Rivendell on bike fit?

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 15:24:14 -0400, Matt O'Toole
<[email protected]> wrote:

>A lot of riders and potential riders are not riding athletically, nor will
>they ever, yet the bike industry and press completely ignores them. This
>is GP's audience.

It's true that a lot of cyclists are not riding atheletically, but
it's not true that that's not GP's audience. He's selling high $
bikes to people who ride a lot, and it's simply not true that riding
in, say, street shorts, is as comfortable as riding in cycling shorts.

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

 

[[email protected]]

On Mar 16, 7:48 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On 16 Mar 2007 07:52:18 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >The "commandments" I was referring to were the usual ones on bike fit
> >and sizing. Like your saddle height should be 1.09 times your inseam
> >(not, for heavens sake, 1.08 or 1.10!). Like your knee should be
> >precisely over your horizontal crank's pedal.
>
> Well the books I've seen talking these have mentioned these as good
> *starting points* for racing bike fit. Which is true for fit men of
> average size.
>
> Where have you seen these laid out as commandments -- ie that other
> types of fit are wrong or that small variations from these positions
> (ie 1.08, if that works better for the rider) are wrong?

IIRC, it's the brief articles that state them as facts and don't
bother to "allow" change. I'm talking about the Buycycling-style
articles with a two-page spread of a young model on a bike, with ten-
word balloons pointing to the critical measurements.

But think about that 1.09 thing. "Richard's 21st Century Bicycle
Book" (first source I just grabbed) says "Example: 32 inches x 1.09 =
34.88 inches. Set the saddle so that distance ... from top of saddle
to center of pedal spindle ... is 34.88 inches." Hell, you can't even
measure that distance to 0.01 inch! What would happen if the poor
beginner misakenly used 34.98 instead? Or measured to the top of the
pedal? Or rode in thinner shoes? Um... well, nothing, really.

Granted, it's not the only instance where minute differences are
claimed to make massive changes in a bicyclist's riding. In fact, it
seems most of Buycycling magazine is devoted to the idea that
infinitesmals are absolutely critical - and the more expensive they
are, the more difference they'll make. ;-)

> >Like your handlebars
> >should obstruct your view of your front hub. (Why???)
>
> This one is seriously flawed.

Yup. I've never, ever heard a rational reason for it. Just "If the
handlebar doesn't obstruct the view of the hub, try a different bike,"
or something similar.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[Tim McNamara]

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.

 

[Tim McNamara]

In article <[email protected]>,
John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 15:24:14 -0400, Matt O'Toole
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >A lot of riders and potential riders are not riding athletically,
> >nor will they ever, yet the bike industry and press completely
> >ignores them. This is GP's audience.
>
> It's true that a lot of cyclists are not riding atheletically, but
> it's not true that that's not GP's audience. He's selling high $
> bikes to people who ride a lot, and it's simply not true that riding
> in, say, street shorts, is as comfortable as riding in cycling
> shorts.

While I prefer cycling shorts, I know a few people who find khaki shorts
and boxer to be more comfortable on the bike. One guy I know happily
did a 170 mile ride like that. He complains of getting chafing with
cycling shorts and hates 'em.

I suppose it's a matter of YBMV.

And what's up with cycling shorts becoming more and more like some kind
of mutant ultrabsorbent Depends? Jeez, the chamoin is some of those
shorts is half an inch thick! Are modern saddles so hideous that you
have to have that much padding? I prefer shorts with a thin chamois-
just enough to prevent friction. If you have to pad the saddle, you've
got the wrong one.

 

[Tim McNamara]

In article <[email protected]>,
John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]> wrote:

> On 16 Mar 2007 07:52:18 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >The "commandments" I was referring to were the usual ones on bike
> >fit and sizing. Like your saddle height should be 1.09 times your
> >inseam (not, for heavens sake, 1.08 or 1.10!). Like your knee
> >should be precisely over your horizontal crank's pedal.
>
> Well the books I've seen talking these have mentioned these as good
> *starting points* for racing bike fit. Which is true for fit men of
> average size.
>
> Where have you seen these laid out as commandments -- ie that other
> types of fit are wrong or that small variations from these positions
> (ie 1.08, if that works better for the rider) are wrong?

Back when I was starting to race, one of the main "bibles" was Eddy
Borysewicz's book and he went on at some length about this. Basically
it was the saddle height shown to require the least oxygen uptake at a
given power output (or some such claim). Never mind if it didn't feel
comfortable.

> >Like your handlebars should obstruct your view of your front hub.
> >(Why???)
>
> This one is seriously flawed.

For a number of reasons.

 

[[email protected]]

Tim McNamara writes:

>>> A lot of riders and potential riders are not riding athletically,
>>> nor will they ever, yet the bike industry and press completely
>>> ignores them. This is GP's audience.

>> It's true that a lot of cyclists are not riding athletically, but
>> it's not true that that's not GP's audience. He's selling high $
>> bikes to people who ride a lot, and it's simply not true that
>> riding in, say, street shorts, is as comfortable as riding in
>> cycling shorts.

> While I prefer cycling shorts, I know a few people who find khaki
> shorts and boxer to be more comfortable on the bike. One guy I know
> happily did a 170 mile ride like that. He complains of getting
> chafing with cycling shorts and hates 'em.

> I suppose it's a matter of YBMV.

> And what's up with cycling shorts becoming more and more like some
> kind of mutant ultra-absorbent Depends? Jeez, the chamois is some of
> those shorts is half an inch thick! Are modern saddles so hideous
> that you have to have that much padding? I prefer shorts with a
> thin chamois- just enough to prevent friction. If you have to pad
> the saddle, you've got the wrong one.

That's not a chamois or even meant to be. Since Flite introduced the
carbon fiber shingle and sells it on how light it is, the saddle has
now moved into bicycling shorts that no one weighs. My bike's lighter
than yours, nya nya nya!

Jobst Brandt

 

[Dan Connelly]

Tim McNamara wrote:
>
> While I prefer cycling shorts, I know a few people who find khaki shorts
> and boxer to be more comfortable on the bike. One guy I know happily
> did a 170 mile ride like that. He complains of getting chafing with
> cycling shorts and hates 'em.

http://picasaweb.google.com/cara.coburn/TNTSolvang2007/photo#5040703641951525826

 

[[email protected]]

Tim McNamara writes:

>>> 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.

Don't bet on it. The pain with many of these inventions, like lots of
float in pedals, carbon fiber shingles as saddles, fart slots in
saddles, 30 gear ratios, practically no spokes and deep aerodynamic
rims, etc are going to outlast the American "I drive black truck with
four exhaust pipes and low profile 14 inch wide tires" syndrome.
Bicycles are a larger fashion statement among those who buy the most
equipment than is visible.

How long has it taken smooth tread bicycle tires to be marginally
acceptable? Arrg, hydroplaning!

Jobst Brandt

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

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.

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

 

[Mark Hickey]

[email protected] wrote:

>Granted, it's not the only instance where minute differences are
>claimed to make massive changes in a bicyclist's riding. In fact, it
>seems most of Buycycling magazine is devoted to the idea that
>infinitesmals are absolutely critical - and the more expensive they
>are, the more difference they'll make. ;-)

I had a buddy who was likely influenced by this - he would literally
stop several times during a SINGLE (long) ride and fine-tune the
height of his saddle. He had the idea that a sub-mm of height
adjustment was going to make a real difference.

I once asked him how he corrected for the difference in thickness in
the padding in his shorts... which was probably a mistake because I
could tell he was now worried about one MORE variable.

I usually eyeball my saddle height when I'm building myself a new
bike, and will normally tweak it once, but never measure it. It might
be interesting to see how close I got all my "similar bikes", but it's
certainly nothing I'm gonna lose sleep over.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On 16 Mar 2007 17:18:38 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

>I've never, ever heard a rational reason for it. Just "If the
>handlebar doesn't obstruct the view of the hub, try a different bike,"
>or something similar.

The rationale is that for a "typical" man on a typical racing bike,
it'll balance the weight over the wheels right.

It's flawed on a lot of levels.

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

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

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.

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

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 20:08:52 -0500, Tim McNamara
<[email protected]> wrote:

>what's up with cycling shorts becoming more and more like some kind
>of mutant ultrabsorbent Depends?

LOL -- I know some guys who said "Oh yeah, our team kit just came in
-- really sweet new diapers."

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

 

[[email protected]]

Ανακυκλώνει τις πληροφορίες από: το kinesthesiology, φυσιολογία
άσκησης, φυσική θεραπεία ορθοπεδικής, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_therapy
που ψάχνει Google κρατά, μορφωμένα άρθρα; Ή Gordon, Rivendale...

 

[[email protected]]

that's our new testbed!

 

[A Muzi]

[email protected] wrote:
>
> Ανακυκλώνει τις πληροφορίες από: το kinesthesiology, φυσιολογία
> άσκησης, φυσική θεραπεία ορθοπεδικής, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_therapy
> που ψάχνει Google κρατά, μορφωμένα άρθρα; Ή Gordon, Rivendale...

Once was humorous

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

 

[Bill Sornson]

Sold!

 

[Bill Sornson]

A Muzi wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>>
>> ??????????? ??? ??????????? ???: ?? kinesthesiology, ??????????
>> ???????, ?????? ???????? ???????????,
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_therapy ??? ?????? Google
>> ?????, ????????? ?????; ? Gordon, Rivendale...
>
> Once was humorous

You're easy

 

[Tim McNamara]

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!

 

[Michael Press]

In article
<[email protected]>,
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.

Three years ago TTT made bars they named `Merckx Bend'.
They do not seem to be offered presently. Except for
being somewhat wider, they are a clone of the Cinelli
Campione del Mondo.
--
Michael Press