Rivendell on bike fit?

[Ben C]

On 2007-03-17, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> ??????????? ??? ??????????? ???: ?? kinesthesiology, ??????????
> ???????, ?????? ???????? ???????????, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_therapy
> ??? ?????? Google ?????, ????????? ?????; ? Gordon, Rivendale...

All I'm seeing is question marks. If you're writing in e.g. Greek you
need to set up your computer somehow differently. Google Groups is
putting the UTF8 header there but some other part of the system has
mapped your characters back to ?, as if it were accepting ASCII only.

If you use a normal newsreader it's possible to set this up, otherwise
stick to English or transliterate the Greek.

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 00:40:50 -0500, Tim McNamara
<[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 20:04:03 -0500, Tim McNamara
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <[email protected]>,
>> > John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 17:53:19 -0500, Tim McNamara
>> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Maes bend handlebars
>> >>
>> >> Shallow round bars will come back big-time in the high-zoot racing
>> >> scene soon.
>> >
>> >Cool. I want deep drops and long reach like the old Cinellis. At
>> >6'4" with hands that match, I find that most modern bars feel like
>> >toys. The reach is too short and the "ergo" drop is not ergonomic.
>>
>> Sadly for you the modern round bars are generally, I think, a lot
>> smaller depth and reach then what you're looking for.
>
>The closest are the Nitto 175 (out of production) and the Nitto B115
>(same bend, 25.4 mm center). But you're right, the reach and depth on
>almost all current bars are too small for me. That's what I get for
>being an outlier!

I've got some unused older Ritchy Logic deep bars -- not the current
ones that are 135 drop but older ones that are couple cm deeper, 44
wide -- if you're interested in them contact me off-list.

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[richard]

gRant and company have their own riding style. Rivendell articles have
convinced me that their style is low cadence and mostly pushing. Given
that style, their fit makes sense.

I am a spinner, and it feels like a lot of my power comes from the
"scraping mud off the shoes" part of the stroke. You can't do that with
flat pedals and Hush Puppies and with the saddle all the way back.

Not everyone rides with my style, and perhaps lots of folks enjoy riding
gRant's style. Whatever, before investing $2300 and a couple years
waiting for a Rivendell frame, take some time to figure out what works
best for YOU.

[email protected] 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).
>
> ======================================
>
>>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
>
> ======================================
>

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

On Mar 17, 7:22 am, richard <[email protected]> wrote:
> gRant and company have their own riding style. Rivendell articles have
> convinced me that their style is low cadence and mostly pushing. Given
> that style, their fit makes sense.
>
> I am a spinner, and it feels like a lot of my power comes from the
> "scraping mud off the shoes" part of the stroke. You can't do that with
> flat pedals and Hush Puppies and with the saddle all the way back.
>
> Not everyone rides with my style, and perhaps lots of folks enjoy riding
> gRant's style. Whatever, before investing $2300 and a couple years
> waiting for a Rivendell frame, take some time to figure out what works
> best for YOU.

Of course, one *could* order a Riv frame made to their, not The
Grant's, sizing specs. OTOH, for that kinda $, there are more than a
few options in hand crafted, custom steel frames.





(oooops, there went the Maypo!)

 

[[email protected]]

> > Once was humorous
off course, ura LBS owner.

Look, when tiger lily ti burst forth with the $700 custom ti frame
offer complete with the truly outstanding ferrari logo replica i went
of looking for DATA on frame sizing because: 1) i'm suspicious, 2)
with ample reason, and three) some poeple who appear normal are
defeinitaelt not especially ex-photographers, am I right or what?
i found one semi-relevant source dealing mainly with kayaking from uh
Dartmouth.
Off course, that was more than two years ago. Given the "literary"
aspirations of the medical community, more information could be
available but probabbbly not ( i'm aiting for lunch) given the basic
poverty of the $35k/ride bicycle economy.
NADA information from uh science on bicycle sizing.
ZEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
Off course, altavista, whom I will hereupon throw over the side, once
again garbled the back to english. speaking of which did you read
about the "my litte sister" computer with 170,000 phrases? do they
have a lawyer?
the idea was: given those sources, physical therapy-an extensive
database-and off course fersure, orthpedics: are there cycle related
studies?
with all the ground based info-chondromalcia...would not there be an
orthopedists to shape the data into a package?
IF YOU GO...
how can you tell if the guy, for example (lunch is done) building the
birdcage carbon fiber frame, doesn't suffer from a "minor"
"misconception" on sizing that will seriously degrade your activity?
what? ya gonna go ask his customers? where? how? he sells frames at
$7k? that's no reference! those people buy goatcheese and mavic
rims...
i dunno

 

[Tim McNamara]

In article <[email protected]>,
richard <[email protected]> wrote:

> gRant and company have their own riding style. Rivendell articles
> have convinced me that their style is low cadence and mostly pushing.
> Given that style, their fit makes sense.
>
> I am a spinner, and it feels like a lot of my power comes from the
> "scraping mud off the shoes" part of the stroke. You can't do that
> with flat pedals and Hush Puppies and with the saddle all the way
> back.
>
> Not everyone rides with my style, and perhaps lots of folks enjoy
> riding gRant's style. Whatever, before investing $2300 and a couple
> years waiting for a Rivendell frame, take some time to figure out
> what works best for YOU.

The frame doesn't determine your riding style, you do. The vast
majority of Rivendell frames are much less expensive and available just
about immediately. The custom built frames are a small part of
Rivendell's frame sales. I've had the opportunity to examine quite a
few of the standard production frames and they are very well made
indeed. They are well thought out, with small details that make quite a
difference in versatility.

FWIW, Rivendell's custom frames are built by one of the best frame
builders in the US- Curt Goodrich (the workforce is soon to be expanded
to include Mark Nobilette, I understand). They are painted by Joe Bell,
the grand master of bicycle frame painting, which is a big chunk of the
frame cost right there ($500 according to the Riv Web site for the most
deluxe paint job).

Joe Bell has a Website, apparently, (www.joebell.biz) but it appears to
be hosted by www.campyonly.com and their server appears to be
unresponsive this morning.

 

[Patrick Lamb]

On 16 Mar 2007 12:45:11 -0700, "Jay Beattie"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>GP's audience is filled with well-heeled retro-groutches and not the
>sometimes-riders. The sometimes-riders and non-athletic riders I know
>much prefer click-shifting comfort bikes in the $400 range and not
>expensive steel frames, wool paniers, lugged stems, friction-shifting
>and moustache bars, etc., etc. (fill in quirky component choice). --

No, no, no! It's wool JERSEYS, and WAXED COTTON panniers! Geez, get
it straight!



Email address works as is.