One word to understand

[Gabriele Russo]

Dear people of RBT,
I beg to let me just understand what I was wrong not to have neither an
answer to my post of Jan 27. Even spamming deserved more attention. I want
indeed to understand, wath's the matter? Language mistakes, some ingenuities
or (unwilled) unpolites, netiquette infringements, the subject? Please, one
word.

About my (old) subject, I am reviewing my positioning for
long-rides-no-racing purposes. In facts, years ago I chose a frame to fit
legs lenght rather than torso lenght, which is in proportion longer (my
custom frame should be 52 x 56 or 57, but "custom" damages pockets more).
Recently I increased the distance of the saddle behind the BB (feeling my
pedalling finer) but probably too much and I had some slight pain behind the
thigh, since (still probably) I did not pursue the holy rule to make changes
at small steps (in facts I recovered some of the saddle backwardness and the
pain started going away).

 

[Gabriele Russo]

> answer to my post of Jan 27.

Easter parties left consequences.
Of course, the post was on March 27.

 

[Scott]

If no one answered your (old) post, the problem might be, among other
things, that you didn't actually ask a question. What is your question?

I am just guessing here:
http://www.peterwhitecycles.com/fitting.htm


Gabriele Russo wrote:
> Dear people of RBT,
> I beg to let me just understand what I was wrong not to have neither an
> answer to my post of Jan 27. Even spamming deserved more attention. I want
> indeed to understand, wath's the matter? Language mistakes, some ingenuities
> or (unwilled) unpolites, netiquette infringements, the subject? Please, one
> word.
>
> About my (old) subject, I am reviewing my positioning for
> long-rides-no-racing purposes. In facts, years ago I chose a frame to fit
> legs lenght rather than torso lenght, which is in proportion longer (my
> custom frame should be 52 x 56 or 57, but "custom" damages pockets more).
> Recently I increased the distance of the saddle behind the BB (feeling my
> pedalling finer) but probably too much and I had some slight pain behind the
> thigh, since (still probably) I did not pursue the holy rule to make changes
> at small steps (in facts I recovered some of the saddle backwardness and the
> pain started going away).
>
>


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

 

[Werehatrack]

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 14:47:33 +0200, "Gabriele Russo"
<[email protected]> may have said:

>Dear people of RBT,
>I beg to let me just understand what I was wrong not to have neither an
>answer to my post of Jan 27. Even spamming deserved more attention. I want
>indeed to understand, wath's the matter? Language mistakes, some ingenuities
>or (unwilled) unpolites, netiquette infringements, the subject? Please, one
>word.
>
>About my (old) subject, I am reviewing my positioning for
>long-rides-no-racing purposes. In facts, years ago I chose a frame to fit
>legs lenght rather than torso lenght, which is in proportion longer (my
>custom frame should be 52 x 56 or 57, but "custom" damages pockets more).
>Recently I increased the distance of the saddle behind the BB (feeling my
>pedalling finer) but probably too much and I had some slight pain behind the
>thigh, since (still probably) I did not pursue the holy rule to make changes
>at small steps (in facts I recovered some of the saddle backwardness and the
>pain started going away).

More than likely, no one felt qualified to give an answer beyond one
that probably would have seemed simplistic. The usual advice would
have been to simply experiment with saddle position and angle, but
this may have been deemed "too obvious to mention" by the readers;
usually, it would be assumed that this had already been tried. In any
event, that would apparently have been the correct suggestion, as you
have subsequently discovered..and most here have likely become so
accustomed to making such fit adjustments as a matter of course that
they don't even think about it anymore.

--
My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
Typoes are not a bug, they're a feature.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

 

[Per Elmsäter]

Gabriele Russo wrote:
> Dear people of RBT,
> I beg to let me just understand what I was wrong not to have neither
> an answer to my post of Jan 27. Even spamming deserved more
> attention. I want indeed to understand, wath's the matter? Language
> mistakes, some ingenuities or (unwilled) unpolites, netiquette
> infringements, the subject? Please, one word.
>
> About my (old) subject, I am reviewing my positioning for
> long-rides-no-racing purposes. In facts, years ago I chose a frame to
> fit legs lenght rather than torso lenght, which is in proportion
> longer (my custom frame should be 52 x 56 or 57, but "custom" damages
> pockets more). Recently I increased the distance of the saddle behind
> the BB (feeling my pedalling finer) but probably too much and I had
> some slight pain behind the thigh, since (still probably) I did not
> pursue the holy rule to make changes at small steps (in facts I
> recovered some of the saddle backwardness and the pain started going
> away).

Well I went to the trouble of checking out your post of march 27. And the
answer is simple. I could not follow you at all and have absolutely no idea
of what your question is. I lost you after about two lines and when I looked
at the MEGA load of facts that you supplied I just said oh my gosh! Not due
to your english but from the explosion of facts that you threw out.

If you want an answer. KEEP IT SIMPLE. Ask a very clearly defined question
and do not bury the readers in facts.

--
Perre
I gave up on SPAM and redirected it to hotmail instead.

 

[Dennis Ferguson]

Gabriele Russo wrote:
> About my (old) subject, I am reviewing my positioning for
> long-rides-no-racing purposes. In facts, years ago I chose a frame to fit
> legs lenght rather than torso lenght, which is in proportion longer (my
> custom frame should be 52 x 56 or 57, but "custom" damages pockets more).
> Recently I increased the distance of the saddle behind the BB (feeling my
> pedalling finer) but probably too much and I had some slight pain behind the
> thigh, since (still probably) I did not pursue the holy rule to make changes
> at small steps (in facts I recovered some of the saddle backwardness and the
> pain started going away).

Pain behind the knees usually indicates that you have your saddle too
far from the pedals, making your legs extend too far. Don't ride with
this pain, you can damage yourself.

When you move your saddle back you normally also need to lower it a bit to
keep the distance to the pedals the same. Ideally you would have done
this by measuring from the bottom bracket to some point on your saddle with
the saddle in its comfortable starting position, then moving the saddle
back, then lowering the saddle to match the original distance from the BB
to the point on the saddle. If it hurts behind the knees after this, drop
the seat a bit more (say in 5 mm adjustments) until it stops.

Since you already moved your seat without measuring the original position,
however, just lower the seat until you get comfortable again and the
pain behind the legs is gone. You can then measure and push the seat
further back if you want.

Dennis Ferguson