Dr. Doofus
05-28-2005, 12:43 PM
"As this season has gone on, and the doofus dumped the old "fit cycle" bikes, there has been some ongoing sorting out of his position. The point at which he has arrived (which may or may not receive some tinkering) has the saddle at 78.5 cm, reach at 56, and drop at 9.5, using a 120 stem on a 57 TT, 58 c-t bike. The doof's measurements yield something bigger by the "old school" Guimard and CONI formulas...more like a 60.5 c-t bike.
Its finally sunk in to the doof that to pedal like he used to, he needs to drop the heel and "ankle" a fair bit, something he lost the habit of when he took his three years off the bike.... Anyway, to pedal like that and not feel like he's sitting on the hump of the seat (a Flite), that sucker went all the way down to 78.5 -- shorter than you'd think for a guy with a 90cm inseam. This is going to be patently obvious to those who don't sit on their brains (unlike to doof), but all the old formulas were set for shoes with ~14mm soles and platform pedals.... Time or Speedplay and some ultra-thin soled shoes, and its a different ballpark...everything goes down by a 10-15mm.
All of this gets the doof thinking (which is usually a bad thing). If you're setting up the bike by leg extension and weight distribution, then are you talking about riding a much smaller bike than the old inseam x .65 or .67 paradigm?
Doof is realizing that with where his saddle is now, to have a bike that corners well in a crit he'll need a 57TT with a 120 stem, or a 56TT with a 130 (even better for sticking that front wheel...doof is more comfy with the 120 stem and 5 cm more drop on the gunnar, but it doesn't corner as well as it did with the 130)...which puts him on a smaller bike -- a 56 or 57cm c-t-c -- then he ever rode in the toe clip or Look days with traditional shoes (R7s have the super-thin carbon sole).
Doof is rambling and useless right now because he strained a quad by training too much and has to skip racing with Too Tall this weekend...but poses the question: do lower pedal/shoe stacks available now end up putting you on a shorter frame with a longer stem (which to doof's taste is a better race bike), or is the doof misguided?????"
yeah
what he
asked
Its finally sunk in to the doof that to pedal like he used to, he needs to drop the heel and "ankle" a fair bit, something he lost the habit of when he took his three years off the bike.... Anyway, to pedal like that and not feel like he's sitting on the hump of the seat (a Flite), that sucker went all the way down to 78.5 -- shorter than you'd think for a guy with a 90cm inseam. This is going to be patently obvious to those who don't sit on their brains (unlike to doof), but all the old formulas were set for shoes with ~14mm soles and platform pedals.... Time or Speedplay and some ultra-thin soled shoes, and its a different ballpark...everything goes down by a 10-15mm.
All of this gets the doof thinking (which is usually a bad thing). If you're setting up the bike by leg extension and weight distribution, then are you talking about riding a much smaller bike than the old inseam x .65 or .67 paradigm?
Doof is realizing that with where his saddle is now, to have a bike that corners well in a crit he'll need a 57TT with a 120 stem, or a 56TT with a 130 (even better for sticking that front wheel...doof is more comfy with the 120 stem and 5 cm more drop on the gunnar, but it doesn't corner as well as it did with the 130)...which puts him on a smaller bike -- a 56 or 57cm c-t-c -- then he ever rode in the toe clip or Look days with traditional shoes (R7s have the super-thin carbon sole).
Doof is rambling and useless right now because he strained a quad by training too much and has to skip racing with Too Tall this weekend...but poses the question: do lower pedal/shoe stacks available now end up putting you on a shorter frame with a longer stem (which to doof's taste is a better race bike), or is the doof misguided?????"
yeah
what he
asked