop up a heavily loaded bicycle at a
standstill.

In a straight line, a lower BB is more stable because the largest
portion of weight (the rider) has a lower center of gravity.

No. With the weight higher a lateral displacement makes
a smaller angular displacement, allowing the rider more
time to correct; hence greater dynamic stability.

--
Michael Press

Gary Jacobson said:

The Rivendell Atlantis in 58 and over uses 700 C wheels. I can't imagine a
frame with greater tire clearance. I use a 56cm model which is designed
around 26 inch wheels, for off road commuting and rough roads where
everyone else uses mountain bikes.

Why spend that much when he can get a Soma DoubleCross which fits large
700c tires?

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Suggestions on best steel 29er (or cylcocross) frame for fireroad,
dirt road, gravel road, sand track, railroad roadbed touring? No
suspension except for the tires.

Greg

--
Ticketmaster and Ticketweb suck, but everyone knows that:
http://www.ticketmastersucks.org

Dethink to survive - Mclusky

On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 19:29:36 -0700, Hank Wirtz <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

- Show quoted text -

In a straight line, a lower BB is more stable because the largest
portion of weight (the rider) has a lower center of gravity.

Quite the opposite. The higher the center of gravity, the easier it
is to balance.

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Chalo said:

Michael Press said:

What are the fork offsets?

Cannondale touring - 2.1"
Redline Monocog 29er - 1.5"

head angle 73
seat angle 72.5
chainstays 18.0" 457 mm
top tube (effective) 23.5" 597
BB drop 2.6" 66
wheelbase 42.5" 1080
trail 2.0" 51
fork offset 53

Redline Monocog 29er, size 21" 533
head angle 72
seat angle 73
chainstays 17.5" 444
top tube 25.2" 640
BB drop 2.5" (extrapolated from 29" wheel) 65
wheelbase 44.5" 1130
trail 3.2" (extrapolated from 29" wheel) 81
fork offset 38

Neither bicycle is particularly nifty. The Cannondale
has a steeper head tube angle and shorter wheelbase but
the Redline has a much shorter fork offset. The Redline
is quicker.

--
Michael Press

Thanks for the suggestions! I'll crunch numbers on it.
No. I don't harbor anything about Rivendale. Yea, I paid G.Petersen a
defensive compliment aways back after 7-800 posters vilified him the
devil inbikeate. The sit up position compares with the hybrid design
area, no? that may be the following frame spec below as suggested
above.
The beach? Search google maps: san carlos, baja sur, mexico and tap
satellite. The barrier islands to the west and the strip inland
running south is da beach. No elephants.
Frame spec is elusive as touring asphalt gotta be a lot different
than touring dirt: different muscles as recently re-recognized at
TdF, different frame specs for optimum ease over a days ride.
Experience? Doesn't seem there's much direct medium distance dirt on
tap outside the frame specs. Graph specs with ad print?
Without experience, speculation: keeping the frame long and easy for
straight ahead with pack downforce on the fat knobby tires balanced
against headtube/fork angles for a Japanese sport tourer steering
reaction-with load considered (a known unknown) with the ability, not
compromising the preceeding, of a light running front (with or without
pack), easy to bring up over the soft spots or holes. And off course,
a pedaling position (an unknown known) for a generally loose surface.
I could buy lunch at the frame welders convention?

Quoted message said:

From my general ignorance, I'm puzzled by the Redlines' 135mm rear

spacing. Why does a single gear bike carry a 135mm spacing meant for
9-8-7- cassettes?
What does brazing cost in your neck of the woods? I heard $35 a set?
Less in quantity.
This is a big deal. I rebuilt one bike now I try designing one off the
shelf for an extended run on the moon.

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=bahia+magdelena,+baja&rls=com.microsoft

G.T. aka Greg Thomas who? said:

Gary Jacobson said:

The Rivendell Atlantis in 58 and over uses 700 C wheels. I can't
imagine a frame with greater tire clearance. I use a 56cm model which
is designed around 26 inch wheels, for off road commuting and rough
roads where everyone else uses mountain bikes.

Why spend that much when he can get a Soma DoubleCross which fits large
700c tires?

You do not get to be a "hobbit" riding a Soma.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"I didn't expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition"

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Bob Quindazzi said:

On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 19:29:36 -0700, Hank Wirtz <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

- Show quoted text -

In a straight line, a lower BB is more stable because the largest
portion of weight (the rider) has a lower center of gravity.

Quite the opposite. The higher the center of gravity, the easier it
is to balance.

And the less fun to ride.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"I didn't expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition"

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com