Input on Waterford- R vs RS

[allezdude]

Does anyone have thoughts on the difference between the Waterford R and RS (road sport) platform. waterford says the RS geometry is based on the classic European stage racing frames from the '70's and 80's but the chainstays look kind of long IMHO (430 in size 58 and up). Other builders, e.g. serotta, seem to use a bit shorter chainstay for that size (410- 420). in fact the waterford touring model has only slightly longer chainstays (435).

my fit says I need a really steep seat angle- 74.5- in order to have my knee centered over the pedal axis. I'm late 30's, do fast club rides, race track and a few crits each year. this bike will replace my Trek OCLV.

just curious if any opinions on the R vs RS platform. thanks.

[sn69]

I went with the RS stays and the R angles...all of which was decided upon by my fitter, Richard, Mark and Dave. Mine was built specifically with ultra-marathon cycling in mind. You might want to post this to the Waterford website--Dave will frequently answer right away.

Nonetheless, you need to think about which best suits your purposes. The longer stays won't kill you if you only race a bit. If, however, you're a regular on the local club circuit, you might want to think about going shorter.

While I don't know anything beyond what you said about your geometry, I'd be hesitant to go steep with the STA. Think about seat post as a function of saddle setback/KOPS as well. And, of course, remember that KOPS is only a centralized point of reference, not the burning bush so to speak. Can you satisfy your positioning druthers with a normal STA and a (Doof will hate this) 0-setback post...assuming it doesn't require the saddle shoved unnaturally forward on the rails?

Lots to think about. Again, I'd recommend the advice of a great many people here with lots more knowlege, but I'd also recommend posting this at Waterford. Feel free to PM me if you want more details about my hog.
Scott

[jerk]

frame setback should have nothing to do with "kops". have your frame designed so it rides properly. weight balance has far more to do with it than any knee over pedal spindle crap.

74,5 is pretty steep for anything except a really small bike, a tt bike or one of those whacked out gios things brooklyn rode a hundred years ago.

jerk

[sn69]

frame setback should have nothing to do with "kops". have your frame designed so it rides properly. weight balance has far more to do with it than any knee over pedal spindle crap.

74,5 is pretty steep for anything except a really small bike, a tt bike or one of those whacked out gios things brooklyn rode a hundred years ago.

jerk

Nor should it be a surprise that my fitter said exactly the same thing. Balance, balance, balance, I'm always working on balance...the eternal student.

So, in short, WHAT JERK SAID.

[Ken Robb]

My 60cm RS11 is a sweet ride. A bit slower handling than my stock 58CSI and 60cm Legend and a bit quicker handling than my62cm Riv Rambouillet. In no way is the handling sluggish; it just takes a wee bit more input to initiate a turn. Since most of us know how little input is required to start a turn on a stock CSI or Legend it should be obvious that "slightly slower" than that is still spritely indeed. To me the stock Serottas are as quick handling as I would want before I would judge them too "twitchy" for me. When I'm tired or the wind is really blowing I welcome a bit more stability. In fact when I order my next Serotta it will have geos toward the Rapid Tour design rather than those of a crit bike.

[allezdude]

frame setback should have nothing to do with "kops". have your frame designed so it rides properly. weight balance has far more to do with it than any knee over pedal spindle crap.
jerk

at the factory fit the starting point is kops on the theory that this yields a neutral/balance point on the bike. from there cockpit and TT length are determined.