Sizing up - dbrk

[bostondrunk]

OK, I have a question or two for DBRK. I have read with interest some of your postings about the size bikes you use. Now just so I understand, from what you have said, you are about 5'9, and you ride a 61cm frame with a 57cm top tube?
OK, I'm sorry, but that just sounds so strange. You also state that you can stand over the 61cm bike without the top tube touching? Or am I mistaken there? I am 5'10, have a fairly normal build (with huuuge legs!), wear pants with a 33 inseem. On a 54cm frame, standing over it, the top tube just touches. If I wanted to stand over a 61cm, I would need my crotch to be up around my huge abs. Also, at your height, how are you stretching across a 57cm top tube? I suppose if you chose to use a 100mm stem? But now now, you know the jerk would NOT approve of that, and he is god, so..

I guess what I'm getting at is that maybe you have a very unique build, and that sizing up isn't really a good answer for everyone, at least not to the extremes you go to. Forgive me if I have completely mistated the facts above, I'm hung over from a long night of Becks .5% near beer.

[e-RICHIE]

bostondrunk stated:
"Forgive me if I have completely mistated the facts above, I'm hung over from a long night of Becks .5% near beer."



lose the Becks.
get the Dinkel Acker.

e-RICHIE

ps

:beer: :beer: :beer:
:beer: :beer: :beer:
:beer: :beer: :beer:

[bostondrunk]

Dinkel Acker? Is that one of those new aluminum alloys used for the superlight team telekom frames? Sorry, no, I don't go for that aluminum garbage. Frankly, I don't think it would stand up to my 55x12 when sprinting uphill for the win.

"Are you gonna drink that?"
-Liz Taylor

[jeffg]

I do think dbrk's sizing, in its specifics, has to do with his physique. He and I are roughly the same height but I think his PBH is greater. I cannot stand over anything greater than a 57 cm ST (or 83cm standover). My build is also not super typical in that I ride a 57CM TT w/ 11cm stem. My ST, however, is 55 cm. I prefer standover height of roughly 80-81 cm. The downside is that a slight slope and/or HT extension is required so that I can get the bars where I want them using 0-5mm of spacers. I guess I could ride with 20mm of spacers and no HT extension, but I would rather forego a touch of aesthetics for better function (IMO).

That is why a good fitter and knowing your own preferences is key to a proper fitting bicycle.

best,

Jeff

P.S. I would vote for Weihenstephan (Weizen) in the summer and a nice Belgian ale or Austrian Bock for winter drinking. :beer:

[bostondrunk]

Geezzzuz guys, ever hear of Coors or Old Milwaukee?? King cans? I got no idea what any of these Anschnitzelheiser Weizenbaukerstoc beers are...
Where is my hero the 'jerk' when needing a good opinion on beer?!

[Climb01742]

you had to ask, didn't you, bostondrunk? ask douglas about sizing up. someone once said, never ask a politician a question. it only encourages them. asking douglas about french sizing...get comfy. :beer: :banana: :p :D :) :cool: :hello:

[bostondrunk]

Climb01742....
You have a Fan-Damn-Tastic good point there....
Better go find my Doritos and Becks and settle in...

[Climb01742]

bostondrunk--isn't your phorum name redundant? :-)

[bostondrunk]

I'm not -always- drunk.....I don't think....I can't remember..

"Are you gonna drink that"
- the Jerk

[dbrk]

I'm a tad longer in the leg than most but not dramatically so. My PBH is about 84 and some, a bit less than 85. There is nothing particularly strange otherwise (well, that being a matter of some dispute) but if you look, for example, at a Rivendell sizing chart and follow their saddle height recommendations you can come close to the notions of a French fit.

I've gone on about this at length but here it is in brief. French long-distance, comfort-oriented riding was meant to get you across bad roads, tall mountains, and through long-nights; in short, you spend a long time on the bike, on the order of 200k being a "short ride" or brevet. You get tired and you want the bike to perform in ways that assure stability as well as comfort. The bars are nearly level to the saddle, or just a few centimeters lower, but the emphasis is on a fist full of post only and a position _in the drops_ that is very comfortable, very ordinary, not just for sprinting or hunkering down.

If you look at the typical Alex Singer or Rene Herse you will undoubtedly find taller bikes with shorter top tubes; you will find low bottom brackets, long, long chainstays, and lots of trail with the fork swooping decidedly forward. Angles will be relaxed, usually less than 73d in the seat tube, lots of set back to position the rider behind the spindle (a definite Just Say No to KOPS position).

Now as far as what we see advocated by most modern fitters, when they turn their attentions to a comfort to speed ratio the results are, to my eye, filled with horrendous aesthetic compromises, the vast majority of which are entirely unnecessary and poorly chosen: riser stems, smokestack spacers, and tiny frames with too much post. The only modern design I can wrap my head around is the compact design because this allows a tall front end with a small, lithe frame and eliminates the unsightly headtube extensions, risers, and spacers, for the most part. Add to this folly the influence of marketing, trends, and the euphemistic Be Like Lance [insert pro racer's name] "look" that so many seek and you end up with bikes that fit most bodies (except racers and those with racer preferences) very poorly indeed.

Not every off the peg bike is suited to sizing up. But when you are working from custom, then anything is possible. To add lament, explaining this fit to even very experienced American builders can be tiresome. People go with their experience and this fit and style of riding has little to match in their understandings, so "great builders" tell you this is not an option. There is -no- one way to fit a bicycle and there -are- multiple traditions of fit. French traditions are just not well understood or well known outside the oldschool or the very familiar.

One more thing: if you look at a Herse or Singer you often find very short stems. This is not in conflict with senor jerk's views, as he might explain better himself. Rather, it is an entirely different notion of achieving a proper balance and position on the bicycle. Weight is more rearward on a French fit, less pressure on the hands, behind the spindle---all of this adds up to more comfort, more speed because you are more comfortable, and a position that looks nothing like modern racers.

None of this is conventional wisdom but it is old thinking. Get yourself a copy of the great Daniel Rebour's Le Petit Vivre, known as the "little yellow book." I am not alone in these views nor without precedent. The idea that fit has "improved" is bascially nonsense, imho. Rather, it is that there are different traditions of fit. MANY American riders today, especially those who do not race, would benefit from a French fit.

And I don't want to hear about being old or stiff. I may be old but I am decidedly _not_ stiff. (Anyone who wants to get into a bending over contest is welcome...)

I don't advocate this for everyone. I propose that it is an entirely different tradition, one that will benefit many and one that, yes, does indeed take getting used to because so many are on bikes too small. Ride the largest frame you can stand over, not the smallest. Start there.

dbrk

[bostondrunk]

dbrk,

Are you suggesting that the French positioning is also a better choice for road racers?
Not to compare myself to a pro rider, but do you think most of the pros would ride faster if they went with the french positioning?
Don't you think that many people have tested different positions with a power meter?
If someone puts themselves in a 'lance' position and is uncomfortable, thats one thing. But if they are comfortabe, and can spin along for a few hours without discomfort, then why would they want to raise their bars 6 inches and have their chest act as a big sail??

[dbrk]

I was not suggesting that a French fit suits modern racers and concur that power meters, etc. have created the aerodynamic position we see today. I have no dispute with any of that! But for most mortals this aerodynamically superior position will not produce long distance comfort. Racers have an agenda unlike the vast majority of recreational riders. And yet when we look at the history of the trials in France, this French fit was the way people rode hundreds of miles on terrible roads and lived to tell the tale. What I am suggesting has nothing to do with modern racers or any racers. I'm suggesting that most recreational riders have far more in common with the principles of French fit than what we see "normally" offered in American bike shops. Twice fit by a Serotta-trained fit guy and they came up with a 56cm. Visits with Ernest Csuka, Grant Petersen, and Mike Barry showed me another way of thinking about fit, radically different from small frame fits. This is bike riding for normal, slow guys, not skinny fast fast fast guys. Everything has its place, no?

dbrk

[bostondrunk]

Now I would contend that the average American cyclist dropping a load of scratch on a Pinarello, Seven, Colnago, Serotta, identifies more with the racer than the cyclo-tourer. More people would rather go out and pound out 50 miles at pace with their buddies than wank around the country side, high on cheap homegrown singing to himself for 6 - 10 hours......well, thats fun too, but...

[dbrk]

my dear drunkard,
I could not agree more. I believe the majority do prefer to pound out the Walter Mitty miles with their buds than cyclo-tour. And that they spend their money making that point abundantly clear: money following dreams and preferences in this case.

But as you well know there are more ways to ride than hammering or pushing hard. My post about the modern decline of randonneuring as it becomes evermore about going fast is along the same lines. It is true that I ride mostly alone, that I begin my rides way out in the countryside by most standards, and I stop to admire the raptors and pheasants, come to a halt to speak to serpents who have wandered onto asphalt, and generally try to ramble for as long as there is daylight (and then into the night, if I can).

Takes all kinds, I hope.

dbrk

[Climb01742]

douglas, could you expand a bit on pushing one's butt further back, getting behind the spindle, rather than over it. i find myself naturally sliding back in my saddle. i feel as though i'm generating more power that way.

[MadRocketSci]

Basically, it all comes down to what you want to do on the bike. Think of it in terms of what you would look for in a recreational car. If you want a car for relaxed long sunday drives through the countryside, on all kinds of roads, you might go with the big boat-suspension caddy pink convertible to give you the view and road float to keep the sparkling perrier off your golf shirt. If you want to tear up and down curvy smooth roads as fast as you can and feel at the limit of control, then pick the latest small manhood-compensating curb-hugging no rear visibility with two hard as nails seats but can't wipe the sh**-eating grin off your face sports car. If you prefer the former than go french high fit. If the latter use the lower "modern" fit.

That's the way a rivendell feels to me...big floatin convertible boat with a view. If you feel like pushing your LT a lot, get lower and longer...

if using the rivendell calculation of pbh - 25, remember that the resulting frame size, at least for a rivendell bike, is for a center-top measurement. you also get a little more standover with the low bb...

[bags27]

I'm a complete convert to the Rivendell/dbrk, etc. school. I was riding a 55 Lemond (admittedly it has an especially big set-back) and a 58 Trek (which is probably really a 56.5), then switched to a 58 Rambouillet (and probably could have managed a 60 had I the courage) with a lower saddle/higher stem. I rode the hoods on the Lemond and Trek, but now can stay in the drops forever and am far more comfortable. So, not only am I more relaxed, but I'm probably more aerodynamic to boot (not that that's the major consideration).

No matter how many patient people explain it to me, I am a complete dolt when it comes to understanding what affects fit, but this I know: I too had a Serotta fitting, by a terrifically talented and smart expert, but within days I started fiddling with it. That's when I decided to chuck trying to squeeze my body into someone else's expectations, and go to the Rivendell idea. My next two bikes are on order with a similar geometry. Enough with the sore backs and necks and numb hands, already. I like to gaze at the horizon when I bike, and I don't feel any slower doing it.

[Climb01742]

funny. we're all so different. right now, i have a 6 cm drop from saddle to bars. i'm going to play with a 7, maybe an 8. a decision based purely on how my body feels. trust me, no one would ever mistake me for boyracer. least of all me!

[dirtdigger88]

Climb

I know you did not ask what I though about the behind the BB position, but I have some experience with it. I ride a 57 cm Lemond Zurich, promotes that position. I love the bike, but the position does not work for me. I am very comfortable when I am plugging away at an easy pace. I begin to have problems though when I need to "hit the gas". If I am trying to bring in a gap or climb a hill quickly, I slide way up on my saddle. I am much more a spinner than a masher. This however, then makes the distance from my saddle to my bars too close and I feel cramped. For the Legend that I am having built, I kept the same distance from seat to bars as my Zurich, but the entire front of the bike is pushed 5cm forward via the seat tube angle. I will be able to maintain my comfortable reach, but be more over the BB. On my Zurich I have already replaced the set back post with a Thomson and my saddle is still slid very far forward. My body type just does not lend to that position. I have long legs and arms with a short (relative) torso. So I guess what I am saying is that I think if you are not a spinner this position has a better chance of working for you.

Just my $.02?????

[Climb01742]

dirt (if i may call you dirt, with no malice), i have long legs, too, and short torso, and long arms, and i'm a spinner too. funny. just shows you how personal all of this is. i can ride both ways: over the spindle and slid back behind it. my normal STA is 72.5, so i like it pretty relaxed. with longer femurs, i feel more "opened up" slid back. but yes, in that position, i slow my cadence. more over the spindles, i spin faster. that's why the new arione (sp?) saddle is interesting. being so long, you can ride in different places during different parts of your ride. i find, especially during a long ride and over varying terrain, i do move around the saddle a bit. that's normal, yes?

[dirtdigger88]

Sure, call me dirt if you like.

I know what you mean about moving on the saddle. I am guessing that I am "sizing" up myself. My Zurich is a 57 x 57.5. I am going with a 60 x 58 on the Legend. I have tons of seat post showing (13 cm) on the Lemond. I, however, have a hard time slowing my cadence down. I spin 110- 115 most of the time and I only slow to upper 90's to low 100 on climbs. I feel so much better more over the BB. Each to his own. My Lemond has 3.5 cm of spacers on it. By going with a larger frame and a 1.5 HT extension, I am hoping to use no spacers, a flat stem and not have one of those head tubes a mile long. My HT will be something like 18.5 cm.

[MadRocketSci]

Climb and Dirt,

Conventional wisdom seems to say that the further you sit back, the more you emphasize your butt, hamstrings, and lower back muscles over your quads. You also get the added benefit of "pushing" forward over the top, rather than pulling up. However, because your quads have greater angular motion with respect to your hip joint, this supposedly slows down your cadence.

Lots of people will tell you to move behind the bb for more power...however, when on a long steep climb, i find that the forward push on my pedals requires me to use more back muscles to counter these horizontal forces to stay on the seat...at least that's what it feels like. I'm also experimenting with moving forward and up to improve climbing comfort. We'll see if it helps. On the flats, everything feels great...

here's a web page that helps clarify the "move forward and up for climbing" theory:

http://www.cranklength.info/climb.htm

[Ahneida Ride]

My fitter subscribes to the Dr. Dbrk school of logic.
Comfort = Prformance. So unless, you are racing,
Upsize, get the bars up there, and consider longer
chainstays. It just makes for a comfortable Ride.

Comfort = Performance. ( why ride in pain ? )

I can attest that the Dbrk School of logic is correct.
My frame was built around his principles and is a
joy to ride.

Many frames are too small and the geometry too
agressive and the gears too low and seats too narrow.

Keep on Preaching Douglass !

[Matt Barkley]

We are debating on:
What position?
- or -
How we want to ride?

I would say 2 different debates.

Now I want someone to tell me how to ride. - Matt

[dirtdigger88]

You should ride as often and as hard as your schedule and fitness will allow. Any less is just a waste:D

[Matt Barkley]

Thanks dirtdigger. Finally someone speaks up with conviction and with substance. Ride! Ride Hard! Ride Often! Thanks!!! I had kinda fallen into a riding-less-because mode these past OH 5 years or so. I think that just got me out of it.:banana: (Well it partially completed the proccess of getting out of it ecuses from (SRM, Allergies, Stress, Overtraining-Not!, Ozone Code-Purlple days and sprawl-trafffic.) Just ride.

[bags27]

To a great extent, as DBRK already suggested, fit informs purpose: why do we bike? Aside from professionals who do it at least somewhat for their daily bread, I suppose there are three reasons: camaraderie, pleasure, and health (by no means are they not connected). If one were to identify two extreme opposite bikers, the noodlers and the hammers, we might say that both can achieve all three, just in different ways. For me, at least, "concerted noodling" in the form of randonneuring, produces better health benefits than its extreme opposite of riding to exceed one's lactate threshold.

[Matt Barkley]

I still feel there is a bit of debate out there. Hammerdawg vs. Noodler. Professional cyclists are always brought into the mix, usually as an exeption to the rest of us. I guess this thread of randonneuring fit, etc has me going a tad. Of course, there is nothing wrong with any type of cycling as I see it. From Critical Mass, Racing, Courier(ing), Randonneuring.... to riding for transportation. These are all different modes of cycling, (many more no doubt.) We all can categorize each other and ourselves.

When debate on fit and frame / bike set-up gets going, "One is better than the other" can be a fun debate.

I have never ridden 200K plus over dirt roads, over mountain passes, through the night. Though I frequently ride my road bike on dirt roads, (not so frequently over Mt. passes I WISH!), and ride almost every night. SO I gues if I have a point here somewhere, it is that dbrk, your opinions are understood, but I disagree in that most Americans, with the type of riding (not all hammering) that they do can benifit form better fitting, not necessarily the "French" old-school-deal. There are some cool "old-school-French" methods - subtle, but until commuters are doing super -overnight - miles to work, I think they are better of with something more "modern." Taller bikes do tend to ride like boats... Comfortable boats, but maybe not the most desireable for someone wanting to feel the excitement of a inspiring-handling bicycle. Commuter or not.

Maybe many of the complaints of "American" builders or fitters and cyclists are the same as some of mine: That they can simply do a better job. The body should be more naturally configured over the machine, or machine more naturally configured under the body (machine being aestheticallly more pleasing and properly proportioned - no risers, etc) to produce power, give reasonable (or all-out) comfort, and excellent handling.

I'll leave it for now. I just love to ride my bike! Plain and simple!!

[MarinRider]

As the wise dbrk said before.

I can, however, provide a different experience from sizing up, sitting back behind the spindle, more up ride position, French tradition.

I recently moved and started racing for a local club sponsor by Cycle Sport of Oakland. The owner of Cycle Sport, Thiery, is also the president of the Healthnet Pro Cycling Team.

Thiery was kind enough to give me a personal fit session. The first thing he said when he saw me on a trainer is that I sit too far back on my bike. No, no, I said, I prefer to sit back there, I have ridden like this for years, done pretty well, plus if I move I seat forward I naturally wanted to slide back on my saddle.

Thiery looked at me riding on the trainer a little longer and said: you know, you can produce more power by moving foward. He proposed that I not only move my saddle forward, but get a non-offset seatpost and move up even more. He put me in a position that is more forward than the conventional KOP (he measured me not from the front of the knee but from where the knee cap ends).

To keep me from wanting to slide back, he gave me a LONGER stem (130) and a bar with a LONGER (2cm) reach. I was very skeptical at that point but he told me to take the stuff, go out for at least three long rides, and if I still don't like the position, he'd switch everything back.

It is a different way to fit a bike. The one that put you lower, more nimble, and easier to spin harder gears. Does it sacrifice comfort? Not to me and not, I suspect, if one is flexible enough and is accustom to looking up the road from the drop for a long stretch of time.

Is it a better position? It is a better racing position becuase I can be more aerodynamic and produce a bit more power. To be honest in races, I am usually so pre-occupied with many other things that comfort is not on the hight priority list.

On the 100 mile solo ride through the county side? I agree with dbrk here and want to be further back, more upright. However I prefer to sing Italian opera instead.

[Too Tall]

Matt old man with your talent a 200k is like a walk in the park. I can guide dog you through a 400k in daylight brotherman! At the end you'll wonder what all the fuss was about. All you have to do is eat and drink on command and pedal.

Last eve. I dusted off my Clark Kent AX-1 and took it for a spin. It has been about 2 years since I've ridden the bike and this is the one I used for most of my Brevets in 1997-1999. Having a virtual 76+ STA and short chain stays you'd never guess it is so good for long riding. It is also a way better sprint bike than my legend and turns on a dime....go figure.

I am doing a mini-size up for #1 wife now. Mavic1010's CSI arrived, it is 1 cm longer in the TT than her current Ti Legend BUT the threaded steerer let's me install a sensible (9) Nitto stem. Once that is dropped to the same height as her current bike (floor to top of bar) cockpit reach (tip saddle to back of bar) should be right on the mark.

[Climb01742]

a bit of personal experience: up to two years ago, i had been fitted (by very good people) to a 57 square frame. then i got fitted for my first serotta (by a very good guy). and my numbers came out: TT 54.5, ST 55.5 and STA 72.5. and i've never felt better on my bikes. my only point is, each of us is different. for some, sizing up gets us in a better position. for others, sizing down. maybe the answer is, at a given moment in time, the key is right sizing, whichever direction that takes you in.

[dbrk]

There's way more to sizing up than a bigger frame. As you move one angle or centimeter whole worlds move in relation. I don't dispute Climb or anyone else's experience or preference, but to me the issue is not one of preference as such. Rather, and I promise to say this again in this thread only this one more time: there are different styles of riding and different _traditions_ of fit. It's not a one or the other thing. I have some smaller race bikes where my position is more forward, my stem in longer, my bars lower. I like to ride in this tradition for certain kinds of ride (rarely, actually), but it has its place. But if more go-fast-looking bikes were actually built with French cyclo-tourist (this is NOT a touring bike!!!!) geometries, we'd see more and more happy riders of middle age who don't race and still like to go fast.

I'm in the midst of refurbishing (perhaps restoring) another Rene Herse, this one from about 1965. This bike may not have had fenders (it didn't when I got it) but it is clearly a fast-bike in the cyclotourist tradition, about as close to a race bike as Herse made. When it's done I'll measure it all out in detail: all the angles, all the numbers, and return to offer my (often incomplete, sometimes inept) explanations of what makes this bike different from what we see in the majority of American builders today (and the largely Italian legacy of race bike builders, so-called "competition" bicycles).

I suppose I raise this issue not only to express my own preferences but because if you walk into the vast majority of shops in the U.S., even very competent and professional fitters have no idea what you are talking about when you say "Alex Singer" (say, San-jay, as if you are French). It's all just not in their tradition and _that_ has been my point.

dbrk

[Climb01742]

perhaps where we differ, douglas -- other than you being a lot more knowledgeable than i, of course :-) -- is that i do basically one type of riding. road riding with one aim in mind: trying to push myself. some days that's slow, some days that's faster. since i do only one kind of riding, one style of bike fit works for me. were i to be as diverse in riding "styles" as you, i can totally understand how multiple fits would be wise. also, i simply haven't ridden a bike set-up as you suggest. perhaps once i did, my eyes would be opened.

i'm simply happy that for the kind of riding i do, i've found a fit that feels right, lessens aches and pains, and helps me ride happier and faster. :beer:

[dbrk]

If we differ it is without the slightest dispute. I applaud your preference to ride as you do and that this suits you just fine. But someday I shall drag you out to the Finger Lakes and we can first ride as you prefer and then, perhaps, you'll let me set you up on a French fit bike (I have one that will surely fit you Climb!!) and you can see how you like it.

It's good to be simple and it's also good to be diverse. Fit is much less science than art and preference.

dbrk

[Climb01742]

believe me, i look forward to the day i get to see your basement. akin, i think, to first seeing inside king tut's tomb, no? :p

[Matt Barkley]

dbrk, My take on the "tradition" of many fitters is that they have none. Maybe they read Bicycling Magaizine's top-ten-fitting-errors and scored a Serotta Sizer. I agree that I see very little knowledge of different types of fit. So this is your point? Few know who Singer is? Just checking. Do you think if fitters understood French fit, but not modern fit well - we'd all be better off? Builders too? I wouldn't agree (not just to disagree here :) ) It seems to me Serotta has been at the forefront of trying to educate, "certify" fitters and educate consumers and bring much needed attention to fit issues and of course with "custom" bikes.

Where I see all this as heading is different schools of thought, tested on guinea pigs buying $6000 "custom" bikes. From pro-team-directors moving guy's position way WAY WAY forward, to orderering bikes for women with super-duper short top tubes. A lot of money is spent on these "custom" bikes and I think whether the customers are put on a custom or stock bike - the fitter (who is revered and trusted, regardless of certification, etc) puts someones body on the bike relatively properly following tradition / REAL PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE, or by following unproven, incompitent guess-work.

There is a lot of bad fitting (and purchasing) going on out there and I would rather not comment on that so-much. But don't you think the fitters who do set riders (majority) up in comfortable "modern" efficient positions on the bikes are doing a good job? Would knowledge of "French" fit do them better than simply doing a better job of "modern" fit. I would say "modern" fit is more appropriate than "French" the majority of the time. (Just trying to keep this generalized here.)

I guess you are super gung-ho about this type of fit. There is a whole modern school out there. You show serious belief that "French" should be understood and expressed more. I respect that. Show me really why it should!! I am serious. Maybe it is not for me - but for large segments of the bike-buyers out there! So, not Tourists? Commuters? - - - Ultra-Distancers, though? Who else?

An aside:

I am not so sure about the phorum here - but I for one really don't like changing my position from day to day riding. When I am really riding a lot (for me 200 to 400 miles a week) I really could not ride a different position. Moving the stem up for climbing would be fine - but other than that my muscles are trainined into one position for that time of the year. Half a degree in the seat-tube or a different material bike even can throw me aff a little - take some getting used to - like 5 days....

Point is: Do I have a point here? We'll maybe not. I thought I'd just explore in a few directions so ideas around the different position discussion and "tradition"- knowledge, or lack thereof.

I am still learning everyday about riding bikes. As long as I keep learning - I'm sticking with it!!!:beer: -Matt

[Climb01742]

matt, you make an interesting point about changing frame materials on a ride-to-ride basis. i had never thought about it, but my guy at my LBS mentioned it to me. he said switching frame materials frequently forces the body to adapt, so much of each ride is spent just getting used to how today's frame material rides. for me, i like how steel and ti ride alot, and steel and ti ride fairly alike. i'm not crazy about how carbon rides, or how carbon can influence how a ti/carbon frame rides. its an interesting idea for those of us who have multiple bikes. staying within a "family" of frame materials, like steel and ti. no great words of wisdom here, just an interesting angle.

[Matt Barkley]

Climb,
When I am really riding consisitently/a lot - I hate change. I get used to my bike and I like it. I do not like anything else. A new saddle, new shoes and pedals are the worst. A new frame can be disastrous - yet sometimes is welcomes. Material change is definitely more than noticable - it is influential in how I ride the bike. New bar tape or new cleats are the only welcomed changes.

To add on to above discussions: I guess I really see (dbrk, climb, others) that there is an absolute need for improvement when it comes to how many are fit to the bicycles - or vice versa. I would like to see dbrk's response - because I believe there is a huge segment of serious riders who can benifit from a set-up other than "modern." Look at how many try to achieve a higher handlebar at the expense of any handling characteristics purpose-built into the frameset. It is like ignoring what you started with and trying to make it work anyways.. There is a position evolution going on. Riders new to the sport in their late 30s to mid 40s (and of course, later)should have something out there for them originating from the frame builder down to the fitter, and understood by all. Who thinks it is already out there? What else?
- Matt

[MadRocketSci]

To me, a good fitter would think like a good engineer: in terms of trades. DBRK's school of fitting emphasizes comfort...his contention is that this "method" of fitting and bike design maximizes comfort. Speed and enjoyability then follow from optimal comfort. At the other end, more modern fitters might try to optimize performance, sometimes at the expense of comfort. A good fitter would maximize "happiness". If the rider doesn't know what makes them happy, then a good fitter should perform trades on comfort, performance, style, purpose to optimize happiness...whether the end result achieves this goal is a reflection in the fitter's skill in fit, design, and communication with the rider. Ideally, the fitter should be able to draw from all kinds of experiences and styles to achieve the goal.

I'm willing to trade ultimate comfort, which to me means i can ride off into the sunset as longs as my legs will last with nary a pain anywhere, for a bit more performance. that is, i want to be comfortable the time i'm riding, but since i'm not an all day type rider, I can afford to buy a more aggressive position/bike that makes my heart race, endorphins flow, and me happier. I'm sure you can go pretty fast on a rivendell (minus the big floppy hat with chinstraps in the riv reader), but to me it's like flooring it in a station wagon.

[dirtdigger88]

I am with you mad man

95% of my rides are under 2 hours, I just do them six day a week. My schedule does not allow all day rides, sigh! I too, get more enjoyment feeling like a racer for those two hours, than the thought of a century. My deamons are either not that fast or do not have that much endurance. I can kill then in under 120 minutes most of the time.

[jl123]

I would like to point out that there is another factor in this overall conversation reguarding how/what SIZE frame one utilizes for x riding need/desire. And this is a point that the (the uk small wheel bike) Moulton importer in the US (I think from North Carolina) once told me. (Granted I know its in his best interest to tell me this cuase the man makes his living selling the things, but still the point is strong- and he does ride the things a great many miles, and does own a Herse for comparison) I have been told by many converts that SMALL wheel size- with its subsequent samll frame size, can also play a large role (roll) in the way a bike rides. And possibly more so if one thinks about DBRK's ideas of design/fit for long distance comfort..

"I've gone on about this at length but here it is in brief. French long-distance, comfort-oriented riding was meant to get you across bad roads, tall mountains, and through long-nights; in short, you spend a long time on the bike, on the order of 200k being a "short ride" or brevet. You get tired and you want the bike to perform in ways that assure stability as well as comfort. The bars are nearly level to the saddle, or just a few centimeters lower, but the emphasis is on a fist full of post only and a position _in the drops_ that is very comfortable, very ordinary, not just for sprinting or hunkering down."

Some small wheel bike adherents strongly believe that small wheeled bikes serve (no matter how ugly they may be or at least less beautiful/graceful) DBRK's above mentioned requirements to a tee- including all manner of characteristics ranging from comfort to weight distribution to body positioning. Just another idea to place into the spectrum of size and ride characteristics.

If any board members have any experience with such bikes, maybe you might use your experience to put some perspective on this other means of fitting/riding a bicycle...

[Matt Barkley]

Help me out here - I know little on the subjuect - but aren't 26" tandems commanding a strong following in Europe. Sorry if this is not applicable to this discussion - I have just never understood why this may be - along with the previous post of jl123. What about the YYB, etc? - Matt