Cross-posting or whatever from another forum here:
https://www.bikeforums.net/fitting-your-bike/1222465-moisture-s-unique-frame-fit.html
But I found this thread very interesting apropos comments made in the
past by Nick Maclaren.
I don't claim to be a fit expert but this young-looking guy is going
with very high seat, toes-down, and straight back.
Of course everyone is saying he's an idiot and should know better... But
I feel there's a lot of fashion pretending to be pseudo-science in the >subject of bike fit.
I can add another disadvantage of that position to the one he
mentioned (aerodynamics) - it reduces how hard you can brake.
Either? Notice the dogma that the weight has to be equal on the two
wheels - as with cars, 60/40 is better in some ways than 50/50 and
worse in others.
I can add another disadvantage of that position to the one he
mentioned (aerodynamics) - it reduces how hard you can brake.
Because of weight distribution?
Either? Notice the dogma that the weight has to be equal on the two
wheels - as with cars, 60/40 is better in some ways than 50/50 and
worse in others.
They're saying he'll get a sore butt. But many of us sit on our butts >practically all day with no issues. A comfortable seat is likely to be a >better solution than putting weight on your hands.
If designing a frame around this kind of fit it might make sense to have >longer chainstays and a reasonably short top tube. Then you could still
sit on the seat but the weight distribution between the wheels would be
a bit more even.
One thing I don't understand is the trend for really short chainstays on >"long low slack" MTBs. Often to the point where the seat-tube is bent >backwards almost over the back wheel. Sometimes they then make the
seat-tubes steeper to get the weight a little bit further forward. Maybe
it's just so they still fit in the box after they made the front of the
bike so long.
I can add another disadvantage of that position to the one he
mentioned (aerodynamics) - it reduces how hard you can brake. Because
of weight distribution?
How DID you guess? :-) That position can move the aggregate centre of
gravity from (say) 90 cm to 120 cm above the ground. Much better
visibility, but much easier to go over.
And, in that position, the requirement for a very narrow saddle is essentially absent.
If designing a frame around this kind of fit it might make sense to
have longer chainstays and a reasonably short top tube. Then you could
still sit on the seat but the weight distribution between the wheels
would be a bit more even.
If that's what you want, yes. But more weight on the rear improves the
grip on slippery stuff and improves the braking slightly. It's not
great up steep slopes, though, as you can fall off backwards :-)
I once rode a bicycle with a 60 degree frame angle - despite dogma, it
makes essentially damn-all difference to the handling.
What DOES make a difference is the steering tube angle, offset and all
that, but there's no reason the angles have to be the same.
I can add another disadvantage of that position to the one he
mentioned (aerodynamics) - it reduces how hard you can brake. Because
of weight distribution?
How DID you guess? :-) That position can move the aggregate centre of
gravity from (say) 90 cm to 120 cm above the ground. Much better
visibility, but much easier to go over.
Actually I guessed wrong :) I thought you mean front-to-rear
distribution meaning not enough weight on the front wheel. But this
wouldn't ultimately affect braking because you can just use the rear
brake a bit more and it should work out nearly the same.
Yes you're a bit higher up, but also further back. In practice it's
pretty hard to do an endo unintentionally though.
I once rode a bicycle with a 60 degree frame angle - despite dogma, it
makes essentially damn-all difference to the handling.
Do you mean 60 degree seat-tube angle?
This guy says it was because it made frames easier to build:
Large-sized mass-produced frames however were
probably taller than square. These days most frames are long and short
and we seem to like lots more seatpost sticking out.
In article <73e9b3af-5d4e-4746-aba8-a471e86ef007n@googlegroups.com>,
Guy Gadboit <benc.may09@googlemail.com> wrote:
I can add another disadvantage of that position to the one he
mentioned (aerodynamics) - it reduces how hard you can brake. Because
of weight distribution?
How DID you guess? :-) That position can move the aggregate centre of
gravity from (say) 90 cm to 120 cm above the ground. Much better
visibility, but much easier to go over.
Actually I guessed wrong :) I thought you mean front-to-rear
distribution meaning not enough weight on the front wheel. But this
wouldn't ultimately affect braking because you can just use the rear
brake a bit more and it should work out nearly the same.
No, it doesn't, because braking on an upright bicycle is ultimately
limited by when the rear wheel lifts, and the higher CoG means that
happens sooner. On my roadster, that happens at c. 1/2g, compared
to c. 2/3g for people who ride knees bent in a crouch. My recumbent
trike has a high seat, but I can still manage c. 3/4g.
Yes you're a bit higher up, but also further back. In practice it's
pretty hard to do an endo unintentionally though.
You bet? Try doing an emergency stop down a steep hill on a bicycle
with a high CoG - I have pushed (well, pulled) DOWN some such hills
to avoid injuring myself.
I once rode a bicycle with a 60 degree frame angle - despite dogma, it
makes essentially damn-all difference to the handling.
Do you mean 60 degree seat-tube angle?
Yes. I was using the old term.
This guy says it was because it made frames easier to build:
That makes sense.
Large-sized mass-produced frames however were
probably taller than square. These days most frames are long and short
and we seem to like lots more seatpost sticking out.
God help us, yes, to both. The former made their handling and braking
truly appalling, and the latter makes it virtually impossible to get
the handlebars high enough to avoid having to carry weight on the hands. People used to turn drop handlebars upside down to avoid that, which
was insane.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
In article ,
Guy Gadboit wrote:
I can add another disadvantage of that position to the one he
mentioned (aerodynamics) - it reduces how hard you can brake. Because
of weight distribution?
How DID you guess? :-) That position can move the aggregate centre of
gravity from (say) 90 cm to 120 cm above the ground. Much better
visibility, but much easier to go over.
Actually I guessed wrong :) I thought you mean front-to-rear
distribution meaning not enough weight on the front wheel. But this >wouldn't ultimately affect braking because you can just use the rear
brake a bit more and it should work out nearly the same.
No, it doesn't, because braking on an upright bicycle is ultimately
limited by when the rear wheel lifts, and the higher CoG means that
happens sooner.
On my roadster, that happens at c. 1/2g, compared to c. 2/3g for
people who ride knees bent in a crouch. My recumbent trike has a high
seat, but I can still manage c. 3/4g.
Yes you're a bit higher up, but also further back. In practice it's
pretty hard to do an endo unintentionally though.
You bet? Try doing an emergency stop down a steep hill on a bicycle
with a high CoG - I have pushed (well, pulled) DOWN some such hills
to avoid injuring myself.
I once rode a bicycle with a 60 degree frame angle - despite dogma, it
makes essentially damn-all difference to the handling.
Large-sized mass-produced frames however were
probably taller than square. These days most frames are long and short
and we seem to like lots more seatpost sticking out.
God help us, yes, to both. The former made their handling and braking
truly appalling, and the latter makes it virtually impossible to get
the handlebars high enough to avoid having to carry weight on the hands.
It seems that a very slack frame angle is therefore desirable for a lot
of reasons:
1. You can have a wider seat without it getting in the way.
2. You can have a long distance from the seat to the crank to avoid
pushing with bent knees while keeping CoG low.
3. You can have that long leg extension and also put your feet down
easily when you stop.
In uk.rec.cycling.moderated on Thu, 4 Feb 2021 09:35:53 -0800 (PST)
Guy Gadboit wrote:
It seems that a very slack frame angle is therefore desirable for a lot
of reasons:
1. You can have a wider seat without it getting in the way.http://www.ransbikes.com/bicycles/
2. You can have a long distance from the seat to the crank to avoid
pushing with bent knees while keeping CoG low.
3. You can have that long leg extension and also put your feet down
easily when you stop.
Crank forward bikes are the ultimate expression of this I think.
Rans also sells low bottom bracket long wheelbase recumbents but I
think that's getting maybe too far into the slack frame idea...
One thing I don't understand is the trend for really short chainstays on "long low slack" MTBs. Often to the point where the seat-tube is bent backwards almost over the back wheel. Sometimes they then make the
seat-tubes steeper to get the weight a little bit further forward. Maybe
it's just so they still fit in the box after they made the front of the
bike so long.
Cross-posting or whatever from another forum here:
https://www.bikeforums.net/fitting-your-bike/1222465-moisture-s-unique-frame-fit.html
But I found this thread very interesting apropos comments made in the past by Nick Maclaren.
I don't claim to be a fit expert but this young-looking guy is going with very high seat, toes-down, and straight back.
Of course everyone is saying he's an idiot and should know better... But I feel there's a lot of fashion pretending to be pseudo-science in the subject of bike fit.
One thing I don't understand is the trend for really short chainstays on "long low slack" MTBs. Often to the point where the seat-tube is bent backwards almost over the back wheel. Sometimes they then make the
seat-tubes steeper to get the weight a little bit further forward. Maybe
it's just so they still fit in the box after they made the front of the
bike so long.
In article <46a6ed18-2edf-4f49-ad29-b1f7672ca34an@googlegroups.com>,
Guy Gadboit <benc.may09@googlemail.com> wrote:
Cross-posting or whatever from another forum here:
https://www.bikeforums.net/fitting-your-bike/1222465-moisture-s-unique- >>frame-fit.html
But I found this thread very interesting apropos comments made in the
past by Nick Maclaren.
I don't claim to be a fit expert but this young-looking guy is going
with very high seat, toes-down, and straight back.
Of course everyone is saying he's an idiot and should know better...
But I feel there's a lot of fashion pretending to be pseudo-science in
the subject of bike fit.
As you say. Sanity has prevailed in the tyre width issue, but I can
remember being abused either on this forum or the unmoderated one
for claiming that wider tyres had less rolling resistance on real
roads. I don't expect to live long enough to see sanity prevail on
either of these, but I might be surprised. I notice that the abuse
and pro-UCI-style propaganda hasn't changed.
I can add another disadvantage of that position to the one he
mentioned (aerodynamics) - it reduces how hard you can brake.
Either? Notice the dogma that the weight has to be equal on the two
wheels - as with cars, 60/40 is better in some ways than 50/50 and
worse in others.
I meant front-to-rear weight distribution doesn't make much difference
to braking, assuming no endos. It does a bit because equal weight on
both tyres, under full braking, should be the way to get the most out of
the tyres.
But if braking is limited by rear wheel lifting, which you're probably
right it is, at least on a dry road and if the CoG is high, then what
matters is the height of the CoG and also the distance from the front
axle to the vertical line through the CoG.
On Thu, 4 Feb 2021 09:35:53 -0800 (PST)
Guy Gadboit wrote:
But if braking is limited by rear wheel lifting, which you're probably right it is, at least on a dry road and if the CoG is high, then what matters is the height of the CoG and also the distance from the front
axle to the vertical line through the CoG.
It's the angle of the centre of mass behind the tyre contact patch that matters. Good luck trying to hang off the back for hard downhill braking if your saddle is high and wide.
Where you've crossed a line of some sort however is whether it's possible or advisable to stand up on the pedals. If the seat angle is too slack this will get very hard to do and/or cause your knees to bash the handlebar. At some point the bike becomes suitable for seated riding only. One of my concerns about full recumbents (which is a theoretical concern as I haven't tried one) is whether you need suspension. On an upright bike it's nice to be able to stand up a little bit if you are forced to eat a pothole or tackle a bump.
One of my concerns
about full recumbents (which is a theoretical concern as I haven't tried one) is whether you need suspension. On an upright bike it's nice to be able to stand up a little bit if you are forced to eat a pothole or tackle a bump.
Where you've crossed a line of some sort however is whether it's possible or >advisable to stand up on the pedals. If the seat angle is too slack this will >get very hard to do and/or cause your knees to bash the handlebar. At some >point the bike becomes suitable for seated riding only. One of my concerns >about full recumbents (which is a theoretical concern as I haven't tried one) >is whether you need suspension. On an upright bike it's nice to be able to >stand up a little bit if you are forced to eat a pothole or tackle a bump.
So something like a 68 or maybe 65 degree seat angle might be about right, like
the old roadsters used to have, if designing something around a more upright >riding position with less weight on the hands.
I'd rather hit a pothole on my suspended recumbent than my rigid
upright. Legs work well as shock-absorbers if you can anticipate the
impact, but your wrists still suffer.
In article <894228fe-4034-4857...@googlegroups.com>,
Guy Gadboit <...> wrote:
Where you've crossed a line of some sort however is whether it's possible or >advisable to stand up on the pedals. If the seat angle is too slack this will
get very hard to do and/or cause your knees to bash the handlebar. At some >point the bike becomes suitable for seated riding only. One of my concerns >about full recumbents (which is a theoretical concern as I haven't tried one)
is whether you need suspension. On an upright bike it's nice to be able to >stand up a little bit if you are forced to eat a pothole or tackle a bump.
So something like a 68 or maybe 65 degree seat angle might be about right, like
the old roadsters used to have, if designing something around a more upright >riding position with less weight on the hands.
Roadsters have longer frames, and the handlebars are swept back, with
enough room for most people to stand between them. Even with a 60
degree seat angle, you could stand up without hitting anything - been
there, done that. What they weren't (and aren't) great for is the
acrobatic off-road, where you, the cycle and the road are competing
with which can throw the rider and cycle around the most. In that
sort of use, you DO hit your thighs on the handlebars - again, been
there, done that.
That's interesting. There is a practical problem however with a 60
degree seat angle which is that to clear a 700c tyre you'd need around a >480mm chainstay length. This is measured from the centre of the BB shell
by convention but that still results in a actual chainstays of just over >430mm which is the longest available from Reynolds.
65 degrees however is easily achievable. Of course you can just buy a
tube but a pre-formed chainstay has a bit of a taper, often a bend, and
an ovalized bit where the crank goes so is easier and a bit nicer.
Do you have any thoughts about head-angle? A lot of those old roadsters
look parallel but this may have been just for ease for construction. I
came across this 1953 Claude Butler which is unusual (by today's
standards) for having a seat tube that's slacker than the head tube:
https://www.bikeforums.net/classic-vintage/1212118-1953-claud-butler-colson-2.html
It's a fillet-brazed frame without lugs so could have any angles the
designer wanted. The steeper head angle makes the whole thing a bit more >compact. Assuming control over the fork you can get the trail to
whatever you need and the steering will be mostly the same. It seems to
me it mainly affects weight distribution, the overall size and how much
you need to sweep the handlebar back.
In article <894228fe-4034-4857-b641-d147eb4fae4bn@googlegroups.com>,
Guy Gadboit <benc.may09@googlemail.com> wrote:
Where you've crossed a line of some sort however is whether it's possible or >> advisable to stand up on the pedals. If the seat angle is too slack this will
get very hard to do and/or cause your knees to bash the handlebar. At some >> point the bike becomes suitable for seated riding only. One of my concerns >> about full recumbents (which is a theoretical concern as I haven't tried one)
is whether you need suspension. On an upright bike it's nice to be able to >> stand up a little bit if you are forced to eat a pothole or tackle a bump. >>
So something like a 68 or maybe 65 degree seat angle might be about right, like
the old roadsters used to have, if designing something around a more upright >> riding position with less weight on the hands.
Roadsters have longer frames, and the handlebars are swept back, with
enough room for most people to stand between them. Even with a 60
degree seat angle, you could stand up without hitting anything - been
there, done that. What they weren't (and aren't) great for is the
acrobatic off-road, where you, the cycle and the road are competing
with which can throw the rider and cycle around the most. In that
sort of use, you DO hit your thighs on the handlebars - again, been
there, done that.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Even with quite gentle off road such as the old track bed of a railway in
my experience a roadster my folks have a old BSA, unless you keep the speed >down can feel it wandering, as you roll over the track bed, fine for on >tarmac but even quite tame dirt roads it doesn't feel as planted or as >comfortable to be honest, vs stuff like my Gravel bike with similar sized >tires.
In article <9829be08-2291-4419...@googlegroups.com>,
Guy Gadboit <> wrote:
Do you have any thoughts about head-angle? A lot of those old roadsters >look parallel but this may have been just for ease for construction. I
came across this 1953 Claude Butler which is unusual (by today's
standards) for having a seat tube that's slacker than the head tube:
https://www.bikeforums.net/classic-vintage/1212118-1953-claud-butler-colson-2.html
It's a fillet-brazed frame without lugs so could have any angles the >designer wanted. The steeper head angle makes the whole thing a bit more >compact. Assuming control over the fork you can get the trail to
whatever you need and the steering will be mostly the same. It seems to
me it mainly affects weight distribution, the overall size and how much
you need to sweep the handlebar back.
Sorry - I forgot to reply to this. Claude Butler was solidly in the road-racer camp, and that head-tube angle is far steeper than on any
roadster I have ever seen. Also, it has caliper brakes (i.e. Endrick
rims), the handlebars are offset forward by several inches, and the
tubing (especially the rear stays) is very thin. All of which show
its road-racer heritage.
In article <9829be08-2291-4419...@googlegroups.com>,
Guy Gadboit wrote:
That's interesting. There is a practical problem however with a 60
degree seat angle which is that to clear a 700c tyre you'd need around a >480mm chainstay length. This is measured from the centre of the BB shell
by convention but that still results in a actual chainstays of just over >430mm which is the longest available from Reynolds.
65 degrees however is easily achievable. Of course you can just buy a
tube but a pre-formed chainstay has a bit of a taper, often a bend, and
an ovalized bit where the crank goes so is easier and a bit nicer.
I know of no roadsters that used either the lightweight steels or
very fancy shapes (though tubes formed into arcs were fairly common).
The point is that the claimed advantages of those were all for road
racing and similar uses, and there are serious disadvantages for the
uses roadsters were designed for.
Roadsters were designed for travelling long distances over the roads
of the 1920s, and you want a very stiff frame; weight is far less
important than durability and the reduction of strain on the rider.
That's why I used to ride fairly comfortably over roads that caused
modern road-racers major difficulties, and for times that most MTB
riders baulked at.
If you want maximum speed or 'sportiness', they aren't good.
I know of no roadsters that used either the lightweight steels or
very fancy shapes (though tubes formed into arcs were fairly common).
The point is that the claimed advantages of those were all for road
racing and similar uses, and there are serious disadvantages for the
uses roadsters were designed for.
What are the disadvantages? I'm thinking of making a slack seat-tube
frame and was thinking of Reynolds 525 or 631 as it's now 2021 and these >tubes are not overly expensive. It's easy to get a lot of stiffness by
using oversize diameter tubes but for comfort I was thinking the thinner
ones would be better.
In article <a7b4e2df-d8ae-4dcf...@googlegroups.com>,
Guy Gadboit wrote:
I know of no roadsters that used either the lightweight steels or
very fancy shapes (though tubes formed into arcs were fairly common).
The point is that the claimed advantages of those were all for road
racing and similar uses, and there are serious disadvantages for the
uses roadsters were designed for.
What are the disadvantages? I'm thinking of making a slack seat-tube
frame and was thinking of Reynolds 525 or 631 as it's now 2021 and these >tubes are not overly expensive. It's easy to get a lot of stiffness by >using oversize diameter tubes but for comfort I was thinking the thinner >ones would be better.
The frame flex problem I mentioned in a previous post. Every time
you hit the front wheel aslant on a lump, it will turn the wheel.
If that starts the fork or frame oscillating, you have to bring it
back under control fast; even for people with good reactions and
adequate balance, that's incredibly tiring if it happens every few
seconds for many hours. If it's a shallow rut and the steering has
spring, you have to over-compensate to get it straight, and then do
the converse to correct for the over-compensation. For every form
of steered vehicle except bicycles, spring in the steering linkage
is a serious no-no, but the dogma was that it is good for bicycles!
As you say, that's not the problem it was on most UK roads, and (for
some reason, possibly the unsuitability of most modern bicycles),
there are few cyclists who do extended touring over bridleways.
I can remember when that was more common, and I am not THAT old!
Also, durability and fixability. Those fancy steels needed brazing
(and still do?)
but ordinary ones can be welded. Not merely is that less prone to
failure, it could be fixed by any good blacksmith.
The same was true for actual tube damage, whether being bent out of
shape or in some other ways. 'Mild' steels are incredibly forgiving.
Yes, this mattered mainly for people who toured in remote or backward
places.
In uk.rec.cycling.moderated on Wed, 10 Feb 2021 14:24:16 -0800 (PST)
Guy Gadboit <benc.may09@googlemail.com> wrote:
One of my concerns
about full recumbents (which is a theoretical concern as I haven't tried one)
is whether you need suspension. On an upright bike it's nice to be able to >> stand up a little bit if you are forced to eat a pothole or tackle a bump.
Depends on the 'bent.
Neither the ones I have now or the previous 2 wheeler have suspension.
The previous one had a mesh seat back and a reasonably forgiving aluminium frame and bumps weren't that bad. The current 2 wheeler is carbon fibre
and hardshell seat and you know it when you hit something.
The track bed has the indents left from sleepers still in some sections
which is what the stuff like that old BSA really don't like, where the
gravel even with broadly similar sized tires doesn't jar or thud, across
the washboard.
In article <s0692n$dfn$1@dont-email.me>,
Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
Even with quite gentle off road such as the old track bed of a railway in
my experience a roadster my folks have a old BSA, unless you keep the speed >> down can feel it wandering, as you roll over the track bed, fine for on
tarmac but even quite tame dirt roads it doesn't feel as planted or as
comfortable to be honest, vs stuff like my Gravel bike with similar sized
tires.
What era BSA? After the Raleigh take-over (1957), the BSA brand was
used for a variety of bicycles, and I don't remember any being true roadsters. Remember that utility bicycles were not quite the same,
even in the 1950s, and (for example) usually had 26x1.375" tyres
rather than 28x1.5" ones and shorter wheelbases. See GarethPJ in:
https://forum.bikeradar.com/discussion/12597925/raleigh-made-bsa-bicycle-bsc-iso-standards-or-raleigh
I have never ridden a gravel bike, so I can believe that it wanders
less. The real problem, however, was not the wandering, but the
front fork or frame oscillating, which happened badly on most of the 'lightweight tourers'. Roadsters were effectively immune, as they had
to be, if you were going to spend many hours a day riding over lumpy
going. Gravel doesn't cause that much, though it's very bad for
wandering.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
In article <s06t80$6ej$1@dont-email.me>,
Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
The track bed has the indents left from sleepers still in some sections
which is what the stuff like that old BSA really don't like, where the
gravel even with broadly similar sized tires doesn't jar or thud, across
the washboard.
That's definitely not something any roadster I have ridden would handle
well! Their great advantage for my sort of riding is that they are adequately fast and comfortable on anything from smooth tarmac down to
the better farm tracks and firm, short grass. But there comes a point
where things are just too much. Surprise, surprise.
The thing that I regret on my trike is that point occurs a lot earlier
than on my roadster, but I am really not up to riding the latter over
that sort of thing any more. And there's no point in even trying any
other kind of bicycle :-(
Currently, I am hoping to go to Dumfries and Galloway when lockdown
ends, and see what the forestry tracks there are like. With luck,
enough of them will be ridable on the trike - and, if not, there are
some extremely minor roads.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
On 11/02/2021 09:18, Zebee Johnstone wrote:
In uk.rec.cycling.moderated on Wed, 10 Feb 2021 14:24:16 -0800 (PST)
Guy Gadboit <benc.may09@googlemail.com> wrote:
One of my concernsDepends on the 'bent.
about full recumbents (which is a theoretical concern as I haven't tried one)
is whether you need suspension. On an upright bike it's nice to be able to >>> stand up a little bit if you are forced to eat a pothole or tackle a bump. >>
Neither the ones I have now or the previous 2 wheeler have suspension.
The previous one had a mesh seat back and a reasonably forgiving aluminium >> frame and bumps weren't that bad. The current 2 wheeler is carbon fibre
and hardshell seat and you know it when you hit something.
Didn't you have a Bacchetta?
There may be roads somewhere in the UK that would be OK on my Bacchetta
but, if so, they're not in South Gloucestershire. Mine doesn't have a
mesh seat, though.
That's interesting. There is a practical problem however with a 60
degree seat angle which is that to clear a 700c tyre you'd need
around a 480mm chainstay length. This is measured from the centre of
the BB shell by convention but that still results in a actual
chainstays of just over 430mm which is the longest available from
Reynolds.
On Thu, 11 Feb 2021 11:45:00 -0800 (PST)
Guy Gadboit <> wrote:
That's interesting. There is a practical problem however with a 60Wishbone chainstays. Sorted.
degree seat angle which is that to clear a 700c tyre you'd need
around a 480mm chainstay length. This is measured from the centre of
the BB shell by convention but that still results in a actual
chainstays of just over 430mm which is the longest available from
Reynolds.
Not unsurprisingly wetter it is more technical it becomes, I have stuff >locally to me that in summer is fine on the Gravel, but at the moment it's >really MTB only or at least comfortably.
Currently, I am hoping to go to Dumfries and Galloway when lockdown
ends, and see what the forestry tracks there are like. With luck,
enough of them will be ridable on the trike - and, if not, there are
some extremely minor roads.
biiig difference between mesh and hardshell. Also between the 2" of
padding on the Giro arseperch and even a thick ventsit pad.
MInd you I have a wider rear tyre on it now and that has made a bit of difference. Doesn't bother me enough to go to something like a Big
Apple though.
After a year I switched to 37-622 tyres, because that was the widest I
had clearance for.
I now have the parts to build a couple of 26" wheels, and 60-559 Big
Apples ready to fit to them. Should make a difference.
In article <s070as$tti$1@dont-email.me>,
Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
Not unsurprisingly wetter it is more technical it becomes, I have stuff
Currently, I am hoping to go to Dumfries and Galloway when lockdown
ends, and see what the forestry tracks there are like. With luck,
enough of them will be ridable on the trike - and, if not, there are
some extremely minor roads.
locally to me that in summer is fine on the Gravel, but at the moment it's >> really MTB only or at least comfortably.
As you say. There are farm track / bridleways near me that I use which
are easy on the trike in dry weather (if slow), but I often have to get
off and push (getting my feet muddy) in wet weather. People from dry
places and those who ride entirely on groomed roads don't understand why
I favour tyres like the Marathon Plus Tour and Marathon Mondial. I tried
the Marathon Supreme and, as soon as it encounters any mud, it gives up
even trying to grip.
Do you know the Dumfries and Galloway area? If so, I should like to
pick your brains. I have walked there once, long ago, but don't know
how trikable the tracks are.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
In article <VZGdndVjo4ecTLr9nZ2dnUU78efNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>,
Danny Colyer <news2013@colyer.plus.com> wrote:
After a year I switched to 37-622 tyres, because that was the widest I
had clearance for.
I now have the parts to build a couple of 26" wheels, and 60-559 Big
Apples ready to fit to them. Should make a difference.
It certainly should! Please keep us informed. I should also be
interested to know whether it is a real 60mm - the nominally 50mm
Big Apple is only about 44mm.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
On Saturday, 13 February 2021 at 03:36:32 UTC, Rob Morley wrote:
Wishbone chainstays. Sorted.
Yes that's a good suggestion. Possibly with a sort of dummy second BB
shell at the end of the wishbone to attach the chainstays to which
also might be a good place for a rear suspension pivot if you had
rear suspension.
I now have the parts to build a couple of 26" wheels, and 60-559 Big
Apples ready to fit to them. Should make a difference.
It certainly should! Please keep us informed. I should also be
interested to know whether it is a real 60mm - the nominally 50mm
Big Apple is only about 44mm.
On Sat, 13 Feb 2021 01:50:46 -0800 (PST)
Guy Gadboit <> wrote:
On Saturday, 13 February 2021 at 03:36:32 UTC, Rob Morley wrote:
Wishbone chainstays. Sorted.
Yes that's a good suggestion. Possibly with a sort of dummy second BB
shell at the end of the wishbone to attach the chainstays to which
Perhaps a round tube slightly larger diameter than the chainstays, to
make a neat junction between the stays and the bottom bracket
extension. You could put fancy engraved caps on the tube ends for extra
added boutique effect.
also might be a good place for a rear suspension pivot if you had
rear suspension.
Depending on the linkage arrangement ... you often want the main pivot
at the same height as the chainring(s) to reduce suspension movement
effect on chain tension (and chain tension effect on suspension
movement).
also might be a good place for a rear suspension pivot if you had
rear suspension.
Depending on the linkage arrangement ... you often want the main pivot
at the same height as the chainring(s) to reduce suspension movement
effect on chain tension (and chain tension effect on suspension
movement).
Yes good point.
It could be at the same height-- you could go straight back from the BB
shell to the extension, and the chainstays could go up a bit from there
(they usually go up a bit because most bikes have a positive BB drop.
But it would still affect the length of the chain. The ideal place for
the pivot would be concentric with the actual BB shell. I wonder if
anyone does put it there.
Also I say that's ideal but there are other considerations which I don't >really understand... but would be fun to make a full-suss one day.
In article <f011373a-d2d1-406c...@googlegroups.com>,
Guy Gadboit <> wrote:
But it would still affect the length of the chain. The ideal place for
the pivot would be concentric with the actual BB shell. I wonder if
anyone does put it there.
Also I say that's ideal but there are other considerations which I don't >really understand... but would be fun to make a full-suss one day.
It would have MASSIVE advantages, but mostly for reasons that are
generally ignored. You could put a hub gear there, and not suffer
the torque limitations as much, with either very low gears or electric assist.
And you could put a full chaincase on, thus making the cycle
clean to ride, removing the need for regular cleaning/oiling/waxing,
AND making the cycle suitable for off-roading through overgrown paths.
All you need for the latter is two concentric sockets.
And you could combine that with a really simple two-gear rear hub,
giving a step-down of up to 4:1, delivering a gear range of (say)
5"-100". For dead spot reasons, gears of lower than 5" are almost
useless, so that is all anyone would be able to use.
On Sunday, 14 February 2021 at 18:07:53 UTC, Nick Maclaren wrote:
In article <f011373a-d2d1-406c...@googlegroups.com>,
Guy Gadboit <> wrote:
[...]
But it would still affect the length of the chain. The ideal place for >the pivot would be concentric with the actual BB shell. I wonder if >anyone does put it there.
On Sat, 13 Feb 2021 01:50:46 -0800 (PST)
Guy Gadboit <benc.may09@googlemail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, 13 February 2021 at 03:36:32 UTC, Rob Morley wrote:
Wishbone chainstays. Sorted.
Yes that's a good suggestion. Possibly with a sort of dummy second BB
shell at the end of the wishbone to attach the chainstays to which
Perhaps a round tube slightly larger diameter than the chainstays, to
make a neat junction between the stays and the bottom bracket
extension. You could put fancy engraved caps on the tube ends for extra added boutique effect.
Rob Morley <nos...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
On Sat, 13 Feb 2021 01:50:46 -0800 (PST)
Guy Gadboit <> wrote:
On Saturday, 13 February 2021 at 03:36:32 UTC, Rob Morley wrote:
Wishbone chainstays. Sorted.
Yes that's a good suggestion. Possibly with a sort of dummy second BB
shell at the end of the wishbone to attach the chainstays to which
Perhaps a round tube slightly larger diameter than the chainstays, to
make a neat junction between the stays and the bottom bracket
extension. You could put fancy engraved caps on the tube ends for extra added boutique effect.
How do chainstay cross sections compare to fork blades?
I ask because I once helped build a couple of frames. One was lugged
but the other was lugless. Both brazed 531. The lugless one was
particularly tall and for reasons I can’t remember there was a problem
with the seat stays being too short so a wishbone-type construction
was built with a short length of some other tube (can’t remember where
it came from).
and a cut down fork crown, shaved to make the stubs fit
the chainstays.
If forks and chainstays are similar sizes then using a fork crown
might work.
I’ve noticed this on the commute bike, fairly relaxed geometry, with
bar bag and rear panniers, that the rear is much more useable,
PeddleMe, ie big cargo bikes that you hire to cart you or stuff
across London, did a video of a fully laiden bike doing a very
impressive stop.
On Monday, 15 February 2021 at 13:34:03 UTC, Sam Wilson wrote:
and a cut down fork crown, shaved to make the stubs fit
the chainstays.
ITYM seatstays?
How do chainstay cross sections compare to fork blades? I ask
because I once helped build a couple of frames. One was lugged but
the other was lugless. Both brazed 531. The lugless one was
particularly tall and for reasons I can’t remember there was a
problem with the seat stays being too short so a wishbone-type
construction was built with a short length of some other tube (can’t remember where it came from) and a cut down fork crown, shaved to
make the stubs fit the chainstays. If forks and chainstays are
similar sizes then using a fork crown might work.
On Sun, 14 Feb 2021 14:43:15 -0000 (UTC)
Sam Wilson <u...@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
How do chainstay cross sections compare to fork blades? I ask
because I once helped build a couple of frames. One was lugged but
the other was lugless. Both brazed 531. The lugless one was
particularly tall and for reasons I can’t remember there was a
problem with the seat stays being too short so a wishbone-type
construction was built with a short length of some other tube (can’t remember where it came from) and a cut down fork crown, shaved to
make the stubs fit the chainstays. If forks and chainstays are
similar sizes then using a fork crown might work.
If you must have lugged construction you can fabricate lugs from mild
steel sheet or tubing and TIG them together.
In article <VZGdndVjo4ecTLr9nZ2dnUU78efNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>,
Danny Colyer <news2013@colyer.plus.com> wrote:
After a year I switched to 37-622 tyres, because that was the widest I
had clearance for.
I now have the parts to build a couple of 26" wheels, and 60-559 Big
Apples ready to fit to them. Should make a difference.
It certainly should! Please keep us informed. I should also be
interested to know whether it is a real 60mm - the nominally 50mm
Big Apple is only about 44mm.
After a year I switched to 37-622 tyres, because that was the widest I
had clearance for.
I now have the parts to build a couple of 26" wheels, and 60-559 Big
Apples ready to fit to them. Should make a difference.
It certainly should! Please keep us informed. I should also be
interested to know whether it is a real 60mm - the nominally 50mm
Big Apple is only about 44mm.
Exactly 60mm, by my measurement.
I replaced the rear wheel a couple of weeks ago, I haven't done the
front yet. I've just taken it for a spin around the block.
It's difficult to compare the new wheel and tyre combination with the
old, both because it's 19 months since I last rode the Giro and because
it was only a short ride, mostly to test my ability to ride the bike. I
was unable to cycle for 16 months due to injury, and since I started
again I've been sticking to the less demanding Street Machine.
Whenever I hit a bump there was a small but discernible difference
between the front wheel (still running 37-662) and the rear (60-559).
It was clear, though, that 55psi is too hard for this tyre on an
unsuspended bike (on a unicycle I'd pump it up to 60). I'll reduce it
to 40 for my next ride.
In article <BaWdnUzsg_hYaVD9nZ2dnUU78f_NnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>,
Danny Colyer <news2013@colyer.plus.com> wrote:
After a year I switched to 37-622 tyres, because that was the widest I >>>> had clearance for.
I now have the parts to build a couple of 26" wheels, and 60-559 Big
Apples ready to fit to them. Should make a difference.
It certainly should! Please keep us informed. I should also be
interested to know whether it is a real 60mm - the nominally 50mm
Big Apple is only about 44mm.
Exactly 60mm, by my measurement.
Thanks.
I replaced the rear wheel a couple of weeks ago, I haven't done the
front yet. I've just taken it for a spin around the block.
It's difficult to compare the new wheel and tyre combination with the
old, both because it's 19 months since I last rode the Giro and because
it was only a short ride, mostly to test my ability to ride the bike. I
was unable to cycle for 16 months due to injury, and since I started
again I've been sticking to the less demanding Street Machine.
Whenever I hit a bump there was a small but discernible difference
between the front wheel (still running 37-662) and the rear (60-559).
It was clear, though, that 55psi is too hard for this tyre on an
unsuspended bike (on a unicycle I'd pump it up to 60). I'll reduce it
to 40 for my next ride.
I would expect that. My experience with similar tyres is that they
roll well over roughish going (poor tarmac etc.) even below that.
But 40 psi sounds a good all-round pressure.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Danny Colyer <news2013@colyer.plus.com> wrote:
After a year I switched to 37-622 tyres, because that was the widest I
had clearance for.
I now have the parts to build a couple of 26" wheels, and 60-559 Big
Apples ready to fit to them. Should make a difference.
I replaced the rear wheel a couple of weeks ago, I haven't done the
front yet. I've just taken it for a spin around the block.
It's difficult to compare the new wheel and tyre combination with the
old, both because it's 19 months since I last rode the Giro and because
it was only a short ride, mostly to test my ability to ride the bike. I
was unable to cycle for 16 months due to injury, and since I started
again I've been sticking to the less demanding Street Machine.
Whenever I hit a bump there was a small but discernible difference
between the front wheel (still running 37-662) and the rear (60-559).
It was clear, though, that 55psi is too hard for this tyre on an
unsuspended bike (on a unicycle I'd pump it up to 60). I'll reduce it
to 40 for my next ride.
On smooth tarmac I'm pretty sure the new wheels and tyres are slower
than the old (perhaps as much as 10% slower at speeds of around 20mph).
If I were to return to commuting on poorly-maintained roads, perhaps
that difference would be less. I won't be returning to the office this
year (I don't expect ever to return full time), so it will be a while
before I find out.
The difference was dramatic. Having a fat tyre on the front seemed to
make more difference to comfort than having one on the back. The bike
is a lot more pleasant to ride.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 296 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 58:24:06 |
| Calls: | 6,652 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 12,200 |
| Messages: | 5,331,145 |
