The longest chainstay Rivs I have are Yves Gomes and the HubbuhHubbuh tandem. The latter especially so, when I ride it without a stoker. Then I really feel the wheelflop. When my youngest kid rides on the back, the wheelflop is less noticeable, and when the oldest kid gets on, it just about goes away.
So, what John said above regarding position and balance resonates with me. Here's how I think the design proceeds... Say I want a bike that will feel easier to get on and off of, and will be retain its line / stability over bumps and downhill. This suggests: 1. a relatively low bottom bracket (easier to put a foot down) 2. a slacker head angle (better over bumps and turn-in) 3. a longer trail (less likely to shimmy downhill) The combo of 2 and 3 yields greater wheelflop, which would create troublesome handling under many circumstances (for my taste). So, now I want to shift the rider weight back to unload the front wheel. I'll wind up with more saddle setback. But if I'm just sitting over the rear wheel, it'll be a harsher ride. Furthermore, if I intend to run a wider tire on a 700c wheel, yet maintain a narrow Q – that's easier to accomplish with longer chainstays. As the rear wheels go further back, there's more of a "middle of the bus" (vs. back of the bus) feeling for the rider. Of course I still have to fix the longer reach, which I can do with swept-back bars. So, I think Grant arrived at a nice design window for these "hillibikes" that really works well for the kinds of riding scenarios and load placement that they (and many of their customers) engage in. One more thing from my personal experience... I used to live in NorCal and rode on the "flowy", soft trails there. I also rode my road bike up and down steep hills. Then I moved East, and got a chance to race road bikes for a few years, including crits – lots of fast, sharp turns, etc. The bikes I raced had 41 cm chainstays and skinny tires, and my weight was pretty low and forward. Nowadays I don't race, and avoid riding on roads altogether. I've come to appreciate longer chainstays for the dirt roads. But... I'm not completely in the upright / sit up camp, because when I ride harder, I feel like putting more of my glutes into the pedal stroke. It's worth checking out these videos <https://edsasslercoaching.com/pedal-stroke-101-video/> by a cycling coach on pedaling technique to appreciate that, depending on which muscle groups you want to engage, will also dictate something about your fore-aft positioning, as well as the type of handlebar you're likely to want to use. Drop bars didn't evolve in a vacuum – they're a solution to a specific problem of allowing the rider to maintain control over the bike when lunging forward onto the pedals with greater force, but also allowing the rider to "chill" with their hands on the tops when they're pedaling with smaller downforce. Same with chainstays. As Richard Sachs likes to say, the frame is the frame; the frame is not the bike. - Max "IMHO, IME, ATMO, YMMV, horses for courses, chainstays and handlebars go together" in A2 On Friday, March 8, 2024 at 9:51:54 PM UTC-5 krhe...@gmail.com wrote: > @John, > From you have spoken about more weight distribution further back on the > rear wheel and the handlebars closer to the rider for a comfortable upright > riding position, in my case with my 52cm Clem "L" bike, I have found myself > very comfortable with more weight on the back wheel with a Sakae Ringyo > MTE-100 seat post paired with a Brooks B-66S saddle. As far as getting the > my Nitto Bosco bars higher and closer to me, I found a NITTO Technomic > NTC-280 Stem to get me there. The stem is outrageously tall, yet it all > works for me with everything around these long chain stays as a senior > cyclist. > > Kim Hetzel. [image: 20240128_143701hhh0000nnnn.jpg] > > On Friday, March 8, 2024 at 8:04:12 AM UTC-8 John Johnson wrote: > >> I have both normal and longish chainstay bikes in my house. I like the >> aesthetics of both, and they both feel "normal" (like Matt from Crust said) >> once you're riding. >> >> I know way less about bike handling and geometry than most of you, but >> one thing I assume that when you're riding in a more upright position, you >> want those long chainstays because your center of gravity is more aft than >> with a "traditional" bike position, where you are leaned a bit more forward >> on your hands and your weight is distributed more up front. It makes >> intuitive sense to me, and if you look at both Jones and Riv, the comfy >> upright position that they both aim for (albeit via different routes) >> involves getting the bars closer to you (high stack and short reach in the >> case of Jones, high handlebars in the case of Riv) and long chainstays. It >> would make sense that if the rider's weight is supposed to be farther back, >> the bike design should take this into account. >> >> -John >> On Friday, March 8, 2024 at 3:57:29 PM UTC+1 rmro...@gmail.com wrote: >> >>> Well, the larger volume tires are definitely part of the ride quality >>> equation. If they are “bouncy” the pressure is too high. >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>> On Mar 8, 2024, at 8:50 AM, Chris Halasz <cha...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> I'll chime in that while the very long (54cm?) chainstays on some of >>> the frames introduce some storage concerns, they (the Platypus, for >>> instance) ride very, very nicely. >>> >>> >>> That said, I dislike the common (what, 41cm?) short chainstays far more >>> than I dislike the extended variety. >>> >>> My chainstay sweet spot compromise may be more like 46cm, but I find >>> myself drawn to even longer. >>> >>> What I haven't yet come to appreciate are large tires for road use, say, >>> anything over 35mm. The longer chainstay bikes, to me, start to look >>> nervous with narrower tires. I really like the looks of the Clem H, though. >>> >>> Maybe there's more learning for me to appreciate the wider, heavier, >>> bouncier tread. But that's another topic. >>> >>> - Chris >>> On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 8:30:45 PM UTC-5 Bill Lindsay wrote: >>> >>>> Ian thinks "there's a heaping good portion of "I got mine" in your >>>> perspective." >>>> >>>> You are allowed to think whatever you like about me and my motives. >>>> Are you in the market for a new (to you) bike now? What is your build >>>> concept? >>>> >>>> Bill Lindsay >>>> El Cerrito, CA >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 4:02:18 PM UTC-8 ian m wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 12:26:11 PM UTC-5 Bill Lindsay wrote: >>>>> >>>>> All those wanting Rivendell to re-release bikes they made 10 years ago >>>>> do NOT have to turn in their Riv card, but they ARE outing themselves as >>>>> PAWNS of the T&D IC. Resist the pressures of the Time and Date >>>>> Industrial >>>>> Complex! >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> BL I feel like I understand where you're coming from in this thread >>>>> and largely I don't disagree with much of what you're saying but I think >>>>> there's a heaping good portion of "I got mine" in your perspective. Yes, >>>>> I >>>>> do have whatever the reverse of FOMO is when it comes to Riv bikes (Sad I >>>>> Missed Out, SIMO?). I learned about Riv circa the late aughts while >>>>> working >>>>> at Amoeba in Berkeley and riding my POS fixed gear bike (with Wald 808 >>>>> bars >>>>> and front basket) everywhere. Dreamt of virtually every model at the >>>>> time, >>>>> all of which were firmly out of reach with a record store employee >>>>> paycheck. Had I been able to afford a couple twos threes of their bikes >>>>> at >>>>> the time I'd probably be hang up free about their current designs. But I >>>>> think we all want what we can't have, and (for a terrible comparison) I >>>>> lament plenty of other unfortunate changes like the reality of modern >>>>> pickup trucks as opposed to my first two, the Datsun 720 and Toyota 22RE. >>>>> Change may be constant but it's not always beneficial >>>>> >>>> -- >>> >>> 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-bun...@googlegroups.com. >>> >>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/19c4d79e-e56c-44dd-be2d-b4013c8585ffn%40googlegroups.com >>> >>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/19c4d79e-e56c-44dd-be2d-b4013c8585ffn%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>> . >>> >>> -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/57ac1190-9dd5-429f-b1bc-129bc33272b8n%40googlegroups.com.
