Hillborne 6-degree upsloping top tube

[John Bokman]

I'm trying to discern if there's any real (not imagined) physical properties of the upsloping top tube on my 2009 Sam that would make it a sluggish climber. I've never cared for the aesthetics of the sloped frame, so I'm thinking it could be in my head. But the truth is, I've always felt the bike is sluggish climbing, and I'm curious what other's think. Granted, tires make a big difference, but regardless of tires and tire pressures (I've used many variants), the result is the same for me: sluggish climbing. Whatever you do, please don't tell me it's the motor!

 

[Garth]

Maybe you are comparing it another bike with a more mid or low trail geometry ? Yes, when I change from my sport touring bike with neutral handling to my Bombadil it feels downtight wierd every time , but now it passes quickly. That wierd could be called sluggish by someone else, since especially on steeper climbs and standing the bike feels resistant to handlebar input compared to what I am most accustomed to. As for actual differences in speed there is none, just different ways to do the same thing.

[Bill Lindsay]

There is a question implied in there, but I'm not quite sure what it is.  I'll guess at the question:

1.  "If I hypothetically had a frame builder cut the top tube out of my Hillborne frame, and replace it with an identical top tube (same diameter, wall thickness) that was level, leaving my fit identical, would my bike climb better?"

If that's the question, then my answer is: No.  

Stated in the reverse:

2.  "If I hypothetically took a "good climbing bike" with a level top tube, and had a frame builder remove the top tube and replace it with an identical 6-degree sloping top tube, leaving my fit the same, would that bike become a sluggish climber?"

If that's the question, then my answer is: No.  

Guessing at another question:

3.  "I feel my Hillborne is a sluggish climber.  Do you think I'm wrong to feel that?"

If that's the question, then my answer is: No, you are entitled to feel whatever you want to feel about your bike or anybody's bike.  

Final guess at the question:

4.  "I suspect that the Hillborne is a categorically poor climber, for every rider and every possible setup.  I suspect the fatal flaw is the top tube slope.  Do you agree?"

If that's the question, then my answer is: No, I do not agree.  Some riders (me included) feel that their Hillborne is not a sluggish climber.

and the (really final!) followup:

4.1.  "If my Hillborne is a sluggish climber, and if it's not because of the sloping TT, then what should I change to "fix" my Hillborne?"

If that's the question, then my answer is: "it depends.  Let's have a look at it"

Bill Lindsay

El Cerrito, CA 

[John Bokman]

Bill, your number one is about it.

I understand that Grant designed the Hillborne to fit many riders within a given range. I could have chosen a 56 or 60 Sam, as there was nothing in between. From what I understand, less models were needed because of the sloping top tube and how it effectively brings the bars up that much higher, so it can fit more riders. While I realize there are many factors to what makes a bike feel fast or not so fast (wheels, tires, chain stay length, etc., take your pick), I am curious about the geometry of the frame and how it may or may not affect what I consider sluggish climbing. I'm making no complaints as to the design of the bike, and I understand why Grant drew this one up the way he did (from what I understand, I could be wrong). Although I admit that aesthetically I don't like the sloping top tube, it may not have anything to do with how the bike rides. I guess I was wondering out loud how others feel about their bikes with 6 degree upsloping top tubes as relates to climbing. 

[John Bokman]

Yes Garth, I do have a different bike, and it's quite different, and I'm sure that does indeed affect my perception of the Sam. 

[lum gim fong]

I felt like sometimes I couldn't get out of my own way on the Hillborne and the Bleriot.

But at times of peak fitness, both bikes felt fast.

My thoughts (not that they are right) are that:

I think the motor and bike both play a role, but in this order:

1. Motor

2. Bike

If you don't believe this, go riding with Lon Haldeman. You on his fastest, lightest bike, and him on your Hillborne. You will see that the motor comes first.

I think the bike either helps or detracts from your motor's performance.

I will say tires made me get uphill easier on the Hillborne. With Marathons, I'd have to downshift faster. With GB Hetres, I carried more momentum uphill and the bike didn't need to downshift as fast.

But my avspeeds on all known routes are the same!!!!! No mater Hillborne, or Bleriot. No matter the tires.

On My Rambouillet (set up as 700c and 650b), it is way easier to pedal down the road than on my Bleriot or Hillborne.

The front triangle is the same as a Hillborne, but the seat tube and stays are thinner walled. Shorter chainstays, too. Maybe that is the difference.

So, if you are looking for an easier ride, I would recommend a blue Rambouillet, or a Roadeo.

 

[lum gim fong]

PS - more specifically, the blue version with hilsen lugs. 

[Joe Bernard]

I think that's probably it, John. Using the reverse direction down hill, I have an Appaloosa and a Brompton, two almost comically different bikes. The Appaloosa descends smoothly and confidently, then if I head down the same hill with the tiny-wheeled folder the next day, the same speed feels like I'm going 100mph and I dare not put too much input into the bars.

The practical effect is I descend slower on the Brommie, which would mirror your experiences. I suspect your Sam is a great bike which feels calmer in general than the other, which translates into a slower feel on climbs.

[Bill Lindsay]

John

I was hoping your real question was: "I'm not sure about my Hillborne, so is it OK if I buy another bike?"

That's an easy YES. 😉

[John Bokman]

Of course! I've had my eye on the Atlantis, the Long-Low, the All-Rounder, to name a few over the years.

To my mind, aside from the gorgeous customs I've seen, the Atlantis has to be my favorite Rivendell of al time.

[John Bokman]

Joe, it does feel calmer. That's a good way to put it. Descends very well, excellent on the flats, stable, comfortable...all the attributes one would associate with a Rivendell. I have often wondered if it isn't just a size issue. That is, I was between sizes and was encouraged to go up and get the biggest I could fit. In retrospect, I wonder if the smaller size would have "felt" speedier up hills. It's a moot point now, but it has bugged me ever since 2009. The way the frame is designed almost begs you to get the smaller of the two frame sizes that will fit, because the design seems all about getting the bars up there really easily. As it is  now, I had to get a 7cm stem (to effectively shorten the top tube), and it's slammed down as far as it can go. Yet my PBH is 89-90 depending on how hard I cram the book up into my crotch, which is definitely 60cm Sam worthy.

[Joe Bernard]

John, beyond the other factors that have been discussed, I think you just aren't happy with that particular frame. You don't like the sloping tube, it feels too big for you, and maybe you're just done with it and it's someone else's turn.

This happened to me with a perfectly lovely pewter Saluki a few years ago. I saw one at RBW HQ when they first came out, and loved the color. Years later I bought one and rode it around for a few months, and it just never clicked with me. The color wasn't really my thing (surprisingly), and - opposite of you - the level toptube made the bike feel tall for my creaky old legs when getting on and off. So I sold it, and now have a sloping-tube Appaloosa in a lovely light blue. It's perfect! You need a new bike, bro. Get something you're crazy about and move that Sam down the highway.

[Steve Palincsar]

The Saluki did not have a level top tube.

[Christopher Murray]

Wasn't the Hillborne designed with the expanded geometry so few sizes would be needed? Fewer sizes means less inventory, less inventory means less $. If I remember right $ was talked about quite a bit with the design of the Hillborne (as the Riv/QBP Bleriot project was winding down). I can't imagine anyone would argue that less sizes is better or fits all riders as well as more sizes would. Doesn't the underlying idea have to be that it fits most riders well enough? Or to put it another way, if both the 56 and 60 fit couldn't you argue that neither really fit?

Cheers!
Chris

[ted]

" I guess I was wondering out loud how others feel about their bikes with 6 degree upsloping top tubes as relates to climbing."

Says John, and in response I offer that:

I feel my 6deg. upsloping twin top tubed Bombadil (1st gen) climbs just fine.

[Forrest]

Even though there's no question mark, Bill, the query is pretty clear here: "I've always felt the bike is sluggish climbing, and I'm curious what other's think." In other words, if you have or have ridden a Hillborne, what do you think? What has been your experience? Not too hard to discern.

[Joe Bernard]

Relative to the current designs, the Saluki and its successor AHH have level toptubes. Level enough that I needed a 54cm seattube in order to have a long enough toptube, whereas now I have good reach with a 51 ST.

[john Bokman]

Joe, that’s pretty intuitive on your part. You may be right; it could be time to roll on some new wheels.

I’m always interested in hearing how other rider’s perceptions may or may not jibe with mine. Every rider has an opinion, and each opinion is completely valid. It’s nutty how for one rider, a bike will shimmy, and for another it’s rock solid, for example. So many factors play into every bike and rider relationship. I’m a relatively tall (6 feet even), light (buck fifty-five at most) rider, with long legs and short torso. So maybe the Sam has always felt larger to me than it would or does to a rider who may have the same PBH but a substantially more heavily muscled body, for example. Or longer torso compared to legs. In my opinion, my 60 cm 2009 Sam could be a really good fit for a 6’2” rider with even longer legs than I have, due to the way the bike is put together (long reach noodle bars with a longish stem, for example).

I guess my take away is that, at least concerning the Rivendell sizing parameters, given the choice of two Sams all over again, I’d do best to choose the smaller frame. For others - even with the same exact dimensions - it could be the opposite. And it might be different for a different frame, which I guess is a long way around restating my original querry and why I broached the subject of the sloping top tube.

Thanks everyone for the comments. It’s been an interesting learning experience.

> On Jan 5, 2017, at 5:30 PM, Joe Bernard <joer...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> John, beyond the other factors that have been discussed, I think you just aren't happy with that particular frame. You don't like the sloping tube, it feels too big for you, and maybe you're just done with it and it's someone else's turn.
>
> This happened to me with a perfectly lovely pewter Saluki a few years ago. I saw one at RBW HQ when they first came out, and loved the color. Years later I bought one and rode it around for a few months, and it just never clicked with me. The color wasn't really my thing (surprisingly), and - opposite of you - the level toptube made the bike feel tall for my creaky old legs when getting on and off. So I sold it, and now have a sloping-tube Appaloosa in a lovely light blue. It's perfect! You need a new bike, bro. Get something you're crazy about and move that Sam down the highway.
>

> --
> 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/WnI6CTqPKig/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[john Bokman]

Interesting you mention that, because now the choice is 58cm or 62cm, I believe. (In 2009 it was 56 or 60). If the frame is the same as it was in 2009, I’d most likely feel I had a better fit with the current 58. That would probably be my sweet spot in this frame. Although, the frame may have changed since 2009, I don’t know.

[Garth]

Chris, yes I do recall that also about the expanded geometry. For myself it does not really change anything since stock frames are stock frames, they are going to fit who they will and those who are "close enough" may or may not actually be satisfied long term. Just like wearing clothes, maybe something feels or looks great in the store or first trying it on but after awhile if it was not really sized for you or what you really wanted, you wil eventualĺy become aware of it and may say "what was I thinking ?" I notice too it is very easy to get wooed by paint colors or other features on stock bikes, then you try to make yourself fit into it some way despite it not reaĺly being what you want or need ! Hah ..... done that ......

[Eric Daume]

Clearly, the up sloping top tube is making your climbs effectively steeper. That's why it's more difficult :)

On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 5:29 PM, John Bokman <jpbc...@gmail.com> wrote:

I'm trying to discern if there's any real (not imagined) physical properties of the upsloping top tube on my 2009 Sam that would make it a sluggish climber. I've never cared for the aesthetics of the sloped frame, so I'm thinking it could be in my head. But the truth is, I've always felt the bike is sluggish climbing, and I'm curious what other's think. Granted, tires make a big difference, but regardless of tires and tire pressures (I've used many variants), the result is the same for me: sluggish climbing. Whatever you do, please don't tell me it's the motor!

 

--
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-bunch+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com.

[Steve Palincsar]

Or, it could just be that in the days of level top tubes, smaller diameter tubes were used to build bicycles, resulting in more flexible frames than would be the case with oversize tubing of the same thickness.  And more flexible frames indeed can climb better.

[Steve Palincsar]

Joe, "level" is not relative. You put a level on it and look at the
bubble, and when you do that with a Saluki you find that it has a
slightly upsloping top tube: 2.5 degrees for the 47cm size, 1.5 degrees
for the rest. It's documented, see for yourself:
http://www.cyclofiend.com/rbw/geometry.html

[eflayer]

I have owned 2 orange Rambouillets, 1 coupled green Rambouillet, and 2 Bleriots. I absolutely loved the aesthetics of all of them. On the other hand, either they did not fit my riding style or they always felt heavy / sluggish. I love to ride fast, smooth, no bags, no extra weight. Other bikes seems to fit those variables better for me. Or maybe I just need a cychologist?

On Thursday, January 5, 2017 at 2:29:16 PM UTC-8, John Bokman wrote:

[Philip Kim]

John, have you done a time test? Maybe borrow a bike that feels faster for a couple of days. Ride up the same hill with both bikes, the hillborne first, and then the "faster bike" next? Then reverse the order the next day and compare times?

I have found riding on many Rivs, it's a very stable and Cadillac-type of ride, which can be deceptively quick for such a useful bike.

My usual morning commute is mostly uphill in the morning. I found the Hunq comparable in time with my lighter-tubed BDB Pelican. I ride the Pelican mostly because it's more enjoyable to ride uphill, but it only gets me to work faster by a minute or two.

So if the way the bike rides is something you can't get along with, then you should get a bike with geometry for the type of ride you are looking for. If you like your ride, it will only get you on the bike more. For this same reason, get a bike with a level top tube. The Atlantis is a bit more burly than the Hillborne, so the A Homer Hilsen or Roadeo might be something to look into, or possibly the Roadini, but I doubt level  top tubes will be prominent on Riv-production bikes. There are too many sizes to accommodate for.

[Ryan Fleming]

Wasn't 2009 when the Sam was introduced? Seems to me you're not the only one who's been less than thrilled by the ride...

That being said, if you are not happy with it, as others have said, time to move Sam and get something you're happy with...Rivendell or otherwise

[Bill Lindsay]

Given your height of 6'0" and your weight of 155lbs, I tend to think that it's a combination of things. If you aren't loading the bike down with gear, then it's easy to consider a San overbuilt for you and for how you are using it. It's a country bike. It says so right on the decals. If that's the case, a flexier bike with thinner and/or skinnier top tube and down tube could feel snappier.

My suggestions would include deciding if you want a country bike. If you do, embrace that the Sam is a country bike. If you want a sprightly road bike also, start targeting that. You mentioned the Atlantis, and it's a legendary touring bike, but it's also not a sprightly road bike. A 150lb rider on a stripped down Atlantis May similarly feel the bike is WAY overbuilt for the load.

Where do you live? We could brainstorm the bikes you could try out.

Bill

[Bill]

Before tossing the baby out with the bathwater I'd suggest examining fit and components. Consider stem height and extension along with handlebar choice, width, and position. Also saddle height and fore/aft position as well as tire choice and pressures. I also have a 60cm Sam and we are the same height. I have had both noodles and moustache bars on it, and its an exceptional climber with either. I suspect the real problem may be that that frame size is slightly too large for you and that a 58 would be a better bet. If the real issue is that you'd rather have something that feels livelier I'd suggest starting with a 59cm Roadeo if you want to stay in the Riv family.

[drew]

am i the only one whose feelings during climbing vacillate fairly extremely from day to day and climb to climb? sometimes it feels like im flying up hills (sometimes on loaded up bikes even) and other times it feels harder than it should (on stripped down bikes even). i just assume my lungs and my legs are the culprit for the disparate results.  

[Joe Bernard]

Objection, argumentative. Everybody who has followed Rivendell for any length of time knows that the older designs had a bit of upslope that was almost undetectable to the naked eye. For the purposes of my points in this discussion, my Saluki had a level toptube relative to the Sam and Appaloosa. Thanks for playing.

[John Bokman]

I have  not timed myself, nor do I plan to, but that's a good point. It's not important to me how slow or fast I actually am, but how I FEEL when on the bike. And for me, the Sam never FEELS springy when I'm climbing. I suspect it's a function of the frame size more than the geometry or tubing. 

I would totally agree about the Cadillac feel of the bike when on the flats and downhill. That's exactly how I think of the Sam. I just wish it had a little more juice when grinding up the pass. It rides like my Toyota Matrix up the hills.

[John Bokman]

Bill, thanks for the  thoughts. I actually do think the type of bike is good for me, because I regularly haul heavy groceries - easily 30 pounds. I don't expect the Sam to be sprightly when I'm hauling weight, of course (wouldn't that be nice?). It's the when I remove all the weight and climb the same hill and don't feel much less encumbered that annoys me. I suspect that you are correct, and that my intuition has been correct and that the 60 fits less well than a smaller frame would, regardless of what my PBH says.

For the record, I've never expected the Sam to ride like a "road" bike. But I've always been surprised that, as nice as it is on the flats and downhill, it does not climb better for me.

[Ryan Fleming]

so if you want to still ride a riv and you enjow the riv riding qualities ...then maybe as others said..sniff around for a Roadeo or try a Roadini . 

[lum gim fong]

Regarding size and ride performance:

I had a 55 Bleriot.

I then got a 53 Bleriot.

I think there was a 3 pound diff in the bikes. The 53 being heavier.

The motor weighed the same. Just a year older.

The 53 was much better riding quality and quicker feeling and better steering. Felt easier to control under me. Both bikes had similar builds. Drops. Rivish builds.

I wondered if it was possible that a frame too big for you cannot be man-handled as easily and run as well as a size down?

Just a speculation.

 

[Dave Johnston]

The newer Sams have slightly shorter effective top tubes relative to their seat tubes than the first generation ones. The 60cm model had a 61cm top tube and today's 58cm model has a 59cm effective top tube. That may work better for you with drop bars and maybe worse with upright bars.

The 2016 and on 58cm model will have a single top tube as well. Does your bike have a double top tube? I would guess that a double top tube would make a bike less lively, but more tour worthy. If you are more leg than torso I would have recommended going down in size vs up as long as the bars would end up where you want them. Smaller bikes tend to feel more lively and bigger ones tend to be more stable because of the longer wheelbase, but I'm dubious there is a speed difference.

I believe that the early Sams had thinner wall tubes but I can't find the specs on those. The "Silver" tubes on the current models are pretty darn thick. The top tube on the 55cm is 0.9 - 0.7mm and the downtube 1.1 - 0.8mm. I think some of the tubes are single butted.

I have a early 56cm Atlantis and have always found it sluggish feeling compared to 56 Ram and 57 Bleriot. Its a good tourer and can fit 2" tires, so its a better trail rider, so that is a trade off I accept and I still find rides fun on almost any bike, but the Atlantis did not work out as the "bike for all uses" because of that. It can do it all, but it is not as much fun on unloaded zippy day rides. I believe the current Atlantis has thicker tubing than the early generation ones, but Riv doesn't like to talk about tubing so I'm not sure.


-Dave J

[John Bokman]

Lum, Dave:

I think you are right. I was really on the fence about the size when consulting with Jay. He asked if I was planning to use the bike off road, and at the time I was thinking I might use it offload only 10% of the time, so he counseled me to go to the bigger size. In retrospect, knowing what I know now about the length of the top tube, which has always felt too long, I don't think the terrain matters. The smaller size would have been better. I think Lum is right in my not being able to muscle the large bike. While I'd love to get to the point where I can ascend mountains in the saddle, I'm often out of the saddle on all my bikes, always have been. I need all the leverage and muscle recruitment I can get.

So what I have learned about this particular frame (can't speak for any other models, even different year of the same model, as Dave points out): Being that I ride drops with a long reach (noodles) and that my legs are long relative to my torso, and the fact that I'm a light, not-powerful rider, the smaller frame would have been a better cal, of me. Maybe not for someone else. If I'd been local and could have ridden different sizes, I would likely have gone to the smaller frame, I think. Live and learn.

[John Bokman]

Forgot to mention, mine is the single top tube Sam. I don't remember an option for a 2X top tube in 2009.

On Saturday, January 7, 2017 at 2:42:24 PM UTC-8, Dave Johnston wrote:

[David Johnston]

I swapped a riv recommended 58cm Ram for a 56cm Ram for similar
reasons by buying a unbuilt F&F one off the list, moving the parts
over and then selling my used but great condition 58 on the list a few
weeks later. I think I only lost $50-100.

When I ordered the 58cm I was off in my Saddle height measurement by
about +1cm because I was using a non-B17 and some sort of different
MTB clipless pedal system, so that is part of the reason Riv put me on
the larger frame. Even with all that, the 58cm fit pretty well of the
french fit type with a bit less than a fistful of post, and the ride
was a bit smoother, I wanted a more racy look /feel though for my "go
fast" Rambouillet.

-Dave J