Can we talk about Riv bike sizing again?

[Belopsky]

In the last half a year, I've gotten a lot more serious about riding, been through a lot of bikes, and just finally seem to be getting down to a fit I am liking, and once again thinking about stem lengths and top tubes and etc.

In my current garage I have:

Soma San Marcos, 51cm

Rivendell Sam Hillborne, 55cm

All-City Macho King, 52cm

Cheviot (yet-to-be-finished-and-ridden), 50cm

The Cheviot may be shared between myself and my partner. She's 5'2. I am 5'7. At worst I will have more seatpost showing/bars a bit higher.

The Rivendell has an effective top tube (ett) of 570mm. I have a very long stem on it with Albatross bars - I had a Hillborne before, with drop bars, and it felt too big with drops for me, but with the upright bars, all is fine. Fistful of seatpost showing.

My San Marcos feels real good too, not many miles yet, but fits like what I've been riding... ett of 550mm, bars at saddle height, stem seems to be a 90mm or something like that, 44cm drop bars.. perhaps Philip knows what length he sold it with..

My All City is my 'go-fast' bike, 853 steel frame with a carbon fork, bars are lower than seat, and that's how I want this bike set. The 52cm frame size actually measures ett 550, a bit more aggressive than the other bike but not much. 90mm stem with 10* rise.

PBH: 83.x. SH: ~ 71.4

Riv sizing talks about me riding 55-57cm depending on the frame, but I always worry that the top tube is too long. Anywho, I was under the impression that for a 'fast' bike you want a slightly longer stem, for more weight in the front..but also with bars at seat height I suppose I can ride a bigger frame with a shorter stem - how short is too short, with drop bars - anything can work with some pullback.

Any others my size/pbh/sh that can comment?

[bo richardson]

i am about your height
80 pbh
i had a 54 Tanguy touring frame
it broke adter only 33 years of racing touring commuting and day rides

i then bought a 54 miyata 1000
perfect except for the 27" wheels
then i bought a 56 cm rambouillet
what riv suggests kinda
too big
then a 53 AHH
maybe too small but ii also didnt like the 650b wheels
alrhough it may only have been the tires
then i got a 54cm rambouillet which is perfect
it is essentially the same ride as the Tanguy

i also have a 53.5 atlantis i would sell
i like it and it fits
but i would like to shed a bike or two
and the aRmbouillet is staying

[Belopsky]

Bo,

So it sounds like perhaps my +3cm PBH would make the 56cm fit for me - comparing a geo chart between the 54 and 56, the difference is 1cm top tube, which means 5mm difference in a stem if length is the issue (given that I seem to fit a 555mm top tube fine)

[Lungimsam]

You have to decide from your experience. I have found that I like the frame size better one size down from what Rivendell recommends for my PBH and seat height measurements.

I have a short Reach. So one size down works for me and I still get a fist full of seat post. Even when sizing down I use and eight Centimeter stem Max. I ride drops about 1 cm below saddle height.

I am 82 PPH and 71 CM Seat mheight. 5 foot eight I don't ride anything with the top tube longer than 55 CM. This is based on my experience. All my bikes have fistful of Seat post. 53 bleriot. 54 ram.

So don't be afraid to size down if the bike model frame sizes are close. You can also check The geometry page to see if the top tube and stand over height is something that will be good for you.

[masmojo]

I've found from experience not to even go by frame size it can vary so much depending in wheel size, frame design, BB drop, etc.
I go strictly by standover height & then I decide how long a top tube I will need based on, how I intend to set up/ride the bike.
Keven measured my PBH @ 82 when I was out there last year, but I feel like it hardly matters because I know from experience that a standover of 77 is about optimal for me, any more then that and my boys start contacting the top tube a little more then is comfortable.
Ideally, I think you should be able to stand flat-footed on the bike without hurting yourself.

[Belopsky]

Coincidently, 

'In other words, when you straddle your bike, your genitals may rest on the top tube, but your pubic bone will easily clear it -- as you'll notice if you grab a handful of genitals and pull up.' is how the Hillborne fits me. 

The question I ponder, for the sake of pondering, is will the bike feel comfortable for me with a 80mm stem with drop bars and bars at saddle height (as compared to my All-City with a 90mm,10* threadless stem).

[Patrick Moore]

I can't address your size questions, since I'm a bit taller, but I can address the top tube question. Yes, this is something to be careful about, if you are particular about where you want to place your drop bars. I am not saying that Rivendell tt sizing will be a problem for you, but it might be a problem for you.

Example: I owned a 56 cm (57?) Sam Hillborne that had a 59 c-c tt. I wanted to put a drop bar on it, and particularly a 46 cm Noodle, quite a bit wider than the 42s I was used to. In order to get a comfortable position on hoods and hooks, I had to position the bar some 1 1/2" or 2" higher than saddle -- which felt awkward to me. That was one reason I sold it. I would not even have been able to set it up like my Matthews, the SH replacement, with such a long top tube, because with this "road bike for dirt" I like the bar about even with or perhaps 1 cm above saddle  -- a long ramped Maes Parallel, but only 42 cm wide

My road drop bar position (dialed in over 25 years) is presently a gentle 3 cm below saddle. I would not be able to get that position on the Sam Hill because of the top tube. (Not that I'd set up the SH exactly like my road bikes, but you get the picture.)

OTOH, my 3 custom Rivs have all had 56.5 or 57 cm c-c tts; this is perfect; with a 8 cm stem and long-reach/shallowish drop bars (Compass Maes Parallel, 37 or 38 mm wide) 3 cm below saddle, I get very comfortable positions on ramps, hoods, and hooks.

In fact, one of the very best fitting bikes I've owned was that 1958 Rene Herse which had a 60 cm c-c st and a 56 or 57 cm c-c tt -- perfect; I only had to adjust the saddle.

Now if you use upright or "tourist" bars like the North Road or even more so the Albatross and so forth, top tube length is (I think; I'm not an expert on these bars, though I've used many such) far less of a determinant in comfortable bike setup. And even for drop bars, if you care only about reach and not about height, then again, tt length is far less of a concern.

Top Tube length matters!

[Bill Lindsay]

Another important "if", when comparing Rivendells to non-Rivendells, is this:  if you are particular about having your saddle-to-pedal position being just perfect on all your bikes, then your Rivendells have SHORTER top tubes than the numbers state.  Rivendells in general have slacker seat tube angles than other bikes.  In the case of the OP's Sam Hillborne vs his All-City, the Hillborne has a 1.5 degree slacker seat tube angle.  This means that he should run his saddle about 1.5cm farther forward on his Riv than he does on his All-City to achieve the same butt-to-feet position.  This makes his Rivs effective top tube length 1,5cm shorter (effectively).  If you blindly slam the saddle all the way back on all your bikes, then the Riv will allow you to get your butt farther back, and that will influence your fit.  I'm not making a recommendation, but just reminding the OP that seat tube angle matters.  

Bill Lindsay

El Cerrito, CA

[Philip Kim]

70mm stem on the San Marcos!

[Philip Kim]

Also i notice Riv will suggest larger frames, but maybe because they position the stem up real high, normally an inch or two above saddle height. For bars to be at saddle height, I like the smaller sizing. They suggested I get a 55 Hillborne and Cheviot, and have been happy going 51 and 50 respectively

[Belopsky]

Good point, I did not even consider! I just went out and measured my 'reach', and it is bigger on the All City, but also we're comparing my drop bar brifter setup and albatross. Riding the Hillborne this past weekend I felt a bit too far 'back' on the bike, very upright.

I just moved the seat (b17 narrow imperial) up as far as it would go with the Nitto 65 post, which was somewhere in that '1.5cm' vicinity, and yesterday moved the stem a bit lower into the headtube, so I'll see how this feels too.

[Belopsky]

I need to do some measurements and move stuff around on my San Marcos too. I suppose it is a much shorter reach since the bars are level with saddle, but I'm trying to set this one up more comfortable, yet racy - this is supposed to reproduce a 'go fast' bike for me that perhaps is more comfortable than my All City. Similarly to the Hillborne, 71.5* seattube - so i imagine the saddle needs to be moved up a bit to emulate the position on my All City?

As a follow-up, I saw somewhere Grant writing that people like to slam the seats ALL the way back - is this due to the upright bars / higher than seat bars / upright posture on a bike?

[Belopsky]

Also the 'reach' on the San Marcos is 356mm but the All City is 377.9mm, 21.9mm difference, and the San Marcos has 1.5* slacker seat tube ... so to recreate the same seat to pedal position I could move the seat forward as compared to my All City, but then it sounds like I will be a lot closer to the controls, a lot more upright? This seem right?

[Eric Karnes]

My guess that this is mostly a commentary on the use of fairly steep seat tube angles (73–75 degrees) on many road/sport/touring bikes from (very roughly) the 80s to present. This can make it very hard for some people to get a proper weight distribution without slamming the seat back, using an ultra-setback seatpost, or a combination of both. I had a mid-eighties Trek sport touring bike like this. I loved the way the frame rode, but the 73.5 degree sta made it impossible for me to get comfortable.

That said, everyone is built differently (and different bikes are ridden differently). Some riders like the saddle more forward, some like it more rearward. But Rivs at least give you the option without resorting to crazy seat posts or the use of the saddle rail extremities. On my Riv (with a 72 degree stay), I like the C17 I'm currently riding centered on a standard setback post.

As for Riv sizing, again it depends on the rider. As with any non-custom, you have to balance the good (for you, that is) with the bad. I have a hair under a 90 pbh with a short upper body and arms, so my ideal Riv is the older 62cm size with the 59cm tt. But that's not used on most models anymore. So if I were to buy a Hilsen, for example, I would probably go with a 61cm. It would have more seatpost/stem showing than I prefer, but I could comfortably run it with either drop or uprights...and feel more comfortable with the standover on trails. 

Eric

[Max Bergen]

FWIW, I've been working with Roman to place an order for a Hunq. 

My PBH is 83.25 and he suggests either the 51cm for 2015 model or 50cm for 2016 model. 

Both those are smaller than any bike I've ridden in the past, but I trust their product knowledge and experience  :) 

On Monday, October 10, 2016 at 11:43:54 AM UTC-4, Belopsky wrote:

[Belopsky]

That's because the Hunq is much oversized. Check the geometry chart - the ett on the 51 is ~57.5

[masmojo]

The other thing to keep in mind is that the Hunqapillar is more offroad oriented and typically you need to allow yourself a little more standover because you are more likely to be stopping on uneven surfaces or pedaling and moving around while standing on the pedals.

[Howard Ramsay]

Here is a tip: When sharing a bike I have my own seat post with my own saddle mounted. Takes 30 seconds to swap out.
Great article with Fitting guidelines from Peter White here: http://www.peterwhitecycles.com/fitting.htm

[Patrick Moore]

+1 for PJW's fitting article.

Aside, tangential but at least remotely related: As I've been putting the miles on the Matthews (pushing 300 miles -- delivered in March, long layoff in the summer) I've been of course refining the setup, and one rather large change has been the descent of the bar from about 1.5" above saddle to about 1/4" below; just removed the very last 5 mm spacer from the steerer on Friday.

The bike felt fine with higher bar when I was on the hoods or in the hooks, but the ramps and flats, where I spend much time when riding dirt*, felt high and awkward. Now the setup feels just right, with the bar some 2 cm higher than on my road bikes, but with a 1 cm longer -- 9 cm -- stem and slightly wider -- 42 versus 37 cm -- Maes Parallels. In fact, it feels so good that my road bikes' bars may just eventually migrate upward to match (tho' I'd have to replace the stems).

* Because of this, I am debating whether to leave or to remove the interrupter levers. I've positioned them outward on the flat, so that I can grab them easily under the bar when my hands are on the ramps or the curve transitioning from flat to ramp.

[Belopsky]

The mystery continues for me..

Found Riv's old geo chart (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1gfiN1kOxVrthdc6eScUF9fP5n-BvRBILbBMYiEg5LM4/edit#gid=0), which just so happens to have the 51cm San Marcos I have and the 56cm Sam Hillborne. Grant's sizing says a 54cm San Marcos would have worked well for me, but I went with a 51 because I felt that 55 was a good length for a top tube.

I *thought* my Hillborne's top tube was 57, but actually the effective one is 59! I do have Nitto Albatross on the Hillborne, but I find myself in a more 'aggressive' position in them comfortable as well (hands in front of levers).

In looking at the geometry, the San Marcos and the Hillborne are very similar, only difference, according to the chart, is the seat tube angle, with the hillborne being 72 and the San Marcos 71.5

So then I thought, why does my All City Macho King feel so long? Macho King seat tube is 73 and the head tube is 71.5, the effective top tube is 55.

So OK, to get the same saddle to pedal position between the Hillborne and Macho King, I simply move the Hillborne's seat about 1cm, which I did do. The Hillborne is feeling pretty good. ~6-8mile daily commute so far and it's fine. Might do a metric century on it this weekend (but not 'really' because we will be stopping at cider mills, but I digress..)

The Macho King certainly has a shorter top tube than the either two:

San Marcos: 184

Hillborne: 180?

Macho King: 130

Macho King does *not* have the bars at saddle height - perhaps that is where I am running into issues then? I have a 90x10* stem on the Macho King, and I really don't want to get a higher rise stem as those look odd IMO - whereas long rise quill don't bother me.

The one other thing is the Bottom Bracket drop: SM and Hillborne are 75, whereas the Macho King is 70..

So then I started to look at the Roadeo geometry, as that's ideally what I would be getting as my 'roadie' bike - I may have a custom builder re-create a similar bike for me, but seeing all this I am confused.

I took the basic formula of PBH-27, which for me is 56, and that puts me at either a 55 or a 57 Roadeo.

The 55 has the same seat tube angle as the Macho King, 73. 57 has 72.5. The head tube angle is 72.5 and 73, respectively. The top tube is 55.5 and 56.5.

Where it gets further confusing for me is that I took some measurements, and plugged into Competitive Cyclist's page and looked at the Eddy and the French fit.

Eddy: Top Tube 54.7-55.1

French: Top Tube 55.9-56.3

Both fits say I should be running a pretty long stems (10.1cm), with the French one being longer (up to 10.9cm) maybe because their calculator says the french fit is a bigger frame, less reach since the top tube is higher on the bike?)

So now, I am confused if a 57 Roadeo would be good, the standover on a 57 would be lower than my Hillborne by about a 1cm, right now, if I'm straddling the Hillborne, the tube is 'right there'. "In other words, when you straddle your bike, your genitals may rest on the top tube, but your pubic bone will easily clear it -- as you'll notice if you grab a handful of genitals and pull up."

[Lungimsam]

I recently had my Bleriot fit mapped at Gravel and Grind by way of what is called an xy axis fit.

It was then transfered tomy Rambouillet.

The seat height and reach and bar height are different than the Bleriot if you measure with a tape measure. But the fit is the same in relation to the xy axis on the two bikes. I am not sure what that is. I think it is the relation of saddle to bb and bars to floor. Not sure.

But I was told that trying to replicate one bikes fit by simply measuring the dimensions with a tape will not really get you the same fit because the tube angles and dimensions are different.

I had (by way of tape measure when I first did it at home) the fit the same in space, but it put everything up and forward on the Rambouillet. Though all the reach and fore and aft and bar height and seat height measurements were the same as the Bleriot on a tape measure.

The xy fit is done with lasers and I think measures the fit relative to bb.

Anyway. The fit probs I was having on the Rambouillet are now gone and the bike is now just as comfortable as the Bleriot to ride.

[Lungimsam]

So I guess the long and short of it is that it is really difficult to understand how geometry and fit work together and it seems like there are many different schools of thought on this.

[Eric Karnes]

Just out of curiosity, are you wondering all of this because you feel you might have purchased the wrong size?

Reason I'm asking is that I’ve found it's easy to go down the rabbit hole of achieving a 'perfect' geometry, top tube/stem ratio, aesthetic proportion, etc. Not to say these aren’t important things to consider, but I find the vast amount (and variety) of information on the interweb can play right into (overly) obsessive and constant questioning. Unfortunately I speak from experience. Sigh.

If you are comfortable on the San Marcos (or Hillborne) and you like the way it rides, then I'd say everything is working. And I wouldn't then worry about what an online fit calculator says. One size down from the recommended Riv size is most likely fine, and probably isn’t worth the significant expense of replacing with a new bike…at least not until you know for sure what you are looking for. Just ride it for a while, until you feel an itch to make an adjustment one way or another.

Just two cents from a (semi) reformed geometry obsessor.

Eric

[Belopsky]

The Soma has a bit more post showing than I'd like, though it rides fine, but I want a more french fit. There's a custom builder near I was thinking of tasking with a Roadeo-like-bike, 700x35 w fenders, with much lighter tubing. 

[Patrick Moore]

I'll be very interested to hear how this lightweight Roadeo develops. I read that Roadeo tubing is .65/.45/.65 which seems pretty thin to me. What tubing do you have in mind for your alternative?

My dirt road Matthews has .8/.6/.8 tubing, like the Rams, I think -- certainly if feels less jarring over bumps, with identical wheels and tires, than the Fargo it replaced.

On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 2:11 PM, Belopsky <belopol...@gmail.com> wrote:

The Soma has a bit more post showing than I'd like, though it rides fine, but I want a more french fit. There's a custom builder near I was thinking of tasking with a Roadeo-like-bike, 700x35 w fenders, with much lighter tubing. 

--
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.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Resumes, LinkedIn profiles, bios, and letters that get interviews.

By-the-hour resume and LinkedIn coaching.

Other professional writing services.

http://www.resumespecialties.com/

www.linkedin.com/in/patrickmooreresumespec/

Patrick Moore

Alburquerque, Nouvelle Mexique,  Vereinigte Staaten

****************************************************************************************

The point which is the pivot of the norm is the motionless center of a circumference on the contours of which all conditions, distinctions, and individualities revolve. Chuang Tzu

Stat crux dum volvitur orbis. (The cross stands motionless while the world revolves.) Carthusian motto

It is we who change; He remains the same. Eckhart

Kinei hos eromenon. (It moves [all things] as the beloved.) Aristotle

[Belopsky]

Interesting, where did you see this? I dont know framebuilding but that is indeed thin?

This is all still in elementary planning stages, but perhaps Columbus Spirit tubing, but I dont know more right now.

On Wednesday, October 19, 2016 at 4:30:49 PM UTC-4, Patrick Moore wrote:

I'll be very interested to hear how this lightweight Roadeo develops. I read that Roadeo tubing is .65/.45/.65 which seems pretty thin to me. What tubing do you have in mind for your alternative?

My dirt road Matthews has .8/.6/.8 tubing, like the Rams, I think -- certainly if feels less jarring over bumps, with identical wheels and tires, than the Fargo it replaced.

On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 2:11 PM, Belopsky <belopol...@gmail.com> wrote:

The Soma has a bit more post showing than I'd like, though it rides fine, but I want a more french fit. There's a custom builder near I was thinking of tasking with a Roadeo-like-bike, 700x35 w fenders, with much lighter tubing. 

--
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 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.

[Patrick Moore]

I Googled "Roadeo Tubing Specs" or something and came up with a lotta stuff, including the .65/.45/.65 entry. And that is odd, because I've been told by thinwall tubing aficionados that the Roadeo is a tank. Sure, .65/.45./.65 does not sound like a tank.

This is one conversation I found:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/rbw-owners-bunch/PeMsUasu4k8/kdyfQ994MVkJ

Please correct us if this is wrong!

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.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Bill Lindsay]

 I believe those .65/.45/.65 wall thickness numbers for the Roadeo.  

"planing" zealots dismiss the Roadeo as 'massively overbuilt' and 'far too stiff' because it features OS tubing in the top tube and the downtube.  The Roadeo top tube is 28.6mm in diameter, and planing zealots will assure you it should be 25.4mm.  The Roadeo downtube is 31.8mm in diameter, and planing zealots will assure you it should be 28.6mm.  

If you believe it is impossible for a bicycle to be too flexible, then you might disapprove of the Roadeo.  If you believe (as Grant does) that it is possible for a bicycle to be too flexible, then the Roadeo might be worth consideration.  If you are avoiding a Roadeo because you want a steel frame and fork that is lighter weight, then you won't find a lot of weight savings.  Just a few ounces here and there.  

Bill Lindsay

El Cerrito, CA

P.S. Earlier in this thread Belopsky expressed shock that a geo chart said his Hillborne had a 59cm top tube.  Be aware that not every 56cm Hillborne had a 59cm top tube.  Mine has a 57.5cm top tube.  Mine was purchased in 12/2009.  Those that preceded mine had a 59cm top tube.  Riv tweaks numbers from time to time, and are sometimes reluctant to revise and revise geo charts, because earnest customers get themselves tied up in handwringing over the numbers at times.  

[Belopsky]

Mine is a green Hillborne, Taiwan built, with cantis. Will had told me it is a 2012, but I dont know. BIll, are you measuring the 'effective' top tube or the actual?

[Belopsky]

I made that up, he never told me the year. It's the same color as the one on Lovely Bicycle from 2010, so my guess is this is 2009/2010, very possible its the 59 ett.

[Bill Lindsay]

I measure the effective top tube length.  When I bought the frame, I was aware that the geo-chart said 59, and Keven pointed out to me that it was really 57.5cm, which I measured and confirmed.  I don't know how many Sam's have a 59cm top tube and how many have a 57.5cm top tube.  

[Belopsky]

I got fitted last Friday, modern measurements aside (bike fit kit, handlebar x/y), the Serotta size cycle put me on a 530mm c-c top tube, 540mm c-c seat tube, with a 100mm or 110mm stem, depending on how high I want the bars or how 'aggressive' I want to ride, no big deal - I am plenty flexible to get into any position. The size cycle's seat tube was at 74* and head tube at around 72*, pretty standard.

If we consider the 110mm stem:

My Macho King has an ETT of 550mm, and I run a 90mm stem with 10* rise but feel a bit stretched out. An 80mm would be more comfortable, or a change in shifters or bars with less reach.

If the Macho King had a 530mm ETT, I could do the 110 stem, so this all makes sense.

Similarly with my other recent bikes with a ETT of 55-56, stems were in the 85-90 range depending on steerer length, so I've been in the vicinity of what I was fitted to