Sizing a Bike

[Tom Kunich]

Over the years I've followed this fad and that and one of them has been to
ride frame sizes one or two sizes smaller than you should be riding. Today
this also comes down to those idiotic "compact" frames that are too small in
all sizes.

The problem with small frames is that you cannot mount the bars in the
correct position. For most riders the handlebars should be about 1" below
the saddle height - when was the last time you saw that? Why magazine "test
bikes" invariably have photos of a racing bike with the bars perhaps 4"
below saddle height (some even more!) as if that were some sort of target.

Low bars cause you to ride with your neck craned back too far to see
forward. It also puts your genitals in a very painful position. Add to this
the ridiculous "ultralight" saddles which achieve lightening by making the
smallest possible saddle and here you are with a flat back, head craned up
40 degrees, weight falling forward and having to sit off to one side of the
saddle to avoid painful interactions.

When your bar tops are an inch below the saddle height the DROPS become
usable if and when you're in that racing pack. Today's drops are so low that
your arms are out straight as an arrow when you try to use them and you have
more drag than with your hands on the tops!

Anyone that's seen Jobst out riding would note immediately that he certainly
isn't following any bicycle magazine ads pertaining to bicycle fit. And most
people still can't stay with him when he's in a hurry.

[Paul M. Hobson]

Tom Kunich wrote:
> Over the years I've followed this fad and that and one of them has been
> to ride frame sizes one or two sizes smaller than you should be riding.
> Today this also comes down to those idiotic "compact" frames that are
> too small in all sizes.
>
> The problem with small frames is that you cannot mount the bars in the
> correct position. For most riders the handlebars should be about 1"
> below the saddle height - when was the last time you saw that? Why
> magazine "test bikes" invariably have photos of a racing bike with the
> bars perhaps 4" below saddle height (some even more!) as if that were
> some sort of target.
>
> Low bars cause you to ride with your neck craned back too far to see
> forward. It also puts your genitals in a very painful position. Add to
> this the ridiculous "ultralight" saddles which achieve lightening by
> making the smallest possible saddle and here you are with a flat back,
> head craned up 40 degrees, weight falling forward and having to sit off
> to one side of the saddle to avoid painful interactions.

I've been looking for a new frame lately. It seems that at least SOMA
Fabrications and Gunnar are making frames with taller headtubes "to
eliminate the need for so many spacers." It seems they get it, at least.

\\paul
ps. I think I'm going with the Gunnar. More $$$ but it's made in the US.
--
Paul M. Hobson
..:change the f to ph to reply:.

[Nick Payne]

Threadless carbon steerers make the problem even worse - most manufacturers
specify a maximum of 30mm or 40mm of spacers allowed between the headset and
stem.

Nick

"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in message
news:13shg9qoaghof4a@corp.supernews.com...
> Over the years I've followed this fad and that and one of them has been to
> ride frame sizes one or two sizes smaller than you should be riding. Today
> this also comes down to those idiotic "compact" frames that are too small
> in all sizes.
>
> The problem with small frames is that you cannot mount the bars in the
> correct position. For most riders the handlebars should be about 1" below
> the saddle height - when was the last time you saw that? Why magazine
> "test bikes" invariably have photos of a racing bike with the bars perhaps
> 4" below saddle height (some even more!) as if that were some sort of
> target.
>
> Low bars cause you to ride with your neck craned back too far to see
> forward. It also puts your genitals in a very painful position. Add to
> this the ridiculous "ultralight" saddles which achieve lightening by
> making the smallest possible saddle and here you are with a flat back,
> head craned up 40 degrees, weight falling forward and having to sit off to
> one side of the saddle to avoid painful interactions.
>
> When your bar tops are an inch below the saddle height the DROPS become
> usable if and when you're in that racing pack. Today's drops are so low
> that your arms are out straight as an arrow when you try to use them and
> you have more drag than with your hands on the tops!
>
> Anyone that's seen Jobst out riding would note immediately that he
> certainly isn't following any bicycle magazine ads pertaining to bicycle
> fit. And most people still can't stay with him when he's in a hurry.

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

> The problem with small frames is that you cannot mount the bars in the
> correct position. For most riders the handlebars should be about 1" below
> the saddle height - when was the last time you saw that? Why magazine
> "test bikes" invariably have photos of a racing bike with the bars perhaps
> 4" below saddle height (some even more!) as if that were some sort of
> target.

You need to be careful to separate the issue of too-low handlebars from
sloping top tubes. In many cases, so-called "compact" frames simply have a
top tube that slopes down from the front of the bike to the rear. The front
is every bit as high, and sometimes higher, than a traditional level
top-tube bike.

In the case of Trek, the high end bikes are available in two different
styles. Each has a sloping top tube, but the "Profit" has the front end at
exactly the same height as the previous level top-tube bikes, while the
"Performance" fit has the front end 3cm HIGHER than what had been the
standard.

And I'm told the industry standard is moving towards the higher front ends
on bikes. In most cases, what you might have seen as being a lower handlebar
is actually an illusion caused by the large amount of seatpost showing.

Whatever the case, it has never been easier for us to accomodate a cyclist
who would like a higher handlebar position.

In the end, the only thing that matters is the minimum "drop" you can
accomplish between the seat and handlebar. The evidence is that bars are
getting higher, not lower, compared to seat height.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA


"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in message
news:13shg9qoaghof4a@corp.supernews.com...
> Over the years I've followed this fad and that and one of them has been to
> ride frame sizes one or two sizes smaller than you should be riding. Today
> this also comes down to those idiotic "compact" frames that are too small
> in all sizes.
>
> The problem with small frames is that you cannot mount the bars in the
> correct position. For most riders the handlebars should be about 1" below
> the saddle height - when was the last time you saw that? Why magazine
> "test bikes" invariably have photos of a racing bike with the bars perhaps
> 4" below saddle height (some even more!) as if that were some sort of
> target.
>
> Low bars cause you to ride with your neck craned back too far to see
> forward. It also puts your genitals in a very painful position. Add to
> this the ridiculous "ultralight" saddles which achieve lightening by
> making the smallest possible saddle and here you are with a flat back,
> head craned up 40 degrees, weight falling forward and having to sit off to
> one side of the saddle to avoid painful interactions.
>
> When your bar tops are an inch below the saddle height the DROPS become
> usable if and when you're in that racing pack. Today's drops are so low
> that your arms are out straight as an arrow when you try to use them and
> you have more drag than with your hands on the tops!
>
> Anyone that's seen Jobst out riding would note immediately that he
> certainly isn't following any bicycle magazine ads pertaining to bicycle
> fit. And most people still can't stay with him when he's in a hurry.

[Luke]

In article <13shg9qoaghof4a@corp.supernews.com>, Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@yahoo.> wrote:

> Over the years I've followed this fad and that and one of them has been to
> ride frame sizes one or two sizes smaller than you should be riding. Today
> this also comes down to those idiotic "compact" frames that are too small in
> all sizes.
>
> The problem with small frames is that you cannot mount the bars in the
> correct position. For most riders the handlebars should be about 1" below
> the saddle height - when was the last time you saw that? Why magazine "test
> bikes" invariably have photos of a racing bike with the bars perhaps 4"
> below saddle height (some even more!) as if that were some sort of target.
>
<snip>

I suspect that buycycling mags espouse this esthetic because there is a
market buying into this racer chic fetish. The 'high performance', and
presumably, high margin accessory business is built upon it. In some
ways commerce behaves likes nature: it abhors a vacuum; and those that
don't know any better have no shortage of those willing to tell them
what is better.

Happily my casual observations reveal a disassociation from what's most
commonly and prominently featured in the glossy shills of the trade and
what's between the legs of local cyclists. Heresy that so many of the
provincial velo Luddites eschew the high price bling and cling
stubbornly to practical designs and inexpensive models.

Let the velo-zines indulge the myth that discomfort is the price of
speed. After all, why would one expect them to behave any differently
from their car and motorcycle counterparts that frequently feature the
exotic and impractical?

[A Muzi]

Tom Kunich wrote:
> Over the years I've followed this fad and that and one of them has been
> to ride frame sizes one or two sizes smaller than you should be riding.
> Today this also comes down to those idiotic "compact" frames that are
> too small in all sizes.
>
> The problem with small frames is that you cannot mount the bars in the
> correct position. For most riders the handlebars should be about 1"
> below the saddle height - when was the last time you saw that? Why
> magazine "test bikes" invariably have photos of a racing bike with the
> bars perhaps 4" below saddle height (some even more!) as if that were
> some sort of target.
>
> Low bars cause you to ride with your neck craned back too far to see
> forward. It also puts your genitals in a very painful position. Add to
> this the ridiculous "ultralight" saddles which achieve lightening by
> making the smallest possible saddle and here you are with a flat back,
> head craned up 40 degrees, weight falling forward and having to sit off
> to one side of the saddle to avoid painful interactions.
>
> When your bar tops are an inch below the saddle height the DROPS become
> usable if and when you're in that racing pack. Today's drops are so low
> that your arms are out straight as an arrow when you try to use them and
> you have more drag than with your hands on the tops!
>
> Anyone that's seen Jobst out riding would note immediately that he
> certainly isn't following any bicycle magazine ads pertaining to bicycle
> fit. And most people still can't stay with him when he's in a hurry.

You're singing my song, Tom. Modern bikes sold elsewhere keep us quite
busy with tall stem sales.

If you find a solution, would you start working on monster trucks, please?
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[still just me]

On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 18:36:39 -0800, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo.
com> wrote:

>Over the years I've followed this fad and that and one of them has been to
>ride frame sizes one or two sizes smaller than you should be riding. Today
>this also comes down to those idiotic "compact" frames that are too small in
>all sizes.

Obvious justification for riding retro steel.

[Werehatrack]

On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 18:36:39 -0800, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo.
com> may have said:

>Over the years I've followed this fad and that and one of them has been to
>ride frame sizes one or two sizes smaller than you should be riding. Today
>this also comes down to those idiotic "compact" frames that are too small in
>all sizes.
>
>The problem with small frames is that you cannot mount the bars in the
>correct position. For most riders the handlebars should be about 1" below
>the saddle height - when was the last time you saw that? Why magazine "test
>bikes" invariably have photos of a racing bike with the bars perhaps 4"
>below saddle height (some even more!) as if that were some sort of target.
>
>Low bars cause you to ride with your neck craned back too far to see
>forward. It also puts your genitals in a very painful position. Add to this
>the ridiculous "ultralight" saddles which achieve lightening by making the
>smallest possible saddle and here you are with a flat back, head craned up
>40 degrees, weight falling forward and having to sit off to one side of the
>saddle to avoid painful interactions.
>
>When your bar tops are an inch below the saddle height the DROPS become
>usable if and when you're in that racing pack. Today's drops are so low that
>your arms are out straight as an arrow when you try to use them and you have
>more drag than with your hands on the tops!
>
>Anyone that's seen Jobst out riding would note immediately that he certainly
>isn't following any bicycle magazine ads pertaining to bicycle fit. And most
>people still can't stay with him when he's in a hurry.

Less bike + same price = more profit, no?

Would I be accused of being too cynical if I said that I believe the
chain store outlets care more about volume than proper service at the
time of sale? Is it naive to think that among those who buy bikes,
there are more people who have no idea what constitutes a proper fit
than there are folks who know what a proper fit will be for them? Is
it perhaps supportable to contend that a lot of the folks buying bikes
do not ride them enough to develop enough of an opinion about fit
issues that a properly fitted bike would make a real difference to
them? (I'll admit that if the bike was properly fitted, they might
find it easier to ride...but I'm no longer convinced that they'll
really notice the difference right away, and I have my doubts about
whether anything short of a gross mistfit would actually deter them
from the small amount of riding that they do...and a better fit would
not necessarily get them on the bike more often. IMLE, it's not that
they couldn't tell the difference, it's that to them the bike is
merely an alternate transport and/or a means to facilitate something
*else*, and it is not riding that is their principal focus. If the
bike works *at all*, they are satisfied.)

--
My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
Typoes are not a bug, they're a feature.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

[SMS]

Tom Kunich wrote:
> Over the years I've followed this fad and that and one of them has been
> to ride frame sizes one or two sizes smaller than you should be riding.
> Today this also comes down to those idiotic "compact" frames that are
> too small in all sizes.

Compact frames are a convenience for the manufacturers. Usually can have
they have fewer frame sizes and they can pack more bicycles in a single
shipping container. Of course they had to come up with some
rationalizations to justify this insanity.

Threadless headsets allow the manufacturer to have a single fork size,
rather than manufacturing different sizes for each frame. It wouldn't
have been so bad if they had come up with another method of adjusting
bar height, but for many years they just cut the steer tube way too low.

Now you see a lot more manufacturers leaving steer tube longer, and
adding a bunch of spacers, but there is a limit to the the length that
some manufacturers permit, especially for carbon. The problem is less
bad than it was in the early days of compact frames and threadless
headsets, and there is always the option of using an extension.

I'm going to the Taipei International Cycle show next week, and it's
always interesting to see all the strange accessories that accessory
manufacturers have come up with to solve design issues that bicycle
designers and manufacturers have created.

It's a win-win for everyone except the cyclist, who ends up having to
purchase extra accessory products just to end up with a usable product.
Rather than the manufacturer doing the design right, and including
necessary accessories at a fraction of their retail cost, new jobs and
new revenue are created along the entire supply chain.

[russellseaton1@yahoo.com]

On Feb 29, 8:36*pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> Over the years I've followed this fad and that and one of them has been to
> ride frame sizes one or two sizes smaller than you should be riding.

You've been riding for years and you buy bikes one or two sizes too
small? Didn't you learn anything the first time you made this
mistake? How many times do you have to repeat a mistake to learn? I
bought one bike too small. Just one.



Today
> this also comes down to those idiotic "compact" frames that are too small in
> all sizes.
>
> The problem with small frames is that you cannot mount the bars in the
> correct position. For most riders the handlebars should be about 1" below
> the saddle height - when was the last time you saw that?

No thanks. 1" drop is not nearly enough. Its OK on the loaded
touring bike. But on the road bikes, 3" is my drop.



Why magazine "test
> bikes" invariably have photos of a racing bike with the bars perhaps 4"
> below saddle height (some even more!) as if that were some sort of target.
>
> Low bars cause you to ride with your neck craned back too far to see
> forward. It also puts your genitals in a very painful position. Add to this
> the ridiculous "ultralight" saddles which achieve lightening by making the
> smallest possible saddle and here you are with a flat back, head craned up
> 40 degrees, weight falling forward and having to sit off to one side of the
> saddle to avoid painful interactions.


Brooks saddles are quite comfortable. Much wider than those plastic
torture devices. You can ride hours and hours comfortably on a Brooks
saddle.


>
> When your bar tops are an inch below the saddle height the DROPS become
> usable if and when you're in that racing pack. Today's drops are so low that
> your arms are out straight as an arrow when you try to use them and you have
> more drag than with your hands on the tops!

TTT Morphe handlebars. Shallow 140mm drop. Medium-long reach. Drops
are usable for hours and hours at a time. Another thing I learned
long ago, bars are different. Deep drop bars are not for me. So I
don't buy them. I use shallow drop bars so I can comfortably ride in
the drops.



>
> Anyone that's seen Jobst out riding would note immediately that he certainly
> isn't following any bicycle magazine ads pertaining to bicycle fit. And most
> people still can't stay with him when he's in a hurry.

[SMS]

On Feb 29, 7:54 pm, "Paul M. Hobson" <fob...@gatech.edu> wrote:

> I've been looking for a new frame lately. It seems that at least SOMA
> Fabrications and Gunnar are making frames with taller headtubes "to
> eliminate the need for so many spacers." It seems they get it, at least.

There are two adjustable height stems for threadless headsets at the
Taipei Cycle show. One is from Germany, the SpeedLifter. Not sold in
the U.S. yet. The other is the Satori Easy-Up, see "http://
www.satoribike.com/page03_01_01.asp?ID=99771E97-66AD-461C-9CC9-D01600CBC72A"

Not clear if it's sold in the U.S., I could not get a straight answer
from the sales people at the HL Corp booth. They sell through Zoom,
but I have no idea if Zoom is distributing this product in the U.S..

I've run into this quite a bit at the show. There will be an
interesting product, but the manufacturer already has an exclusive
distributer in the U.S., but the distributer doesn't carry the
interesting product. Since the manufacturer won't sell to anyone else
but the distributor, the product remains unavailable.

[Lou Holtman]

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>> The problem with small frames is that you cannot mount the bars in the
>> correct position. For most riders the handlebars should be about 1" below
>> the saddle height - when was the last time you saw that? Why magazine
>> "test bikes" invariably have photos of a racing bike with the bars perhaps
>> 4" below saddle height (some even more!) as if that were some sort of
>> target.
>
> You need to be careful to separate the issue of too-low handlebars from
> sloping top tubes. In many cases, so-called "compact" frames simply have a
> top tube that slopes down from the front of the bike to the rear. The front
> is every bit as high, and sometimes higher, than a traditional level
> top-tube bike.
>
> In the case of Trek, the high end bikes are available in two different
> styles. Each has a sloping top tube, but the "Profit" has the front end at
> exactly the same height as the previous level top-tube bikes, while the
> "Performance" fit has the front end 3cm HIGHER than what had been the
> standard.
>
> And I'm told the industry standard is moving towards the higher front ends
> on bikes. In most cases, what you might have seen as being a lower handlebar
> is actually an illusion caused by the large amount of seatpost showing.
>
> Whatever the case, it has never been easier for us to accomodate a cyclist
> who would like a higher handlebar position.
>
> In the end, the only thing that matters is the minimum "drop" you can
> accomplish between the seat and handlebar. The evidence is that bars are
> getting higher, not lower, compared to seat height.
>
> --Mike Jacoubowsky
> Chain Reaction Bicycles
> www.ChainReaction.com
> Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
>
>
> "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in message
> news:13shg9qoaghof4a@corp.supernews.com...
>> Over the years I've followed this fad and that and one of them has been to
>> ride frame sizes one or two sizes smaller than you should be riding. Today
>> this also comes down to those idiotic "compact" frames that are too small
>> in all sizes.
>>
>> The problem with small frames is that you cannot mount the bars in the
>> correct position. For most riders the handlebars should be about 1" below
>> the saddle height - when was the last time you saw that? Why magazine
>> "test bikes" invariably have photos of a racing bike with the bars perhaps
>> 4" below saddle height (some even more!) as if that were some sort of
>> target.
>>
>> Low bars cause you to ride with your neck craned back too far to see
>> forward. It also puts your genitals in a very painful position. Add to
>> this the ridiculous "ultralight" saddles which achieve lightening by
>> making the smallest possible saddle and here you are with a flat back,
>> head craned up 40 degrees, weight falling forward and having to sit off to
>> one side of the saddle to avoid painful interactions.
>>
>> When your bar tops are an inch below the saddle height the DROPS become
>> usable if and when you're in that racing pack. Today's drops are so low
>> that your arms are out straight as an arrow when you try to use them and
>> you have more drag than with your hands on the tops!
>>
>> Anyone that's seen Jobst out riding would note immediately that he
>> certainly isn't following any bicycle magazine ads pertaining to bicycle
>> fit. And most people still can't stay with him when he's in a hurry.
>
>


I agree. Yesterday I got the latest issue of TOUR magazine on my
doormat. They tested 24 top carbon frames, most of them sloping frames.
The headtube lenght of all those frames with a effective toptube lenght
of 56-58 cm, are:
155, 175, 170, 160, 170, 155, 160, 170, 170, 158, 176, 175, 160, 158,
183, 175, 170, 162, 170, 160, 155, 170, 160, 160 mm. Considerably larger
then the 125 mm headtube of my 'old' Litespeed Classic with horizontal
toptube.

Lou

[Tom Sherman]

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> [...]
> In the case of Trek, the high end bikes are available in two different
> styles. Each has a sloping top tube, but the "Profit" has the front end at
> exactly the same height as the previous level top-tube bikes[...]

Does the "Profit" include additional markup to the price? ;)

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

[bigjimpack@gmail.com]

I don't undrstand why bike makers (at least moderate to high end) dont
just ship bikes with the fork ster tube uncut or at least leave it
longer. Then the dealer can easily custom fit it to the rider. When
I bought my Lemond in 02 I noticd there wre a good number of spacers.
The shop said they want people to ride and get the right height then
they will gladly cut it. I never went back as it was prfect. This
saves the manufacturer time and money
and allows riders to get a more comfy ride. I know this may not apply
to carbon ster tubes but for others it would be ideal.

On Mar 1, 1:04*am, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com> wrote:
> > The problem with small frames is that you cannot mount the bars in the
> > correct position. For most riders the handlebars should be about 1" below
> > the saddle height - when was the last time you saw that? Why magazine
> > "test bikes" invariably have photos of a racing bike with the bars perhaps
> > 4" below saddle height (some even more!) as if that were some sort of
> > target.
>
> You need to be careful to separate the issue of too-low handlebars from
> sloping top tubes. In many cases, so-called "compact" frames simply have a
> top tube that slopes down from the front of the bike to the rear. The front
> is every bit as high, and sometimes higher, than a traditional level
> top-tube bike.
>
> In the case of Trek, the high end bikes are available in two different
> styles. Each has a sloping top tube, but the "Profit" has the front end at
> exactly the same height as the previous level top-tube bikes, while the
> "Performance" fit has the front end 3cm HIGHER than what had been the
> standard.
>
> And I'm told the industry standard is moving towards the higher front ends
> on bikes. In most cases, what you might have seen as being a lower handlebar
> is actually an illusion caused by the large amount of seatpost showing.
>
> Whatever the case, it has never been easier for us to accomodate a cyclist
> who would like a higher handlebar position.
>
> In the end, the only thing that matters is the minimum "drop" you can
> accomplish between the seat and handlebar. The evidence is that bars are
> getting higher, not lower, compared to seat height.
>
> --Mike Jacoubowsky
> Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReaction.com
> Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
>
> "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in messagenews:13shg9qoaghof4a@corp.supernews.com...
>
>
>
> > Over the years I've followed this fad and that and one of them has been to
> > ride frame sizes one or two sizes smaller than you should be riding. Today
> > this also comes down to those idiotic "compact" frames that are too small
> > in all sizes.
>
> > The problem with small frames is that you cannot mount the bars in the
> > correct position. For most riders the handlebars should be about 1" below
> > the saddle height - when was the last time you saw that? Why magazine
> > "test bikes" invariably have photos of a racing bike with the bars perhaps
> > 4" below saddle height (some even more!) as if that were some sort of
> > target.
>
> > Low bars cause you to ride with your neck craned back too far to see
> > forward. It also puts your genitals in a very painful position. Add to
> > this the ridiculous "ultralight" saddles which achieve lightening by
> > making the smallest possible saddle and here you are with a flat back,
> > head craned up 40 degrees, weight falling forward and having to sit off to
> > one side of the saddle to avoid painful interactions.
>
> > When your bar tops are an inch below the saddle height the DROPS become
> > usable if and when you're in that racing pack. Today's drops are so low
> > that your arms are out straight as an arrow when you try to use them and
> > you have more drag than with your hands on the tops!
>
> > Anyone that's seen Jobst out riding would note immediately that he
> > certainly isn't following any bicycle magazine ads pertaining to bicycle
> > fit. And most people still can't stay with him when he's in a hurry.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Tom Sherman]

Andrew Muzi wrote:
> Tom Kunich wrote:
> [...]
>> Anyone that's seen Jobst out riding would note immediately that he
>> certainly isn't following any bicycle magazine ads pertaining to
>> bicycle fit. And most people still can't stay with him when he's in a
>> hurry.
>
> You're singing my song, Tom. Modern bikes sold elsewhere keep us quite
> busy with tall stem sales.
>
> If you find a solution, would you start working on monster trucks, please?

butbutbut, Jobst needs the monster trucks to park his bicycle against:
<http://i1.tinypic.com/505ukc2.jpg>. ;)

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

[SMS]

A Muzi wrote:

> You're singing my song, Tom. Modern bikes sold elsewhere keep us quite
> busy with tall stem sales.

It seems like every decontenting or defeaturing has the silver lining
for shops of increasing high-margin parts and accessory sales. I needed
a headset extender and went to REI and they said they sell them as fast
as they get them in.

I wish that the Speedlifter was sold in the U.S.
"http://www.speedlifter.com/en/information/faq_e.html".

[Tom Kunich]

"still just me" <wheeledBobNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:do4js353e29kim0bmfausrjo6054oct98k@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 18:36:39 -0800, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo.
> com> wrote:
>
>>Over the years I've followed this fad and that and one of them has been to
>>ride frame sizes one or two sizes smaller than you should be riding. Today
>>this also comes down to those idiotic "compact" frames that are too small
>>in
>>all sizes.
>
> Obvious justification for riding retro steel.

Indeed and I've noticed that lugged steel bikes are actually becoming more
valuable.

[A Muzi]

>> Tom Kunich wrote:
>> [...]
>>> Anyone that's seen Jobst out riding would note immediately that he
>>> certainly isn't following any bicycle magazine ads pertaining to
>>> bicycle fit. And most people still can't stay with him when he's in a
>>> hurry.

> Andrew Muzi wrote:
>> You're singing my song, Tom. Modern bikes sold elsewhere keep us quite
>> busy with tall stem sales.
>> If you find a solution, would you start working on monster trucks,
>> please?

Tom Sherman wrote:
> butbutbut, Jobst needs the monster trucks to park his bicycle against:
> <http://i1.tinypic.com/505ukc2.jpg>. ;)

That one seems almost benign. Different story when the pilot's on a cell
phone, coffee in the other hand, wildly gesticulating as it drifts into
my lane.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Tom Sherman:
><http://i1.tinypic.com/505ukc2.jpg>. ;)

Looks like a *really* tall bike.

Is Jobst that tall?
--
PeteCresswell

[Tom Sherman]

Andrew Muzi wrote:
>>> Tom Kunich wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>> Anyone that's seen Jobst out riding would note immediately that he
>>>> certainly isn't following any bicycle magazine ads pertaining to
>>>> bicycle fit. And most people still can't stay with him when he's in
>>>> a hurry.
>
>> Andrew Muzi wrote:
>>> You're singing my song, Tom. Modern bikes sold elsewhere keep us
>>> quite busy with tall stem sales.
>>> If you find a solution, would you start working on monster trucks,
>>> please?
>
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> butbutbut, Jobst needs the monster trucks to park his bicycle against:
>> <http://i1.tinypic.com/505ukc2.jpg>. ;)
>
> That one seems almost benign. Different story when the pilot's on a cell
> phone, coffee in the other hand, wildly gesticulating as it drifts into
> my lane.

I have woken up a couple of these people in vehicles (driver seems too
generous a term) with an Air Zound horn, when they came too close.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

[Colin Campbell]

Wow! It's been a while since I saw a bike with clearance for a pump
behind the seat tube. I'm guessing that isn't his climbing bike....

[Ozark Bicycle]

On Mar 1, 2:20*pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
wrote:
> Andrew Muzi wrote:
> >>> Tom Kunich wrote:
> >>> [...]
> >>>> Anyone that's seen Jobst out riding would note immediately that he
> >>>> certainly isn't following any bicycle magazine ads pertaining to
> >>>> bicycle fit. And most people still can't stay with him when he's in
> >>>> a hurry.
>
> >> Andrew Muzi wrote:
> >>> You're singing my song, Tom. Modern bikes sold elsewhere keep us
> >>> quite busy with tall stem sales.
> >>> If you find a solution, would you start working on monster trucks,
> >>> please?
>
> > Tom Sherman wrote:
> >> butbutbut, Jobst needs the monster trucks to park his bicycle against:
> >> <http://i1.tinypic.com/505ukc2.jpg>. ;)
>
> > That one seems almost benign. Different story when the pilot's on a cell
> > phone, coffee in the other hand, wildly gesticulating as it drifts into
> > my lane.
>
> I have woken up a couple of these people in vehicles (driver seems too
> generous a term) with an Air Zound horn, when they came too close.
>

A couple of blasts from an Air Zound will bring even the densest of
blonde bimbos out of their cell phone induced stupor.

[Jay Beattie]

On Mar 1, 1:35*pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> "still just me" <wheeledBobNOS...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:do4js353e29kim0bmfausrjo6054oct98k@4ax .com...
>
> > On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 18:36:39 -0800, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo.
> > com> wrote:
>
> >>Over the years I've followed this fad and that and one of them has been to
> >>ride frame sizes one or two sizes smaller than you should be riding. Today
> >>this also comes down to those idiotic "compact" frames that are too small
> >>in
> >>all sizes.
>
> > Obvious justification for riding retro steel.
>
> Indeed and I've noticed that lugged steel bikes are actually becoming more
> valuable.

Except a lot of the Italian retro steel frames in my size -- 63/4 cm
-- had short top tubes, like 58.5. That's one reason I like more
modern frames. What is odd to me is that I loved my old steel frames
in the '70s and '80s and put tons of miles on them, but now when I
ride my last remaining vintage steel frame bike, it gives me a back
ache because it is too cramped in the cockpit. I guess I stretched
out. -- Jay Beattie.

[Tom Sherman]

(PeteCresswell) wrote:
> Per Tom Sherman:
>> <http://i1.tinypic.com/505ukc2.jpg>. ;)
>
> Looks like a *really* tall bike.
>
> Is Jobst that tall?

Why, yes. <http://www.sbraweb.org/photos/2001/jobst/jobst.jpg>.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

[Tom Sherman]

Colin Campbell wrote:
> Wow! It's been a while since I saw a bike with clearance for a pump
> behind the seat tube. I'm guessing that isn't his climbing bike....

Here is Jobst climbing an alpine pass on said yellow bicycle:
<http://www.kenpapai.com/cycling/rbr/jobst1.jpg>.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

[mtb Dad]

By all means ride the position that is comfortable. But since
aerodynamics are such a factor in cycling, I find it puzzlng that
cyclists don't discuss flexibility training that would allow the lower
positions in comfort. Especially say, compared to other factors that
enjoy vigorous discussion such a frame material, weight, and other
more marginal improvements. I hurt my back a few years ago, and found
the physiotherapy actually made my riding more comfortable. I've kept
up the streching for fear of that pain again, and enjoy the position I
adopted as a teen doing pursuits (ie low bars). (I'm 50 in a month).
Granted, stretching requires some dedication, but frredom from back
pain , with an aero position as a bonus, seems worth it. No pressure
on the tender bits either if you're flexible enough to ride with your
pelvis rolled back a bit.

[Paul M. Hobson]

mtb Dad wrote:
> By all means ride the position that is comfortable. But since
> aerodynamics are such a factor in cycling, I find it puzzlng that
> cyclists don't discuss flexibility training that would allow the lower
> positions in comfort.

Flexibility is important, but let's take my bike for example. The stem
is 1 inch below the nose of the saddle. Tops and hoods are very
comfortable. My drops aren't very far away, so they're good and nice
too. If I'm really hammering away, all I have to do is bend my elbows
slightly and my back is quite flat.

Getting aerodynamic doesn't do squat if you have to keep your arms
straight to do so (leads to numb hands, sore arms, etc IME). Raising
the bars encourages me to bend my elbows and seems to have been a very
good thing. I'm 25 and pretty limber, BTW.

--
Paul M. Hobson
..:change the f to ph to reply:.

[mtb Dad]

On Mar 2, 2:46*pm, "Paul M. Hobson" <fob...@gatech.edu> wrote:
> mtb Dad wrote:
> > By all means ride the position that is comfortable. *But since
> > aerodynamics are such a factor in cycling, I find it puzzlng that
> > cyclists don't discuss flexibility training that would allow the lower
> > positions in comfort. *
>
> Flexibility is important, but let's take my bike for example. *The stem
> is 1 inch below the nose of the saddle. *Tops and hoods are very
> comfortable. *My drops aren't very far away, so they're good and nice
> too. *If I'm really hammering away, all I have to do is bend my elbows
> slightly and my back is quite flat.
>
> Getting aerodynamic doesn't do squat if you have to keep your arms
> straight to do so (leads to numb hands, sore arms, etc IME). *Raising
> the bars encourages me to bend my elbows and seems to have been a very
> good thing. *I'm 25 and pretty limber, BTW.
>
> --
> Paul M. Hobson
> .:change the f to ph to reply:.

I should have added I'm about 6'2". The original post suggests that
the seat/bar difference is not size dependant; taller riders generally
have a bigger difference in height from seat to bars.

On your point, you can only bend your elbows so much for so long. If
you mean locked elbows, I agreee this is undesireable, but it's a
sympton of discomfort, which could mean too low a position, or lack of
flexibility.

And all things being equal, a low position also allows you to bend
your elbows when you really want to get out of the wind. Like
following a very strong short guy when you're last in the paceline and
it's a long way to coffee. ;-)

I'm not suggesting anyone should ride an uncomfortable position to get
aero. Just saying that increased flexibility will make a lower
position comfortable.

[Paul M. Hobson]

mtb Dad wrote:
> On Mar 2, 2:46 pm, "Paul M. Hobson" <fob...@gatech.edu> wrote:
>> mtb Dad wrote:
>>> By all means ride the position that is comfortable. But since
>>> aerodynamics are such a factor in cycling, I find it puzzlng that
>>> cyclists don't discuss flexibility training that would allow the lower
>>> positions in comfort.
>> Flexibility is important, but let's take my bike for example. The stem
>> is 1 inch below the nose of the saddle. Tops and hoods are very
>> comfortable. My drops aren't very far away, so they're good and nice
>> too. If I'm really hammering away, all I have to do is bend my elbows
>> slightly and my back is quite flat.
>>
>> Getting aerodynamic doesn't do squat if you have to keep your arms
>> straight to do so (leads to numb hands, sore arms, etc IME). Raising
>> the bars encourages me to bend my elbows and seems to have been a very
>> good thing. I'm 25 and pretty limber, BTW.
>>
>> --
>> Paul M. Hobson
>> .:change the f to ph to reply:.
>
> I should have added I'm about 6'2". The original post suggests that
> the seat/bar difference is not size dependant; taller riders generally
> have a bigger difference in height from seat to bars.

I've really only ever been one height, but this makes sense to me.

> On your point, you can only bend your elbows so much for so long. If
> you mean locked elbows, I agreee this is undesireable, but it's a
> sympton of discomfort, which could mean too low a position, or lack of
> flexibility.

I can ride with bent elbows *much* longer than straight ones. Maybe my
arms are just right so that locking my elbows perfectly cuts off the
circulation to my hands. Regardless, I find any position (tops, hoods,
drops, flat bar, whatever) much more comfortable with some bend in the
elbows.

> And all things being equal, a low position also allows you to bend
> your elbows when you really want to get out of the wind. Like
> following a very strong short guy when you're last in the paceline and
> it's a long way to coffee. ;-)

Certainly, but I can get pretty low with bent elbows.

> I'm not suggesting anyone should ride an uncomfortable position to get
> aero. Just saying that increased flexibility will make a lower
> position comfortable.

I think we're pretty much in agreement here. The problem arises when
frames get shipped with forks that are already chopped down pretty low.
For the average guy who wants to start commuting or finally get in
shape, it'd be best if they left the bars nice and high, and the brought
them down as the rider wishes/gets more flexible/whatever. Like most
things in life, I think folks would benefit from being informed and
having a choice in the matter.

My wrist is still recovering from an accident 1.5 years ago and I'll
need to have another surgery as soon as my lab work for my thesis is
done. So that's my plan with my next bike that'll come after the
surgery. Start the bars out at the seat, then bring them down as my
wrist gets back to 100%.
--
Paul M. Hobson
..:change the f to ph to reply:.

[Kenneth]

On Mon, 3 Mar 2008 07:42:31 -0800 (PST), mtb Dad
<listerfarrar@telus.net> wrote:

>
>I'm not suggesting anyone should ride an uncomfortable position to get
>aero. Just saying that increased flexibility will make a lower
>position comfortable.

Howdy,

I had a funny experience:

Years ago, I bought a Bruce Gordon touring frame and stem.
The size, angles etc. were based on conversations with
Bruce.

When I built up the bicycle and took my first ride, it felt
to me that the bars were so low, and far out, as to be
almost impossible for me.

As it turned out, I had an adjustable stem, and figured that
I would experiment with it until I found a really
comfortable stem position. Then at that point, I planned to
have Bruce make a stem for me with dimensions that would hit
that sweet spot.

(Hey, can you see where we are going with this...?)

Sooooo, eventually (and with more tweaking than I ever
expected) I had real comfort. I wrote down all the
information for my call to Bruce.

But, before placing the call, for comparison, I thought to
dig out the stem he had provided with the frame.

It was virtually identical to the "made to measure" stem I
was about to order!

"Increased flexibility" had made a world of difference.

All the best,
--
Kenneth

If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS."

[andresmuro@aol.com]

On Mar 3, 8:42 am, mtb Dad <listerfar...@telus.net> wrote:
> On Mar 2, 2:46 pm, "Paul M. Hobson" <fob...@gatech.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
> > mtb Dad wrote:
> > > By all means ride the position that is comfortable. But since
> > > aerodynamics are such a factor in cycling, I find it puzzlng that
> > > cyclists don't discuss flexibility training that would allow the lower
> > > positions in comfort.
>
> > Flexibility is important, but let's take my bike for example. The stem
> > is 1 inch below the nose of the saddle. Tops and hoods are very
> > comfortable. My drops aren't very far away, so they're good and nice
> > too. If I'm really hammering away, all I have to do is bend my elbows
> > slightly and my back is quite flat.
>
> > Getting aerodynamic doesn't do squat if you have to keep your arms
> > straight to do so (leads to numb hands, sore arms, etc IME). Raising
> > the bars encourages me to bend my elbows and seems to have been a very
> > good thing. I'm 25 and pretty limber, BTW.
>
> > --
> > Paul M. Hobson
> > .:change the f to ph to reply:.
>
> I should have added I'm about 6'2". The original post suggests that
> the seat/bar difference is not size dependant; taller riders generally
> have a bigger difference in height from seat to bars.
>
> On your point, you can only bend your elbows so much for so long. If
> you mean locked elbows, I agreee this is undesireable, but it's a
> sympton of discomfort, which could mean too low a position, or lack of
> flexibility.
>
> And all things being equal, a low position also allows you to bend
> your elbows when you really want to get out of the wind. Like
> following a very strong short guy when you're last in the paceline and
> it's a long way to coffee. ;-)
>
> I'm not suggesting anyone should ride an uncomfortable position to get
> aero. Just saying that increased flexibility will make a lower
> position comfortable.

Another factor is arm and leg length compared to torso. pro cyclists
tend to have longer extremities and shorter torsos, while average
Americans tend to be longer torsoed and shorter legged/armed.

Of course pro cyclists spend 6 to 10 hours a day on bicycles and most
of us spend that much a week or less. So no matter how much we work on
flex, ours does not likely approach the flexibility of a pro.

I have a tt and a road bike. both have the bars almost leveled with
the saddle. I still can get a fairly aero position on both and ride
comfortably on the drops or aeros for quite a long time. Also, I tend
to have the saddle a little further forward, reducing the angle
between my hamstrings and my back. I used to start getting sore on my
lower back after 2 ours on the saddle. Now, I can pretty much ride
forever on my aero bars with not a hint of pain.

When I ride with groups, my bikes don't look as "pro" as everyones
elses. However, I can get more aero than most and I can keep up with
most people. There are a few top level cyclists and triathletes that
kick my butt and ride comfortably with extreme positions. But most
don't look comfortable or ride very fast.

Andres

[mtb Dad]

On Mar 3, 2:23*pm, Kenneth <use...@soleSPAMLESSassociates.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Mar 2008 07:42:31 -0800 (PST), mtb Dad
>
> <listerfar...@telus.net> wrote:
>
> >I'm not suggesting anyone should ride an uncomfortable position to get
> >aero. *Just saying that increased flexibility will make a lower
> >position comfortable.
>
> Howdy,
>
> I had a funny experience:
>
> Years ago, I bought a Bruce Gordon touring frame and stem.
> The size, angles etc. were based on conversations with
> Bruce.
>
> When I built up the bicycle and took my first ride, it felt
> to me that the bars were so low, and far out, as to be
> almost impossible for me.
>
> As it turned out, I had an adjustable stem, and figured that
> I would experiment with it until I found a really
> comfortable stem position. Then at that point, I planned to
> have Bruce make a stem for me with dimensions that would hit
> that sweet spot.
>
> (Hey, can you see where we are going with this...?)
>
> Sooooo, eventually (and with more tweaking than I ever
> expected) I had real comfort. I wrote down all the
> information for my call to Bruce.
>
> But, before placing the call, for comparison, I thought to
> dig out the stem he had provided with the frame.
>
> It was virtually identical to the "made to measure" stem I
> was about to order!
>
> "Increased flexibility" had made a world of difference.
>
> All the best,
> --
> Kenneth
>
> If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS."

Good story. Careful, we'll get labelled as forcing people into
'expert' postions.

I think a lot of people feel that way when they get on a road bike for
the first time. Especially in a store, when they are not bearing any
weight with the legs in pedalling, the bars feel very low and far
away.

I taught a road cycling class today to novice college students. A
good local shop provided road bikes (mostly racey 105 road bikes),
albeit with guesstimated fit. Most didn't like the feel in the
parking lot, but complained less over the ride and even seemed
comfortable by the end.

' had a similar experience learning to speed skate. Nothing but pain
at first, then an older guy skated with me and taught me to curl my
back more (vs bending mostly at the waist and hip). A little
stretching on the carpet before skating (rolling on my back while
curled up), and I was pain free for 8 km stretches.

Cheers
L

[Kenneth]

On Mon, 3 Mar 2008 23:07:44 -0800 (PST), mtb Dad
<listerfarrar@telus.net> wrote:
>
>Good story. Careful, we'll get labelled as forcing people into
>'expert' postions.
>
>I think a lot of people feel that way when they get on a road bike for
>the first time. Especially in a store, when they are not bearing any
>weight with the legs in pedalling, the bars feel very low and far
>away.
>
>I taught a road cycling class today to novice college students. A
>good local shop provided road bikes (mostly racey 105 road bikes),
>albeit with guesstimated fit. Most didn't like the feel in the
>parking lot, but complained less over the ride and even seemed
>comfortable by the end.
>
>' had a similar experience learning to speed skate. Nothing but pain
>at first, then an older guy skated with me and taught me to curl my
>back more (vs bending mostly at the waist and hip). A little
>stretching on the carpet before skating (rolling on my back while
>curled up), and I was pain free for 8 km stretches.
>
>Cheers
>L

Hi again,

Thanks for you interesting comments.

I'll mention another fit thing...

When I called Bruce originally, I had assumed that he would
want information about all the specific fit characteristics
of the frame I wanted, but, despite lots of experience, and
lots of reading over many years, I knew that I really did
not have a clue.

To my great surprise, he told me that he would not build to
my specs even if I had detailed requests (and this was not
an "off the shelf" frame.)

He said that when people make the request, he simply
responds by saying "I have been fitting frames to customers
for more than 25 years. How long have you been doing it?"

All the best,
--
Kenneth

If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS."

[Tom Sherman]

"mtb Dad" wrote:
> ...
> I think a lot of people feel that way when they get on a road bike for
> the first time. Especially in a store, when they are not bearing any
> weight with the legs in pedalling, the bars feel very low and far
> away.
>
> I taught a road cycling class today to novice college students. A
> good local shop provided road bikes (mostly racey 105 road bikes),
> albeit with guesstimated fit. Most didn't like the feel in the
> parking lot, but complained less over the ride and even seemed
> comfortable by the end.[...]

People can acclimate to the point where anything else feels odd. For me
a normal position is reclined at 35° from the horizontal, with my feet
15 cm higher than the seat.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

[mtb Dad]

On Mar 4, 6:51*am, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
> A Muzi wrote:
> > You're singing my song, Tom. Modern bikes sold elsewhere keep us quite
> > busy with tall stem sales.
>
> It seems like every decontenting or defeaturing has the silver lining
> for shops of increasing high-margin parts and accessory sales. I needed
> a headset extender and went to REI and they said they sell them as fast
> as they get them in.
>
> I wish that the Speedlifter was sold in the U.S.
> "http://www.speedlifter.com/en/information/faq_e.html".

I scanned the website; is it my imagination, or do they switch the
terms head tube and steer tube?

[Peter Cole]

russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:

>
> Brooks saddles are quite comfortable. Much wider than those plastic
> torture devices. You can ride hours and hours comfortably on a Brooks
> saddle.

A lot of people find Brooks saddles to be "torture devices". I find them
to be much worse than any plastic shelled saddle I've ever tried.

[russellseaton1@yahoo.com]

On Mar 5, 6:17*am, Peter Cole <peter_c...@verizon.net> wrote:
> russellseat...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > Brooks saddles are quite comfortable. *Much wider than those plastic
> > torture devices. *You can ride hours and hours comfortably on a Brooks
> > saddle.
>
> A lot of people find Brooks saddles to be "torture devices". I find them
> to be much worse than any plastic shelled saddle I've ever tried.

Maybe its just coincidence, but I doubt it. You will see quite a few,
maybe even a majority, of bikes with Brooks saddles on ultra distance
rides such as Paris Brest Paris. So people who ride hundreds of miles
at a time find Brooks quite comfortable. People who ride a few miles
at a time may not.

[Peter Cole]

russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Mar 5, 6:17 am, Peter Cole <peter_c...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> russellseat...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>> Brooks saddles are quite comfortable. Much wider than those plastic
>>> torture devices. You can ride hours and hours comfortably on a Brooks
>>> saddle.
>> A lot of people find Brooks saddles to be "torture devices". I find them
>> to be much worse than any plastic shelled saddle I've ever tried.
>
> Maybe its just coincidence, but I doubt it. You will see quite a few,
> maybe even a majority, of bikes with Brooks saddles on ultra distance
> rides such as Paris Brest Paris. So people who ride hundreds of miles
> at a time find Brooks quite comfortable. People who ride a few miles
> at a time may not.

It's more than coincidence. My search for a suitable saddle was driven
mainly by my long distance riding needs. I'm well aware that many long
distance cyclists use Brooks saddles successfully. I know this from
having done a lot of brevets. That's also how I know that Brooks saddles
cripple me and a lot of others.

It boils (ahem) down to saddle front-to-back shape. Brooks saddles form
a kind of sling (insert joke). I've found out the hard way that I can't
tolerate any kind of front-to-back curve (droop), regardless of material
or padding. I have tried multiple Brooks models for several months each.
I find these saddles uncomfortable for short rides and crippling for
long ones. Many have reported the same experience. The hard, flat
saddles (like Flites) have allowed me to do 250 mile rides without
discomfort. I realize that others have different experiences, it must be
a variation in anatomy.

[Andrew Price]

On Thu, 06 Mar 2008 13:40:31 GMT, Peter Cole <peter_cole@verizon.net>
wrote:

[---]

>I have tried multiple Brooks models for several months each.
>I find these saddles uncomfortable for short rides and crippling for
>long ones. Many have reported the same experience.

That's certainly been my experience - I've owned a Conquest, a B17, a
B17N and a Swallow, and none of them were comfortable over long
distances.

>The hard, flat
>saddles (like Flites) have allowed me to do 250 mile rides without
>discomfort.

Also my experience - I replaced the Brooks with a Fizik Arione on one
bike, and a Selle Italia SLR on the other, and that was the end of my
problems.

[Sandy]

Dans le message de news:7ui0t392lip201df01bhi84aingpdqdfef@4ax.com,
Andrew Price <ajprice@free.fr> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> On Thu, 06 Mar 2008 13:40:31 GMT, Peter Cole <peter_cole@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
> [---]
>
>> I have tried multiple Brooks models for several months each.
>> I find these saddles uncomfortable for short rides and crippling for
>> long ones. Many have reported the same experience.
>
> That's certainly been my experience - I've owned a Conquest, a B17, a
> B17N and a Swallow, and none of them were comfortable over long
> distances.
>
>> The hard, flat
>> saddles (like Flites) have allowed me to do 250 mile rides without
>> discomfort.
>
> Also my experience - I replaced the Brooks with a Fizik Arione on one
> bike, and a Selle Italia SLR on the other, and that was the end of my
> problems.

The key to comfort with a saddle is to avoid being an ideologue about the
subject and just let the few neurons available derrière help you decide.
Guarding your rigidity will only help you enjoy riding less and less as time
and patience wear on.
--
Sandy

The above is guaranteed 100% free of sarcasm,
denigration, snotty remarks, indifference, platitudes, fuming demands that
"you do the math", conceited visions of a better world on wheels according
to [insert NAME here].

[Andrew Price]

On Thu, 6 Mar 2008 15:25:40 -0500, "Sandy" <leurrre@free.fr> wrote:

>> Also my experience - I replaced the Brooks with a Fizik Arione on one
>> bike, and a Selle Italia SLR on the other, and that was the end of my
>> problems.
>
>The key to comfort with a saddle is to avoid being an ideologue

Yup - realising that enabled me to dethrone the Brooks Holy Cow.

>about the
>subject and just let the few neurons available derrière help you decide.

Indeed - and they said "virez-moi cette connerie de Brooks"...

[Kenneth]

On Thu, 6 Mar 2008 15:25:40 -0500, "Sandy" <leurrre@free.fr>
wrote:

>The key to comfort with a saddle is to avoid being an ideologue about the
>subject and just let the few neurons available derrière help you decide.
>Guarding your rigidity will only help you enjoy riding less and less as time
>and patience wear on.
>--
>Sandy

Hi Sandy,

I agree completely (and I happen to be a Brooksophile for
the last 45 years or so.)

The religious aspects of saddle choice has always surprised
me. How many would get so agitated were a friend to find
more comfortable, say, a hiking shoe different from their
own choice?

But say a similar things about saddles and you risk the
friendship...<g>

All the best,
--
Kenneth

If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS."

[still just me]

On Thu, 06 Mar 2008 17:04:55 -0500, Kenneth
<usenet@soleSPAMLESSassociates.com> wrote:

>
>But say a similar things about saddles and you risk the
>friendship...<g>

If they don't ride a Brooks, then they're really not your friends.

[A Muzi]

> "Paul M. Hobson" <fob...@gatech.edu> wrote:
>> I've been looking for a new frame lately. It seems that at least SOMA
>> Fabrications and Gunnar are making frames with taller headtubes "to
>> eliminate the need for so many spacers." It seems they get it, at least.

SMS wrote:
> There are two adjustable height stems for threadless headsets at the
> Taipei Cycle show. One is from Germany, the SpeedLifter. Not sold in
> the U.S. yet. The other is the Satori Easy-Up, see "http://
> www.satoribike.com/page03_01_01.asp?ID=99771E97-66AD-461C-9CC9-D01600CBC72A"
> Not clear if it's sold in the U.S., I could not get a straight answer
> from the sales people at the HL Corp booth. They sell through Zoom,
> but I have no idea if Zoom is distributing this product in the U.S..
> I've run into this quite a bit at the show. There will be an
> interesting product, but the manufacturer already has an exclusive
> distributer in the U.S., but the distributer doesn't carry the
> interesting product. Since the manufacturer won't sell to anyone else
> but the distributor, the product remains unavailable.

HL adjustable AH stems have been in the US market since 2005. The very
limited height range inherent to the AH format has made them less
popular than the simple 'extenders'.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[A Muzi]

SMS wrote:
> On Feb 29, 7:54 pm, "Paul M. Hobson" <fob...@gatech.edu> wrote:
>
>> I've been looking for a new frame lately. It seems that at least SOMA
>> Fabrications and Gunnar are making frames with taller headtubes "to
>> eliminate the need for so many spacers." It seems they get it, at least.
>
> There are two adjustable height stems for threadless headsets at the
> Taipei Cycle show. One is from Germany, the SpeedLifter. Not sold in
> the U.S. yet. The other is the Satori Easy-Up, see "http://
> www.satoribike.com/page03_01_01.asp?ID=99771E97-66AD-461C-9CC9-D01600CBC72A"
>
> Not clear if it's sold in the U.S., I could not get a straight answer
> from the sales people at the HL Corp booth. They sell through Zoom,
> but I have no idea if Zoom is distributing this product in the U.S..
>
> I've run into this quite a bit at the show. There will be an
> interesting product, but the manufacturer already has an exclusive
> distributer in the U.S., but the distributer doesn't carry the
> interesting product. Since the manufacturer won't sell to anyone else
> but the distributor, the product remains unavailable.

Here's an example:
http://www.raleighusa.com/items.asp?deptid=5&itemid=413
The photo angle is not ideal, but if you hover over the stem area you
can almost see it.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971