Weight question / I'm obviously confused

[Jim Whorton]

I have a 59cm Clem H that is a little too big for me (I am 6' 1", 89 PBH).  So I was riding it on some hilly pavement today, thinking what a lumbering hulk this bike is and how I need a smaller one.  I came across a piece of iron pipe in the road.  I thought, "I need to tie that on my bike because it will make everything worse, proving my point."  I tied it on the bike and to my confusion, the bike rode more smoothly.  It felt great.  It didn't feel faster but it felt easier and just really nice.  Smoother.  The simplest explanation is that I am confused and imagining things, because adding pounds to my Clem H should not make it nicer to ride.  But....is it possible I was not confused?

I will try to insert a picture.  

Jim in Rochester

[Eric Floden]

No idea, but will read responses to find out. However, great light, great pic

thanks

EricF

Vancouver

[Joe Bernard]

That's what car ads in the '60s called road-hugging weight. To extend the car analogy, I've had several lighter/smaller ones with decent power, and now a basic big Chevy Impala with a little more power and a LOT more weight. It's probably not any faster than those hot hatches but oh baby does it cruise at 72 without a care in the world. 

Your gorgeous Clem is showing a similar effect. Put more bags and stuff on it and cruise! 

[Bones]

Makes sense to me. I ride around with two kids on my bike all the time (first an Appaloosa with one kid in front and one in back, now a Clem L with an xtracycle). They both cruise like Impalas. On the other end I stripped the stock wheels off my Clem H and put on some cliffhangers + thunderburts tubeless and saw a night and day improvement in handling while unloaded. Please let us know what else you decide to tie to your bicycle. Brilliant.

Bones

[dougP]

My Atlantis has a much softer, more cushy ride with 20-30 lbs of weight.  The cost is slower acceleration & generally more effort. 

OTH, I've ridden the long wheelbase Atlantis & even unloaded it rides noticeably softer than my 2003.  The longer chainstays probably account for that.

dougP

On Saturday, January 9, 2021 at 3:37:33 PM UTC-8 Jim Whorton wrote:

[Eric Daume]

If you're still running the stock Kendas, immediately remove them and put virtually any other tire on there, and it will improve the zippy feeling greatly. Honestly, those Kenda Kwik Nines are the worst tires I've ever come across. I suggest after removing you cut them in half, so some other unknowing person doesn't accidentally use them. OK, maybe being facetious there, but man, I hate those tires.

Eric

not a Kwik Nine fan

--
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/3efa49ac-e2da-43eb-8717-dee937717bb3n%40googlegroups.com.

[Jim Whorton]

I do still have the Kwik Nines on there.  I've been thinking about changing them...guess I should.  Sometimes on smooth pavement I get a drum roll effect that I believe is caused by the tread pattern on those tires.

Sounds like I should keep the pipe and add a kid or two, though?  Joe, thanks for that term, "road-hugging weight."  That's just how it felt.

Jim

On Saturday, January 9, 2021 at 8:41:03 PM UTC-5, Eric Daume wrote:

If you're still running the stock Kendas, immediately remove them and put virtually any other tire on there, and it will improve the zippy feeling greatly. Honestly, those Kenda Kwik Nines are the worst tires I've ever come across. I suggest after removing you cut them in half, so some other unknowing person doesn't accidentally use them. OK, maybe being facetious there, but man, I hate those tires.

Eric

not a Kwik Nine fan

On Sat, Jan 9, 2021 at 6:37 PM Jim Whorton <jameswh...@gmail.com> wrote:

I have a 59cm Clem H that is a little too big for me (I am 6' 1", 89 PBH).  So I was riding it on some hilly pavement today, thinking what a lumbering hulk this bike is and how I need a smaller one.  I came across a piece of iron pipe in the road.  I thought, "I need to tie that on my bike because it will make everything worse, proving my point."  I tied it on the bike and to my confusion, the bike rode more smoothly.  It felt great.  It didn't feel faster but it felt easier and just really nice.  Smoother.  The simplest explanation is that I am confused and imagining things, because adding pounds to my Clem H should not make it nicer to ride.  But....is it possible I was not confused?

I will try to insert a picture.  

Jim in Rochester

--
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-owne...@googlegroups.com.

[Joe Bernard]

Those Kendas are atrocious. I gave somebody a new set and I still think they paid too much. 

[J L]

A couple of notes here...

From the picture it doesn’t LOOK like this bike is too big. I don’t see any outlandish attempts to make it fit, super short stem or seat very low and forward, for example. You can decide for yourself, but if you are on the fence, my two cents are that the bike is bigger by the numbers than you would expect, given how well it fits, but it does fit well.

When you install new tires check the tire pressure. You might be surprised are how much difference that makes. The added weight of the pipe could be giving you the same effect that lower tire pressure.

Also I just want to point out that it is a very respectably weird thing to see a big pipe and decide to strap it to your bike. :) Did I miss something in your original post? What was the logic sequence there?

Jason
SF,CA

[Joe Bernard]

The pipe idea is pretty awesome. "Hey, there's a pipe. Let's try it!" 

[Mark Roland]

I doubt the pipe is doing much for your Clem other than perhaps contributing to some beausage on your top tube. The bike certainly doesn't seem like it would be too big for a 6'1"--Grant runs a 59 Clem and he is under six foot.

I never changed the Kendas on my OC (Original Clementine) and yeah they were a little sluggish, though not the end of the world. On my El Clem, I went with Rene Herse Switchback Hill EL. Pretty dreamy. I would never describe a Clem as a lumbering hulk, though, so your mileage may vary.  Before getting a smaller bike I would drop a buck sixty on some fancy tires and see what happens.

[James Whorton]

Thanks for the ideas and observations, everyone.  I will try lowering the tire pressure tomorrow.  New tires soon, too.

Jason and Mark, I think you are right that the Clem ought to fit me.  By the numbers it does.  My favorite bike to ride around town is an old mountain bike with a 53cm seat tube that ought to be too small for me, but it's sprightly and a lot of fun to ride.

I'm not sure why I picked up the pipe, Jason.  It seemed like a good pipe.  

Jim

--
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/qLyDc2lVI3Q/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/aade2800-a30f-45fa-bdda-bfaf365b556dn%40googlegroups.com.

[dougP]

Anything bike related that I don't want goes to my local bicycle co-op.  They depend on donations to keep bikes owned by low income people running.  What feels like a crappy, sluggish tire to me could be wonderful to someone who just needs new rubber to get back'n'forth to work on.  Never toss out a "tried & disliked" item.  Donate.

dougP

[Michael Williams]

Jim,  several years ago I had a double TT 64cm Atlantis that I took on a tour up around the Olympic peninsula. It also was a touch too large for me.   In touring mode I had it loaded up with a Pass and Stow front rack with a basket on top and two medium sized low rider front panniers. On the rear I had a medium saddle sack that sat on a Nitto r-14 rack.    It was probably  75/25 ; front/ rear weight distribution.   That bike rode awesome( to me) in that configuration.    Leaving an empty-ish camp one morning on a quiet stretch of road,  I rode no handed for ~7miles on a gently curvy road. It felt smooth and in control.  (. There were mile markers and when solo on the road sometimes you make games for yourself).   I’ll never forget that.  Just anecdotally reiterating your experience that sometimes a bike can feel better with some weight.    -Mike

Sent from my iPhone

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/a3d0aec5-b651-41c1-908c-44e111c45aefn%40googlegroups.com.

[Garth]

   Jim, the bike may seem "too big" , but is it really or are you simply comparing it to your other bikes and equating that with "too big", "a lumbering hulk" ? Your Clem is what it is, so rather than comparing it and thus diminishing it, play around with it. I've seen many a tales here how someone said they didn't like their bike, but after a change/adjustment of some part of the bike that you contact(bars/stem/saddle/pedals, etc.), or even tires, their story changed completely. Many mtb's have considerably steeper seat tube angles too, which places your center of balance further forward that on the Clem. I could see how that would contribute to a perception of "less sprightly" or "laid back" or even "sluggish".  The chainstays and wheelbase are also much longer, so of course it will feel different, so try riding it different. Every bike has it's own "personality", if you will. Let it shine rather than try making it something it's not, any another bike.

If you still find it's not for you, so what ? Let it go and find something else, there's always a bike to ride.

[Mark Roland]

I know what you mean about the spritely feel of a vintage 26" mtb vs a Hilliebike. My Trek 830 is still a favorite--I can toss that thing around and it encourages jumping on the pedals--even with its 48cm chainstays. But change the Susie's tires and give it some time. When I got my first Clementine, I was put off by the Boscos, but I gave myself 100 days to acclimate, and now I really enjoy them. As Garth points out, every bike is different. And in fact you wouldn't know your little bike was sprite without having the cruisy, flowy Hilliebike to compare it to.

[Jim M.]

On Saturday, January 9, 2021 at 8:24:28 PM UTC-8 Jim Whorton wrote:

I'm not sure why I picked up the pipe, Jason.  It seemed like a good pipe.  

I have a pipe like that (slightly shorter) to use as a cheater bar. 

I have the same pbh and bought a 52 Clem H that was on sale. It was too small though I fit the theoretical range. I should have gotten the 59. I support the suggestions of better tires/lower pressure. I think you'll feel a big difference. I really liked the Clem other than the sizing.

jim m

walnut creek

[Jim Whorton]

Jim M, thanks for sharing that about the 52 Clem.  I had wondered how a 52 would feel.  I can't help thinking the 55 Atlantis would be perfect, though I'm hesitant to spend that money on a new bike for all the reasons people have said. 

Really appreciate all the comments and advice.  I've learned a ton from this forum over the last couple years.

DougP,  yes, I am with you on donating bikes and parts.  Rochester has a great non-profit called R Community Bikes that repairs old bikes and gives them away to people who need them.  I have given them a few.

Jim W

[Mark Schneider]

I think I have an idea. The stiff tubing on your Clem wasn't flexing without a load. Bikes work best when they flex a little, your other bikes weren't as stiff, the extra weight allows the Clem to "plane". I've heard Jan Heine talk about stiffer bikes needing more weight to ride better.

[Jeffrey Arita]

Jim,

You are not imagining things.  I have a Surly Cross-Check that has been used as a commuter, grocery-getter, randonneur, single-speed and as a cyclo-tourer.  When I had it configured as a tourer I had it fairly heavily laden in front (2 large Ortlieb backroller panniers + Tubus Tara) with an Ortlieb rack pack on back + Tubus Cosmo.  I still cannot believe how comfortable that particular rig rode.  As Mark Schneider points out, bikes do seem to work better when they flex a bit, and with the Surly's decently burly tubes, it sure proved that theory!

Good luck!

Jeff

[brendonoid]

This thread is so good I just needed to let everyone know how much I enjoyed reading it. My immediate thought was as others then said, to lower the tyre pressure and then get rid of those tyres ASAP. 

Loaded bikes vs. unloaded bikes is a very real and noticable thing also. My postie bike goes from almost a noodle frame on rails to a twitchy overly stiff pig as I slowly unload 50kgs of mail through the day.

OPINIONS: 

Another thought is that the Bosco bars they are great, but certainly have never made a bike feel spritely. At least, not to me. So before sizing down and after changing the tyres, maybe try a different bar? I have a lot of different bike setups and everyone of them is the best for a given situation or particular ride. Bicycles are fun like that.

I do not think the frame is too big for you.

[Mark Roland]

If you are going to talk about the flexing of a Rivendell, built from fairly sturdy OS tubing, I think going from a 59cm 700c diamond frame to a 52cm 650b diamond frame will affect flex characteristics more than strapping a pipe to the top tube. Extra weight can definitely induce flex, but usually of the undesirable kind. But it also affects steering input and ride feel, depending on where it is on the bike.

I believe the Clem Smith Jr. is designed in a way that you don't need to load it down to get a good ride feel.  I have light and flexy bikes, 531 and Tange Prestige, had a custom L'Avecaise with skinny thinny top tube. While they certainly ride differently than my 650B 52cm Clem L and my 700c 56cm Susie, I would not describe either of the Rivs as lumbering, even in comparison. Of course the 2.6" Honchos on the Susie are slower on the road than the 48mm Switchback Hills on El Clem. And while I agree handlebars can contribute to how we respond to a bicycle, I love getting up out of the saddle on my Clem and grabbing tight to the Hunt-Wilde finger grips on my Bullmoose Boscos  to sprint over a small rise, or jam up the last meters of a hill. Every bit as satisfying as sprinting on a 531 frame with Maes parallel drop bars! On the other hand, the VO Klunker bars on the Susie are set just a tad too high to be conducive to an out of the saddle full wattage effort. But they have other redeeming qualities!

I

[Jim Whorton]

Thanks all.  When I said "lumbering hulk" I should have included myself + the bike, not the bike alone.  Peter Fonda looks very serene with his arms up in the air, there.  

Brendonoid, I respect your experience carrying 50 kgs of mail.  I tried the Kwick Nines with less air today--got the rear tire down to 15 psi and it rolled OK.  Will shop for some new tires though.

Jim

[dougP]

Perhaps this point is obvious to some but it just occurred to me.  A manufacturer must design the bike for intended use (touring, racing, etc.) so that's one major influence on tubing choice & geometry.   For production bikes (as opposed to customs), the design must also address maximum load, including rider.  Brendon's observation (above) about the change in handling over the course of his mail delivery day is an excellent example.  For example the 59 cm Clem H may be ridden by riders from say 180 lbs (or less?) up to 220 lbs (or more?).  Throw a reasonable expectation of load carrying of 30 lbs, and the frame must feel secure at a total weight of 250 lbs.  If the 180 lb rider rides it with no load, it will feel a great stiffer than the 220 lb rider with some load.  This puts the designer / manufacturer in the quandry of over-building to handling heaviest expected load and under-building to provide a good ride for the lightest situation.  My guess is the design must always be a compromise to be not overly stiff or overly noodly. 

dougP

[Paul Brodek]

Many interesting/helpful electrons already spilled on this. I'll only add....

1. I have a very hard time myself characterizing frame-related ride characteristics. That said, here I'm having trouble contrasting "lumbering feeling on a hilly ride" with "gets smoother with more weight." Also, "not faster, but easier." Was the ride being hilly important, meaning the bike feels less lumbering on flatter rides? Did the bike climb faster with the iron bar addition? Or did you get more oomph on the downhills before the climbs to give you more momentum on the way up? Heavier weight made steering more controllable? Or something else? Not trying to pick nits here, just trying to understand better, while happily admitting I particularly stink trying to describe this stuff myself.

2. But TIRES TIRES TIRES TIRES TIRES. Oh, and TIRES. Dead tires = dead ride. I think especially with tires this wide, and with wheelbases this long.

3. Weight savings going to a smaller frame will only be ounces, which are immaterial in the overall rider/bike weight calculation. If it was just frame weight that mattered, you could A/B compare by riding with/without a half-full water bottle. It's not the weight so much as the flex. What would be more important to ride quality would be if the smaller frame had thinner-diameter tubes, or thinner-wall tubes, which would flex more. I suppose shorter-length frame tubes and longer seatposts/stems would also factor in, though, regardless of tube width/thickness.

Paul Brodek

Hillsdale, NJ USA

On Saturday, January 9, 2021 at 6:37:33 PM UTC-5 Jim Whorton wrote:

[James Whorton]

Paul, these are all good questions, and I wish I could answer analytically.  Joe Bernard's phrase "road-hugging weight" sounds right to me.  

Whether the steering was more controllable with the extra weight--maybe.  An interesting thing about having a pipe sticking out over the front wheel is that it gave me a really clear, graphic indication of all the little corrections I make when I am steering.  The frame wants to go straight, and the front wheel is relatively jittery.  Maybe it would be an interesting experiment to try the same ride with something light, like a yardstick out over the wheel, to see if there is a difference

I have wondered why we attach front baskets to forks, instead of to the frame.  Probably because it is easier to attach the basket to the fork and handlebars.  But I think it would ride better if it was attached to the frame.

[Patrick Moore]

I've owned at least 1 bike that felt smoother and less jittery, or perhaps, more stable, with a significant rear load ('80s Fuji Royale). I can only think that the reason was that the bike's flexing qualities suited me as rider better with more weight in back. (I never tried significant weight in front, though I did suffer briefly from the squirreliness added by 5-7 lb in a Carradice Boxy Bag on a Nitto bar-mount rack; not good.)

And I do agree entirely with Paul about tires. Swapping bad tires with good tires really can transform the way a bike rides; I learned this once again recently with the Monocog.

And, back to frame flex: yes, some frames suit some riders better than others. My Matthews road bike clone of the 2003 Riv custom road just feels easier to pedal than its model, with narrower and I daresay thinner-wall tubes, though the difference is subtle (but this is a judgment made after riding the Road for 17 years).

For carrying front weights on the frame instead of fork: Didn't Jan do this with his porteur? At any rate, it's long been the practice:

--

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/CAJ3_7DY0S2Fh4PcMgjQKwqda9jgKQmzX%3DJUJAbGaWmxbVGW8Qg%40mail.gmail.com.

--

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

Patrick Moore

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

[tc]

Jim,

Try some Schwalbe G-One Speed' tires with Schwalbe's Extra Light tubes.  Expensive, but from my experience with diff tires (from road to knobby) on my 59 Clem H, they are simply excellent.  About as light as you'll get, fast, grippy, no flats yet.  If you go with the 2-inchers, they'll fit very nicely under the VO fluted fenders.

[Jim Whorton]

TC, thanks for this suggestion.  I've been looking at the Schwalbe G-Ones on the Riv site, trying to decide between the "Speed" vs. the "Allround."  Maybe I will splurge for the more expensive Speeds since you all have talked me out of buying a new bike.  

Jim W

[Jim Whorton]

PS Your 59 Clem looks great, TC.