Long Chainstays - What Problem/Deficiency Do They Solve?

[John Hawrylak, Woodstown NJ]

Enjoyed reading the thread "Anyone else not a fan of long chainstays?", especially Bill L's explanation of the RBW bike design philosophy.   Seems the prevailing thought is long stays are better for

upright riding

single track type trails (vs a Rails to Trails type trail)

I'll just note 2 'facts'

1  The vast majority of RBW models (except the Roadeo type frame) use slack STA and HTA which may contribute to the ride effect when coupled with long stays.

2.  In the beginning RBW addressed getting the bars higher and adopting a non-racer riding style (back at 45° with hands on hoods), which IMHO were solutions to actual problems.

So What problem or current deficiency in bike design is Grant solving by using long chain stays????

Just to bring bikes to market that no one else is building??

Or do they solve a real problem???

John Hawrylak

Woodstown NJ

FWIW 2 of 3 of my frames have 44 to 45cm chain stays, and 1 has a 43cm chain stay.    It's hard to notice a ride difference.

[Richard Rose]

Oh man, I don’t know where to start. I will by stating that as a cyclist for nearly 50 years I was aware of Rivendell since their inception. But I never really entertained owning one until the long chainstay bikes. Why? Because Rivendell’s looked like road bikes & to me the best road bikes came with the name of the maker on the downtube. My fascination with Rivendell coincided with no longer being obsessed with going fast & putting a higher priority on being comfortable & “chill”.

I don’t know how it can be argued that the long chainstay bikes with their large volume tires offer a smoother riding experience. And that superior ride definitely applies to “rail trails” and every other riding surface I am aware of. So I do not know that they “solve a problem” but rather challenge what a bike can be. First my Clem L gave me a riding experience I was unfamiliar with & became a bicycle that I could not, not ride. Then a Gus changed everything I thought I knew about mountain bikes. I am just one person & different strokes for different folks. But my experience with long chainstay bikes has been transformative. It’s the only reason I am interested in a Roaduno.

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 31, 2024, at 1:50 PM, 'John Hawrylak, Woodstown NJ' via RBW Owners Bunch <rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Enjoyed reading the thread "Anyone else not a fan of long chainstays?", especially Bill L's explanation of the RBW bike design philosophy.   Seems the prevailing thought is long stays are better for

--
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/3eec10de-6019-4ecd-bf6e-b57f0cac78b4n%40googlegroups.com.

[Patrick Moore]

Grant extended the chainstays on my road customs from an XO-1-length 42 cm on the 1995 to 45 cm (to end of horizontal dropouts; Chauncey extended them by another cm or so with even longer dropouts) on the later 2, and I don't know if this is a problem and a solution, but the later 2 customs handled noticeably better than the first (which was noticeably better with similar wheels, tires, and build than the 1992 XO-1). The latter 2 have become my handling benchmark by exhibiting even more than the first-gen Sam and second-gen Ram the perfect combination of cornering nimbleness with unerring stability. The first was not quite stable enough (the XO-1 neither as stable nor as perfect in turn-in), the Ram very balanced but for my taste a bit staid, and the Sam tracked too strongly -- didn't want to change a line -- in fast corners and exhibited front-end wag on slow, seated climbs.

Chauncey built my 2 Matthews with similar geometry and they exhibit similar handling.

--

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/3eec10de-6019-4ecd-bf6e-b57f0cac78b4n%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.

[Steve]

John, you've asked a good question. To my mind all three of your bikes have long to longish chain stays.  Granted, the magic most probably lies in the marriage of long chain stays with slack HT and ST angles and a comfortable pedaling position - however - if you want to find the answer to your question you might try riding a bike with chain stays of say 130cm or < on a less than smooth roadway (or better yet a trail) and then ride your bike with the 145cm stays over the same course. Throw in some climbs and descents. I'm betting you'll discover the long CS bike feels more stable, controlled, and a bit easier on the tush.

Steve 

[Josiah Anderson]

I am a big fan of the long chainstays, having had them on two Gus Boots-Willsens – a first-generation blue one that was lost to an idiot driver a few months into my time with it, and now a Mermaid one from the newer batch. It sounds like maybe you don't approve of the long-stay design, and I'm not sure whether you've ridden one, but I would recommend finding one to try out if you haven't. Maybe some of your very many question marks will be turned into exclamation points.

 My Gus rides more smoothly over bumpy surfaces than any other non-suspension bike I have ridden, and as a tall rider (6'4"), I appreciate the feeling of fore-aft stability that comes from being more in the middle of the bike rather than on top of the rear wheel. It also displays superb handling on snow and ice, which I attribute to the more even weight distribution as well as the overall length. And for more technical trails with steep climbing and descending, the long wheelbase feels like cheating: I can easily spin my way up grades that have my friends on mainstream mountain bikes falling over backwards. The floating sensation that occurs when descending fire roads is indescribable – it reminds me of cruising down the highway in an ancient first-generation New Flyer low floor bus that I had the pleasure of driving for my job for a little while. 

To answer your question more specifically, I think the problem the long-stay Rivs solve is that there were no bikes that have that distinctive ride quality, and now there are. Maybe you have to have experienced it to appreciate it. I was skeptical before I bought my first Gus, but I trusted Rivendell to build a good bike, and I'm very glad I went for it. I will also hypothesize that the mainstream mountain bike world will "discover" long chainstays in three or four more years after they see a few more people like me easily clean steep climbs where their shred sleds are ineffective wheelie machines.

Josiah Anderson

Missoula, MT

--

[Bill Lindsay]

The OP asked: "What problem or current deficiency in bike design is Grant solving by using long chain stays????"

What exactly is this entity you call "bike design"?  If you can define that, perhaps I can respond to your question (emphatically stated with FOUR question marks)

Bill Lindsay

El Cerrito, CA

[John Hawrylak]

Bill

 

Good challenge, what I was thinking is what problem with bikes is the long C/S solving?  I thought it was a straight forward question.

 

I suggest eliminate “in bike design” and problems or current deficiencies refer to the current bikes available.    Another way of saying it is what “improvements” in bicycles result from the Long C/S.      

 

So far the responses indicate Long C/S improve

Overall handling, seems to apply to all surfaces.

Comfort, especially from bumps in the surface.

Climbing and Descending single track type trails (like the ones in the RBW pictures on Mt Diablo).  The climbing improvement appears to due to improved weight distribution vs improved bio-mechanical items.

 

John Hawrylak

Woodstown NJ

--
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/CvtnXgIblG8/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/0415e7b9-d462-402e-961f-0fe4ba41a5b3n%40googlegroups.com.

[William Lindsay]

John

OK so you are saying that every bike on earth that is currently available are all in one group and Rivendells are not in that group.  In order  to be allowed to exist a Rivendell must either conform with the first group’s designs or solve some objective problem not addressed by all other bikes.  Is that it?  

BL in EC

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/01c901da83bc%24d0e96d20%2472bc4760%24%40verizon.net.

[Mathias Steiner]

No, he's saying the most obvious departure from the mainstream -- if we need to define it, call it current gravel bikes and road bikes from Trek -- is the long chainstays.

John H can correct me if necessary.

My answer is it gets the panniers away from my heels, but 45 cm ones do that for me.

I once rode a tandem solo in the snow and found it much easier to keep going straight.
So I'm thinking tracking is up and agility is down a bit with these, and I suspect it's not a really big deal.

I also suspect it's one of GP's tangents and he'll revert to shorter chainstays in a year or three. But I don't know that.

I thought the question was reasonable and clearly stated.

cheers -m

[John Hawrylak]

Bill

 

I would say “solve some objective problem not addressed by all other bikes or be an improvement by all other bikes”  regardless of the logical/philosophical issue of Rivendells existing or nor.

 

Also, I think most of us would agree “all other bikes” would the bikes you see in Trek store, a Fuji store, a Specialized store, a Crust website, a Walmart sporting goods section, etc.  I am not thinking about designs which may exist in the world where bikes are used in lieu of motorized vehicles and not just as a recreational diversion.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/CAK80UHJ%2BqG8S-NUDouKE%2BqXqVT_b%2BJOvRBMWY5KBFj%3DZpu1pVQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Eric Daume]

If you want Riv's explanation, it's here:

https://www.rivbike.com/pages/why-the-long-stays-chainstay-length

Eric

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/020e01da83c7%24eb1d0890%24c15719b0%24%40verizon.net.

[William Lindsay]

OK and these Treks and Fujis and Crusts don’t have to solve a problem because they conform with each other.  

OK, the objective problem with all those Treks Fujis and Crusts is none of those bikes ride like a bike with 50cm chain stays

You are welcome. 

Bill Lindsay

El Cerrito Ca. 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/020e01da83c7%24eb1d0890%24c15719b0%24%40verizon.net.

[John Hawrylak]

Eric

 

Thanks for the RBW explanation.  I vaguely remember it, but didn’t think he would increase then C/S so much

 

I see Grant’s point:  it’s more an improvement vs a problem solver. 

I see the ‘tall rider’ issue, longer seat tubes increase the saddle setback.  However, I’m 5’6” and my frames are all 21”, so I couldn’t even ride a 25”, let along know how the increased 3cm setback effects the rider

 

I see the weight distribution/stability effects.  

 

John Hawrylak

Woodstown NJ

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/CAHFNW5Dqrk06v9Rf9%3DSiNrJCv5gWx5k8fkOBVwJbNOyRH6bJhw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Jim M.]

Jones and Esker are 2 makers who are bringing long wb to market. I'm sure there are others. 

jim m

walnut creek, ca

  

[Kevin “Masmojo” Reinking]

Just my take after owning an XO-1 for 20+ years, a Toyo Atlantis, Rosco Bubbe, and a Clementine

The main benefit is a comfortable smooth ride. Climbing? It doesn't hurt any (especially offroad) and for inexperienced riders or people with poor climbing technique'

Speaking for myself, I am totally fine with longer chainstays or top tube (a centimeter or two), but much beyond that and the downsides outweigh the upsides for me. 

The extra weight, frame flex, slower handling of my Clementine didn't thrill me and ultimately were factors in why I sold it.

My Rivs have all been swapped out for Crusts and one SOMA.

It's OK though Rivendell has evolved and they serve a segment of the market that nobody else really caters to.

Cheers

[fiddl...@gmail.com]

Ribeye vs Burger: both get the same job done in different ways…neither is a bad way to go

[Ryan Ogilvie]

What are long chain stays in this metaphor? :-)

Sent from my mobile device. 

On Apr 2, 2024, at 11:26 PM, fiddl...@gmail.com <fiddl...@gmail.com> wrote:

Ribeye vs Burger: both get the same job done in different ways…neither is a bad way to go

--

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/e72ba372-a9e2-44cc-97d5-96b02e7e96e4n%40googlegroups.com.

[Steve]

How about "Spaghetti vs Macaroni" ?

[Brian Turner]

hot dogs vs. corn dogs

On Apr 3, 2024, at 8:54 AM, Steve <steve...@gmail.com> wrote:

How about "Spaghetti vs Macaroni" ?

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/524722a8-cf45-4ff3-8ca7-fadcc61433c9n%40googlegroups.com.

[Garth]

A ribeye and a burger denote variations of what object ?

beef

As long chainstays and shorter chainstays denote variations of what object ?

bike

These are distinctions, designations, identifiers of forms.

[ascpgh]

The U Factor

Andy Cheatham

Pittsburgh

On Sunday, March 31, 2024 at 1:50:18 PM UTC-4 John Hawrylak, Woodstown NJ wrote:

[EGNolan]

The U Factor article explains the premise perfectly. The major change since that writing has been Riv having access to/getting longer and longer chainstays made. I'm glad they've pushed it to the point where we can see the actual downsides rather than just the theoretical: It's difficult in a city to fit some of the longer stay bikes on a bus, it's hard to get them up the stairs, etc., but those aren't constraints for many others and the upsides outweigh the down. I love my late 90's Riv Road with long stays for a road bike of the time, but short compared to a Clem or similar. I also love my Appaloosa (and my Cheviot before it) that has insanely long stays, but is comfortable, feels nimble and still allows me to ride all the trails I'd ride any rigid bike on. Ride all the bikes you can and love them for what they are (or not!).

Eric

[Victor Hanson]

None whatsoever.....

First you have to take into consideration the whole frame design!  Builders like Pino Moroni liked that the rear wheel did not move in fast skittish situations, especially downhill.  

--

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/221e5279-517e-4a34-b078-eaf9b72d7647n%40googlegroups.com.

--

VIctor R. Hanson

Gen Mgr

Schmier Industrial Properties

o:  510-652-0800

c:  510-207-8593

[John Hawrylak, Woodstown NJ]

Andy

Thanks for posting the U Factor article.  It was good to read it and understand the thinking.

John Hawrylak

Woodstown NJ

On Thursday, April 4, 2024 at 8:49:10 AM UTC-4 ascpgh wrote:

[Patrick Moore]

Here's one benefit of very long chainstays: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xXRjXv_4v0

You couldn't do that on any of my road Rivs or my Sam.

Patrick Moore, who used to use his right foot to brake the 24" front wheel in 28"-wheel fork on his very first build when riding the fw bike without other brakes in heavy traffic and down steep, winding hills on traffic arteries.

[Jason Fuller]

The only valid way to answer this is to ride them and find out if you like it or not. There is no amount of talking about them on the internet that can answer the question. That said, I think it's intuitive that it will improve comfort even before swinging a leg over one for the same reason sitting in the middle of the bus is more comfortable than over the rear axle of the bus. At the same time, improving weight balance front to rear will benefit front wheel traction, and this is very relevant to Riv's focus on safe riding bikes. Not enough weight on the front tire is a recipe for the front wheel washing out.  I would also appreciate the ample heel clearance with panniers. 

I had the proto Charlie for a bit with 50cm chainstays and it rode nice, I saw no drawback to the long rear end, and it improved all the points noted above. I wouldn't want them for a bike that I sprint on, or ride really playfully like my Wombat, but love it for a touring or commuting bike. 

[Roy Summer]

Long chain stays usually mean a longer wheelbase which means a more comfortable ride because you’re not sitting on top of the rear wheel (think compact car vs. limo) and less climbing ability as the rider, again, is not sitting over the rear wheel. That said, use a lower gear to climb and don’t worry about being first in the mountain stages at the TDF. A longer wheelbase also generally results in a somewhat slower handling bike ( not that it is dangerous, just not twitchy) so leave the long chain stay ride home when you do your next crit.

[Dan]

Roy, I've found I have BETTER climbing ability on my Appaloosa with its super-long stays. If you stay seated your weight is rearward enough for traction, and thanks to the long stays the front end doesn't want to lift. That means you don't have to lean forward as much as you would on a regular-stayed bike which again improves traction on the rear end.

In practice, climbing steep dirt paths with the Appaloosa feels like I have a motor out back that pushes me up the hill. It's great!

[Nick Payne]

One potential problem with long chainstays is trying to fit the bike in spaces designed around standard bike dimensions. For example, when our house was built, I got the builder to install a rack along the side of the garage so that that our bikes could be hung from their front or rear wheels, and set the height so that the longest of my bikes had two or three inches clearance to the floor. Any higher and my wife has problems lifting her bikes onto the hooks. But the Appaloosa I bought back in 2021 is so long that I can't hang it from the front wheel as the back wheel hits the ground with the bike a long way from vertical - the only way to hang it is by the rear wheel with the front wheel turned quite a bit sideways, but that doesn't work so well if I have other bikes on either side. Same problem on Swiss and Austrian trains, where the height of the hooks in carriages for hanging your bike is insufficient for these long chainstays. Not a problem with bikes on regional trains in Italy, as you just wheel your bike on and park it at the side of the carrriage. However, at Brescia railway station this morning, I had to carry my bike up and down the stairs to get to our platform, as even with the front wheel turned, the lifts were not long enough for an Appaloosa. My wife's bike fitted no problem.

Nick Payne

[Mackenzy Albright]

As many others mentioned above and the previous thread - for a particular sort of riding the wheelbase increases stability, ride quality, and traction immensely. When I first started tinkering with an upright fit I found short wheelbase bikes to be too light in the front climbing and leaning forward reduced traction. I've found since switching that the long wheel base allows a degree of upright riding that still allows a somewhat nimble ride, and increase confidence in traction going up and down steep and loose sections of trail, and in general less chatter.  I really like the way I can lean into descents in loose terrain with confidence. It's really a large improvement on the ATB (all terrain bike / hillibike) that isn't time trial driven.

For cons (again as mentioned) - most places aren't that bike friendly for storage / locking in the first place. May as well be tandem. For really technical riding popping the front up over obstacles (curbs / roots / small trees) is much more unintuitive. However - I wouldn't exactly pick Clementine for this sort of riding. I'd much more likely pop through the step through while rolling, grab the down tube, pop over, and jump back on CX style. 

I think Grant is absolutely opening up a conversation that we all too often get sucked into racing based trends and rarely look outside the box. I'll beat this poor dead horse - but definitely think that the larger industry will pick up on longer wheelbase bikes for certain types of riding and terrain - just maybe not Clem Smith Jr length. 

[Jim M.]

Well said! And other makers are doing it, a couple examples I know of are the Jones LWB and the Esker Hayduke LSV, but I'm sure there are others.

jim m

walnut creek

[Brian Forsee]

I think the vindication will come sooner than later.... y'all see that new moonlander rear end?

Brian

[Chris Halasz]

I have progressed to a more upright riding style. Kind of tried it about twenty years ago, with Albatross bars at about saddle height, and didn't like it. Really liked the idea, though, and the look. 

I had no aches or pains with drop bars, or Albastache, etc., it just got better, though, the more upright my position. 

As time progressed, I tried the bars higher and higher, with my Sam and Platypus, and then, finally, with the Clem with (finally!) some Toscos. As upright as I am on the 64cm Clem, with the Toscos 4" higher, the extended legs of the triangle from my center of mass out to the axles makes the bike the nicest I've ridden that way. 

My understanding is the more upright position is healthier for the cyclist's pelvic floor. You, or your expert physician may or may not agree. Not like I was having any issues, but once I heard that, I was motivated to seriously try the fully upright position. As I'm sure all of you do, I about my health, safety and comfort during and after the ride (and love that B68). The diaphragm seems more amenable to breathing in a more upright position. To me, the most uncomfortable looking folks on our group rides are the ones on their road bikes, trying to sit upright while straining to reach the bar flats. All of them! And better perspective for vision while upright. 

If I am slower on the flats and downhills, measurably but not noticeably, then all the better (less energy in the event of impact). I like the social aspect of a group ride. Not the type to spend hundreds on a flimsy component or tires so I can drop my friends during the ride, or so that I can shave a few minutes off the ride I've waited for all week - what's the point of that? To experience the thrilling difference going from 15mph average to ... 17 mph? (Wow, sounds like insanity mode in some Tesla, right?) I know that I am no slower on a long climb, maybe due to the added stability (and reduced squirreliness) of the Clem, and I like to stand during descents, to make the nice feeling last as long as possible (and allow that pelvic floor some fresh blood)! 

I find the top tube of the Clem L step-through very handy for lifting, even more so than the Platypus. The step-through is also convenient for stepping 'into' the frame and closer to the center of mass when you need to invert the bike, if that makes sense. 

When I raced MTBs in the 80s and 90s, there was strict trail etiquette with those I rode with. Those days seem to be over with those I encounter when I run the trails, and so lately I hesitate to be associated with trail riding, at least around here. The few rides I've taken on the Clem, I marvel at the unhappy look of folks as I approach, and then their surprise at how slowly I approach, and then -- the Clem L step-through as I dismount is priceless! Still, a trail ride is maybe once a month, and not on singletrack. No judgment, that's just me. 

I was concerned the Clem wouldn't fit on a standard car rack, but the recent car rack thread made it sound like I'll be fine with a number of purchases. 

I was concerned the Clem wouldn't fit on the local Amtrak, but it fit fine. 

I was concerned the 64cm wouldn't fit inside a Honda Fit, and it 'Fit' fine (Did Will and Grant plan that?)! 

Whenever I see someone's new Sam I think to myself I gotta get one of those (I like the Appaloosas and the Atlantis as well!!!), but then I get on that Clem and just can't imagine taking another bike out! 

- Chris 

[Joe Bernard]

I can't say how much is the long stays and how much is the steering geometry Grant uses, but those frames are designed via Mt. Diablo and riding that mountain yesterday on my longstay Riv Custom was clarifying. When you're grinding up that comically steep road at low speed the last thing you want is a twitchy front end constantly whipping back and forth as you try and fail to hold a line. Coming down is the same thing, that baby needs to take a set into high speed turns and NOT wobble.

Grant doesn't make short-coupled twitchy bikes, he doesn't ride where he could tolerate them. 

Joe "I have opinions" Bernard 

Clearlake CA