Road Bike, Cycling Forums banner
21 - 40 of 53 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,071 Posts
Meh.

I've ridden both ways.

Sometimes the bike was more comfortable, sometimes not.

It's about what you like and what works on the frame you're on. It's personal preference and sizing and fork rake and frame geometry and what the frame was designed for and what it's made of and who built it and when it was designed...

So, ride what you like.
 

·
Registered
Escorted from the White House
Joined
·
37,501 Posts
Touch0Gray said:
I understand that branding really hurts........
Not if you do it right. :wink5:
.
 

·
Frog Whisperer
Joined
·
41,018 Posts
SystemShock said:
Not if you do it right. :wink5:
.
I don't know I touch red to white hot metal often enough.....it hurts ME ...OH......I get it.....never mind...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
318 Posts
Grant Peterson was a visionary back in his Bridgestone days. Now he's a looney toon. His company "Bridgestone" was the first to get mountain bike geometry correct while every other manufacturer was just taking stabs at it. He laughed at the U-Brake when all the other companies couldn't wait to spec it on their bikes. But today he's clearly lost his marbles. Granted, many cycling changes are clearly for marketing purposes but even Grant would have to admit some technology has been positive for cycling. Yet he pretty much shuns all things new and embraces all things old.He needs to find some middle ground.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,071 Posts
spastook said:
Grant Peterson was a visionary back in his Bridgestone days. Now he's a looney toon. His company "Bridgestone" was the first to get mountain bike geometry correct while every other manufacturer was just taking stabs at it. He laughed at the U-Brake when all the other companies couldn't wait to spec it on their bikes. But today he's clearly lost his marbles. Granted, many cycling changes are clearly for marketing purposes but even Grant would have to admit some technology has been positive for cycling. Yet he pretty much shuns all things new and embraces all things old.He needs to find some middle ground.
Nah, he's not crazy at all.

He's got a devoted audience that love him and buy what he sells. And he continues to have decent ideas. Oh, and he didn't invent modern mountain bike geometry. Charlie Cunningham did.

It can't be stated strongly enough, a whole bunch of the current trend towards attractive, functional city bikes (fenders! useful racks! handlebars that make sense for a city bike!) and road bikes with clearance for tires bigger than 23s and the ability to ride on something other than perfect pavement was inspired by him. Salsa's cassaroll, Surly's Pacer, Even a couple raleighs, fishers and bianchis...

And, though I often hate to admit when he's right, index shifting is pretty over-rated. And lugged steel is really, really pretty. And, if you aren't racing, what's an extra pound?:D
 

·
Registered
Escorted from the White House
Joined
·
37,501 Posts
spastook said:
Grant Peterson was a visionary back in his Bridgestone days. Now he's a looney toon. His company "Bridgestone" was the first to get mountain bike geometry correct while every other manufacturer was just taking stabs at it. He laughed at the U-Brake when all the other companies couldn't wait to spec it on their bikes.

But today he's clearly lost his marbles. Granted, many cycling changes are clearly for marketing purposes but even Grant would have to admit some technology has been positive for cycling. Yet he pretty much shuns all things new and embraces all things old.He needs to find some middle ground.
He's not nuts, but he is very zealous in his point of view, and that frightens or upsets some ppl.

But, whatev. What's more tiresome, the lone guy marching to his own drummer, or the horde of zombies all dancing to the exact same tune, a la Thriller? 'Cuz that's what the bike industry kind of is right now... follow-the-leader, to the point of nausea. :shocked:

I don't agree with everything Grant says, and I think he is a bit extreme in a few of his viewpoints. But he's more interesting than the zillion 'me too' bike companies out there, that's for sure.

Now if he'd only price some of his bikes better, and let a better company than Panaracer make his tires...
.
 

·
So what if I'm a dork!
Joined
·
441 Posts
I have a fist full of seatpost on both of my traditional geometry bikes. It just worked out that way. No sloping top tube and about 3" drop to the center of bars. It works out that way for me using common geometry and typical 110-120 stem. I remember when I was younger all they did was have you stand over the bike and if you could pull the top tube up about an inch it was the right size. That works out for me too with most but not all common geometry. I do though know my exact size and don't deviate more that a couple mm.
 

·
Matnlely Dregaend
Joined
·
4,985 Posts
Obviously sloping top tubes require a longer exposed seat post. From my experience this also means that the bike will feel more comfortable because the seat post reacts with more flex than the frame (especially carbon seat posts). Manufacturers have tried to counter the flex by using a larger seat post diameter, which may work to give less flex (and therefore possibly better efficiency) at the expense of some ride comfort. Out of all my bikes the compact frame / 27mm seatpost combo seems to be the most comfortable ride. As I don't crank low rpms with big power I prefer this combination.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
479 Posts
DrSmile said:
Obviously sloping top tubes require a longer exposed seat post. From my experience this also means that the bike will feel more comfortable because the seat post reacts with more flex than the frame (especially carbon seat posts). Manufacturers have tried to counter the flex by using a larger seat post diameter, which may work to give less flex (and therefore possibly better efficiency) at the expense of some ride comfort. Out of all my bikes the compact frame / 27mm seatpost combo seems to be the most comfortable ride. As I don't crank low rpms with big power I prefer this combination.
Isn't that the contradiction - compact frames are supposed to be stiffer than non-sloping but then you have more flex in the seatpost.
 

·
Frog Whisperer
Joined
·
41,018 Posts
It would seem to me that a stiffer triangle would be far more important than a stiff seatpost as far as power transfer
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,830 Posts
All of my bikes have about a fistful of seat post showing, but they are all traditional geometry (non-sloping). However, I would have no problem riding a compact frame with more seatpost showing if the geometry fit me. I also run my handlebars about the same height as my saddle, so I guess that puts me in the Rivendell school of bike fit. It works for me, but to each his own.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
251 Posts
I just recently purchased a vintage Trek 760, and I can't decide if the frame is a little small. I've got a lot more than a fistful of seatpost showing. However, the next size up doesn't allow me to get nearly as much drop because the head tube height. So if I want to ride my bike like I ride my race bike, then I need the smaller size with a lot of seatpost. If I want to ride it like Peterson recommends then I clearly need to size up.

But honestly, I don't want a bigger bike. I had a larger traditional frame at one point that had a fistful of seatpost, and I always felt like there was too much bike underneath me. Stable to a fault, whereas my smaller bike is much more (to steal from mountain biking) flickable.

Ultimately, I'm a child of the modern era, and I like compact geometry.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
865 Posts
first of all, touch of grey, that is a beautiful trek. a guy in my group rides a white one, which i love, especially the simple decals and lack of excess branding. what year is it?

on topic, at just shy of 6 ft, with long torso (31.5 inch inseam) i have been riding large frames. (my giant has a 57.5 ETT and 20.5 HT, for example). this frame was first fitted with a 90mm upturned stem with 3 spacers. 18 months later it has a 100 flipped stem and 1 spacer. bar to drop is about 2-2.5 inches...i love the ride, but i have to admit it feels like a cadillac--slow steering and comfortable, although perfect for long days in the saddle.

but i need some more excitement in my life (and a reason to buy a new bike), so new experiment...new bike build starts with smaller frame. the new/old bianchi i acquired has a 56 ETT and 16MM head tube. i expect quicker steering, more responsive and "cooler" racier, rider position. something different entirely.

either that or it'll be 4 spacers, upturned stem and shortened seat post. :D

we shall see...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
620 Posts
Here is a link to the article that started the discussion ...

Learn About Bikes with Rivendell Bicycle Works


Sizing Trends
If you look at old racing photos or drawings, you'll see bikes with "a fistfull of seat post" showing. That was the rule --- a fistfull of post. You bought a frame size that, when the saddle was set at the right height for you, exposed a fistfull of seat post! If in order to get the saddle at the right height, it required much more than a fistfull of seat post, then the frame was too small. These days, "a fistfull of seat post" sounds quaintly stupid, charmingly naive, cute but dumb, stay away from me with your dangerous folk medicines!

And yet, riders back then were a lot more comfortable. We aren't suggesting that you go by "a fistfull of seat post," but that simplistic approach was (and still is) successful because it allowed the handlebar to be close to the height of the saddle. So it resulted in a fit that took weight off your hands, and strain off your neck and lower back. (It also allows sufficient standover clearance. 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. Apologies if this is too graphic for you.)
 

·
Frog Whisperer
Joined
·
41,018 Posts
first of all, touch of grey, that is a beautiful trek. a guy in my group rides a white one, which i love, especially the simple decals and lack of excess branding. what year is it?

It is a 2007, and has no decals at all, that is painted, or should I say not painted......custom ....red metal flake, it glows in the sunlight!
 
21 - 40 of 53 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top