A decade ago you were almost 30 years older? How does that work? Does Rivendell now sell the Fountain of Youth?
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 6:44 PM, George Schick <bhim...@gmail.com> wrote: > Patrick - yeah, I know it. That's why I finished my thread post with > "...it certainly does seem as though not every bike is for every person..." > And along with your list of possible variables there are two others worth > noting: > > 1) (And this is the one where I get a bit crossways with Grant and Riv on > their frame sizing criteria) Two people of exactly the same height and > weight can have completely different anatomies and therefore different > frame size (not to mention stem heights and lengths) requirements. I can't > remember where I read it now, but a while back someone submitted a post > where he and a co-worker got to talking about frame sizing. Both were the > same height. One said that he was perfectly comfortable with frame size > "x" and the other said 'no way' and that he required frame size "y". So > they went into the restroom with rulers that they could pull up to their > PBH and looked at themselves in the mirror. Sure enough, one's ruler was > considerably higher than the other. I'm 5'9", but have short legs for my > height - in a "normal" anatomy I'd be at least 6' given the length of my > arms and torso - I have shorter legs. So I'm comfy on a 54cm whereas I've > been told I should be on a 56cm or even a 58cm. Some of my most miserable > years of cycling back in the early 70's were when I let LBS sales types > talk me into bikes with 23" frames so I could "stretch out", they said. > Not only could I not stand over the bike at a stop without lifting one leg > off the ground, but I kept having to buy shorter and shorter stems to > accommodate the "large" frame. It was not until the late 70's when I > ordered a frame from Chicago's Turin Bike (never heard what happened to > them or who might've built that frame) until I felt completely comfortable > on a bike that felt "quick and responsive" and everything else the OP says > the Ram lacks. Due to financial issues I sold that frame as a complete > bike (equipped entirely with Campy Record components of the time) and > regretted it UNTIL ... > > 2) .... about a decade ago when I was almost 30 years older and far less > flexible. It seems that AGING has a lot to do with the way a bike feels > and handles and what's comfy and what's not. I don't know how old the OP > is, but maybe he still has enough go-fast in him that the Ram just doesn't > feel responsive enough. I understand that; I would've felt the same way > 30 years ago. But not now. So much of it is all in the sizing, the aging, > and the perception. I live next to a city park and I see people of all > shapes, sizes, ages, and sexes riding their bikes on the park trail every > day, many of which appear to me to have their saddles too low or high, > wrong size frames, etc. But I'm not about to go out there and critique > them and suggest something different. I've done that before - many years > ago when a flawed setup seemed obvious to me, only to get push-back from > the rider that they'd been riding like that for years and were perfectly > comfortable with it. > > On Monday, April 7, 2014 5:54:24 PM UTC-5, Patrick Moore wrote: > >> George: the OP's -- or OPs' -- negative perception of the Ram is entirely >> a personal matter. (For the record, it is also entirely legitimate.) What >> is in question is very obviously NOT a collection of Ram qualities alone, >> but a collection of experiences that certain riders have of their Rams. Or >> perhaps more precisely, we are discussing the relationship between certain >> riders and their Rams. >> >> Tires have been mentioned as one variable. There are probably an >> indefinite number of others, among which is a subset consisting of the many >> ways in which a rider's build, pedaling style, gearing choices, cockpit and >> saddle setup, and so on, affect the efficiency with which he can interact >> with the bike, and, in addition, the way the bike feels when he is >> interacting with it. >> >> I' guessing, but I am no merely groping in the dark, since I've at least >> started to see patterns in the relationship between "planing" and the >> characteristics of those who experience it. One is pedaling style. Someone >> with a mashing pedaling style may well be less prone to benefit from a >> light-tubed frame; he may not be able to experience "planing" and may well >> find that a given stout-tubed bike performs very well. Someone who pedals >> fast in low gears may well find that same bike dead feeling. >> >> Another possibility: geometry and setup in relation to a rider's build >> and pedaling style. Again, no hard data but enough data to raise legitimate >> "suspicions". >> >> Me, I find my blue-category Ram perfectly normal. It's not the fastest >> feeling bike I own, but it's not by any means the slowest. My erstwhile Sam >> Hill felt more sluggish even with Jack Brown Greens (and the SH's "feeling" >> was well within normal by my experience and standards -- just not what I'd >> choose as a fast road bike. I sold it for wholly other reasons, not the >> lack of spriteliness). Likewise, the Fargo shod with 35 mm Kojaks felt >> considerably less spritely than the Ram shod with the very same pair. >> >> Of which speaking: can anyone tell me the particular specs of the tubing >> for a 1973 Motobecane Grande Record? I know it is light 531, but what gauge >> and butts? I ask because of all the bikes I've owned in the last 5-6 years, >> this had the lightest frame of any bike that I've owned (frameset >> considerably lighter by heft, anyway, than either of my 2 remaining Riv >> customs), but I didn't experience any particular feeling of speed with it >> (granted there are all sorts of other factors here), while a stout tubed >> and very definitely heavier Herse that others had found sluggish (I think I >> am accurate with that qualifier) felt, to me, particularly spritely. >> >> Oh my, all of this hurts my little head. >> >> Patrick Moore, fighting spring headwinds and wishing dead-feeling frames >> were his only obstacle in ABQ, NM. >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 3:17 PM, George Schick <bhi...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> I've been reading through the threads on this post since it was started >>> last Friday and finally decided that I'd better get out my '04 Ram to see >>> if maybe I've been missing something. I haven't been on it all Winter so I >>> figured it would be like a "new" test. So I rode it today and for the life >>> of me I can't see any of the same problems being discussed here (except >>> maybe the pedal strikes which may be lessened by lower profile pedals). >>> Mine is a 54cm shod with 32mm Paselas (standard, not TG's). Maybe the >>> larger 58cm frame makes a difference? Maybe the headset or its adjustment? >>> Dunno. But, yes it certainly does seem as though not every bike is for >>> every person. >>> >>> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "RBW Owners Bunch" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- Keep the metal side up and the rubber side down! -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
