Re: [RBW] Re: Rambouillet conundrum
Have you tried a click-stand? Cool little device. On Wednesday, April 9, 2014, Kelly tkslee...@gmail.com wrote: Did I mention I don't get many miles out of kickstands.. they get loosey goosey and bend and then useless... and I despise the two legged stands as I break them and they fall over more on me than a single. Oh I'm sorry I have a Blue Ram instead of an Orange one.. Night folks. Kelly -- 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 javascript:;. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.comjavascript:; . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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.
Re: [RBW] Re: Rambouillet conundrum
I find that the load and torque vector on a single legged kickstand causes the bolt to come loose over time, whereas the bolt has never come loose on my double legger. YMMV I guess On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 8:59 PM, Kelly tkslee...@gmail.com wrote: My 68cm RAM is my go fast bike. I'm 235 and usually in the 225 weight class. The bike comes in at about 25lbs with everything on it, and feel great to me.May not be for everyone but it feel quick and nimble and actually rides very well.I am in the wonderful position of being a perfect fit for Grants system. I run my bars about seat height, and at 6'5 the larger 67 AHH / 68 RAM / 64 Bomba give me three bikes that make me debate what to ride often. They each have specialities.. but overlap enough on meandering that sometimes it's just which one has a big enough bag for the day . I run the Gran Boise 32 that measure about 30 on the Ram the 70x37 Panaracer on the AHH great tire fyi.. so freaking smooth. and the the 700x50 Supreme and Big Apple on the Bomba.. I think I like the ride of the old style big apple better. .. but the supreme took me through alaska and many tours including goat head country with maybe 3 flats over the last 4 years. the AHH is my go to this week.. the only thing I miss on my ram is a kickstand... I mean I really really really really really miss my kickstand.. did I mention that it needs a kickstand.. Did I mention I don't get many miles out of kickstands.. they get loosey goosey and bend and then useless... and I despise the two legged stands as I break them and they fall over more on me than a single. Oh I'm sorry I have a Blue Ram instead of an Orange one.. Night folks. Kelly -- 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. -- I want the kind of six pack you can't drink. -- Micah -- 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.
Re: [RBW] Re: Rambouillet conundrum
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
Re: [RBW] Re: Rambouillet conundrum
The no warranty warranty :) On Monday, April 7, 2014 6:40:04 PM UTC-7, Peter M wrote: I believe you can put drop bars on any Rivendell without voiding the warranty. On Apr 7, 2014 9:10 PM, George Schick bhi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: Just now checking back to the blog. Looks like Patrick (Moore) pretty much said everything that I would've said. My difficulty with the Grant/Riv/fit philosophy is that it seems to have steered people into the largest possible frame sizes - if 54cm looks OK then you should really probably be on a 56cm. To me that's the same early 70's LBS guidance that had me on a 23 when I really should've been on a 21. One size does NOT fit all (of the same height or even PBH). There are different parts of the human anatomy besides just PBH - there are arm lengths, torso lengths, flexibility, and age to be taken into consideration. BTW, take a browse through the Riv Readers that have been published over the past several decades. Notice how the earlier frames almost always featured drop type bars, even on MTB setups (even though there was emphasis on getting the bar height even to or higher than the saddle)? Then the entire emphasis since has shifted gradually, subtly toward flatter bars like the Albatross, etc, with even more upright riding positions? Can you say flexibility and aging, anyone? Something different definitely seems to have been at work here... On Monday, April 7, 2014 7:00:48 PM UTC-5, Deacon Patrick wrote: George, I'm confused. Help me understand how #1 puts you at odds with Grant and Riv on their frame sizing criteria. As I understand it you just perfectly illustrated why their frame size criteria is PBH (then height to dial in cockpit), not height. This is precisely how they worked with me when I called them. I pointed out the frame they recommended was one size up from the charts online. Grant said something to the effect (not anywhere near a direct quote) of he's the master of the chart not the other way round and this will work, trust him. I did, and have never regretted it. With abandon, patrick On Monday, April 7, 2014 5:44:00 PM UTC-6, George Schick 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
Re: [RBW] Re: Rambouillet conundrum
For what it's worth I went through 4 different Rivendell frames before I found one I loved. But me and the Bombadil are a happy pair now. On Apr 8, 2014 10:05 PM, bo richardson borus...@gmail.com wrote: i have some 32 grand bois cypres i think i love them but there is too much glass on my circuit i am pulling them off tomorrow and would sell both for fifty plus shipping call it sixty even almost new although the front hs had glass pulled out of it bo richardson 360 676 4838 i love my rambouillet and if anything will make you love this bike it is these tires if not sell the bike with these tires -- 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. -- 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.
Re: [RBW] Re: Rambouillet conundrum
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 bhim...@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.
Re: [RBW] Re: Rambouillet conundrum
My '73 Motobecane Grand Record (which is, come to think of it, eerily similar to the one Patrick used to own) feels plenty fast and lively to me. Switching from Paselas (700x25) to the new Compass Stampede Pass tires (700x32) made a big difference--much more comfortable and responsive-feeling. P.S. Because I noted the other day on this list that I hadn't had a flat yet with the Stampede Pass tires, I got a flat this weekend. However, the (rear) tire was nice enough to start going soft only a few blocks from home. A less quality tire would have flatted 25 miles from home. --Eric N campyonly...@me.com Web: www.campyonly.com Twitter: @campyonlyguy Blog: campyonlyguy.blogspot.com On Apr 7, 2014, at 3:54 PM, Patrick Moore bertin...@gmail.com 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 bhim...@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. -- 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
Re: [RBW] Re: Rambouillet conundrum
To clarify: this Motobecane (Eric stole it from me) felt fast and lively. My point is that it didn't feel any faster and livelier than other bikes that had oversized and (since they are Rivs) doubtless sturdier tubing. Hell, the Herse I mentioned felt at least as fast with the same IRC Tandem (30 mm labeled, 28-9 mm actual) tires. Of course, I was usually carrying 15 to 40 lb on the back of the Motobecane, so who knows. On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Eric Norris campyonly...@me.com wrote: My ’73 Motobecane Grand Record (which is, come to think of it, eerily similar to the one Patrick used to own) feels plenty fast and lively to me. Switching from Paselas (700x25) to the new Compass Stampede Pass tires (700x32) made a big difference—much more comfortable and responsive-feeling. P.S. Because I noted the other day on this list that I hadn’t had a flat yet with the Stampede Pass tires, I got a flat this weekend. However, the (rear) tire was nice enough to start going soft only a few blocks from home. A less quality tire would have flatted 25 miles from home. --Eric N campyonly...@me.com Web: www.campyonly.com Twitter: @campyonlyguy Blog: campyonlyguy.blogspot.com On Apr 7, 2014, at 3:54 PM, Patrick Moore bertin...@gmail.com 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 bhim...@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
Re: [RBW] Re: Rambouillet conundrum
Patrick: I warned you about leaving your garage door open. --Eric N campyonly...@me.com Web: www.campyonly.com Twitter: @campyonlyguy Blog: campyonlyguy.blogspot.com On Apr 7, 2014, at 4:03 PM, Patrick Moore bertin...@gmail.com wrote: To clarify: this Motobecane (Eric stole it from me) felt fast and lively. My point is that it didn't feel any faster and livelier than other bikes that had oversized and (since they are Rivs) doubtless sturdier tubing. Hell, the Herse I mentioned felt at least as fast with the same IRC Tandem (30 mm labeled, 28-9 mm actual) tires. Of course, I was usually carrying 15 to 40 lb on the back of the Motobecane, so who knows. On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Eric Norris campyonly...@me.com wrote: My '73 Motobecane Grand Record (which is, come to think of it, eerily similar to the one Patrick used to own) feels plenty fast and lively to me. Switching from Paselas (700x25) to the new Compass Stampede Pass tires (700x32) made a big difference--much more comfortable and responsive-feeling. P.S. Because I noted the other day on this list that I hadn't had a flat yet with the Stampede Pass tires, I got a flat this weekend. However, the (rear) tire was nice enough to start going soft only a few blocks from home. A less quality tire would have flatted 25 miles from home. --Eric N campyonly...@me.com Web: www.campyonly.com Twitter: @campyonlyguy Blog: campyonlyguy.blogspot.com On Apr 7, 2014, at 3:54 PM, Patrick Moore bertin...@gmail.com 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 bhim...@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
Re: [RBW] Re: Rambouillet conundrum
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
Re: [RBW] Re: Rambouillet conundrum
George, I'm confused. Help me understand how #1 puts you at odds with Grant and Riv on their frame sizing criteria. As I understand it you just perfectly illustrated why their frame size criteria is PBH (then height to dial in cockpit), not height. This is precisely how they worked with me when I called them. I pointed out the frame they recommended was one size up from the charts online. Grant said something to the effect (not anywhere near a direct quote) of he's the master of the chart not the other way round and this will work, trust him. I did, and have never regretted it. With abandon, patrick On Monday, April 7, 2014 5:44:00 PM UTC-6, George Schick 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
Re: [RBW] Re: Rambouillet conundrum
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 5:44 PM, George Schick bhim...@gmail.com wrote: [...] 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. I'm built much the same, though without the long arms. I'm an honest 5'10 in bare feet on a level, concrete floor, but when I sit on a flat, wooden bench beside my 6'1 bro in law (last name Hansen) I am at least as tall and perhaps a wee bit taller. (I'm also better looking.) I agree about the huge importance of top tube length. Hell, forget seat tube length if tt length is OK. (That's not entirely serious, but it makes the point.) One reason I sold the 56 cm Sam Hill was that the 59 cm c-c tt was just way too long. OTOH, that old Herse, at 60 X 57 c-c, fit perfectly. (What a *nice* bike! The problem I had with it was: it was too heavy for a gofast, and it didn't handle my sort of easy-load grocery loads well, either front or rear. Oh well, the new owner loved it.) My two remaining Rivs are 57 and 58 (c-c) with 56 1/2 cm effective top tubes. The 17 c-c Fargo has a 57 cm effective top tube. When I converted various early '90s mountain bikes to drops, I needed short and steep upjutters; the last such conversion, a 20 c-c Diamond Back with flat tt and head tube cut off practically level with tt fit fine with a 10 cm Dirt Drop stem for the Noodle. 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. -- 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.
Re: [RBW] Re: Rambouillet conundrum
This only works if bar height is the accommodating variable. If you want your bar at a certain pre-determined height in relation to the saddle, then Grant's system doesn't work. On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 6:00 PM, Deacon Patrick lamontg...@mac.com wrote: George, I'm confused. Help me understand how #1 puts you at odds with Grant and Riv on their frame sizing criteria. As I understand it you just perfectly illustrated why their frame size criteria is PBH (then height to dial in cockpit), not height. This is precisely how they worked with me when I called them. I pointed out the frame they recommended was one size up from the charts online. Grant said something to the effect (not anywhere near a direct quote) of he's the master of the chart not the other way round and this will work, trust him. I did, and have never regretted it. With abandon, patrick On Monday, April 7, 2014 5:44:00 PM UTC-6, George Schick 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
Re: [RBW] Re: Rambouillet conundrum
Sure it can, within the limits of stem length options. With abandon, Patrick On Monday, April 7, 2014 6:06:45 PM UTC-6, Patrick Moore wrote: This only works if bar height is the accommodating variable. If you want your bar at a certain pre-determined height in relation to the saddle, then Grant's system doesn't work. On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 6:00 PM, Deacon Patrick lamon...@mac.comjavascript: wrote: George, I'm confused. Help me understand how #1 puts you at odds with Grant and Riv on their frame sizing criteria. As I understand it you just perfectly illustrated why their frame size criteria is PBH (then height to dial in cockpit), not height. This is precisely how they worked with me when I called them. I pointed out the frame they recommended was one size up from the charts online. Grant said something to the effect (not anywhere near a direct quote) of he's the master of the chart not the other way round and this will work, trust him. I did, and have never regretted it. With abandon, patrick On Monday, April 7, 2014 5:44:00 PM UTC-6, George Schick 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
Re: [RBW] Re: Rambouillet conundrum
OK, that is true, but as you say within limits. I run 8 cm stems on the 56 1/2 cm tt'd Rivs (I forgot the Ram: it has a 57 cm tt, and I use a 9, but the 42 cm Noodles sweep back a cm or 2). When you start needing 6 cm stems, something is less than ideal. On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 6:09 PM, Deacon Patrick lamontg...@mac.com wrote: Sure it can, within the limits of stem length options. With abandon, Patrick On Monday, April 7, 2014 6:06:45 PM UTC-6, Patrick Moore wrote: This only works if bar height is the accommodating variable. If you want your bar at a certain pre-determined height in relation to the saddle, then Grant's system doesn't work. On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 6:00 PM, Deacon Patrick lamon...@mac.com wrote: George, I'm confused. Help me understand how #1 puts you at odds with Grant and Riv on their frame sizing criteria. As I understand it you just perfectly illustrated why their frame size criteria is PBH (then height to dial in cockpit), not height. This is precisely how they worked with me when I called them. I pointed out the frame they recommended was one size up from the charts online. Grant said something to the effect (not anywhere near a direct quote) of he's the master of the chart not the other way round and this will work, trust him. I did, and have never regretted it. With abandon, patrick On Monday, April 7, 2014 5:44:00 PM UTC-6, George Schick 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,
Re: [RBW] Re: Rambouillet conundrum
Which, for a simple system that seems to be a lot more accurate than the fancy scientific fitting schema out there, seems pretty impressive to me. Have you had this conversation with Grant when working on your customs? With abandon, Patrick On Monday, April 7, 2014 6:11:58 PM UTC-6, Patrick Moore wrote: OK, that is true, but as you say within limits. I run 8 cm stems on the 56 1/2 cm tt'd Rivs (I forgot the Ram: it has a 57 cm tt, and I use a 9, but the 42 cm Noodles sweep back a cm or 2). When you start needing 6 cm stems, something is less than ideal. On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 6:09 PM, Deacon Patrick lamon...@mac.comjavascript: wrote: Sure it can, within the limits of stem length options. With abandon, Patrick On Monday, April 7, 2014 6:06:45 PM UTC-6, Patrick Moore wrote: This only works if bar height is the accommodating variable. If you want your bar at a certain pre-determined height in relation to the saddle, then Grant's system doesn't work. On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 6:00 PM, Deacon Patrick lamon...@mac.com wrote: George, I'm confused. Help me understand how #1 puts you at odds with Grant and Riv on their frame sizing criteria. As I understand it you just perfectly illustrated why their frame size criteria is PBH (then height to dial in cockpit), not height. This is precisely how they worked with me when I called them. I pointed out the frame they recommended was one size up from the charts online. Grant said something to the effect (not anywhere near a direct quote) of he's the master of the chart not the other way round and this will work, trust him. I did, and have never regretted it. With abandon, patrick On Monday, April 7, 2014 5:44:00 PM UTC-6, George Schick 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
Re: [RBW] Re: Rambouillet conundrum
It's not a matter of fitting systems, scientific or otherwise, but of weight distribution, handling, and overall feel and comfort. To take the Sam Hill as the example, my choices were limited to using a stem long enough to keep the weight distribution and handling and feel normal, or to use such a short stem that these qualities were compromised, or to have the bar too high. I realize that the seat tube angle plays a role here, but I am considering only such cases where this variable has been taken into account and you are still left with a reach from saddle (which has to be positioned first of all, with all other variables determined in respect of this one) to bar (of choice; again this one is another variable) that is too long. In short, again with my Sam Hill, with saddle in place, bar of choice (46 cm Noodle), and bar height of choice (no more than 1 above saddle) the tt was simply too long without using a stem so short that I anticipated (I did not try a 6 cm stem) problems. (One of which would have been simply finding a stem so short but with a long enough quill.) On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 6:25 PM, Deacon Patrick lamontg...@mac.com wrote: Which, for a simple system that seems to be a lot more accurate than the fancy scientific fitting schema out there, seems pretty impressive to me. Have you had this conversation with Grant when working on your customs? With abandon, Patrick On Monday, April 7, 2014 6:11:58 PM UTC-6, Patrick Moore wrote: OK, that is true, but as you say within limits. I run 8 cm stems on the 56 1/2 cm tt'd Rivs (I forgot the Ram: it has a 57 cm tt, and I use a 9, but the 42 cm Noodles sweep back a cm or 2). When you start needing 6 cm stems, something is less than ideal. On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 6:09 PM, Deacon Patrick lamon...@mac.com wrote: Sure it can, within the limits of stem length options. With abandon, Patrick On Monday, April 7, 2014 6:06:45 PM UTC-6, Patrick Moore wrote: This only works if bar height is the accommodating variable. If you want your bar at a certain pre-determined height in relation to the saddle, then Grant's system doesn't work. On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 6:00 PM, Deacon Patrick lamon...@mac.comwrote: George, I'm confused. Help me understand how #1 puts you at odds with Grant and Riv on their frame sizing criteria. As I understand it you just perfectly illustrated why their frame size criteria is PBH (then height to dial in cockpit), not height. This is precisely how they worked with me when I called them. I pointed out the frame they recommended was one size up from the charts online. Grant said something to the effect (not anywhere near a direct quote) of he's the master of the chart not the other way round and this will work, trust him. I did, and have never regretted it. With abandon, patrick On Monday, April 7, 2014 5:44:00 PM UTC-6, George Schick 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
Re: [RBW] Re: Rambouillet conundrum
Forgot to mention the customs. No, we didn't. I simply sent him a photo of me on a bike whose fit I liked, and then discussed general fit and handling qualities. We ended up in all 3 cases with 8 cm extensions (and 56.5 or 57 tts with 73* seat tubes). (Note: the 1994/5 required a custom stem (it was a 54 c-c; Grant said don't tell anyone, but hey) -- this was before Riv carried the Tech or Tallux -- but the effective extension was 8 cm.) For the record, if I were buying a bike and if Grant and I had discussed handling qualities, and further, if Grant had agreed to build me something with my desired handling qualities, and further yet, if Grant declared, I shall build you the bike of your dreams, and said bike of dreams shall use a stem with a 1 cm extension, the which I shall supply to you; be at peace: I would sit back in great contentment and anticipate the bike with nary a qualm. But I'd have to have Grant's personal word about it. On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 6:33 PM, Patrick Moore bertin...@gmail.com wrote: It's not a matter of fitting systems, scientific or otherwise, but of weight distribution, handling, and overall feel and comfort. To take the Sam Hill as the example, my choices were limited to using a stem long enough to keep the weight distribution and handling and feel normal, or to use such a short stem that these qualities were compromised, or to have the bar too high. I realize that the seat tube angle plays a role here, but I am considering only such cases where this variable has been taken into account and you are still left with a reach from saddle (which has to be positioned first of all, with all other variables determined in respect of this one) to bar (of choice; again this one is another variable) that is too long. In short, again with my Sam Hill, with saddle in place, bar of choice (46 cm Noodle), and bar height of choice (no more than 1 above saddle) the tt was simply too long without using a stem so short that I anticipated (I did not try a 6 cm stem) problems. (One of which would have been simply finding a stem so short but with a long enough quill.) On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 6:25 PM, Deacon Patrick lamontg...@mac.com wrote: Which, for a simple system that seems to be a lot more accurate than the fancy scientific fitting schema out there, seems pretty impressive to me. Have you had this conversation with Grant when working on your customs? With abandon, Patrick On Monday, April 7, 2014 6:11:58 PM UTC-6, Patrick Moore wrote: OK, that is true, but as you say within limits. I run 8 cm stems on the 56 1/2 cm tt'd Rivs (I forgot the Ram: it has a 57 cm tt, and I use a 9, but the 42 cm Noodles sweep back a cm or 2). When you start needing 6 cm stems, something is less than ideal. On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 6:09 PM, Deacon Patrick lamon...@mac.com wrote: Sure it can, within the limits of stem length options. With abandon, Patrick On Monday, April 7, 2014 6:06:45 PM UTC-6, Patrick Moore wrote: This only works if bar height is the accommodating variable. If you want your bar at a certain pre-determined height in relation to the saddle, then Grant's system doesn't work. On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 6:00 PM, Deacon Patrick lamon...@mac.comwrote: George, I'm confused. Help me understand how #1 puts you at odds with Grant and Riv on their frame sizing criteria. As I understand it you just perfectly illustrated why their frame size criteria is PBH (then height to dial in cockpit), not height. This is precisely how they worked with me when I called them. I pointed out the frame they recommended was one size up from the charts online. Grant said something to the effect (not anywhere near a direct quote) of he's the master of the chart not the other way round and this will work, trust him. I did, and have never regretted it. With abandon, patrick On Monday, April 7, 2014 5:44:00 PM UTC-6, George Schick 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
Re: [RBW] Re: Rambouillet conundrum
Just now checking back to the blog. Looks like Patrick (Moore) pretty much said everything that I would've said. My difficulty with the Grant/Riv/fit philosophy is that it seems to have steered people into the largest possible frame sizes - if 54cm looks OK then you should really probably be on a 56cm. To me that's the same early 70's LBS guidance that had me on a 23 when I really should've been on a 21. One size does NOT fit all (of the same height or even PBH). There are different parts of the human anatomy besides just PBH - there are arm lengths, torso lengths, flexibility, and age to be taken into consideration. BTW, take a browse through the Riv Readers that have been published over the past several decades. Notice how the earlier frames almost always featured drop type bars, even on MTB setups (even though there was emphasis on getting the bar height even to or higher than the saddle)? Then the entire emphasis since has shifted gradually, subtly toward flatter bars like the Albatross, etc, with even more upright riding positions? Can you say flexibility and aging, anyone? Something different definitely seems to have been at work here... On Monday, April 7, 2014 7:00:48 PM UTC-5, Deacon Patrick wrote: George, I'm confused. Help me understand how #1 puts you at odds with Grant and Riv on their frame sizing criteria. As I understand it you just perfectly illustrated why their frame size criteria is PBH (then height to dial in cockpit), not height. This is precisely how they worked with me when I called them. I pointed out the frame they recommended was one size up from the charts online. Grant said something to the effect (not anywhere near a direct quote) of he's the master of the chart not the other way round and this will work, trust him. I did, and have never regretted it. With abandon, patrick On Monday, April 7, 2014 5:44:00 PM UTC-6, George Schick 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.
Re: [RBW] Re: Rambouillet conundrum
I believe you can put drop bars on any Rivendell without voiding the warranty. On Apr 7, 2014 9:10 PM, George Schick bhim...@gmail.com wrote: Just now checking back to the blog. Looks like Patrick (Moore) pretty much said everything that I would've said. My difficulty with the Grant/Riv/fit philosophy is that it seems to have steered people into the largest possible frame sizes - if 54cm looks OK then you should really probably be on a 56cm. To me that's the same early 70's LBS guidance that had me on a 23 when I really should've been on a 21. One size does NOT fit all (of the same height or even PBH). There are different parts of the human anatomy besides just PBH - there are arm lengths, torso lengths, flexibility, and age to be taken into consideration. BTW, take a browse through the Riv Readers that have been published over the past several decades. Notice how the earlier frames almost always featured drop type bars, even on MTB setups (even though there was emphasis on getting the bar height even to or higher than the saddle)? Then the entire emphasis since has shifted gradually, subtly toward flatter bars like the Albatross, etc, with even more upright riding positions? Can you say flexibility and aging, anyone? Something different definitely seems to have been at work here... On Monday, April 7, 2014 7:00:48 PM UTC-5, Deacon Patrick wrote: George, I'm confused. Help me understand how #1 puts you at odds with Grant and Riv on their frame sizing criteria. As I understand it you just perfectly illustrated why their frame size criteria is PBH (then height to dial in cockpit), not height. This is precisely how they worked with me when I called them. I pointed out the frame they recommended was one size up from the charts online. Grant said something to the effect (not anywhere near a direct quote) of he's the master of the chart not the other way round and this will work, trust him. I did, and have never regretted it. With abandon, patrick On Monday, April 7, 2014 5:44:00 PM UTC-6, George Schick 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
