Rivendell's Sizing Chart

[Steve]

Hi everyone. I'm new to Rivendells, so I probably have a bunch of
"newbie" questions which are answered over and over. Let me apologize
in advance. The philosophy of Rivendell's -- making comfort and
utility a priority -- is very appealing to me and my bad back, but
there suggested sizing takes some getting used to. According to
Rivendell, my 85.6 cm inseam would put me on a whopping 59cm!!!!
That's huge; well maybe not huge, but large. I guess my real concern
is having such a long top tube. I know that raising the stem will
effectively shorten the TT and with a 72 degree saddle angle the seat
will most likely be moved foward, but still, that's a big bike. I
would like to hear some pros and cons about the suggested sizing
promulgated by Rivendell.

[Jim Bronson]

What you describe is pretty normal for Rivendell. Rivendell owners'
bikes are usually a size or two larger than they would be in other
brands. Also, Rivendell top tubes are usually a bit shorter than the
seat tubes, so don't assume that a size 59 would also translate into a
59 cm top tube. It's more of a 70s French fit and thus you have to
measure differently. If you are in doubt, call Rivendell, they can
sort it out for you.

--
I ride my bike, to ride my bike.

[David Faller]

Steve, if it's any consolation, I went through the same apprehension last summer when I got my Rambouillet.  My PBH is 85 and I tiptoed my way toward a 58 cm frame.  The top tube just barely made standover contact, which I was quite unaccustomed to.  The first time I rode it, with that stem up a little higher than the saddle, it felt like I was on stilts!  But I told myself, "this is a whole new way of thinking about riding a road bike, so give this concept some mileage."  After the many typical little adjustments to the saddle height, tilt, fore/aft, and diddling with the stem height, I have the most comfortable road bike I've ever ridden.  My back problems are absolutely gone, my knees never hurt any more and when I ride I can actually see around me!  All this and the bonus of not having a sore neck, even with a lot of riding in the drops.  One of the most remarkable adjustments I made to the bike was also my last one a few months ago:  I actually lowered the stem level with the saddle, and the bike is even more comfy.

 

I guess all I'm saying is that this is a flavor of Kool Aid you'll grow to like.  The "sizing promulgated by Rivendell" is specifically for their bikes, and they know of what they speak.  You mention that "the chart" says your inseam puts you at a 59 cm frame.  Make sure you know your PBH and not just your inseam; it sounds like you do, because you were pretty specific about the measurement.  Bear in mind, too, that each Rivendell frame has it's own chart, so make sure you apply your PBH to the frame you're interested in.  A 57 cm Rambouillet would have been technically perfect for me, but they only come in even sizes so I went up, not down.  I suggest you do the same if you are in that situation; but don't assume the recommendation for one bike based on your PBH will be the right size on a different frame model.  I would just barely fit the smallest Hilsen at 57 cm, because its geometry, while similar to the Rambouillet, is not the same.

 

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.13/1165 - Release Date: 12/2/2007 8:34 PM

[MichaelH]

Not to worry. According to their web site I shoud be on a 63 and
actually ride a 62, with the bars set 2 cm below the seat. I once
rode a 64 and it felt fine; I only chose the 62 Ram because it was in
stock at my LBS. I moved up from a pait of frames 57 & 59 and have no
regrets. Don't hesitate.
Michael
Westford, VT

[Mike]

Steve, like others, and yourself, I went through the same thing when I
purchased my Rambouillet last summer. I did not go entirely by the
sizing chart or even Keven's (Riv employee) suggestion. It was
recommended that I get a 64cm frame and I ended up getting a 62cm
which fits fine. I ride with my bars just a tad below the saddle. The
bike has been extremely comfortable and I've been very happy with it.
I can now see how a 64 would have worked just fine for me, but I also
have no regrets about going a size down. I still feel like I'm reaping
the benefits of riding a Rivendell--I'm using larger tires with
fenders, comfy geometry and the bars are up way higher than they had
ever been on any of my previous road bikes. I've done multiple
centuries on it, fast rides, noodles, and taken it off road and it's
been fine. Should I pull the trigger on an AHH next year, something
I'm seriously considering, I would go with the recommended Riv size
which would be 63. But if you listen to others, or the Rivendell
staff, and go with their recommendation I'm sure you'll be happy.

Remember, if you're going to be riding with your bars at or above
saddle level your reach extends so don't be scared off by the
seemingly long top tube.

My PBH is 90, saddle height 80 and as I said frame size 62cm with 32mm
Paselas.

Don't be shy about calling up Rivendell and speaking directly with
staff, they're great.

Good luck!

--Mike

[Doug Van Cleve]

Steve,

Rivendell designs do fit small so going up a size or so is pretty
normal. When I got in line for my custom back in '97 or '98 I said I
wanted a 54cm with the TT length of a 55. I had a chance to stop by
Walnut Creek and Grant had me ride a 56cm Heron and said I should get
a 55cm. Looking back I could have gone with a 56cm (same TT length
though). I think Grant suggested 55cm to get me on a bit bigger bike
without freaking me out.

That said, if you are riding a bike that fits you reasonably well I
personally don't think you should go up more than 1cm or so. If you
know you are on a too small frame now, which is very common, then
going up several sizes makes sense. I personally would still want at
least 1 cm of air below the tires with the bike pulled up snug...

Doug

[Michael Gordon]

All,

Curious about Hilsen versus Ram sizing. On the Hilsen site, it
states, "If you have a Rambouillet, you should ride an AHH that's a
centimeter smaller." Yet I have seen several messages where people
bought an AHH one size larger, and some have noted that the AHH fits
"small" (meaning, for a given size the bike is smaller than one might
expect). Comments?

Michael

[Steve Palincsar]

I think it makes sense if you figure the Rambouillet will have a 28mm
tire and the Hilsen a 33.33. In that case, the 60cm frame that fit a
bit snugly but still OK with Ruffy Tuffies would be WAY TOO TALL with
Jack Browns. After all, the whole point of the Hilsen vs the
Rambouillet is to take those 33.33 mm tires.

--
Steve Palincsar
pali...@his.com
Alexandria, VA, USA

[James Warren]

Why my AHH is 1 cm larger than Ram:

Well, first why do some advise, "Make AHH be the smaller one?" It comes down to the basic, "if you're gonna want fatter tires, ride a bike that provides a bit more standover clearance." That's the theory. But in practice, my AHH is bigger than my Ram because I have some clearance to spare on the Ram when it has 700x27's mounted, so there is room for 700x33's on either bike and still have standover clearance even though the AHH is 1 cm bigger than the Ram. Going with 65 rather than 64 on Homer provides easier high handlebars. Also, when I got my Ram in 2003, 66 cm frames did not exist. If I had gotten it in 2006, I would have ordered a 66. I'm pretty sure 65 is my ideal frame size.

-James

-----Original Message-----
>From: Michael Gordon <mego...@stanfordalumni.org>
>Sent: Dec 3, 2007 1:59 PM
>To: RBW Owners Bunch <rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com>
>Subject: [RBW] Hilsen/Ram Sizing, was Re: Rivendell's Sizing Chart
>
>
>All,
>
>Curious about Hilsen versus Ram sizing. On the Hilsen site, it
>states, "If you have a Rambouillet, you should ride an AHH that's a
>centimeter smaller." Yet I have seen several messages where people
>bought an AHH one size larger, and some have noted that the AHH fits
>"small" (meaning, for a given size the bike is smaller than one might
>expect). Comments?
>

>Michael
>>

[Steve]

Thank's for all the words of wisdom so far. It helps. Here's what I
don't get -- and I know I'm being a bit pedantic. On the one hand
Rivendell follows the old adage that there should be an minimum of an
inch between the top tube and the PB (They say: "This distance minus
an inch (25.4 mm( is normally the highest top tube you should have.")
But if you go to their chart -- using myself as an example w/ an 86 cm
inseam -- an 59 or 60 cm frame is recommended; both with top tubes
well w/in that magical inch. I'm thinking about this too much. I
guess the question is that if I was to go for a Rambouillet would it
be a 58cm or a 60 cm? Or is it six of one a half dozen of
another?

[Horace]

If you like your handlebars low relative to the saddle, get the
smaller size. My PBH is 85 and I ride a 59cm Romulus, and I have the
bars about as low as they can go (about one inch below saddle height).
Rivendell sizing guidelines assume you want the handlebars higher, but
not everyone likes it that way.

Horace.

[CycloFiend]

on 12/4/07 1:23 PM, Steve at Steve...@mac.com wrote:

>
> Thank's for all the words of wisdom so far. It helps. Here's what I
> don't get -- and I know I'm being a bit pedantic. On the one hand
> Rivendell follows the old adage that there should be an minimum of an
> inch between the top tube and the PB (They say: "This distance minus
> an inch (25.4 mm( is normally the highest top tube you should have.")

I think that "old adage" relates to CPSC requirements -
(from cpsc.gov)

"What requirements are there for instructions and
labeling for bicycles?

(2) If a bicycle is sold less than fully assembled or
adjusted, any advertising material and the outside
of the shipping carton must include a list of tools
necessary to assemble and adjust the bicycle and
a drawing showing the minimum length of the
leg of a rider for whom the bicycle is appropriate.
That length must allow at least one inch between
the top tube and the crotch of the rider when the
rider¹s feet are on the ground"

I would point you towards Dave Moulton's article on standover height as food
for thought: http://tinyurl.com/39nulw

hope that helps,

-- Jim

--

Cyclo...@earthlink.net

Cyclofiend Bicycle Photo Galleries - http://www.cyclofiend.com
Current Classics - Cross Bikes
Singlespeed - Working Bikes

Get your photos posted: http://www.cyclofiend.com/guidelines

"Maybe a bike, once discarded, pines away year after year for the first hand
that steered it, and as it grows old it dreams, in its bike way, of the
young roads."

-- Robert McCammon, "Boy's Life"

[Steve]

Moulton's article highlights my concern when he says "The problem
arises when a person wants to use a road bike for more leisurely
riding, and does not want that low position. They tend to use a
larger frame to get the handlebars level with the saddle. However, a
larger frame has a longer top tube, so any gain in raising the
handlebars is lost because of the longer reach." Any comments?



On Dec 4, 4:43 pm, CycloFiend <cyclofi...@earthlink.net> wrote:

> on 12/4/07 1:23 PM, Steve at Steve91...@mac.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > Thank's for all the words of wisdom so far. It helps. Here's what I
> > don't get -- and I know I'm being a bit pedantic. On the one hand
> > Rivendell follows the old adage that there should be an minimum of an
> > inch between the top tube and the PB (They say: "This distance minus
> > an inch (25.4 mm( is normally the highest top tube you should have.")
>
> I think that "old adage" relates to CPSC requirements -
> (from cpsc.gov)
>
> "What requirements are there for instructions and
> labeling for bicycles?
>
> (2) If a bicycle is sold less than fully assembled or
> adjusted, any advertising material and the outside
> of the shipping carton must include a list of tools
> necessary to assemble and adjust the bicycle and
> a drawing showing the minimum length of the
> leg of a rider for whom the bicycle is appropriate.
> That length must allow at least one inch between
> the top tube and the crotch of the rider when the
> rider¹s feet are on the ground"
>
> I would point you towards Dave Moulton's article on standover height as food
> for thought: http://tinyurl.com/39nulw
>
> hope that helps,
>
> -- Jim
>
> --
>

> Cyclofi...@earthlink.net
>
> Cyclofiend Bicycle Photo Galleries -http://www.cyclofiend.com

[Timothy Zimmerman]

I'm also interested in this question. It seems from my (very) limited
knowledge and experience that RBW does extend the toptube, but not as far as
do some other manufacturers for similar sizes and models (I'm thinking of
Lemond road bikes specifically). It seems like it's all a game of
percentages.

-----Original Message-----
From: rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Steve
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 3:57 PM
To: RBW Owners Bunch

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.

Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.13/1170 - Release Date: 12/4/2007
10:52 AM

No virus found in this outgoing message.

Checked by AVG Free Edition.

Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.13/1170 - Release Date: 12/4/2007
10:52 AM

[PATRICK MOORE]

On 12/4/07, Steve <Steve...@mac.com> wrote:

Thank's for all the words of wisdom so far.  It helps.  Here's what I
don't get -- and I know I'm being a bit pedantic.  On the one hand
Rivendell follows the old adage that there should be an minimum of an
inch between the top tube and the PB (They say:  "This distance minus
an inch (25.4 mm( is normally the highest top tube you should have.")
But if you go to their chart -- using myself as an example w/ an 86 cm
inseam -- an 59 or 60 cm frame is recommended; both with top tubes
well w/in that magical inch.  I'm thinking about this too much.  I
guess the question is that if I was to go for a Rambouillet would it
be a 58cm or a 60 cm?  Or is it six of one a  half dozen of
another?

 

 

BQ had a good little piece on tt height (the focus was on larger frames versus sloping tts) in the just-now-appeared issue.Jan addresses the "one inch minimum" rule well.

 

Patrick "like my frames on the small side, personally" Moore

 

Come to think of it, tiny, tiny little frames witch hugely, hugely upsloping tts have their own problems. Grant would install me on a 60, he has actually made a 57 and a 58 for me, and I "normally" ride a 19" mountain bike frame, assuming a flat tt. But my Monocog 29er has a 17 inch frame with hugely sloping uptube --- nooooo problem getting the bars higher than the saddle here -- but with the big wheels the rear brake bridge is some 4" or so below the top of the tire. This means (1) that even a Nelson drags on the tire unless I support it, and (2) that there is no convetional way to mount a rear cantilever brake cable housing stop -- the bridge is below the contact surface of the pads. Fortunately, bungee cords and V brakes are working alternatives.
 

[Jon Cameron]

Hi Steve,

Respectfully........you might be overthinking this. Rivendell has a
good and long history of making and especially sizing bikes to riders
for good comfort. I, too am certainly more than capable of over-
analyzing geometry and sizing. At times when I've drilled myself into
the ground overthinking, I simply get on one of my Riv's and go for a
ride.....problem solved, and all seems instantly right. I'm aware that
Riv's entire sizing methodology goes against contemporary idea's, but
really, put your faith in them. Give a phone call out to Walnut Creek
and talk with Grant, or anyone else there. Answer all of their
questions accurately and honestly, then go out and enjoy your new
bike. Jon Cameron.

> > -- Robert McCammon, "Boy's Life"- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[James Warren]

I'll second that.

-----Original Message-----
>From: Jon Cameron <j.came...@sbcglobal.net>
>Sent: Dec 4, 2007 2:31 PM
>To: RBW Owners Bunch <rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com>
>Subject: [RBW] Re: Hilsen/Ram Sizing, was Re: Rivendell's Sizing Chart
>
>

[cyclofiend]

On Dec 4, 2:23 pm, "Timothy Zimmerman" <tzimmer...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm also interested in this question. It seems from my (very) limited
> knowledge and experience that RBW does extend the toptube, but not as far as
> do some other manufacturers for similar sizes and models (I'm thinking of
> Lemond road bikes specifically). It seems like it's all a game of
> percentages.

We may be mixing terminology here. Riv's have an extended _headtube_
to facilitate the raising of the bars. The top tube lengths are
longer on smaller frames, but change with the sizes.

If the actual charts are still down (accessing remotely right now) I
have them here:
http://www.cyclofiend.com/rbw/geometry.html
(and hilsen is accesible via the hilsen page)
http://www.cyclofiend.com/rbw/hilsen.html

- Jim

[Steve]

Yes, compared to US builders Rivendell has a bit shorter TT. I'm
thinking here, Treks, and Lemonds as you mentioned. But compared to
european builders (e.g., Colnago, Gios, ect.) the TT is longer. A
Gios Pro, for example, one of the few other steel lugged frames still
available, has a TT of 55 cm for its 57 cm frame (measured center to
top). Now the seat tube angle is higher (74 degrees) and this will
effect the effective top tube (making it longer), probably in the
neighborhood of 1 to 1.5 cms or so, when the saddle is properly
adjusted. Its all rather confusing when you're doing this
theoretically and don't have one at the LBS to test drive.

[Steve]

You're correct. A 58 cm it is then. To a certain extent there'll be
some trial and error involved.

[CycloFiend]

on 12/4/07 1:56 PM, Steve at Steve...@mac.com wrote:

> Moulton's article highlights my concern when he says "The problem
> arises when a person wants to use a road bike for more leisurely
> riding, and does not want that low position. They tend to use a
> larger frame to get the handlebars level with the saddle. However, a
> larger frame has a longer top tube, so any gain in raising the
> handlebars is lost because of the longer reach." Any comments?

I believe he is referring to "traditional" race-type geometries.

Plus, he's talking about trying to get other bikes to do what the Riv's are
designed for.

Mostly I ref'd the article for its comments about standover height.

- Jim

--

Cyclo...@earthlink.net

Cyclofiend Bicycle Photo Galleries - http://www.cyclofiend.com

[Steve]

Your point is well taken. I understand now. The "slackened" seat
tube angle of the Rivendell effectively shortens the TT by 1 or 2 cm,
because you will have to move your seat forward to account for that
geometry. And as the Rivendell website says every 4 inches you raise
the bars on a bike with a head tube angle of 73.5 you effectively lose
1.5 inches of TT. And that should be more one a Rivendell, because
they have shallower head tube angles.

Lets say I get a 60 cm Rambouillet and set my saddle at 76 cm. I want
my bars 2 cm higher then the saddle. What's the effective TT? It is
listed at a 58 cm. It wil shorten a cm or so as I move the saddle
forward to account for the seat tube angle. And raising the bar 15 or
so cms to two cm. above the saddle will bring it back another 6 cm or
so. So the effective TT would be in the low 50's.

O got it now. I just had to think it through. Sorry for beating a
dead horse.

On Dec 4, 9:26 pm, CycloFiend <cyclofi...@earthlink.net> wrote:

> on 12/4/07 1:56 PM, Steve at Steve91...@mac.com wrote:
>
> > Moulton's article highlights my concern when he says "The problem
> > arises when a person wants to use a road bike for more leisurely
> > riding, and does not want that low position. They tend to use a
> > larger frame to get the handlebars level with the saddle. However, a
> > larger frame has a longer top tube, so any gain in raising the
> > handlebars is lost because of the longer reach." Any comments?
>
> I believe he is referring to "traditional" race-type geometries.
>
> Plus, he's talking about trying to get other bikes to do what the Riv's are
> designed for.
>
> Mostly I ref'd the article for its comments about standover height.
>
> - Jim
>
> --
>

> Cyclofi...@earthlink.net
>
> Cyclofiend Bicycle Photo Galleries -http://www.cyclofiend.com