I'm not sure who "they" implies. I'm for the slope as it works well on my
rSogn. My three other bikes have a level top tube, but they also have quill
stems. Total number of mainstream bikes i own is zero.
Garrett
On Oct 21, 2012 2:48 PM, "Michael_S" <mikeybi...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
> Yea, me too. I can't figure out why "they" want the steeper sloping top
> tube. Maybe it's because they are used to mainstream bikes who've
> completely adopted the compact geometry. The Stag would be much classier
> with the 1.5d slope originally planned.
> ~mike
> On Sunday, October 21, 2012 1:21:25 PM UTC-7, Jimmy Livengood wrote:
>> I'm not planning on buying one of these, so take my opinion in that
>> light, but I'd vote for horizontal (or mostly-horizontal) TT, especially
>> for this type of bike.
>> I am unclear why those who want their bars up above the saddle seem
>> fixated on this stack-of-spacers idea. Use a positive-rise stem if the
>> spacers are that big of an issue. That's what I do on any bike that
>> requires the bars up high.
>> But for those who like the bars a bit below saddle level, I see no reason
>> to stick them with a sloping-TT and extended head tube monstrosity, that
>> they'll then add a -17 stem to. Talk about ugly.
I very much like the open PBP crown as an overall design but don't see a need for the built-in bosses. They look a little odd if not used and I expect they will not be used on many bikes. This is not to say that I wouldn't want to be able to mount a front rack. The hourglass bosses or the canti studs could make that fairly clean. (The crown would be drilled through, right?) I'm in the 2 degree or greater up-slope group. I want this frame with a light, threadless steerer mated to light fork blades. And, I would prefer not to use a big stack of spacers -- My bars have migrated up to match saddle height as I have aged and arthritis has appeared! The only downside I find in a sloping top tube is that a shorter seat tube doesn't have optimal space for taller water bottles. Many frames put both bosses above the derailleur mounting position and the bottle ends up very close to the underside of the top tube.
I am not a fan of the 5 degree upsloped top tube. The Stag is a road bike: It should look like a road bike. Likewise, Rawland shouldn't cater to the minority who want their bars higher than their saddle; that's Rivendell's job.
Rawlands increasingly have "classic style." You wouldn't believe the number of compliments I got from the 140 carbon bike riders while cycling down the coast of California last week with Challenged Athletes Foundation. Please don't make the Stag look like a mountain bike with a ginormous head tube!
There is nothing wrong or unsightly with running a 1&1/8" stem on a 1" steerer. The shim is invisible. You can't even tell. I've got the Ritchey Classic Silver 1&1/8" stem on multiple bikes in this manner and have also used the Nitto Lugged 1&1/8" stem on my Riv Roadeo and it looks great and not in the least bit funky. Aversions to this set-up are just dumb. Here's the Nitto stem: http://store.somafab.com/nilust.html
PLEASE no more blue paint jobs. My rSogn and Nordavinden are gorgeous, but nearly the same shade of blue already. You would almost think they are the same bike. I love the suggestions of wine red or British Racing Green. Either would be lovely. I'd also like to see a much larger RAWLAND decal on the down tube. The current decals are just too small, out of proportion with the bike, and hard to read. Use a fatter font and spread the letters out, too. I'd also love a white panel behind RAWLAND.
One thing I don't see is an explanation of how the small Stag would differ from the small Nordavinden (which is shod with 650B wheels), other than cantilevers instead of long-reach calipers.
Those M5 fittings on the Pacenti PBP fork crown are neat, but no rack maker that I am aware of makes a rack to fit them. It would be putting the cart before the horse to include them in the design, but I'd love to see Nitto make a rack which mounts to those, plus the canti posts, as that would be really stable and would avoid having hourglass rack mounts on the fork blades (which I have to admit are an ugly distraction if you're not running a front h'bar bag rack). That said, a low-trail front end is specifically intended to have a French-style h'bar bag and rack, so the Stag design should absolutely allow the mounting of such a rack without any clamps.
All this Stag chatter bums me out in one way, though, in that it seems to be at the expense of cyber-love for the Nordavinden. Those frames should be flying out the door to proud new owner/riders! Is the current Rawland crowd too "off-road"-focused to appreciate the Nordavinden? Really, it can tackle a lot of trails and dirt, too, but it does it in a much lighter weight, more classic, style. And, road riding on a Nordavinden is fan-freaking-tastic!
I love, love, love my Nordavinden. It honestly rides better than any of the other 17 bikes I own, by far, and that's before even mounting a front rack and bag. Every Rawland fan should own and ride a Nordavinden as their "road bike" which can also tackle plenty of dirt roads, gravel, and trails.
Ouch, my grammar is bad. I was annoyed by the Romney-esque "they"
business. I now regret checking my phone while enjoying an afternoon of
wrenching in the garage.
On Oct 21, 2012 3:24 PM, "XO-1.org Rough Riders" <adventureco...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> I am not a fan of the 5 degree upsloped top tube. The Stag is a road bike:
> It should look like a road bike. Likewise, Rawland shouldn't cater to the
> minority who want their bars higher than their saddle; that's Rivendell's
> job.
> Rawlands increasingly have "classic style." You wouldn't believe the
> number of compliments I got from the 140 carbon bike riders while cycling
> down the coast of California last week with Challenged Athletes Foundation.
> Please don't make the Stag look like a mountain bike with a ginormous head
> tube!
> There is nothing wrong or unsightly with running a 1&1/8" stem on a 1"
> steerer. The shim is invisible. You can't even tell. I've got the Ritchey
> Classic Silver 1&1/8" stem on multiple bikes in this manner and have also
> used the Nitto Lugged 1&1/8" stem on my Riv Roadeo and it looks great and
> not in the least bit funky. Aversions to this set-up are just dumb. Here's
> the Nitto stem: http://store.somafab.com/nilust.html
> PLEASE no more blue paint jobs. My rSogn and Nordavinden are gorgeous, but
> nearly the same shade of blue already. You would almost think they are the
> same bike. I love the suggestions of wine red or British Racing Green.
> Either would be lovely. I'd also like to see a much larger RAWLAND decal on
> the down tube. The current decals are just too small, out of proportion
> with the bike, and hard to read. Use a fatter font and spread the letters
> out, too. I'd also love a white panel behind RAWLAND.
> One thing I don't see is an explanation of how the small Stag would differ
> from the small Nordavinden (which is shod with 650B wheels), other than
> cantilevers instead of long-reach calipers.
> Those M5 fittings on the Pacenti PBP fork crown are neat, but no rack
> maker that I am aware of makes a rack to fit them. It would be putting the
> cart before the horse to include them in the design, but I'd love to see
> Nitto make a rack which mounts to those, plus the canti posts, as that
> would be really stable and would avoid having hourglass rack mounts on the
> fork blades (which I have to admit are an ugly distraction if you're not
> running a front h'bar bag rack). That said, a low-trail front end is
> specifically intended to have a French-style h'bar bag and rack, so the
> Stag design should absolutely allow the mounting of such a rack without any
> clamps.
> All this Stag chatter bums me out in one way, though, in that it seems to
> be at the expense of cyber-love for the Nordavinden. Those frames should be
> flying out the door to proud new owner/riders! Is the current Rawland crowd
> too "off-road"-focused to appreciate the Nordavinden? Really, it can tackle
> a lot of trails and dirt, too, but it does it in a much lighter weight,
> more classic, style. And, road riding on a Nordavinden is
> fan-freaking-tastic!
> I love, love, love my Nordavinden. It honestly rides better than any of
> the other 17 bikes I own, by far, and that's before even mounting a front
> rack and bag. Every Rawland fan should own and ride a Nordavinden as their
> "road bike" which can also tackle plenty of dirt roads, gravel, and trails.
Greg: Well stated and well taken points about the difficulties of fitting larger size riders to bikes with threadless steerers. I see a simple solution:
Just as Sean designed the small Nordavinden with 650B wheels instead of 700c wheels like the other sizes, an extra large size Stag can also be designed and offered which differs from the rest of the sizes by having a sloping top tube. That way, the rest of us don't have to have a sloping top tube, while folks like you can have one to get the fit you need on the large end. What say you, Sean?
As for "they," it's not Romneyesque: There are no Romney voters here: "they" all ride Chinese carbon with Italian names on the down tube, and personally toss their year-old wonder bike in the landfill every year when they get a new one!
- Chris "Sloping Top Tubes Are Ugly but Alas Some Seem to Need Them" Kostman http://www.XO-1.org
On Sunday, October 21, 2012 3:00:37 PM UTC-7, Greg Costello wrote:
> That's a rather presumptuous and frankly kind of snotty thing to say so > let me offer up an explanation. More like we are used to manufacturers who > have perpetually failed to take into consideration the drop in stack with > the switch to threadless headsets, and then have limited sizes that stop > around 60 cm if lucky. Try getting a classic looking bike these days, > without going custom, with a level top tube if you ride a 64. The old > classics, particularly when bars were more level with top tubes, also had a > lot more frame sizes to pick from, not to mention the aesthetics of quill > stems. Level top tubes with today's basic bike are fine and dandy if you > ride a 56 or 58. I have a custom almost level horizontal top tube lugged > steel bike with a 1 percent slope which is essentially not noticeable, and > I can use a 80 degree stem with 18mm of spacers and it looks normal. But > its a 64 cm bike with a 22 cm headtube, and it still has 6 cm of drop to > the bars. Tough to do with 5 sizes. This is why some of us like sloped > tubes with limited size bikes and everything else that's going on here, not > because we don't know what a "classic" bike looks like.
> On Sunday, October 21, 2012 2:48:46 PM UTC-7, Michael_S wrote:
>> Yea, me too. I can't figure out why "they" want the steeper sloping top >> tube. Maybe it's because they are used to mainstream bikes who've >> completely adopted the compact geometry. The Stag would be much classier >> with the 1.5d slope originally planned.
>> ~mike
>> On Sunday, October 21, 2012 1:21:25 PM UTC-7, Jimmy Livengood wrote:
>>> I'm not planning on buying one of these, so take my opinion in that >>> light, but I'd vote for horizontal (or mostly-horizontal) TT, especially >>> for this type of bike.
>>> I am unclear why those who want their bars up above the saddle seem >>> fixated on this stack-of-spacers idea. Use a positive-rise stem if the >>> spacers are that big of an issue. That's what I do on any bike that >>> requires the bars up high.
>>> But for those who like the bars a bit below saddle level, I see no >>> reason to stick them with a sloping-TT and extended head tube monstrosity, >>> that they'll then add a -17 stem to. Talk about ugly.
I didn't intend to be demeaning about it, I just don't understand the desire for the such a slope on a road bike other than to make a too small size work. It seems kind of crazy that all the rest of us have to get a sloping top tube because there aren't large enough sizes.
On a bike like the rSogn which can handle big knobbies, I can understand the stand-over concern driving the sloping top tube. But the Stag is intended as a roadbike, it will be made out of steel and with a low trail fork. A lot of users will have fenders installed. It should look like a classic road bike.
I was thinking that as well(adding slope only on the larger sizes). Tough on a small production builder who can't make the range of sizes that folks like Colnago and Gunnar do, as for many sizes it requires some sort of aesthestic compromise. Other ways to crack the nut for us tall fellas is the extended head tube in the larger size or frueler geometry ala Colnago or "dropped tope tube" ala Pegoretti or a little of both plus a little slope. Most of these will be somewhat aesthetically challenging to pure tradionalists, but to my eyes they are better on a road bike than huge stacks of spacers or 25 degree stems. But I didn't think the mock up of the 5 degree slop looked bad at all. When I think slope these days I think of the Singular gryphon I'm building up - no mistaking this beast for anything close to classic!
On Sunday, October 21, 2012 4:36:53 PM UTC-7, XO-1.org Rough Riders wrote:
> Greg: Well stated and well taken points about the difficulties of fitting > larger size riders to bikes with threadless steerers. I see a simple > solution:
> Just as Sean designed the small Nordavinden with 650B wheels instead of > 700c wheels like the other sizes, an extra large size Stag can also be > designed and offered which differs from the rest of the sizes by having a > sloping top tube. That way, the rest of us don't have to have a sloping top > tube, while folks like you can have one to get the fit you need on the > large end. What say you, Sean?
> As for "they," it's not Romneyesque: There are no Romney voters here: > "they" all ride Chinese carbon with Italian names on the down tube, and > personally toss their year-old wonder bike in the landfill every year when > they get a new one!
> - Chris "Sloping Top Tubes Are Ugly but Alas Some Seem to Need Them" > Kostman > http://www.XO-1.org
> On Sunday, October 21, 2012 3:00:37 PM UTC-7, Greg Costello wrote:
>> That's a rather presumptuous and frankly kind of snotty thing to say so >> let me offer up an explanation. More like we are used to manufacturers who >> have perpetually failed to take into consideration the drop in stack with >> the switch to threadless headsets, and then have limited sizes that stop >> around 60 cm if lucky. Try getting a classic looking bike these days, >> without going custom, with a level top tube if you ride a 64. The old >> classics, particularly when bars were more level with top tubes, also had a >> lot more frame sizes to pick from, not to mention the aesthetics of quill >> stems. Level top tubes with today's basic bike are fine and dandy if you >> ride a 56 or 58. I have a custom almost level horizontal top tube lugged >> steel bike with a 1 percent slope which is essentially not noticeable, and >> I can use a 80 degree stem with 18mm of spacers and it looks normal. But >> its a 64 cm bike with a 22 cm headtube, and it still has 6 cm of drop to >> the bars. Tough to do with 5 sizes. This is why some of us like sloped >> tubes with limited size bikes and everything else that's going on here, not >> because we don't know what a "classic" bike looks like.
>> On Sunday, October 21, 2012 2:48:46 PM UTC-7, Michael_S wrote:
>>> Yea, me too. I can't figure out why "they" want the steeper sloping top >>> tube. Maybe it's because they are used to mainstream bikes who've >>> completely adopted the compact geometry. The Stag would be much classier >>> with the 1.5d slope originally planned.
>>> ~mike
>>> On Sunday, October 21, 2012 1:21:25 PM UTC-7, Jimmy Livengood wrote:
>>>> I'm not planning on buying one of these, so take my opinion in that >>>> light, but I'd vote for horizontal (or mostly-horizontal) TT, especially >>>> for this type of bike.
>>>> I am unclear why those who want their bars up above the saddle seem >>>> fixated on this stack-of-spacers idea. Use a positive-rise stem if the >>>> spacers are that big of an issue. That's what I do on any bike that >>>> requires the bars up high.
>>>> But for those who like the bars a bit below saddle level, I see no >>>> reason to stick them with a sloping-TT and extended head tube monstrosity, >>>> that they'll then add a -17 stem to. Talk about ugly.
I like the sloping top tube and threadless steerer. I especially like the
smaller sizes. I am very tempted I would just need to figure out what bike
to sell to get one.
Dan Abelson
St. Paul, MN
On Oct 21, 2012 10:31 AM, "Sean" <i...@rawlandcycles.com> wrote:
On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 9:52 AM, T Truong <vel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> That's too bad. the heavy steerer should be an option for those who still
> wants threaded steerer and are willing to pay extra?or they can get a
> different model.
Its very hard to find someone to start threading on steerers - it
is beyond the
capabilities of almost every LBS that I am aware of (maybe ones like BDB
or Riv that sell their own line of frames could do it).
> The lighter steerer as planned originally was and still is perfect for this
> model. Reconsider it.
I was under the impression that the Stag was supposed to be a lightweight
fat tire road bike like the one that Lyonsport built for review in the previous
issue of BQ. I think that if it is built with purity of vision, it
could be the RB-1
of the 650B world - which would be a pretty cool thing.
Steve
-- "Sow a thought, reap an action. Sow an action, reap a habit. Sow a
habit, reap a character. Sow a character, reap a destiny." - Samuel
Smiles
There are some notions being thrown around pretty loosely, particularly
about "classic" rando style road bikes and bike fit.
While it is true that a classic rando style road bike bike has a level top
tube, it is also true that this style of bike has bars at or slightly below
saddle height without a lot of stem or seatpost showing. This is true
whether you are looking at a Renè Herse or Mitch Pryor build. So by
definition, if you have a big stack of spacers you do not have a "classic"
randoish road bike. I also find it humorous that someone would talk about a
"classic" bike and, in the same breath, recommend and 40 degree riser stem;
nothing could be further from classic than that, unless you're talking
about a "classic" hybrid.
Second, let's be clear why a production road frame would have a sloping top
tube; the point of the design is not to get extra standover for riders with
average leg lengths, it's to be able to fit a short legged rider on to a
given top tube length while allowing an average or longer legged rider not
to have a huge stack of spacers. So, to clarify, we're not talking
exclusively about tall riders here, we're talking about the impact on
average length leg length riders as well.
This gets to the point that if you try to run a flattish top tube and
attempt to accommodate generous standover for shorter legged riders,(i.e.
the the left third of the bell curve), then the majority of riders -
average leg length and above - is not going to fit the frame properly.
Chris Kostman is a good example of this. He is not a super tall guy but his
Nordavinden, as built, certainly does not conform to the "classic"
definition. Sure, he has a level top tube, but he also has a quite large
stack of spacers and yet is forced to run a short (100mm) stem and compact
bars with a short reach. The bottom line is that a large Nordavinden frame
is borderline unworkable for him -- he needs a longer seat tube and shorter
top tube, but he's able to (just) able to make it work functionally.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/chriskostman/7996500361/in/set-721576299... So it's a dilemma for a production builder, boutique or large scale. There
are three practical ways to deal with the issue:
1. Lengthen seat tubes for a given top tube length; shorter legged riders
put up with less standover and/or longer stems, or not purchase.
2. Maximize stand over for any given top tube length; average to taller
riders put up with a big stack of spacers, or not purchase.
3. Strike a balance with a sloped top tube and the anti-slopers won't
purchase.
I think Sean has hit on the Goldilocks solution with the 5° top tube.
> I was thinking that as well(adding slope only on the larger sizes). Tough
> on a small production builder who can't make the range of sizes that folks
> like Colnago and Gunnar do, as for many sizes it requires some sort of
> aesthestic compromise. Other ways to crack the nut for us tall fellas is
> the extended head tube in the larger size or frueler geometry ala Colnago
> or "dropped tope tube" ala Pegoretti or a little of both plus a little
> slope. Most of these will be somewhat aesthetically challenging to pure
> tradionalists, but to my eyes they are better on a road bike than huge
> stacks of spacers or 25 degree stems. But I didn't think the mock up of
> the 5 degree slop looked bad at all. When I think slope these days I think
> of the Singular gryphon I'm building up - no mistaking this beast for
> anything close to classic!
> On Sunday, October 21, 2012 4:36:53 PM UTC-7, XO-1.org Rough Riders wrote:
>> Greg: Well stated and well taken points about the difficulties of fitting
>> larger size riders to bikes with threadless steerers. I see a simple
>> solution:
>> Just as Sean designed the small Nordavinden with 650B wheels instead of
>> 700c wheels like the other sizes, an extra large size Stag can also be
>> designed and offered which differs from the rest of the sizes by having a
>> sloping top tube. That way, the rest of us don't have to have a sloping top
>> tube, while folks like you can have one to get the fit you need on the
>> large end. What say you, Sean?
>> As for "they," it's not Romneyesque: There are no Romney voters here:
>> "they" all ride Chinese carbon with Italian names on the down tube, and
>> personally toss their year-old wonder bike in the landfill every year when
>> they get a new one!
>> - Chris "Sloping Top Tubes Are Ugly but Alas Some Seem to Need Them"
>> Kostman
>> http://www.XO-1.org
>> On Sunday, October 21, 2012 3:00:37 PM UTC-7, Greg Costello wrote:
>>> That's a rather presumptuous and frankly kind of snotty thing to say so
>>> let me offer up an explanation. More like we are used to manufacturers who
>>> have perpetually failed to take into consideration the drop in stack with
>>> the switch to threadless headsets, and then have limited sizes that stop
>>> around 60 cm if lucky. Try getting a classic looking bike these days,
>>> without going custom, with a level top tube if you ride a 64. The old
>>> classics, particularly when bars were more level with top tubes, also had a
>>> lot more frame sizes to pick from, not to mention the aesthetics of quill
>>> stems. Level top tubes with today's basic bike are fine and dandy if you
>>> ride a 56 or 58. I have a custom almost level horizontal top tube lugged
>>> steel bike with a 1 percent slope which is essentially not noticeable, and
>>> I can use a 80 degree stem with 18mm of spacers and it looks normal. But
>>> its a 64 cm bike with a 22 cm headtube, and it still has 6 cm of drop to
>>> the bars. Tough to do with 5 sizes. This is why some of us like sloped
>>> tubes with limited size bikes and everything else that's going on here, not
>>> because we don't know what a "classic" bike looks like.
>>> On Sunday, October 21, 2012 2:48:46 PM UTC-7, Michael_S wrote:
>>>> Yea, me too. I can't figure out why "they" want the steeper sloping
>>>> top tube. Maybe it's because they are used to mainstream bikes who've
>>>> completely adopted the compact geometry. The Stag would be much classier
>>>> with the 1.5d slope originally planned.
>>>> ~mike
>>>> On Sunday, October 21, 2012 1:21:25 PM UTC-7, Jimmy Livengood wrote:
>>>>> I'm not planning on buying one of these, so take my opinion in that
>>>>> light, but I'd vote for horizontal (or mostly-horizontal) TT, especially
>>>>> for this type of bike.
>>>>> I am unclear why those who want their bars up above the saddle seem
>>>>> fixated on this stack-of-spacers idea. Use a positive-rise stem if the
>>>>> spacers are that big of an issue. That's what I do on any bike that
>>>>> requires the bars up high.
>>>>> But for those who like the bars a bit below saddle level, I see no
>>>>> reason to stick them with a sloping-TT and extended head tube monstrosity,
>>>>> that they'll then add a -17 stem to. Talk about ugly.
Hold on a minute, Zybariver Greg. You know don't me and have never seen me on any of my bikes, and you sure don't know what motivates decisions I make, so don't go making statements about me and mine to back up your claims.
In regards to my Nordavinden, it fits fantastically and within millimeters of how my Rivendell Roadeo fits, which has been my gold standard for perfect fit. I am not "forced" to run a 10cm stem on my Nordavinden because its top tube is too long. Far from it. I chose my Nordavinden frame size in large part so that 10cm would be the requisite stem length. Why? Because 10cm is the DESIRED stem length for a bike of this size with low trail which will generally be ridden with a handlebar bag on a low rack. (Longer stems create more of a lever arm and are more likely to cause handlebar shimmy, also because they don't allow the handlebar bag to be as close to the rider, and steerer tube, as possible.) I would absolutely not want a shorter top tube on Nordavinden and its current length is perfect.
I don't ride "compact" handlebars. I ride the Ritchey Classic Silver bars, which have a decreasing radius, but also have a 73mm reach. They have a nice, relatively long ramps. "Compact bars" barely have any reach, because they are designed for bike racers who ride with their bars too low and subsequently spend most of their time on the brifters. I love the Ritchey bars because the tops are nice and long (wide), the ramps are pretty long and flat, and because the drops are much more comfortable than traditional shape drops. And yeah, I spend a lot more time in the drops than most people, in part because those bars have a 128mm drop, not the 144mm that I used to more commonly use (and because I've practiced yoga for 23 years).
I may not be a "super tall guy," but I am 5'11.5" and ride with a 77cm saddle height. That makes me nearly two inches taller than "the typical American male."
As for my Nordavinden set-up, it's not finished yet. I need to ride it a bit more before I finalize the bar height, relative to the ground and the saddle. Initially I am running the bars a bit higher than usual, which is why I have 50mm of spacers, as compared to 35mm on my Roadeo. Currently the bars on my Nordavinden are 3cm lower than my saddle, but I usually ride with my bars about 5cm lower than the saddle, which is likely where they will end up on my Nordavinden (or not, since it's my "brevet bike" and needs to be extra comfortable for extra long-distance rides).
There is nothing un-classic about my set-up: If I measure from the top of the head tube to the bottom of my quill stem on, for example, my 1984 Holdsworth, that distance is 85mm. On my Nordavinden, that's 75mm, so I actually have my bars closer to the head tube on my Nordavinden than on my Holdsworth, which is most assuredly a classic style bike, and both fit quite similarly in terms of bar height relative to the saddle.
What you are presumably really complaining about is looking at a stack of spacers instead of the more dainty look of the vertical part of a classic quill stem. Haven't we all had this issue for the past 15+ years? I won't argue with that; I generally prefer the looks of a quill stem, too, but all the pluses of a modern stem outweigh the negatives. It's been my observation that many of the modern "constructeur" type bicycles run quill stems, or modern stems disguised as quill stems, in large part because they want that true classic look. However, most of those bikes are custom and can be made with a longer seat tube and head tube if the intended rider can straddle it.
Would I like my Nordavinden, rSogn, and my Roadeo to have longer seat tubes? Sure. I think they would look even better with less post and less spacers showing, but that wouldn't affect the fit in any way whatsoever. However, it's important to keep in mind that those three bikes are not custom-made and are only offered in a handful of sizes. These aren't "the good old days" like when I managed a bike shop in the mid-80s and we offered 48 through 62cm size frames in 2cm increments (which was a pain in the butt and expensive to keep in inventory, which is one of the reasons bike companies went to sloping top tubes, long seat posts, and threadless headsets in the first place, because that allows for less sizes in the range). If a bike company is only going to offer four or five sizes, some accommodations have to be made, and I think Sean does a great job of handling that with his Rawland models (though really short riders don't have much to choose from).
If more people would step up to the plate and put their money down, I think Sean could probably offer a few more sizes of at least some models. An even taller option, with the probably requisite sloping top tube, would probably sell. I have no idea how many Sean needs to order in any given size. If it's as low as ten, maybe that could fly. Or maybe that size of the model would have to cost a bit more. I know, for example, that wholesale on XXL t-shirts is higher than all other sizes, so it's not unprecedented.
I have yet to do a full blog post about my Nordavinden. October's a very busy month for me, hosting two major cycling events and participating in one in between them. But in early November I'll have a full report on my Nordavinden on my blog, and then I will follow that up with compare and contrast posts with my Rivendell Roadeo (which will then go up for sale) and with my rSogn. Those should be really interesting and I can't wait to dive into them.
- Chris Kostman,
Proud owner / rider of a perfect fitting Rawland rSogn and Rawland Nordavinden
Bike Fitter with 18 years experience, certified via BikeFit.com and occasional bike fit workshop presenter
http://www.XO-1.org
On Sunday, October 21, 2012 9:48:21 PM UTC-7, zybariver wrote:
> There are some notions being thrown around pretty loosely, particularly > about "classic" rando style road bikes and bike fit.
> While it is true that a classic rando style road bike bike has a level top > tube, it is also true that this style of bike has bars at or slightly below > saddle height without a lot of stem or seatpost showing. This is true > whether you are looking at a Renè Herse or Mitch Pryor build. So by > definition, if you have a big stack of spacers you do not have a "classic" > randoish road bike. I also find it humorous that someone would talk about a > "classic" bike and, in the same breath, recommend and 40 degree riser stem; > nothing could be further from classic than that, unless you're talking > about a "classic" hybrid.
> Second, let's be clear why a production road frame would have a sloping > top tube; the point of the design is not to get extra standover for riders > with average leg lengths, it's to be able to fit a short legged rider on to > a given top tube length while allowing an average or longer legged rider > not to have a huge stack of spacers. So, to clarify, we're not talking > exclusively about tall riders here, we're talking about the impact on > average length leg length riders as well.
> This gets to the point that if you try to run a flattish top tube and > attempt to accommodate generous standover for shorter legged riders,(i.e. > the the left third of the bell curve), then the majority of riders - > average leg length and above - is not going to fit the frame properly.
> Chris Kostman is a good example of this. He is not a super tall guy but > his Nordavinden, as built, certainly does not conform to the "classic" > definition. Sure, he has a level top tube, but he also has a quite large > stack of spacers and yet is forced to run a short (100mm) stem and compact > bars with a short reach. The bottom line is that a large Nordavinden frame > is borderline unworkable for him -- he needs a longer seat tube and shorter > top tube, but he's able to (just) able to make it work functionally. > http://www.flickr.com/photos/chriskostman/7996500361/in/set-721576299...
> So it's a dilemma for a production builder, boutique or large scale.
> There are three practical ways to deal with the issue: > 1. Lengthen seat tubes for a given top tube length; shorter legged riders > put up with less standover and/or longer stems, or not purchase.
> 2. Maximize stand over for any given top tube length; average to taller > riders put up with a big stack of spacers, or not purchase.
> 3. Strike a balance with a sloped top tube and the anti-slopers won't > purchase.
> I think Sean has hit on the Goldilocks solution with the 5° top tube.
> Greg
> On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 5:51 PM, Greg Costello <costello.we...@gmail.com>wrote:
>> Chris,
>> I was thinking that as well(adding slope only on the larger sizes). >> Tough on a small production builder who can't make the range of sizes that >> folks like Colnago and Gunnar do, as for many sizes it requires some sort >> of aesthestic compromise. Other ways to crack the nut for us tall fellas >> is the extended head tube in the larger size or frueler geometry ala >> Colnago or "dropped tope tube" ala Pegoretti or a little of both plus a >> little slope. Most of these will be somewhat aesthetically challenging to >> pure tradionalists, but to my eyes they are better on a road bike than huge >> stacks of spacers or 25 degree stems. But I didn't think the mock up of >> the 5 degree slop looked bad at
Chris, you're right, we don't know each other, but I appreciate all the
information and passion that you put out there in your postings and blog.
And while I haven't seen you in person, through the wonders of flickr,
I've seen photos of most of your bikes. I was using your Nordavinden as an
example because it's the only flattish top tube Rawland that I've seen good
photos of, no offense intended.
You are on record as preferring more steerer tube vs. a sloping top tube,
and I respect that. This issue is to a large degree about opinions on
aesthetics, potatoes/patahtoes.
I do recognize that you are well qualified and have your bike dialied in to
"fit," and I'm not arguing that. My point was that with a 3cm drop from
saddle to bars, which is in the range of what many prefer, you are still
running significant spacers, in addition to the already substantially
extended headtube on the Nordavinden. Visually, the distance between the
top tube and stem is quite great. I'm not talking about the 'dainty' look
of the a quill stem, but the top heavy look of a tall stack of spacers
coupled with an extended head tube (which exacerbates the issue). Here is
an example of a threadless stem on a classically proportioned bike:
http://janheine.wordpress.com/2012/08/07/a-versatile-performance-bike/ and here is the Nordavinden:
Your point on the 100mm optimal stem length is well taken. In my comments,
I was referring to the total cockpit dimension of stem length + bar reach;
because, despite what you may think, the Ritchey Classic Curve bars are
indeed a compact handlebar. In fact, they are the most "compact" bars in
the industry, their 73mm reach is shorter than even the FSA Omega Compact
that they are modeled after, which have an 80mm reach:
http://www.fullspeedahead.com/products/199/Omega-Compact-Handlebar Here is
the Ritchey for comparison:
http://www.ritcheylogic.com/dyn_prodfamily.php?k=394053 I made the comment that I did, because if you were to go with a more
standard mid 90mm reach bar, in order to have the same hood position,
you'd have to run a 80mm stem.
In the end, we agree that it is a challenge for a production builder to
make models that work for people with different proportions, we just
disagree on how to accommodate that.
I look forward to your full report on the Nordavinden.
Greg
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 10:25 AM, XO-1.org Rough Riders <
adventureco...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hold on a minute, Zybariver Greg. You know don't me and have never seen me
> on any of my bikes, and you sure don't know what motivates decisions I
> make, so don't go making statements about me and mine to back up your
> claims.
> In regards to my Nordavinden, it fits fantastically and within millimeters
> of how my Rivendell Roadeo fits, which has been my gold standard for
> perfect fit. I am not "forced" to run a 10cm stem on my Nordavinden because
> its top tube is too long. Far from it. I chose my Nordavinden frame size in
> large part so that 10cm would be the requisite stem length. Why? Because
> 10cm is the DESIRED stem length for a bike of this size with low trail
> which will generally be ridden with a handlebar bag on a low rack. (Longer
> stems create more of a lever arm and are more likely to cause handlebar
> shimmy, also because they don't allow the handlebar bag to be as close to
> the rider, and steerer tube, as possible.) I would absolutely not want a
> shorter top tube on Nordavinden and its current length is perfect.
> I don't ride "compact" handlebars. I ride the Ritchey Classic Silver bars,
> which have a decreasing radius, but also have a 73mm reach. They have a
> nice, relatively long ramps. "Compact bars" barely have any reach, because
> they are designed for bike racers who ride with their bars too low and
> subsequently spend most of their time on the brifters. I love the Ritchey
> bars because the tops are nice and long (wide), the ramps are pretty long
> and flat, and because the drops are much more comfortable than traditional
> shape drops. And yeah, I spend a lot more time in the drops than most
> people, in part because those bars have a 128mm drop, not the 144mm that I
> used to more commonly use (and because I've practiced yoga for 23 years).
> I may not be a "super tall guy," but I am 5'11.5" and ride with a 77cm
> saddle height. That makes me nearly two inches taller than "the typical
> American male."
> As for my Nordavinden set-up, it's not finished yet. I need to ride it a
> bit more before I finalize the bar height, relative to the ground and the
> saddle. Initially I am running the bars a bit higher than usual, which is
> why I have 50mm of spacers, as compared to 35mm on my Roadeo. Currently the
> bars on my Nordavinden are 3cm lower than my saddle, but I usually ride
> with my bars about 5cm lower than the saddle, which is likely where they
> will end up on my Nordavinden (or not, since it's my "brevet bike" and
> needs to be extra comfortable for extra long-distance rides).
> There is nothing un-classic about my set-up: If I measure from the top of
> the head tube to the bottom of my quill stem on, for example, my 1984
> Holdsworth, that distance is 85mm. On my Nordavinden, that's 75mm, so I
> actually have my bars closer to the head tube on my Nordavinden than on my
> Holdsworth, which is most assuredly a classic style bike, and both fit
> quite similarly in terms of bar height relative to the saddle.
> What you are presumably really complaining about is looking at a stack of
> spacers instead of the more dainty look of the vertical part of a classic
> quill stem. Haven't we all had this issue for the past 15+ years? I won't
> argue with that; I generally prefer the looks of a quill stem, too, but all
> the pluses of a modern stem outweigh the negatives. It's been my
> observation that many of the modern "constructeur" type bicycles run quill
> stems, or modern stems disguised as quill stems, in large part because they
> want that true classic look. However, most of those bikes are custom and
> can be made with a longer seat tube and head tube if the intended rider can
> straddle it.
> Would I like my Nordavinden, rSogn, and my Roadeo to have longer seat
> tubes? Sure. I think they would look even better with less post and less
> spacers showing, but that wouldn't affect the fit in any way whatsoever.
> However, it's important to keep in mind that those three bikes are not
> custom-made and are only offered in a handful of sizes. These aren't "the
> good old days" like when I managed a bike shop in the mid-80s and we
> offered 48 through 62cm size frames in 2cm increments (which was a pain in
> the butt and expensive to keep in inventory, which is one of the reasons
> bike companies went to sloping top tubes, long seat posts, and threadless
> headsets in the first place, because that allows for less sizes in the
> range). If a bike company is only going to offer four or five sizes, some
> accommodations have to be made, and I think Sean does a great job of
> handling that with his Rawland models (though really short riders don't
> have much to choose from).
> If more people would step up to the plate and put their money down, I
> think Sean could probably offer a few more sizes of at least some models.
> An even taller option, with the probably requisite sloping top tube, would
> probably sell. I have no idea how many Sean needs to order in any given
> size. If it's as low as ten, maybe that could fly. Or maybe that size of
> the model would have to cost a bit more. I know, for example, that
> wholesale on XXL t-shirts is higher than all other sizes, so it's not
> unprecedented.
> I have yet to do a full blog post about my Nordavinden. October's a very
> busy month for me, hosting two major cycling events and participating in
> one in between them. But in early November I'll have a full report on my
> Nordavinden on my blog, and then I will follow that up with compare and
> contrast posts with my Rivendell Roadeo (which will then go up for sale)
> and with my rSogn. Those should be really interesting and I can't wait to
> dive into them.
> - Chris Kostman,
> Proud owner / rider of a perfect fitting Rawland rSogn and Rawland
> Nordavinden
> Bike Fitter with 18 years experience, certified via BikeFit.com and
> occasional bike fit workshop presenter
> http://www.XO-1.org
> On Sunday, October 21, 2012 9:48:21 PM UTC-7, zybariver wrote:
>> There are some notions being thrown around pretty loosely, particularly
>> about "classic" rando style road bikes and bike fit.
>> While it is true that a classic rando style road bike bike has a level
>> top tube, it is also true that this style of bike has bars at or slightly
>> below saddle height without a lot of stem or seatpost showing. This is true
>> whether you are looking at a Renè Herse or Mitch Pryor build. So by
>> definition, if you have a big stack of spacers you do not have a "classic"
>> randoish road bike. I also find it humorous that someone would talk about a
>> "classic" bike and, in the same breath, recommend and 40 degree riser stem;
>> nothing could be further from classic than that, unless you're talking
>> about a "classic" hybrid.
>> Second, let's be clear why a production road frame would have a sloping
>> top tube; the point of the design is not to get extra standover for riders
>> with average leg lengths, it's to be
I'm glad you posted that link because most of us in the flat top tube camp are striving to achieve that look. I thought that was Sean had in mind when he originally designed the Stag. Although he says his conceptual design preceded that. It still was his approach until it got derailed by those trying make the Stag fit a few individuals that need a taller frame.
At this point we need to let Sean make the final call and live with the outcome. I'm anxious to go forward and find out what his pre-order special pricing is. We will all be much happier when the bike gets into our hands.
On Monday, October 22, 2012 12:40:37 PM UTC-7, zybariver wrote:
> Chris, you're right, we don't know each other, but I appreciate all the > information and passion that you put out there in your postings and blog. > And while I haven't seen you in person, through the wonders of flickr, > I've seen photos of most of your bikes. I was using your Nordavinden as an > example because it's the only flattish top tube Rawland that I've seen good > photos of, no offense intended.
> You are on record as preferring more steerer tube vs. a sloping top tube, > and I respect that. This issue is to a large degree about opinions on > aesthetics, potatoes/patahtoes.
> I do recognize that you are well qualified and have your bike dialied in > to "fit," and I'm not arguing that. My point was that with a 3cm drop from > saddle to bars, which is in the range of what many prefer, you are still > running significant spacers, in addition to the already substantially > extended headtube on the Nordavinden. Visually, the distance between the > top tube and stem is quite great. I'm not talking about the 'dainty' look > of the a quill stem, but the top heavy look of a tall stack of spacers > coupled with an extended head tube (which exacerbates the issue). Here is > an example of a threadless stem on a classically proportioned bike: > http://janheine.wordpress.com/2012/08/07/a-versatile-performance-bike/ > and here is the Nordavinden:
> Your point on the 100mm optimal stem length is well taken. In my > comments, I was referring to the total cockpit dimension of stem length + > bar reach; because, despite what you may think, the Ritchey Classic Curve > bars are indeed a compact handlebar. In fact, they are the most "compact" > bars in the industry, their 73mm reach is shorter than even the FSA Omega > Compact that they are modeled after, which have an 80mm reach: > http://www.fullspeedahead.com/products/199/Omega-Compact-Handlebar Here > is the Ritchey for comparison: > http://www.ritcheylogic.com/dyn_prodfamily.php?k=394053 > I made the comment that I did, because if you were to go with a more > standard mid 90mm reach bar, in order to have the same hood position, > you'd have to run a 80mm stem.
> In the end, we agree that it is a challenge for a production builder to > make models that work for people with different proportions, we just > disagree on how to accommodate that.
> I look forward to your full report on the Nordavinden.
> Greg
> On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 10:25 AM, XO-1.org Rough Riders <
> adventu...@gmail.com <javascript:>> wrote:
>> Hold on a minute, Zybariver Greg. You know don't me and have never seen >> me on any of my bikes, and you sure don't know what motivates decisions I >> make, so don't go making statements about me and mine to back up your >> claims.
>> In regards to my Nordavinden, it fits fantastically and within >> millimeters of how my Rivendell Roadeo fits, which has been my gold >> standard for perfect fit. I am not "forced" to run a 10cm stem on my >> Nordavinden because its top tube is too long. Far from it. I chose my >> Nordavinden frame size in large part so that 10cm would be the requisite >> stem length. Why? Because 10cm is the DESIRED stem length for a bike of >> this size with low trail which will generally be ridden with a handlebar >> bag on a low rack. (Longer stems create more of a lever arm and are more >> likely to cause handlebar shimmy, also because they don't allow the >> handlebar bag to be as close to the rider, and steerer tube, as possible.) >> I would absolutely not want a shorter top tube on Nordavinden and its >> current length is perfect.
>> I don't ride "compact" handlebars. I ride the Ritchey Classic Silver >> bars, which have a decreasing radius, but also have a 73mm reach. They have >> a nice, relatively long ramps. "Compact bars" barely have any reach, >> because they are designed for bike racers who ride with their bars too low >> and subsequently spend most of their time on the brifters. I love the >> Ritchey bars because the tops are nice and long (wide), the ramps are >> pretty long and flat, and because the drops are much more comfortable than >> traditional shape drops. And yeah, I spend a lot more time in the drops >> than most people, in part because those bars have a 128mm drop, not the >> 144mm that I used to more commonly use (and because I've practiced yoga for >> 23 years).
>> I may not be a "super tall guy," but I am 5'11.5" and ride with a 77cm >> saddle height. That makes me nearly two inches taller than "the typical >> American male."
>> As for my Nordavinden set-up, it's not finished yet. I need to ride it a >> bit more before I finalize the bar height, relative to the ground and the >> saddle. Initially I am running the bars a bit higher than usual, which is >> why I have 50mm of spacers, as compared to 35mm on my Roadeo. Currently the >> bars on my Nordavinden are 3cm lower than my saddle, but I usually ride >> with my bars about 5cm lower than the saddle, which is likely where they >> will end up on my Nordavinden (or not, since it's my "brevet bike" and >> needs to be extra comfortable for extra long-distance rides).
>> There is nothing un-classic about my set-up: If I measure from the top of >> the head tube to the bottom of my quill stem on, for example, my 1984 >> Holdsworth, that distance is 85mm. On my Nordavinden, that's 75mm, so I >> actually have my bars closer to the head tube on my Nordavinden than on my >> Holdsworth, which is most assuredly a classic style bike, and both fit >> quite similarly in terms of bar height relative to the saddle.
>> What you are presumably really complaining about is looking at a stack of >> spacers instead of the more dainty look of the vertical part of a classic >> quill stem. Haven't we all had this issue for the past 15+ years? I won't >> argue with that; I generally prefer the looks of a quill stem, too, but all >> the pluses of a modern stem outweigh the negatives. It's been my >> observation that many of the modern "constructeur" type bicycles run quill >> stems, or modern stems disguised as quill stems, in large part because they >> want that true classic look. However, most of those bikes are custom and >> can be made with a longer seat tube and head tube if the intended rider can >> straddle it.
>> Would I like my Nordavinden, rSogn, and my Roadeo to have longer seat >> tubes? Sure. I think they would look even better with less post and less >> spacers showing, but that wouldn't affect the fit in any way whatsoever. >> However, it's important to keep in mind that those three bikes are not >> custom-made and are only offered in a handful of sizes. These aren't "the >> good old days" like when I managed a bike shop in the mid-80s and we >> offered 48 through 62cm size frames in 2cm increments (which was a pain in >> the butt and expensive to keep in inventory, which is one of the reasons >> bike companies went to sloping top tubes, long seat posts, and threadless >> headsets in the first place, because that allows for less sizes in the >> range). If a bike company is only going to offer four or five sizes, some >> accommodations have to be made, and I think Sean does a great job of >> handling that with his Rawland models (though really short riders don't >> have much to choose from).
>> If more people would step up to the plate and put their money down, I >> think Sean could probably offer a few more sizes of at least some models. >> An even taller option, with the probably requisite sloping top tube, would >> probably sell. I have no idea how many Sean needs to order in any given >> size. If it's as low as ten, maybe that could fly. Or maybe that size of >> the model would have to cost a bit more. I know, for example, that >> wholesale on XXL t-shirts is higher than all other sizes, so it's not >> unprecedented.
>> I have yet to do a full blog post about my Nordavinden. October's a very >> busy month for me, hosting two major cycling events and participating in >> one in between them. But in early November I'll have a full report on my >> Nordavinden on my blog, and then I will follow that up with compare and >> contrast posts with my Rivendell Roadeo (which will then go up for sale) >> and with my rSogn. Those should be really interesting and I can't wait to >> dive into them.
>> - Chris Kostman,
>> Proud owner / rider of a perfect fitting Rawland rSogn and Rawland >> Nordavinden
>> Bike Fitter with 18 years experience, certified via BikeFit.com and >> occasional bike fit workshop presenter
>> http://www.XO-1.org
I think, if Sean / Rawland are really going for the classic brevet bike look and design for the Stag, which would be fantastic, then Sean would "simply" size up the seat tubes by a few centimeters and let us riders of these bikes correspondingly run a smaller amount of seat post and stem spacers. I know that will take some explaining on the website, so that people select their frame choices based upon top tube length essentially only, but it would really set Rawland apart in providing a true modern version of a classic design.
But hey, if that's not possible, I would still buy one, even with the dreaded 5 degree top tube upslope and/or 3-5cm of stem spacers!
- Chris Kostman
PS (While we're talking Stag design particulars, I wish the smaller sizes wouldn't get progressively steeper seat angles. The need for that is based upon myth.)
On Monday, October 22, 2012 12:40:37 PM UTC-7, zybariver wrote:
> Chris, you're right, we don't know each other, but I appreciate all the > information and passion that you put out there in your postings and blog. > And while I haven't seen you in person, through the wonders of flickr, > I've seen photos of most of your bikes. I was using your Nordavinden as an > example because it's the only flattish top tube Rawland that I've seen good > photos of, no offense intended.
> You are on record as preferring more steerer tube vs. a sloping top tube, > and I respect that. This issue is to a large degree about opinions on > aesthetics, potatoes/patahtoes.
> I do recognize that you are well qualified and have your bike dialied in > to "fit," and I'm not arguing that. My point was that with a 3cm drop from > saddle to bars, which is in the range of what many prefer, you are still > running significant spacers, in addition to the already substantially > extended headtube on the Nordavinden. Visually, the distance between the > top tube and stem is quite great. I'm not talking about the 'dainty' look > of the a quill stem, but the top heavy look of a tall stack of spacers > coupled with an extended head tube (which exacerbates the issue). Here is > an example of a threadless stem on a classically proportioned bike: > http://janheine.wordpress.com/2012/08/07/a-versatile-performance-bike/ > and here is the Nordavinden:
> Your point on the 100mm optimal stem length is well taken. In my > comments, I was referring to the total cockpit dimension of stem length + > bar reach; because, despite what you may think, the Ritchey Classic Curve > bars are indeed a compact handlebar. In fact, they are the most "compact" > bars in the industry, their 73mm reach is shorter than even the FSA Omega > Compact that they are modeled after, which have an 80mm reach: > http://www.fullspeedahead.com/products/199/Omega-Compact-Handlebar Here > is the Ritchey for comparison: > http://www.ritcheylogic.com/dyn_prodfamily.php?k=394053 > I made the comment that I did, because if you were to go with a more > standard mid 90mm reach bar, in order to have the same hood position, > you'd have to run a 80mm stem.
> In the end, we agree that it is a challenge for a production builder to > make models that work for people with different proportions, we just > disagree on how to accommodate that.
> I look forward to your full report on the Nordavinden.
> Greg
> On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 10:25 AM, XO-1.org Rough Riders <
> adventu...@gmail.com <javascript:>> wrote:
>> Hold on a minute, Zybariver Greg. You know don't me and have never seen >> me on any of my bikes, and you sure don't know what motivates decisions I >> make, so don't go making statements about me and mine to back up your >> claims.
>> In regards to my Nordavinden, it fits fantastically and within >> millimeters of how my Rivendell Roadeo fits, which has been my gold >> standard for perfect fit. I am not "forced" to run a 10cm stem on my >> Nordavinden because its top tube is too long. Far from it. I chose my >> Nordavinden frame size in large part so that 10cm would be the requisite >> stem length. Why? Because 10cm is the DESIRED stem length for a bike of >> this size with low trail which will generally be ridden with a handlebar >> bag on a low rack. (Longer stems create more of a lever arm and are more >> likely to cause handlebar shimmy, also because they don't allow the >> handlebar bag to be as close to the rider, and steerer tube, as possible.) >> I would absolutely not want a shorter top tube on Nordavinden and its >> current length is perfect.
>> I don't ride "compact" handlebars. I ride the Ritchey Classic Silver >> bars, which have a decreasing radius, but also have a 73mm reach. They have >> a nice, relatively long ramps. "Compact bars" barely have any reach, >> because they are designed for bike racers who ride with their bars too low >> and subsequently spend most of their time on the brifters. I love the >> Ritchey bars because the tops are nice and long (wide), the ramps are >> pretty long and flat, and because the drops are much more comfortable than >> traditional shape drops. And yeah, I spend a lot more time in the drops >> than most people, in part because those bars have a 128mm drop, not the >> 144mm that I used to more commonly use (and because I've practiced yoga for >> 23 years).
>> I may not be a "super tall guy," but I am 5'11.5" and ride with a 77cm >> saddle height. That makes me nearly two inches taller than "the typical >> American male."
>> As for my Nordavinden set-up, it's not finished yet. I need to ride it a >> bit more before I finalize the bar height, relative to the ground and the >> saddle. Initially I am running the bars a bit higher than usual, which is >> why I have 50mm of spacers, as compared to 35mm on my Roadeo. Currently the >> bars on my Nordavinden are 3cm lower than my saddle, but I usually ride >> with my bars about 5cm lower than the saddle, which is likely where they >> will end up on my Nordavinden (or not, since it's my "brevet bike" and >> needs to be extra comfortable for extra long-distance rides).
>> There is nothing un-classic about my set-up: If I measure from the top of >> the head tube to the bottom of my quill stem on, for example, my 1984 >> Holdsworth, that distance is 85mm. On my Nordavinden, that's 75mm, so I >> actually have my bars closer to the head tube on my Nordavinden than on my >> Holdsworth, which is most assuredly a classic style bike, and both fit >> quite similarly in terms of bar height relative to the saddle.
>> What you are presumably really complaining about is looking at a stack of >> spacers instead of the more dainty look of the vertical part of a classic >> quill stem. Haven't we all had this issue for the past 15+ years? I won't >> argue with that; I generally prefer the looks of a quill stem, too, but all >> the pluses of a modern stem outweigh the negatives. It's been my >> observation that many of the modern "constructeur" type bicycles run quill >> stems, or modern stems disguised as quill stems, in large part because they >> want that true classic look. However, most of those bikes are custom and >> can be made with a longer seat tube and head tube if the intended rider can >> straddle it.
>> Would I like my Nordavinden, rSogn, and my Roadeo to have longer seat >> tubes? Sure. I think they would look even better with less post and less >> spacers showing, but that wouldn't affect the fit in any way whatsoever. >> However, it's important to keep in mind that those three bikes are not >> custom-made and are only offered in a handful of sizes. These aren't "the >> good old days" like when I managed a bike shop in the mid-80s and we >> offered 48 through 62cm size frames in 2cm increments (which was a pain in >> the butt and expensive to keep in inventory, which is one of the reasons >> bike companies went to sloping top tubes, long seat posts, and threadless >> headsets in the first place, because that allows for less sizes in the >> range). If a bike company is only going to offer four or five sizes, some >> accommodations have to be made, and I think Sean does a great job of >> handling that with his Rawland models (though really short riders don't >> have much to choose from).
>> If more people would step up to the plate and put their money down, I >> think Sean could probably offer a few more sizes of at least some models. >> An even taller option, with the probably requisite sloping top tube, would >> probably sell. I have no idea how many Sean needs to order in any given >> size. If it's as low as ten, maybe that could fly. Or maybe that size of >> the model would have to cost a bit more. I know, for example, that >> wholesale on XXL t-shirts is higher than all other sizes, so it's not >> unprecedented.
>> I have yet to do a full blog post about my Nordavinden. October's a very >> busy month for me, hosting two major cycling events and participating in >> one in between them. But in early November I'll have a full report on my >> Nordavinden on my blog, and then I will follow that up with compare and >> contrast posts with my Rivendell Roadeo (which will then go up for sale) >> and with my rSogn. Those should be really interesting and I can't wait to >> dive into them.
Chris wrote:
> PS (While we're talking Stag design particulars, I wish the smaller sizes wouldn't get
> progressively steeper seat angles. The need for that is based upon myth.)
I spent way too much time trying to convince Sean on this, including a lot of handy drawings showing that his progression for seat tube angle and top tube lengths (in the rSogn design) resulted in the same effective top tube lengths. Here is one example from a geometry that isn't being proposed anymore, but which had a 585mm top tube in large with a 72 degree STA and 560 in medium with a 73 STA. You can see that despite a 25mm difference in published top tube lengths that the head tube is only 6mm farther forward on the large vs the medium.
I don't expect this to change and have stopped bringing it up. If he keeps the seat tube angles constant then he either needs to lengthen the top tube length on small sizes or accept some TCO. I think that a little TCO is acceptable and would advocate for that vs compromising the fit, but it isn't my choice.
On level vs sloping top tube I'd say that if a level top tube is used then you need to have riders willing to give up standover and increase the seat tube lengths by 2-3cm. That is how the french bikes were fit. It isn't a currently common geometry and is probably a little bit hard to sell, but it does work well.
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 2:41 PM, Alex Wetmore <a...@phred.org> wrote:
> Chris wrote:
> > PS (While we're talking Stag design particulars, I wish the smaller
> sizes wouldn't get
> > progressively steeper seat angles. The need for that is based upon myth.)
> I spent way too much time trying to convince Sean on this, including a
> lot of handy drawings showing that his progression for seat tube angle and
> top tube lengths (in the rSogn design) resulted in the same effective top
> tube lengths. Here is one example from a geometry that isn't being
> proposed anymore, but which had a 585mm top tube in large with a 72 degree
> STA and 560 in medium with a 73 STA. You can see that despite a 25mm
> difference in published top tube lengths that the head tube is only 6mm
> farther forward on the large vs the medium.
This is because he's insisting on keeping the wheelbase within a narrower
range (not a bad idea) but he wants to keep up the ruse of monotonically
increasing dimensions. The bikes actually fit the same just with a
difference in minimum bar height, standover, and what seatposts can be used
on the smaller one.
I don't expect this to change and have stopped bringing it up. If he
> keeps the seat tube angles constant then he either needs to lengthen the
> top tube length on small sizes
This is what Rivendell does. They basically have to avoid publishing the
dimensions up front to keep people from freaking out at a non-issue, and
put out enough literature and culture-building for people to just trust
them.
or accept some TCO. I think that a little TCO is acceptable and would
> advocate for that vs compromising the fit
Cervelo did this until a couple years ago, sizing road bikes based on stack
and reach above all else. They kept the STA constant but still kept the TT
length monotonically changing, so the front-center changed dramatically
across the sizes making them handle quite differently. The smallest sizes
didn't just practically have crankarm overlap, but were supposedly
near-unrideable.
> I don't ride "compact" handlebars. I ride the Ritchey Classic Silver bars,
> which have a decreasing radius, but also have a 73mm reach. They have a
> nice, relatively long ramps. "Compact bars" barely have any reach, because
> they are designed for bike racers who ride with their bars too low and
> subsequently spend most of their time on the brifters. I love the Ritchey
> bars because the tops are nice and long (wide), the ramps are pretty long
> and flat, and because the drops are much more comfortable than traditional
> shape drops.
They only appear to have longish ramps for you because you've rotated them
up at least 15° and then clamped the levers a good 2cm lower than intended.
They are in fact exemplary of compact bars, and were meant to be set up
with the tails of the drops nearly level.
And yeah, I spend a lot more time in the drops than most people, in part
> because those bars have a 128mm drop, not the 144mm that I used to more
> commonly use (and because I've practiced yoga for 23 years).
I spend almost all my time in the drops, I like the open access to the
drops on compacts with the way they come well back behind the clamp, but
hate the progressive curve and the shallowness that forces the tops to be
lower to keep the drops in the same place.
Luckily I found Cinelli 66 deep drops which meet my requirements, the 155mm
drop means I can set the tops higher (8cm below saddle) and I love the
large-radius curve in the hooks: http://i.imgur.com/dxxDw.jpg
There's been a lot of good points raised here. Clearly there are some folks more knowledgable that me here...
As much as Rawland is your company, I can't help but say that if Alex Wetmore points something out about geometry, fit, etc., he's probably right. I'd listen. In fact, I'd probably even ask if I could quote him on it (as a marketing angle). The guy is 'that good.'
Chris K is a hero of an athlete and is a strong proponent of Rawland. That's a feather in Rawland's cap! He's given the brand great exposure and really seems to like your design!
I've written Greg a few times offlist to tell him that I've agreed with points he's made. His perception of the aesthetics is right on. His reference to the L'Avecaise reviewed in Bicycle Quarterly a couple issues ago is spot on for a beautifully proportioned, functional bike. A fit like that is what I'm after! Here's that link again: http://janheine.wordpress.com/2012/08/07/a-versatile-performance-bike/
Fred is almost encyclopedic in his knowledge and has made a lot of good suggestions here and around the interweb.
(Oddly, I feel like I just signed someone's high school yearbook...)
As for the steerer, I don't know if this, or anything, is resolved, but I suggest we NOT walk the threadless/threaded line. A lightweight 1" (threadless-only) steer tube makes the most sense here.
In terms of other variables, I like the crown-top bosses. There's no great rack for it now, but a custom or a small production run rack could make good use of those bosses. This won't be a deal breaker for me.
(1) I've made several design decisions. Those decisions will be revealed upon arrival of a prototype in about a month or so.
Note: Rawland will offer a pre-order special when the prototype arrives. Then there will be good-better-best package deals prior to arrival of the first production batch.
(2) There's now a real possibility that the Stag will come with a matching threadless stem. If the stem can come only in one length, would 90mm work for most?
(3) I am down to two or three metallic colors. As mentioned above, the prototype will reveal the color.
On Monday, October 22, 2012 4:38:29 PM UTC-7, Daniel wrote:
> Sean,
> There's been a lot of good points raised here. Clearly there are some > folks more knowledgable that me here...
> As much as Rawland is your company, I can't help but say that if Alex > Wetmore points something out about geometry, fit, etc., he's probably > right. I'd listen. In fact, I'd probably even ask if I could quote him on > it (as a marketing angle). The guy is 'that good.'
> Chris K is a hero of an athlete and is a strong proponent of Rawland. > That's a feather in Rawland's cap! He's given the brand great exposure and > really seems to like your design!
> I've written Greg a few times offlist to tell him that I've agreed with > points he's made. His perception of the aesthetics is right on. His > reference to the L'Avecaise reviewed in Bicycle Quarterly a couple issues > ago is spot on for a beautifully proportioned, functional bike. A fit like > that is what I'm after! Here's that link again: > http://janheine.wordpress.com/2012/08/07/a-versatile-performance-bike/
> Fred is almost encyclopedic in his knowledge and has made a lot of good > suggestions here and around the interweb.
> (Oddly, I feel like I just signed someone's high school yearbook...)
> As for the steerer, I don't know if this, or anything, is resolved, but I > suggest we NOT walk the threadless/threaded line. A lightweight 1" > (threadless-only) steer tube makes the most sense here.
> In terms of other variables, I like the crown-top bosses. There's no great > rack for it now, but a custom or a small production run rack could make > good use of those bosses. This won't be a deal breaker for me.
> And, finally, color? How about Spinal Tap Black?
I'm very excited for the Stag, and am already saving up for it! The Stag will be build up as my Rando Bike and I'm planning to take it for up to a 1200k. I know these are kind of a small details, but I am really hoping for a triple bottle cage (to hold my Klean Kanteen of coffee) and some type of rear stay pump peg or mount?
Also 90mm stem would work for me. Matching seat post too?
On Monday, October 22, 2012 11:42:01 PM UTC-6, Brian Oei wrote:
> Hi Sean,
> I'm very excited for the Stag, and am already saving up for it! The Stag > will be build up as my Rando Bike and I'm planning to take it for up to a > 1200k. I know these are kind of a small details, but I am really hoping for > a triple bottle cage (to hold my Klean Kanteen of coffee) and some type of > rear stay pump peg or mount?
> Also 90mm stem would work for me. Matching seat post too?
> Brian > SFRandonneurs!!
> On Thursday, October 18, 2012 7:48:59 PM UTC-7, Sean wrote:
On Monday, October 22, 2012 10:56:38 PM UTC-4, Sean wrote: > Hey everyone,
> A couple things:
> (1) I've made several design decisions. Those decisions will be revealed > upon arrival of a prototype in about a month or so.
> Note: Rawland will offer a pre-order special when the prototype arrives. > Then there will be good-better-best package deals prior to arrival of the > first production batch.
> (2) There's now a real possibility that the Stag will come with a matching > threadless stem. If the stem can come only in one length, would 90mm work > for most?
> (3) I am down to two or three metallic colors. As mentioned above, the > prototype will reveal the color.
> Thanks to everyone for their input here! > Sean
> On Monday, October 22, 2012 4:38:29 PM UTC-7, Daniel wrote:
>> Sean,
>> There's been a lot of good points raised here. Clearly there are some >> folks more knowledgable that me here...
>> As much as Rawland is your company, I can't help but say that if Alex >> Wetmore points something out about geometry, fit, etc., he's probably >> right. I'd listen. In fact, I'd probably even ask if I could quote him on >> it (as a marketing angle). The guy is 'that good.'
>> Chris K is a hero of an athlete and is a strong proponent of Rawland. >> That's a feather in Rawland's cap! He's given the brand great exposure and >> really seems to like your design!
>> I've written Greg a few times offlist to tell him that I've agreed with >> points he's made. His perception of the aesthetics is right on. His >> reference to the L'Avecaise reviewed in Bicycle Quarterly a couple issues >> ago is spot on for a beautifully proportioned, functional bike. A fit like >> that is what I'm after! Here's that link again: >> http://janheine.wordpress.com/2012/08/07/a-versatile-performance-bike/
>> Fred is almost encyclopedic in his knowledge and has made a lot of good >> suggestions here and around the interweb.
>> (Oddly, I feel like I just signed someone's high school yearbook...)
>> As for the steerer, I don't know if this, or anything, is resolved, but I >> suggest we NOT walk the threadless/threaded line. A lightweight 1" >> (threadless-only) steer tube makes the most sense here.
>> In terms of other variables, I like the crown-top bosses. There's no >> great rack for it now, but a custom or a small production run rack could >> make good use of those bosses. This won't be a deal breaker for me.
>> And, finally, color? How about Spinal Tap Black?
> (1) I've made several design decisions. Those decisions will be revealed
> upon arrival of a prototype in about a month or so.
> Note: Rawland will offer a pre-order special when the prototype arrives.
> Then there will be good-better-best package deals prior to arrival of the
> first production batch.
> (2) There's now a real possibility that the Stag will come with a matching
> threadless stem. If the stem can come only in one length, would 90mm work
> for most?
> (3) I am down to two or three metallic colors. As mentioned above, the
> prototype will reveal the color.
> Thanks to everyone for their input here!
> Sean
> On Monday, October 22, 2012 4:38:29 PM UTC-7, Daniel wrote:
>> Sean,
>> There's been a lot of good points raised here. Clearly there are some
>> folks more knowledgable that me here...
>> As much as Rawland is your company, I can't help but say that if Alex
>> Wetmore points something out about geometry, fit, etc., he's probably
>> right. I'd listen. In fact, I'd probably even ask if I could quote him on
>> it (as a marketing angle). The guy is 'that good.'
>> Chris K is a hero of an athlete and is a strong proponent of Rawland.
>> That's a feather in Rawland's cap! He's given the brand great exposure and
>> really seems to like your design!
>> Fred is almost encyclopedic in his knowledge and has made a lot of good
>> suggestions here and around the interweb.
>> (Oddly, I feel like I just signed someone's high school yearbook...)
>> As for the steerer, I don't know if this, or anything, is resolved, but I
>> suggest we NOT walk the threadless/threaded line. A lightweight 1"
>> (threadless-only) steer tube makes the most sense here.
>> In terms of other variables, I like the crown-top bosses. There's no
>> great rack for it now, but a custom or a small production run rack could
>> make good use of those bosses. This won't be a deal breaker for me.
>> And, finally, color? How about Spinal Tap Black?
On Tuesday, October 23, 2012 6:57:58 AM UTC-7, Dan Abelson wrote:
> Would the stem be 26.0 or 31.8? I know I am probably in the minority but > my vote is for 31.8. I would like to run salsa cowbells.
> Dan Abelson > On Oct 22, 2012 9:56 PM, "Sean" <in...@rawlandcycles.com <javascript:>> > wrote:
>> Hey everyone,
>> A couple things:
>> (1) I've made several design decisions. Those decisions will be revealed >> upon arrival of a prototype in about a month or so.
>> Note: Rawland will offer a pre-order special when the prototype arrives. >> Then there will be good-better-best package deals prior to arrival of the >> first production batch.
>> (2) There's now a real possibility that the Stag will come with a >> matching threadless stem. If the stem can come only in one length, would >> 90mm work for most?
>> (3) I am down to two or three metallic colors. As mentioned above, the >> prototype will reveal the color.
>> Thanks to everyone for their input here! >> Sean
>> On Monday, October 22, 2012 4:38:29 PM UTC-7, Daniel wrote:
>>> Sean,
>>> There's been a lot of good points raised here. Clearly there are some >>> folks more knowledgable that me here...
>>> As much as Rawland is your company, I can't help but say that if Alex >>> Wetmore points something out about geometry, fit, etc., he's probably >>> right. I'd listen. In fact, I'd probably even ask if I could quote him on >>> it (as a marketing angle). The guy is 'that good.'
>>> Chris K is a hero of an athlete and is a strong proponent of Rawland. >>> That's a feather in Rawland's cap! He's given the brand great exposure and >>> really seems to like your design!
>>> I've written Greg a few times offlist to tell him that I've agreed with >>> points he's made. His perception of the aesthetics is right on. His >>> reference to the L'Avecaise reviewed in Bicycle Quarterly a couple issues >>> ago is spot on for a beautifully proportioned, functional bike. A fit like >>> that is what I'm after! Here's that link again: >>> http://janheine.wordpress.com/**2012/08/07/a-versatile-** >>> performance-bike/<http://janheine.wordpress.com/2012/08/07/a-versatile-performance-bike/>
>>> Fred is almost encyclopedic in his knowledge and has made a lot of good >>> suggestions here and around the interweb.
>>> (Oddly, I feel like I just signed someone's high school yearbook...)
>>> As for the steerer, I don't know if this, or anything, is resolved, but >>> I suggest we NOT walk the threadless/threaded line. A lightweight 1" >>> (threadless-only) steer tube makes the most sense here.
>>> In terms of other variables, I like the crown-top bosses. There's no >>> great rack for it now, but a custom or a small production run rack could >>> make good use of those bosses. This won't be a deal breaker for me.
>>> And, finally, color? How about Spinal Tap Black?
On Monday, October 22, 2012 10:42:01 PM UTC-7, Brian Oei wrote:
> Hi Sean,
> I'm very excited for the Stag, and am already saving up for it! The Stag > will be build up as my Rando Bike and I'm planning to take it for up to a > 1200k. I know these are kind of a small details, but I am really hoping for > a triple bottle cage (to hold my Klean Kanteen of coffee) and some type of > rear stay pump peg or mount?
> Also 90mm stem would work for me. Matching seat post too?
> Brian > SFRandonneurs!!
> On Thursday, October 18, 2012 7:48:59 PM UTC-7, Sean wrote:
