GEO Charts

[William]

I needed to look at some frame numbers for a couple concepts.  I recall Jim has downloaded everything, and has offered up those resources here.  But rather than asking Jim for the GEO chart, I emailed Dave at Riv, and asked if there was a reason that the chart was nowhere to be found on the new website.  He said it was an oversight, not a deliberate omission, said they'd get it up there soon, and sent me a copy of the PDF.  So, if you need a copy, let them know, or let me know and I can forward it to you, or expect to see it on the rivsite when they get around to it. 

[Seth Vidal]

Can you upload it as a google doc and make it publically available?

or instead - could you send me a copy? :)

-sv

[William]

Seth

Of course I'll send it to you.  I think Jim has already done something to make it, or the historical model charts, public.  We should be able to solve that without much trouble. 

[rob markwardt]

You can also go to the Wayback Machine
... http://www.archive.org/web/web.php

..and type in the following url

http://www.rivbike.com/images/static/upload/RBW-GeometryCharts.pdf

It shows a calender with a blue dot on Nov 22, 2009....click it and wa
la!

[Steven Frederick]

Speaking of Riv geometry, I see the Soma San Marcos geometry is up at
Somfab's web page--that is a pretty slack seattube!

http://www.somafab.com/archives/product/san-marcos-frame-set

Steve "Too slack for me," Frederick, East Lansing, MI

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rbw-owners-bunch/-/ddPpGU0RqzcJ.
> To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
>

[Roger]

Oh, that wonderful, wonderful slack seat tube!

On my two bespoke bikes, the only deviations I've had done from
"normal" were to increasingly slacken the seat tube angle(and lengthen
chainstay and top tube accordingly). 72 was better for me than 73, but
it was 71 that really made things right.

I've test ridden a 64cm Sam, and I do believe it was the most stable
for me at very low speed/almost stopped of any bike I've ever been on,
and riding at speed is great as well. I attribute this to balancing my
weight more easily from the saddle without hands, and saddle setback
has everything to do with that. Long chainstays moving the rear wheel
further behind the saddle is important, too.

This is in delightful contrast to my early days of unsteadily trying
to balance on steep seat tubes (73+) and too short top tubes that put
my weight out over the front wheel. The Sam was even noticeably more
set back and delightful than the Hunqapillar setup I tried the same
day. The Hunq may or may not have maxed its setback, but it was
noticeably and less delightfully less set back on that day.

Beyond proper setback improving balance, it also is critical in
relationship to the pedal. Using unfastened footwear, even if just
occasionally, is instructive in allowing your feet to tell you where
they actually want to meet the pedal. On 72+ seat tubes and my B17
pushed as far back as I can, my feet still want to extend forward and
contact the pedal across the instep, not at the balls. My 71 allows my
feet to be happy with the balls on the pedal, which I prefer most.

I am so, so happy that even just this one designer is daring to go
below 72 and very much hope it isn't squashed by skepticism.

Now that tires are allowed to be wider for those who want it, and bars
can be raised higher for those who want it, the new frontier is more
saddle setback, for those who want that. And those who don't are still
well-served by merely mounting their choice of narrower tires,
lowering their stems, or scootching their seats forward on the rails.

[Dave @ Riv]

Geo charts here: https://www.rivbike.com/kb_results.asp?ID=99

I like the idea of a Google doc mentioned above. We may do that next
go round.

[jimD]

I've been riding bikes for quite some time. I haven't a clue as to how to dissect geometry.
I do know that Grant designs great riding bikes. I don't know enough to go by the numbers.
I do know how the bikes feel when I ride them. Roger's comments correspond with my
experience/s riding Riv designs.
-JimD

[Thomas Lynn Skean]

Oh. When I read "too slack for me", I thought it might be like 70 or 68 or something.

71.5-71.8 is completely normal to me. It's the 73 of my old hybrid bike that I don't get (I think other sizes of my hybrid were 74, even).

It's impractical to absolutely isolate a single thing, of course. But I'm pretty sure that the fact my hybrid has a 73 degree seat tube and my Hillborne a 71.5 explains a *lot* about my hybrid being uncomfortable and my Hillborne being comfortable.

Yours,
Thomas Lynn Skean