frame builders
Melissa Hall
Don't let your dream ride pass you by. Make it a reality with Yahoo! Autos.
bruno
done with it.
On Oct 6, 6:47 am, Melissa Hall <lissa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I am thinking about getting a frame built just to fit me. Does anyone have a builder they highly recommend? If so, why? Thanks for any input.
>
> ---------------------------------
Tim McNamara
On Oct 6, 2007, at 5:47 AM, Melissa Hall wrote:
> I am thinking about getting a frame built just to fit me. Does
> anyone have a builder they highly recommend? If so, why? Thanks
> for any input.
Ummm. Where do you live? I know several excellent frame builders
but IMHO this is something you want to have done locally, so the
builder can meet you, look at your current bikes, go for a ride with
you and watch your riding style and body mechanics, etc. I'd
recommend Chris Kvale or Curt Goodrich in Minneapolis or Mike Pofahl
in Faribault MN. But if you live in Vancouver or something that
might not be the best option for you.
Lloyd Lemons
I’m new to this custom building thing, but, I think I would find a builder who understands the style of riding you intend to do with the new bike. That sounds like no-brainer type of advice, but when your wants and needs are filtered through an LBS who doesn’t necessarily “get it”, there could be trouble in the translation. I’ve talked with four dealers; I’ve chosen a Serotta. The results remain to be seen. Keep your fingers crossed for me.
Lloyd
Vik
I am thinking about getting a frame built just to fit me. Does anyone have a builder they highly recommend? If so, why? Thanks for any input.
sr...@insightbb.com
Steve (who was lucky enough to order my Sachs when the wait was only a year.)
Charles Coldwell
> I am thinking about getting a frame built just to fit me. Does anyone have
> a builder they highly recommend? If so, why? Thanks for any input.
My experience with custom builds is that you should be prepared to
wait a very long time. J. Peter Weigle, for example,
http://www.classicrendezvous.com/USA/weigle_jp.htm
is quoting a seven year queue. I think Vanilla Bicycles is something
similar. Mike Flanigan (ANT) is somewhat more reasonable, but still
expect to wait at least a year.
Chip "off the peg" Coldwell
--
Charles M. Coldwell
"Turn on, log in, tune out"
Somerville, Massachusetts, New England
David Buzzee
Shape Yahoo! in your own image. Join our Network Research Panel today!
Tony Rentschler
>
> On 10/6/07, Melissa Hall <liss...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I am thinking about getting a frame built just to fit me. Does
>> anyone have
>> a builder they highly recommend? If so, why? Thanks for any input.
>
> My experience with custom builds is that you should be prepared to
> wait a very long time. J. Peter Weigle, for example,
>
> http://www.classicrendezvous.com/USA/weigle_jp.htm
>
> is quoting a seven year queue. I think Vanilla Bicycles is something
> similar. Mike Flanigan (ANT) is somewhat more reasonable, but still
> expect to wait at least a year.
It's fine to have a frame built just for you. But often the reason
for a custom frame, if you have relatively average proportions, is to
have it built with fittings and/or features you can't find on the
mass-produced bikes, such as plenty of clearance for fenders, lots of
braze-ons for water bottles and racks, etc.
If you're interested in a bike for the latter reason, look at some of
the "randonneur" offerings, such as those from Velo Orange or the
stock offerings by Rivendell or Jitensha, or even Gunnar or
Waterford, for example, and just get a frame in your size:
http://www.jitensha.com/eng/aboutframes_e.html
http://www.velo-orange.com/frandcobi.html
It's hard to imagine that you'd be unhappy with your purchase.
If you'd like a custom frame, there are lots of builders who can do a
fine job, who understand how to build a bike more suited to long-
distance riding vs. all-out racing, and who don't have impossibly
long lead times. If you have your heart set on a Vanilla, or a
Weigle, Sachs, or whatever, then be prepared to wait, but don't think
that these builders are the only ones who can build a beautiful
custom bike on which to ride brevets.
Here's a list of builders - off the top of my head - who I think
would do a nice job. Luna Cycles specializes in frames for women, but
all the other builders have fine reputations as well.
http://www.mikkelsenframes.com/
http://www.bobbrowncycles.com/
http://www.classicrendezvous.com/USA/fattic_doug.htm
http://www.coastouttabrooklyn.com/
Marcello Napolitano
framebuilder. Two of them rode on some of the Oregon Randonneurs
brevet earlier this year. Tony Pereira (http://www.pereiracycles.com/)
and Ira Ryan (http://iraryancycles.com/) both did our spring 200k
brevet on one of their creations (and Ira was also on one of our
populaires). If I were in the market for a custom frame, I would
probably prefer a framebuilder who has some personal experience with
the kind of endurance riding that I do.
Marcello
On 10/6/07, Melissa Hall <liss...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Adrian Hands, Raleigh NC USA
> would do a nice job. Luna Cycles specializes in frames for women, but
> all the other builders have fine reputations as well.
>
> http://www.lunacycles.com/
>
> http://www.mikkelsenframes.com/
>
> http://nobilettecycles.com/
>
> http://www.bobbrowncycles.com/
>
> http://www.classicrendezvous.com/USA/fattic_doug.htm
>
> http://www.jonnycycles.com/
>
> http://www.coastouttabrooklyn.com/
Artistry in steel:
http://www.bilenky.com/
Jon Muellner
you can check out
Charles Lathe (an SIR and OR rider, very nice guy I first met on an
SIR ride a few years ago, now in No. Carolina)
<http://www.cohobicycles.com/>
John Grunzke (I met him at breakfast this year after PBP, nice fellow
and has some interesting stories from the front of the pack - he's a
member of the La Société Charly Miller: <http://www.rusa.org/
societecharlymiller.html>)
<http://grunzkecycles.com/>
I'm having Tony Pereira in Portland build mine as he's seems to be a
very creative guy and is regional - the price and timing were good too.
Jon
Jon Muellner
j...@mountainbike.org
Port Townsend, WA
http://www.mountainbike.org/
http://mile43.blogspot.com/
Todd Kuzma
Todd Kuzma
LaSalle IL 815-488-1858
http://www.tullios.com/
http://www.heronbicycles.com/
http://tullios.blogspot.com/
I'm Learning About Life with Stevie Joe: http://steviejoe.blogspot.com/
cr...@rcn.com
> on the phone to Vanilla if I wanted a custom bike. I also
> really like Cris' ANT rando bike.
aww, thanks, Vik. and here it was feeling all neglected with all of the well-deserved gushing on Willy's Vanilla ;) ... Anyway, if anyone needs more bike porn, here's a repost of the gallery page with a few updated pics taken around the time of PBP:
http://pics.livejournal.com/cris/gallery/000149c5
like, Mr. Nevin's bike, mine has a custom assembly for mounting two E6's just above the fork crown, that can be easily removed for transport. It's certainly convenient, and it includes a small frame that helps protect the lights in the event of a tipover or crash. The frame also makes the bike look like it's wearing glasses.
The wheels were built by me, but were delivered to ANT before Mike started building the frame. It was in the delivery of those wheels that I saw the slick faux-wood paint scheme that he had put on a bike that he was building for his mail carrier, and I was able to ask for something similar with a few changes to keep things relatively personalized.
Therefore, to echo the advice that others have posted, part of what drives one to order a custom bike is to work with a builder who can take any crazy idea you have percolating in your head, and craft it into reality. One can argue that randonneuring is, itself, a fairly crazy idea.
As Jan Heine, mentioned, there are some very specific pieces of equipment that can be very important to certain randonneurs -- fenders, generator lights, handlebar bags -- that aren't adequately addressed by the mass market. So, most randonneurs adapt what they have (be it a touring, sport touring, commuter or racing bike) and they make it work, but there is an ineffable pleasure with using equipment that is purpose-built to do what you want and doesn't require some kind of compromise.
While I didn't insist on a 'no-wires' lighting assembly (and after seeing Mr. Nevin's Vanilla, totally wish I thought of that myself), I do like the fact that the fork on my ANT bike has cable guides for the E6 wires, allowing me to keep the wires tidy without using zip-ties. I like how the fenders attach with custom screw points in the fork crown and seat stays. And, of course, I love the feel of the bike under my hands and feet.
Of course, none of this stuff might be important to you, but before deciding on who should build your custom bike, you should answer for yourself why you want one. And I think that unless you've got some weird monkey arms or strange upper/lower body proportions, it has to be more than the standard "I want a bike built for my dimensions." What are the things that you want to do on the bike that you can't do with a stock frame bought at your LBS?
Once you can articulate what it is that you want, then you'll have a better conversation with the builder, who is, themselves, trying to guess what will make you happy. And, really, the guy who should build your bike is the one who you can talk to about everything that you love about bicycles; and who 'gets' who you are and why you're riding.
For me, that person was Mike. Of course, it helped that even though his standard lead time for delivering bikes is 12 months, he told me he'd build mine in seven, because he wanted to make sure that I could ride it in the 2007 brevet series and take it to Paris. I do point that out to illustrate that Mike is a nice, reasonable man, but my case was an exception, and I don't think he'd want to establish a precedent of it.
-- cris
7 Axiom
craftsmanship is superb - meticulous and stunningly beautiful, and
they build fully custom geometry across a fairly wide variety of frame
designs (racing to sport-touring to touring to cyclo-cross to mtb to
tandems). They build in steel, Ti or carbon (and combinations
thereof).
I have owned a Seven Axiom Ti frame (sport-touring oriented with the
optional rack and fender mount braze-ons) for 2 and 1/2 years now. It
has been a sheer joy to ride - very versatile (from racing to club
riding to light touring) and comfortable. Typically their turnaround
time is about 5 to 6 weeks from order to receipt, and their customer
service is great, with a very detailed custom order form to give them
alot of fit details towards your specific needs. They deal only
through local bike shops for ordering and delivery, but you can
contact them directly to enquire about details, discuss your frame
details etc.
You can specify frame and drivetrain compliance (i.e. stiffness) and
they will deliver exactly what you specify.
They are not cheap, but name a quality custom frame builder who is.
Ian.
On Oct 6, 6:47 am, Melissa Hall <lissa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I am thinking about getting a frame built just to fit me. Does anyone have a builder they highly recommend? If so, why? Thanks for any input.
>
> ---------------------------------
Jim Bronson
If you can wait, its a good direction to investigate, but if you can't
wait, then I'd look to other suppliers.
One caveat: The fitter can make a big difference. I've seen people
who were unhappy and others that were happy with the same brand.
There was some discussion of Serotta and Lightspeed on here, those are
two brands that do customs in a reasonable period of time, however,
again that pesky fit issue!
For example, Serotta has a geometry called "Rapid Tour Geometry" which
features more slack angles, lower BB clearance and handlebars that are
generally even when the seat. When I talked to a fitter in DC, he
agreed that would be a good path for me, but when I went into the
local Serotta dealer, I got blank stares when I mentioned Rapid Tour
Geometry. Suffice it to say that I do not own a Serotta. (But, I do
like their bikes)
food for thought.
On 10/6/07, Melissa Hall <liss...@yahoo.com> wrote:
--
Follow me while I ride Paris-Brest-Paris 2007, August 20-24th 2007!
Lynne Fitz
my riding partner), Sweetpea Bicycles.
http://www.sweetpeabicycles.com/
On Oct 6, 3:09 pm, "Marcello Napolitano"
<marcello.napolit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Here in Portland, you can't swing a cat without hitting a talented
> framebuilder. Two of them rode on some of the Oregon Randonneurs
> brevet earlier this year. Tony Pereira (http://www.pereiracycles.com/)
> and Ira Ryan (http://iraryancycles.com/) both did our spring 200k
> brevet on one of their creations (and Ira was also on one of our
> populaires). If I were in the market for a custom frame, I would
> probably prefer a framebuilder who has some personal experience with
> the kind of endurance riding that I do.
>
> Marcello
>
> On 10/6/07, Melissa Hall <lissa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I am thinking about getting a frame built just to fit me. Does anyone have
> > a builder they highly recommend? If so, why? Thanks for any input.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Emily O'Brien
> who were unhappy and others that were happy with the same brand.
> There was some discussion of Serotta and Lightspeed on here, those are
> two brands that do customs in a reasonable period of time, however,
> again that pesky fit issue!
Furthermore, if you know what kinds of things you like, make sure you articulate them to whomever you're dealing with (fitter at an LBS, the builder, your coach, whatever) and discuss what you know works or doesn't work for you. I'm pretty sure that if I walked into lots of shops that deal in Serotta (or even just told them I wanted them to fit me on a stock bike) and told them I wanted a bike that would be comfortable for long rides, and I wanted to carry a bit of gear on it, fenders, enough clearance for tires up to 30mm, they'd steer me toward very relaxed angles, low bottom bracket, very high handlebars, and a shorter top tube than my brevet bike has. Unfortunately, I'd end up with a very uncomfortable bike because I happen to know from past experience that I'm much more comfortable with a steep seat tube angle AND the saddle most of the way forward. My regular brevet bike, which I would basically attempt to duplicate if I were to purchase a custom frame, was designed for racing in the '70's, and I find it exceptionally comfortable. I certainly don't mind commuting on a heavy bike that rides and handles like a tanker, but if it has a relaxed seat tube angle, I am uncomfortable even just between home and work.
If you know what works for you, and someone tries to tell you you're wrong, think twice before you decide to take their word for it unless you're really sure they really know better than you do what's going to make YOU comfortable.
Emily "To each his/her own" O'Brien
Emily O'Brien
I think the profusion of "womens'" designs in stock bikes is ultimately a good thing, since they offer a lot more size options especially for smaller riders who are generally underserved by the standard stock offerings. However, I think a lot of people buy into the whole gender-specific thing because they like the idea, but don't really understand what the differences are and why they may or may not be appropriate in the case of any particular rider. I've heard lots of arguments about how women need this, women need that, womens' frames have different seat tube angles than mens' frames (they're generally not substantially different), all based on vague generalizations that may or may not be valid in any particular case. And mostly they buy into Trek's marketing of "WSD" without really looking up what the actual differences in the specs really are.
I do think the Sweetpea bikes are pretty, but their girl-power philosophy doesn't make them any more (or less) likely to build you a bike that fits you than any other custom builder who takes the time to figure out what you need.
Sorry about the rant; I really do think it's great that all the "womens'" designs are out there, getting more women riding and more options for riders who don't fit comfortably on "standard" bikes. But I think the girl power modern feminism marketing is something of a racket when people buy into the idea without understanding what the differences actually are.
Emily "Get me off my soap box...." O'Brien
> -------Original Message-------
> From: Lynne Fitz <fitz...@comcast.net>
> Subject: [Randon] Re: frame builders
Scott Peterson
for Lennard Zinn to make a point of his expertise in building frames for us
large folk. He is after all "the tallest frame builder in captivity".
Anyone outside the middle of the bell curve is going to have specific
requirements that may or may not be met by your "average" frame builder.
Over the past 30+ years, I've ridden plenty of frames by highly regarded
builders that turned out to be real dogs, mainly because I ride a 65cm bike,
not a 56, and very few builders have first-hand experience with the
requirements of a truly big frame. IIRC, Sweetpea is a woman-owned and -run
business, so I'd expect her to have a better idea of a woman's cycling needs
than a guy would.
My $.02
Scott Peterson
Bend, OR
Dave Cramer
knowledgeable about frame design.
By the way, I saw the first frame Lennard Zinn ever made (I went to
the same college). It was for his girlfriend, who wasn't nearly as
tall as Lennard. I bet the frame was 50cm or so! Looked like a
beautiful bike...
Dave
cr...@rcn.com
> The Sweetpea frames on their website look very nice, and I'm
> sure they do a very good job, but does anyone else think
> it's a little bit funny for a custom frame builder to make a
> point of advertising female-specific custom bikes? I mean,
> it's a custom bike.
oh, I don't know about this Emily. As has been mentioned on the thread, not all frame builders think alike, and part of the process of getting a bike designed is finding a builder who's got a design philosophy that matches the rider's. I don't think, for example, that anyone on this list would think about going to Rivendell and asking Grant Petersen to build a pure go-fast bike with a three inch drop between saddle and handlebar. All builders have their biases and preferences and philosophies, and any custom bike will be a project that meets halfway in the mind between the builder and the rider. If part of what closes that gap is a personal understanding of what it's like to have a short torso or wider hips; then why shouldn't it be advertised and considered?
I would certainly agree that anyone shopping for a custom bike should cast as wide a net as possible and shouldn't exclude builders based on gender. Any woman who -just- talks to Sweetpea about building a custom bike is the sort of hapless consumer that you rant against. But I think that it's perfectly valid for a builder to make a point of understanding women's cycling needs, just as other builders advertise their touring or racing experience.
-- cris
Tim McNamara
On Oct 8, 2007, at 9:10 AM, Emily O'Brien wrote:
> The Sweetpea frames on their website look very nice, and I'm sure
> they do a very good job, but does anyone else think it's a little
> bit funny for a custom frame builder to make a point of advertising
> female-specific custom bikes? I mean, it's a custom bike.
While there is an element of truth to that criticism, the builder is
advertising having a skill set specific to fitting bikes to women.
Bike fit based on anthropometrics is quite often wrong. The models
most commonly in use are the French method (developed by Cyrille
Guimard and IIRC Paul Koechli; also thought of as the Hinault method
or the Lemond method) and by the Italian Olympic Committee (CONI).
Both are based primarily on measurements of body dimensions and are
intended for use in designing frames for elite athletes. They do not
take into ready account the issues of the riders weight distribution,
flexibility, upper body strength, etc. The forumulae are based on
men and don't take women into account at all. Someone designing a
custom frame using anthropometrics could easily build a frame that
was theoretically "right" for the rider and yet terribly
uncomfortable in practice. For women in particular, whose weight
distribution and upper body strength are often very different from a
man's, it's easy to design a frame that looks right on paper and is
wrong on the road. Some makers have developed dynamic methods of
designing a bike to fit a rider, which I suspect improves the odds of
getting it right (I've never seen the process in action).
When I built my first (and thus far only) frame, I basically combined
all the geometric features of all the bikes I'd really liked over the
past 35 years. I knew what the numbers ought to be from experience
rather than from measurements (not only position but front and rear
centers, BB height, etc.). It's the most comfortable bike I have
ever ridden with handling characteristics that I like very much.
With just a bit of tweaking- a few mm more fork rake- this will also
be the geometry for my brevet bike which is the next frame building
project.
http://www.frostybobs.org/bikebuild.html
Custom tailoring anything, whether a suit of clothes of a bike,
certainly involves more than going by the numbers. A good tailor
understands not only how to measure the customer but also how
specific fabrics move, drape, stretch, etc. That knowledge goes into
the final product. Ditto bikes, and something valuable is of the
builder understands the differences in how women's anatomies work on
a bike compared to a man.
mbis...@pacbell.net
Hi, sorry, under the glare of the admonishment of Cascade 1200 08, momentarily interrupting the amazing real life story dimension this thread has taken on to get back to bike minutia of it all. Respect to all who are put off by the $$ and other aspects of talking about all this bike stuff, but for me the conversation is worth having if even one person can put to good use some/all of this info. Though not universally true, quite often it is the case that if you ride a bike enough, it is worth the cost and more, and almost always so with dividends in our first world lives...apologies. Delete at will.
Continuing in this multi-thread conversation about better bikes for brevets, the portion of randonneering run on bikes, under a time limit, over a fixed distance, usually not too far, and always welcoming of riders looking for a fun challenge on any relatively suitable bike, or even a crappy bike. With a helmet. And fenders sometimes.
>“A custom builder can suggest a shorter stem and longer top tube to make >the bike's handling more stable, with less weight on the front wheel, or >similar changes that affect how the bike feels without changing its fit.”
>- Jan Heine
Okay, wait, now I am confused, I thought it was longer wheelbase, and fork rake contributing, not top tube that is desirable for rando handling. I will try to form some questions. But first, as background, a second polemic:
In idly comparing my Look KG381 “Super Randonneur” bike to the “Herse 3rd place 48,” I notice the Herse 48 has a short top tube, and a huge swooshy fork rake. Putting aside for now dealing with the fenders, luggage and lights issues which are conquerable on most bikes for brevet purposes, I just find an impasse on the “trail” issue, where I can’t apply the “great for rando” standard in bike shopping if operating below the custom bike level, because no one sells bikes with a giant fork rake like an old Peugeot anymore. That there are relatively few stock bike choices that even get entry into the conversation has already been commented upon, my 2 cents is just feeling that the standard bar is set kinda high and unevenly, especially with respect to frame materials (from the bike industry perspective, mine too if it matters), and also noting without authority that the historical reasons for making a steel bike fork with a big swooshy rake were for comfort, as well as handling, and that the additional comfort of the modern carbon fork within the total question mitigates (somewhat?) the need for the old Peugeot fork with the huge rake. But that’s comfort, and what about handling, which is more of what’s being discussed, really?
Here’s the Herse 48:
http://www.vintagebicyclepress.com/images/rebour.jpg
Here’s the KG381/KG481 geometry:
http://www.sigmasport.co.uk/store/bikes/look04/481.html
Here’s the scenario:
Our rider John Johnson, assuming the Herse 48 fits him well, is less than 6’ feet tall, but just 1” or 2” less, with legs on the longish side, is zapped forward in time, without his bike, and needing to ride, he is offered the choice of the modern French bike, the KG481, in the size 54 or 55cm.
Here’s the question:
Basis negligible difference in seat tube/everything else vs. gaining 13cm on the top tube with the larger 55cm, and provided that Johnson can easily reach the handlebars on either size, is he better off in general as far as handling goes with the 54cm? or the 55cm Look?
Rephrasing - if the desired “trail” is unavailable, or even if it is, is it being said that in general a bike with a relatively longish top tube for a given rider, set up with a short (10cm or less?) stem is a desirable starting point for rando handling? And if so, does having a longer top tube/rider using a larger frame size start to make up for ‘insufficient trail’ within a given bike’s design?
Trying to apply for my use, and understand…we buy the biggest bikes we can? And comfy with a 8cm stem, if doable?
Of course, it’s okay if you want to imagine Johnson walking away in disgust from either of the carbon bikes. Perhaps I’d meet him later at the “Clube des Arches” for some pomme frites and I could tell him how I feel about how a mid-level military bike like a Surly, would so easily pass rando muster (which it does, imo), where so many other good bikes apparently do not.
Regards!
Mike
Ps. Wondering if anyone noticed that the Herse 48 has the same geometry as a WSD Trek, if a little bigger and with that 67mm fork rake?
Amy M. Harman
-----Original Message-----
>From: mbis...@pacbell.net
>Sent: Oct 8, 2007 2:24 PM
>To: 'randon group' <ran...@googlegroups.com>
>Subject: [Randon] Re: frame builders
>
>
>
>
>
"Let me tell you what I think of bicycling. I think it has done more to emancipate women than anything else in the world. It gives women a feeling of freedom and self-reliance. I stand and rejoice every time I see a woman ride by on a wheel...the picture of free, untrammeled womanhood."--Susan B. Anthony
Tim McNamara
On Oct 8, 2007, at 4:24 PM, <mbis...@pacbell.net>
<mbis...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> Here’s the Herse 48:
>
> http://www.vintagebicyclepress.com/images/rebour.jpg
>
>
> Here’s the KG381/KG481 geometry:
>
> http://www.sigmasport.co.uk/store/bikes/look04/481.html
>
>
> Here’s the scenario:
>
> Our rider John Johnson, assuming the Herse 48 fits him well, is
> less than 6’ feet tall, but just 1” or 2” less, with legs on the
> longish side, is zapped forward in time, without his bike, and
> needing to ride, he is offered the choice of the modern French
> bike, the KG481, in the size 54 or 55cm.
Why would you be offering him a bike 2 or 3 cm too small compared to
his customary fit? If you put him on the 57 cm KG481 the top tube is
19 mm longer than on the Herse. At 5'10" or 5'11" he should probably
be on at least a 58 in order to be able to get the bars up reasonably
high. Given the overly long racing-oriented top tube, basically he's
going to have a heck of a time setting up this bike to suit him.
> Here’s the question:
>
> Basis negligible difference in seat tube/everything else vs.
> gaining 13cm on the top tube with the larger 55cm, and provided
> that Johnson can easily reach the handlebars on either size, is he
> better off in general as far as handling goes with the 54cm? or the
> 55cm Look?
That's 13 mm not 13 cm! :-O Note that as you look at the geometry
table for the Look frame, it is clear that they are cutting corners
in sizing to make manufacturing cheaper: using the same rake fork
despite significantly different head angles which may compromise
handling; ditto the constant length chain stays which compromise the
seated climbing stability of larger bikes; using the same length top
tube on consecutive sizes
In terms of handling, bikes with shorter stems are usually felt to
steer "quicker" than bikes with longer stems because the bars sweep
through a smaller arc with the shorter stem.
In this case the rider would be better off with the larger of the two
sizes but would still be very unhappy at the compromises in his
position on the bike.
mbis...@pacbell.net
>Why would you be offering him a bike 2 or 3 cm too small compared to
>his customary fit? If you put him on the 57 cm KG481 the top tube is
>19 mm longer than on the Herse. At 5'10" or 5'11" he should probably
>be on at least a 58 in order to be able to get the bars up reasonably
>high. Given the overly long racing-oriented top tube, basically he's
>going to have a heck of a time setting up this bike to suit him.
Tim, question appreciated. No, disagree - look at the Herse handlebar/stem
setup with short stem, and no room to go up with the bars. And his saddle is
so low it's not comparable except to a smaller bike. But okay, all the Look
sizes are there if u want to match, and JJ can't reach the bars on a 57cm...
JJ rides a 55cm in my book, but asking for more informed opinions than mine,
and only using the 54/55cm deal to ask about top tube length vs trail in
isolated manner.
>That's 13 mm not 13 cm! :-O
A chicken in every pot and with every post, two typos!
>Note that as you look at the geometry
>table for the Look frame, it is clear that they are cutting corners
>in sizing to make manufacturing cheaper:
Okay, but these are Tour De France bikes and Roubaix bikes too. So, if you
can cut corners for Thor....
>using the same rake fork despite significantly different head angles which
>may compromise handling
The angles are not special on the Look or the Herse, though likely
experimental when the Herse was built (Sorry, I really don't presume to
know).
>ditto the constant length chain stays which compromise the
>seated climbing stability of larger bikes; using the same length top
>tube on consecutive sizes
Again, asking about upper body bike sizing re handling. There is nothing I
can do about the closer rear wheel on the modern production bike (except buy
a woman's bike!). They are all like that.
>In this case the rider would be better off with the larger of the two
>sizes but would still be very unhappy at the compromises in his
>position on the bike.
I vote for the larger bike too. But does Johnson really toss back the Look
for the Herse?
Anyway, asking for an opinion about the idea we improve our bike positions
by:
1) figuring out what fits, and then
2) buying the bike frame that matches fit with a long TT and short stem...
Regards!
SMOrtega
OR. No overuse issues. Finished on time. Mechanically all went well.
My advise with getting a custom frame is get as much experience as
possible before ordering. Fitting in my experience is kind of a moving
target. I chose Seven as they offered the shortest turnaround time
(about 4 weeks) for a custom titanium bike. Why titanium?- Don't have
to worry about the paint job. My prior travel bike despite careful
packing had quite a few nicks and a couple of pretty good dents
courtesy of the air baggage handlers. Another reason for a custom bike
in short turnaround time was finding out that what worked for century
rides and week long cycling vacations did not work at the 300K level.
2007 was my 1st year of brevets. I was going to need a bike with a
shorter top tube to progress to longer distances w/o significant upper
body problems and be able to qualify for PBP. The moving target notion
comes with finding that I'm getting more confortable in a more
"stretched out" position. In my case I went from a 57cm TT to a 53cm
with a longer stem. Also at the time, I was not interested in a
handlebar bag and Seven designed the bike accordingly. As the brevet
season progressed, I found I really liked a small handlebar bag. It
took a number of bags and mounting methods to find a combo that
handled well. Chances are good that I'll stll use my Seven for the
next PBP, but it's not my "perfect" bike at this point.
In your case, you did well with your present bike, meaning that you
don't have to rush off and get a custom bike in the next few months. I
find bike fitting to be an incredibly complex topic and one that will
benefit from the most experience and fund of knowledge you can bring
to it. I'm hoping to learn as much as I can about planing, trail, load
carrying configurations in the next few years as well as hoping I
continue to improve as a rider. Enjoy the process!
On Oct 6, 3:47 am, Melissa Hall <lissa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I am thinking about getting a frame built just to fit me. Does anyone have a builder they highly recommend? If so, why? Thanks for any input.
>
> ---------------------------------
mbis...@pacbell.net
>From: Jan Heine
>Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2007 9:45 AM
>To: ran...@googlegroups.com
>Subject: [Randon] frame builders
>The old randonneur bikes had tall frames so you could get the handlebars
>high without riser stems, head tube extensions and other trickery. My PBP
>Singer has a 59.5 cm seat tube and a 57 cm top tube.
Jan, thanks so much for this considered and informative reply. As Tim
pointed out, my questions were not so fine, but your answers do indeed speak
directly to the minor shortcomings of the KG381 (for this rider) with regard
to front/rear weight distribution, and resultant handling. Weirdly, The
KG381 does feel like riding a mountain bike, but okay it has some other nice
qualities. Some of your reply is a little complex for me, I admit.
I still do question the "fatigued rider standard for handling" which not
complete for me as explained, though for sure touching on one of the more
fascinating subjects within brevet randonneering, the tired rider. But more
overall interested in applying what rando ideas I can to my bike selection,
where I won't be getting a custom bike soon (still having too much fun).
Yes, okay, I will try to follow along in BQ.
Apologies for using your Herse drawing photo in vain. Nice bike. One thing
Dejeans didn't have is much standover height...
Regards!
Mike