First post - several questions (pbh/height, 650b vs 700, chainstay, etc)

[Peter Fray]

Hello everyone, 

Keen to jump on the Riv bandwagon, I have some questions I would appreciate your opinion on. 

(Although opinion is a strong word for cyclists, let's say your thoughts)

1. PBH vs height - Do you also look at the height when selecting a bike size or only pbh? I have an unusually high pbh it seems - around 86 cm at 5'7" - and have my saddles and bars pretty high. When selecting a Riv frame size should I just look at the pbh and go for it - or should I factor in the height somewhere too?

2. 650b vs 700c - For those who have ridden both, would you have any suggestions for going either direction if one could choose between two frame sizes? I think the tyre and rim options for 700c are quite high and solely based on that I would consider this size.

3. JA/Atlantis go big or small - Considering how long the top tubes on these bikes have gotten do you think they lose the option to convert to drop bars? Analog cycles is a strong proponent of going as short as 0mm on the (threadless) stem and they are happy running flared bars on their really long bikes so probably there is room to push anyway..

4. long (er) chainstays - same as above, the chainstays are longer as compared to the previous models (for these bikes).. I read through older forum posts that have compared ride experiences with both and it seems there is a noticeable (good?) effect. For those of you who bought the newer versions for touring - is the longer chainstay a significant hindrance in transporting bikes or flying with them?

Thank you for helping out, 

peter

[Patrick Moore]

Welcome aboard.

Frame sizing: I’ve not ridden any of Rivendell’s later (after 2010) models but even with the earlier ones I was careful about top tube length and I have the opposite build, more length in the torso.

If you intend to install drop bars I’d very carefully consider top tube length, in connection with seat tube angle and intended bar height, of course, as slacker stas and higher bars reduce effective tt height.

So much for general principles. Others can better speak about  the particulars of newer models.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/9c848093-b5db-4d8a-a947-8015c6064ae4n%40googlegroups.com.

--

Patrick Moore

Alburquerque, Nuevo Mexico, Etats Unis d'Amerique, Orbis Terrarum

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Executive resumes, LinkedIn profiles, bios, letters, and other writing services

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When thou didst not, savage, know thine own meaning,

But wouldst gabble like a thing most brutish,

I endowed thy purposes with words that made them known.

[exliontamer]

I doubt you'll find many universal opinions on this because everyone is built differently and has different preferences (and lives in different places with different roads & terrain) but here's my personal experience.

With newer Rivendell's the top tube length has been quite a bit longer. I have long legs for my height as well (6' 1"/92pbh) and would be sized for a 61 Roadini but would have to get a 57 for the top tube to work. The non road oriented frames have been more extreme for the swept back bars they presume people will put on them. I notice stem length affecting my position on a bike in an adverse way if it gets too short (under 70mm). I have an older Toyo Atlantis that I can run drops on comfortably but there is no way, with my build, that I'd be able to on the newer models if I went by their pbh charts. I've ridden newer ones at the shop (the 61 Roadini was a disaster for my build) but the only new-ish Riv I own is a Cheviot and it's one of my favorite riding bikes ever. The long chain stays do make transport harder, particularly in larger frame sizes. My Cheviot with the long stays feels good. My old Atlantis with the normal stays feels good. I'm not sold either way on that one.

[Max S]

The length of top tube isn't necessarily the dimension you're after. For my body morphology and flexibility, I also prefer to have my bars a bit higher than "normal" and the reach shorter than normal. I would normally look for a bike with a 58 cm or shorter top tube, but would get really puzzled by the fact that some bikes with a 58 cm top tube fit me great, while others with the same 58 cm top tube didn't. Of course, being an engineer I should have realized this far sooner – the difference was in the steepness of the seat tube and the head tube. 

So, the numbers you need are your seat height, amount of vertical drop to the handlebars, and the frame "Stack" and "Reach". If you're not familiar with those terms, here's a good diagram that will help you measure your current bike's "Stack" and "Reach", which you can then compare to Riv's geometry charts.  

Keep in mind:  You don't need to match everything exactly, and maybe you can change a few things, depending on what you're trying to achieve with the fit and style of riding. The saddle can be moved forward or backward, or you can use a straight or setback seatpost to compensate how far behind the bottom bracket you sit. A longer or shorter stem can be used, or longer / shorter reach handlebar can be used to adjust how far the bars end up. Yes, the nuances of your balance and steering dynamics will be impacted by all of this, but so will they change with where you place the load on your bike. 

I can add some more dimensions that you can measure or calculate, but hopefully this diagram will be sufficient to understand that top tube length alone isn't what you're after. 

- Max "trigonometrically yours" in A2

[Jay]

I would look carefully at the frame specs, compare to what you're riding now, how you want to ride the new bike, drops vs. swept, saddle choice and whether it has long or short rails, etc., and if in-between go down a size.  On both my bikes I have my Brooks C17 pushed forward as far as possible on 0 setback posts.  It's fine and bikes fit, but if I had went down a size I could have had more room on both ends.

[ascpgh]

Fit was what brought me to dial Grant at RBW. I have your same physiology and production bikes have never been optimal for me. Reaching an effective seated pedaling position and not having a huge drop or reach to the bars felt like a crusade and before the internet you had to carefully consider your sources. I thought I was calling to order a custom frame. 

I really liked and had several Bridgestones, an RB-1, an MB-Ø and an X0-2. I sized those based on the option to try stock sizes at the shop where I worked, the big difference was that each of the three had pretty separate use riding intentions. Optimizing the fine adjustments of fit didn't always happen. I sold the MB-Ø because its frame was too light for the steep climbs of my region's trails. 

The XO-2 I bought for a silly low price from Bridgestone's garage sale clearance and went on permanent loan after realizing that the top tube fit was a good idea but in this format of bike it hobbled the riding position for my legs. The 26" wheels and level top tube required that I used a really long setback seat post and periscope-like stem to get myself on the bike effectively as regarding pedaling. I suffered a number of what are now "gravel" or "bikepacking" routes with this bike. 

My most miles were on the RB-1 but an opportunity to ride across the country with some folks made me focus on this bike's fit, bringing what I'd figured out from the others. I needed a medium stout tube set for my frame size and climbing, more so if carrying a load. The 700C level top tube format made stems less of an oddity for my fit but it still just wasn't right. 

Grant sold me on the Rambouillet for both fit and use. My cross country ride group was riding light, credit card camping in cheap motels and eating local along the way. He described the bike as perfect for my fit and this sort of riding, day in and day out. The secret sauce or prioritizing of geometry features of Riv models has sparked conversations here and otherwise for years. Compared to my RB-1, the Rambouillet had stouter tubing, longer stays, clearance for 700 x 32 tires with fenders, slacker head and seat tubes, shorter top tube, a bit more fork rake, a 2 cm head tube extension above the lug with the top tube and a 2° upslope of the top tube. The motive being to give the rider a more upright riding position for longer riding, for me it ended up perfecting my fit to the bike. 

Rivendell's hierarchy of all the geometry and tube spec details of a frame and fork come from the intended use and fit of a rider. They have been true to this through periods of other emphasis in the greater bicycle marketplace. A phone call or email to Riv to discuss your particular fit and model choice based on your actual and intended uses will advance your decision greatly. These are not self-sell bikes like those in rows at your local shop, they are detail-requisite bikes that require qualifying the buyer. 

As my riding evolved to include more unpaved miles and cargo for overnights (I'm 20 minutes from the Great Allegheny Passage), I began to have needs my Rambouillet couldn't accommodate. I envisioned a custom 650B front load preferring format to bring the loaded bicycle's front/rear balance closer to even. The wider tires permitting lower pressure and tubeless installation. Grant doesn't agree with 650B wheels in my frame size or the geometry for a front load favoring bike so a RIv custom wasn't to be. That's when after some talk, some measurements and some video of me riding my Rambouillet Johnny Coast build me a 650B custom low trail rando frame fork and stem. Results have been fantastic. 

Bicycle Quarterly's summer edition had a some lines about fit from the perspective of Albert Eisentrout and the proposition that in an optimum riding position on a well designed bike includes an imaginary line projected through the steering axis to the rider's ear. The idea being that sense of balance and spatial orientation comes from the inner ear structures and if those are as close to the point of articulation of the bike, the rider will be more "one" with the bike while riding.  Anyway fit is everything once you've found your frame format, comfort with be the product.  

I vote you start a dialog with RIv about models and sizing. 

Andy Cheatham

Pittsburgh

[D D]

Great post, Andy. Appreciate you taking the time to write out your evolution in cycling. I’m encouraged that you have landed on two bikes (Rambo and the randonneur) that continue to exceed expectations. 

It’s also instructive to hear about the many bikes you tried and passed on. For those of us who are years behind you in our journey it’s instructive to hear that they aren’t all gonna be keepers. 

Dustin in VA

On Oct 6, 2024, at 9:40 AM, ascpgh <asc...@gmail.com> wrote:

Fit was what brought me to dial Grant at RBW. I have your same physiology and production bikes have never been optimal for me. Reaching an effective seated pedaling position and not having a huge drop or reach to the bars felt like a crusade and before the internet you had to carefully consider your sources. I thought I was calling to order a custom frame. 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/10a40c07-d7f6-44d6-b4fa-d8ad17fd78f0n%40googlegroups.com.

[Peter Fray]

Thank you everyone for your beautiful and very helpful responses. Wonderful to be in a community... (referring to a bit from what Andy said - I did reach out to Riv, and the problem is I am too indecisive and I really feel quite guilty asking too many questions and then get lost in my no-decision cloud..not that I don't feel guilty here, but I will less guilty ..hoping each discussion helps someone else too..)

@Patrick - thanks for that guidance. Are the top tubes between your Riv vs other drop bar bikes very similar..? I feel the newer Riv's are less and less designed for drop bars, the ones that are in my pbh have pretty long tubes.

@Roullumhass - thanks for those insights! Stuck similarly - and with a difference in frame size also changes the wheel size - maybe not a big deal but I've often seen posts of rim-brake 650b's rims and it does seem good ones are harder to come by. By the way, you said "I notice stem length affecting my position on a bike in an adverse way if it gets too short (under 70mm)" - what is the adverse way you meant here? Handling or body position or...?

@Max - thanks for sharing that. I've tried and failed several times to understand (intuitively) what reach signifies - the confusion because I feel the top tupe is how much the upper body needs to reach out to hold the handlebars, then what is reach? and would the STA and HTA be factored in to understand the effect of reach (I mean if two bikes with a similar reach had different angles would the reach feel different - assuming the reach is the same at the handlebar height you need it)

@Jason - I would like to compare my current bike's geometry here but the size suggestions from Riv and the geometry completely throw them off :D 

@Andy - I read your message several times, thanks a lot for sharing your journey...seems like I am in for a ride. I have written to Will earlier and think I should get in touch with him again. Every riv-bike description I read on their website, I feel that is the one I should get - always pushing, struggling to decide, if there is a one-bike-for-all for me or mostly I am fooling myself. I have bought bikes in the past with an intended use but it has almost never turned out that way - that pushed me to keep playing it safe. Please do share pictures of your bike if you can :)

peter

[exliontamer]

I have two 650 bikes in the house. I have an old Trek 510 that I did a 650b conversion on that has Velocity A23s. My wife has a Platypus with Velocity Quills. Both are fantastic rims imo (the Quills in particular). As for the stem length thing, I've heard plenty of others disagree, but I have noticed it affecting handling in different ways. Especially depending on the bike, bars, and its use. I also don't think drastically decreasing stem length is an ideal solution for making a too long top tube fit better if you're planning on swapping between drops and swept back bars. Particularly if you are short torso/long limbed. 

[Owen Sindler]

Hi
I'm new to the group. I bought a Homer last year. My contact at Rob was Roman who guided me to the correct frame size. He also supplied awesome customer service answering my many component questions. What he couldn't do was determine my crank length, handle bar width, how the Homer geometry would mix with those and my reach, etc.  It pays to get a fitting before you buy a bike. A fit can be expensive, but a work around frame is a headache 😔. I know.
That's my 2 cents.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/c87cb1c0-4b80-4619-8b75-f60498d28140n%40googlegroups.com.

[ascpgh]

Peter,

Here's both of my bikes (not the commuter) in and out of their ordinary habitats:

Andy Cheatham

Pittsburgh

[Graham McCall]

Don't over think it too much! Riv's ride so well and are built to be ridden and enjoyed. I have a Clem Jr and it's easily the most fun and comfortable bike I've had. I thought for weeks about the weight and performance of the bike, but I think compared to modern overbuilt disc-brake bikes, all Riv's feel "springy".

[Ginz]

Peter,

Regarding #3, if you really want to run drop bars, I would call them and discuss. The frames are generally designed around upright bars these days and that was NOT the case 10-15 years ago.  Drops can be done but I would take their advice on sizing.

[Patrick Moore]

From my first Grant-designed bike, a 1992 XO-1 through my 3 Riv road customs to my 2nd edition Rambouillet, all had about  57 cm c-c top tubes though the seat tubes (all 73*) c-c were 54 cm, 54, 57, 58, 58; and my 2020 Chauncey Matthews drop bar road bike also has a 73* sta with 57 cm tt and a 58 cm st. My Matthews dirt road drop bar bike has a slightly longer tt with a slacker seat tube angle and dramatically upsloping tt with a huge ht extension, so still a  ~57 cm effective top tube. The Matthew’s road bike has a 58 cm c-c st and the Matthews “road bike for dirt” has a ~47 cm st.

With all of these bikes, once I get the saddle positioned properly in height and in fore/aft relation to the bottom bracket, I get a very similar reach and torso angle from hips using either 38 cm bars and 8 cm stems 3-4 cm below saddle, or (dirt road bike) 42 cm bar on 9 or 10 cm stem with bar level with saddle — this last gives a very slightly more upright position, appropriate for our sandy dirt.

The first edition (~2010-2011) Sam Hillborne was different. It had IIRC a 59 cm c-c tt but it also had (IIRC) a 71* sta instead of 73*, so the effective tt only slightly longer. The bike shipped with a 10 cm stem and 46 cm Noodle bar (Riv sold me their floor model) and I compensated by raising the to very slightly above the saddle, ending up with a more upright position than with my other Rivs. I didn’t find this as comfortable or as conducive to “intuitive” handling and I sold the Sam more quickly than I sold the others (I have 1 custom road left, the perfect one).

I agree: Get advice from Rivendell, but parse it according to your own needs. I personally do not like Grant’s solution to too-long top tubes, which is, raise the bar high. I like my bar in a certain place relative to a properly positioned saddle, and this means a top tube of a certain length given the seat tube angle.

On Mon, Oct 7, 2024 at 10:54 AM Peter Fray <peter...@gmail.com> wrote:

… @Patrick - thanks for that guidance. Are the top tubes between your Riv vs other drop bar bikes very similar..? I feel the newer Riv’s are less and less designed for drop bars, the ones that are in my pbh have pretty long tubes.

[Patrick Moore]

My one remaining Rivendell, a 1999 road custom, has had the saddle and the bar in exactly the same place for over 25 years:

[Peter Fray]

Hello Patrick, 

Thanks for sharing that. Simple and straightforward guide to replicating a fit. 

I see though you never mentioned the "reach" on the bikes - does it remain the same as well? In all honesty, I do not yet understand what reach signifies but it seems to be important. I read in an article that the ETT would show how you feel riding while on the saddle - while the "reach" will tell you how it feels when you are standing and riding. I don't know if this is correct.  But if that is the case, the need for Riv to specify the reach in the geometry would probably be because everybody wanted to know them -as the way their bikes are designed, I think most people will be riding while on the saddle anyway.

best

peter

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/rbw-owners-bunch/fSXnP5DI1kQ/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/CALuTfgsh5t4m%2BRwQTu%2BHf1MS%3DFg1UnkSdxTfB8viAkgCCcqjmA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Patrick Moore]

Yes, reach remains pretty much the same.

This isa a very good article about bike fit: https://www.peterwhitecycles.com/fitting.php

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/CALzC4ZEg9P29z28jF2oKwQT7cvECZ30JJNQRPpgKKzxd0OBw2A%40mail.gmail.com.