Best regards,
Matt Beecher
When I ordered my MIT Atlantis (a 55cm, 700c), I also wanted a slightly swept back bar. I spec'd the Nitto Bullmoose but was told by James Johnson at Analog Cycles (which is building the bike for me) that the Bullmoose would not work for what I wanted because of the long reach of the MIT Atlantis. He recommended a shorter stem (80mm) and either a Nitto Wavie or Velo Orange Curvy handlebar. These are similar in most respects and I've ended up with the Curvy. I'll be riding it in a few weeks and can let you know my experience.
Albastache?
On Feb 26, 2020, at 7:28 PM, Bill Lindsay <tape...@gmail.com> wrote:
Daniel JacksonIt's trivially easy to find the previous geometry chart via the wayback machine. I just looked it up, on a Sept 23, 2019 snapshot of rivbike.com.
<Auto Generated Inline Image 1>
Bill LindsayEl Cerrito, CA
On Wednesday, February 26, 2020 at 4:13:12 PM UTC-8, Daniel Jackson wrote:John,
Bill I believe alluded to this, but there now seem to be two generations of MIT Atlantis. To my chagrin, the precious geometry charts have disappeared from the website and if you ask anyone at Riv about differences between generations they either do not know (eg Corey) or will not tell you (Grant).
There was a time, about 2 months ago or so, when there were two different MIT Atlantis geo charts on the website. One on the Atlantis site and one on the full geo chart listing all current frame geometries. They conflicted with one another. I called Riv with clarifying questions and Corey promptly removed the geo chart on the Atlantis site from the original gen MIT Atlantis. I called back asking Grant about the different geometries and how to tell whether a given MIT was of the first or second geometry. He told me not to worry about.
So there it is. I believe that the current crop of MIT Atlanti are longer and slacker than the original generation. The original are therefore better suited to drops. Benedict’s bike, linked to in the Radavist article, is first gen and perfect for drops.
Best,
D.
--
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/5906c8bc-3644-4d5f-9232-a20ed8413ffd%40googlegroups.com.
<Auto Generated Inline Image 1>
In the years between 1890 and 1905, bike geometry made a shift. Bikes in the early 1890’s had really steep seat angles and really short chainstays, geometry not far from today’s ‘trail bikes’. In the years that followed, bike geometry grew up. It settled on angles that reflected the use of the bike for longer and rougher trips. Bike makers needed to modify angles until folks could ride long, hard rides, over really bad terrain. Slowly, then allofasudden, angles looked normal. The Wright Brothers Van Cleve, a really nice looking all arounder, has a seat angle that we’d recognize today as a normal, riding position. Tanglefoot recognizes the importance of this riding position. People have not physically changed much in 100 years. The riding position that worked for long, hard rides is still the riding position we need today. Steep seat angles were discarded through 20 years of experimentation a long time ago. We don’t need to relearn the lesson. It’s already been learned.
By 1900, cycling had transitioned from a rich person’s hobby to a serious means of transportation. The first roads in the US to be paved were not paved because of cars, but because cyclists demanded better surfaces to ride on. Bike racing became incredibly popular, including long endurance track races and long distance road races. Bike riding clubs started up all over the country. Riders routinely rode long distances in these club rides, riding from town to town, city to city. Bike touring became an affordable way to see the country. All of these factors meant people were spending more time on their bikes. They needed a riding position that allowed them to travel these increased distances comfortably. Seat angles became slacker and chainstays grew longer because of this. By 1910 or so, seat angles had more or less settled on the standard that was used as the paradigm for the next 120 years.
It’s important to note a few things about this seat tube angle.
For starters, the effective angle between the center of the usable portion of the saddle rails and the center of the bottom bracket is not the seat tube angle. Let’s call that angle the effective saddle fore and aft position angle, or just saddle angle for short. The saddle angle is slacker than the seat tube angle and that’s important. It’s roughly 1.5 degrees slacker on most bikes. The human body hasn't changed in all these years.. and the sound fit principals that found this happy medium have not changed either. The relationship of the hip/knee/pedal happens to grow as needed by a taller rider’s femur as the saddle goes up and back on this angled axis, the Mezzo Forte Axis. The Mezzo Forte Axis is the moderate, but powerful riding position that has proven itself over the course of history.
The fastest riders on the planet, the riders who race the Tour and the Giro and the Vuelta ride this saddle angle. If there was a faster angle to ride hard then get up the next day and do it again, they’d use it. Look at the pro’s road race bikes. The steeper the seat angle, the more saddle set back there is. This is the reason, very very few pros ride 0mm setback posts, and only a tiny handful ride posts with negative setback, ie posts that put your saddle clamp in front of the seatpost.
We have high-tech technology to see what the best position is on a bike for long distance riding. Before we had the technology, we had stopwatches and race results. I’ve heard arguments that a more forward riding position is more powerful for short bursts. That’s true, but it’s not sustainable power. If it was, road racers would use it all the time. The muscles engaged with a more forward position do not have the ability to grind in a forward position for hours. You use big endurance muscles when your saddle is further back. They’re not as punchy, but they’re effective for the long haul. Wanna use those power muscles? Slide forward on your saddle. Then... This from a different section: You also never want to admit that by shortening chainstays and steepening seat angles, you are putting the riders’ weight further forward, which decreases traction on the rear wheel and puts more weight on your hands. The forward weight shift also increases the likelihood of an endo (flying over your handlebars when the going gets steep or sketchy). This position disregards years of proven results for the purpose of fat tire / short stay marketing piffle and misinformed claims of increased power with no regard for reduced mechanical advantage. Steep seat angles work fine on Time Trial/Tri bikes, because the bars are incredibly low. This combo, low bars, steep seat angle, allows you to maintain the relationship between your torso and legs that makes a normal seat angle work so well. If you only change one of these things, IE the seat angle, and not the other, the system falls out of wack. No advertising or catalog is gunna point these negative issues out. They are not selling features. Nor is the knee damage riders will suffer from an increasingly aggressive pedaling position, or the higher center of gravity resulting from moving forward and up. As the saddle moves forward, it must also be raised to maintain consistent leg length.
Your saddle needs to be at the right height and set back for long term comfortable riding. You adjust reach with a stem, as that does not negatively impact your best saddle position.
Never move a saddle toward it's extremes on the rails. I've seen far too many rails break from this. Saddles, esp Brooks, need to be centered within a few mm on the seatpost clamp.
All of this is why we reinvented (from the early 1900's) the super short (w)Right stem, which finally will be available again in about 2-3 weeks. They are at the cerakoter now. 225mm quill length, the same as a Technomic Tallux, because it uses a Technomic bolt and wedge. We'll have 30mm and 0mm extensions, in clear gloss cerakote or gloss black cerakote, which is harder and thinner and longer lasting than a powder coat. In a month, we'll have these in 50 and 70mm as well. Analog and The Psychic Derailleur will stock them. 31.8mm clamp only for now, but that's not a bad thing, as most good bars these days only come in 31.8. For whatever it's worth, the stem is entirely US sourced, from the materials to the guy brazing them (Alex Meade) to the coating. 4 bolt faceplate.
Combining a short reach stem and shorter reach bars is a valid fit fix, and, when you are using a steel stem with 31.8 clamp, you are also stiffening up bar area, which means better tracking, especially on rough terrain.
Every Riv model can be converted to a comfortable drop bar set up without a 0mm seatpost. You just need the right bars and stem. I've done it to Clems, Joe's, lots of Atlantises. Works great, with the right tools.
--
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/a1169e15-7007-430b-99e5-b870489580ac%40googlegroups.com.
--
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/81ebb452-6598-4812-90d2-274fa83ebfa9%40googlegroups.com.