Road Bike, Cycling Forums banner

1 - 17 of 17 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
71 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I'm in the last stages of placing an order for a waterford road bike and have to decide between the R and RS (road sport) platform. waterford says the RS geometry is based on the classic European stage racing frames from the '70's and 80's.

The factory fit said I would need a really steep seat angle- 74.5- in order to have my knee centered over the pedal axis. Fit specs say I should go with a 57 ST (semi-compact) with a surprisingly short TT (56.2) for my size (6' 2" w/almost 35" cycling inseam). I'm late 30's, do fast club rides, race track and a few crits each year. this bike will replace my Trek OCLV.

just curious if any opinions on the R vs RS platform. also, if I go with the RS (which is what's been recommended) with such a steep seat angle, would it make sense to shorten the stock chainstay length for the RS (430) a bit? Other builders seem to use a bit shorter chainstay for that size (410- 420). in fact the waterford touring model has only slightly longer chainstays (435).

please don't post if you're just going to suggest going/looking with IF, Seven, etc... as I'm a midwesterner and want to support a local builder. thanks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
432 Posts
Because the difference make for a different cockpit you really need to test-ride comparable geometries on some stock bikes that are similar enough so you have a better idea what YOU prefer. I'm 53 and the is a difference between what is comfortable for me and what I prefer. I have a full custom frame that takes into account my long legs and short torso plus poor flexibility. I'm more upright with a small cockpit which makes for a more-comfortable long-distance riding bike for me. That is what I prefer. I could be comfortable on a standard geometry, but I'd be stretched out and on a long ride my neck would get sore, my knees would hate me and it would be bad for my back (where I have a compressed disc).

Bike feel is subjective and depends on how you ride, agressive, sprinter versus plodder. What will help you is to talk to your builder about the ramifications of the different geometries. I'm sure you will get better information with which you can make an intelligent choice.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,558 Posts
43 is kind of long for a road bike IMO unless you plan to do some light loaded touring or ride it off road and want the extra stablity or need clearance for fatter tires and fenders. Most cross bikes are 42.5 (though they tend to have higher bbs). My Merckx is 41.5 and feels pretty long. My other bikes are closer to 41.

Maybe SN69 will pipe in. I think he just went through this with Waterford.

Also, are you sure about this whole KOPS thing? Is your seat pushed way forward on your OCLV?

New Waterford--doesn't get much better than that!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
175 Posts
Waterford

I ride a R33. 74 72.5 angles, 54.5 TT, 70mm BB drop and a 41 stay. I am 5' 7.5" with a 32" inseam. Are you sure they said you would need a 74.5 seat angle for a correct fit? Just checking.
I went with something close to the RS format. The bike is plenty "quick" for me and really good on the decents. Fork is a Sub3 Q. The ride of the R33 is fantastic! It sprints like aluminum and rides like steel. I cannot say enough about my Waterford.


towerscum
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
71 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
Sa

yes, fit says 74.5 SA; the saddle on my OCLV is slammed forward to get KOPS

towerscum, what changes did you make to the stock R platform? look like maybe just slackened the HA a bit?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
175 Posts
Not sure

You know,when I ordered the frame I just said to Dave at WF...I want this fork,this is the riding I do,here is my inseam,seat angle and cockpit.Please paint it black with blue stickers!"
I had a fitting done at a shop so I knew what I wanted. They built the frame around the numbers I sent. They decided on the head angle,front center and stays. Marc Muller knows what he is doing. Which model are you considering?

towerscum
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
704 Posts
allezdude said:
I'm in the last stages of placing an order for a waterford road bike and have to decide between the R and RS (road sport) platform. waterford says the RS geometry is based on the classic European stage racing frames from the '70's and 80's.

The factory fit said I would need a really steep seat angle- 74.5- in order to have my knee centered over the pedal axis. Fit specs say I should go with a 57 ST (semi-compact) with a surprisingly short TT (56.2) for my size (6' 2" w/almost 35" cycling inseam). I'm late 30's, do fast club rides, race track and a few crits each year. this bike will replace my Trek OCLV.

just curious if any opinions on the R vs RS platform. also, if I go with the RS (which is what's been recommended) with such a steep seat angle, would it make sense to shorten the stock chainstay length for the RS (430) a bit? Other builders seem to use a bit shorter chainstay for that size (410- 420). in fact the waterford touring model has only slightly longer chainstays (435).

please don't post if you're just going to suggest going/looking with IF, Seven, etc... as I'm a midwesterner and want to support a local builder. thanks.
I've just spent a lively couple of years on a Gunnar Sport with a 73.5 STA and TT slightly longer than the virtual 54cm TT length at around 54.5. The snag with me is over-long TTs don't do a lot - I'm short in the torso and thigh length and have fairly long arms - so my new custom frame has a 74.5 STA and 54cm TT. So your STA suggestion sits well there, as does your shorter TT - having shopped around a lot for my new frame, I know that virtually all stock frames, and near 100% of US designed stock, are just way too long in the TT to be any use to me.

If you're getting custom from Waterford - great choice, if it hadn't been for sentimentality and a chance to visit Bob Jackson's in England, that's what I'd have gone for - you should be able to get pretty much what you fancy. I went for what I would have, had I still been racing. The crit / road race thing always strikes me as odd - sooner or later, you'll be in a RR and the need will arise to corner like it's a crit, or lose out bad.

Not enough miles on the new BJ to assess whether the ultra-short back-end is worth the odds - but I can tell you that my Waterford built Gunnar Sport might have a long back end, but it has always handled immaculately. What the heck - the short back end looks cool too :eek:

Have a pic of mine - in order to avoid a lot of spacers - my slight concession to being the other side of 50 is a slightly higher bar height than a while back - it's basically a 54 x 54, 74.5 STA, 73.5HTA, but the top tube was then raised 1cm at the front and dropped a cm at the rear end - or maybe it's a 53cm ST with the head tube off a 55cm! The slope is very subtle, but allows for a decent length of seatpost and a good length of headtube besides. BJ didn't bat an eyelid at this idea, BTW

Hope that helps, you can't make a much better choice than a Waterford, they are superb frames

Regards

Dereck
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
157 Posts
I was in the same boat in September. I walked into the factory to get fitted for a R-33 and somewhere along the way a RS-33 was suggested. I located several dealers and began test riding both frames with the same wheelset. Hands down the right bike for me is the RS-33. I am 40 years old and do the same type of riding as you. If I were 20 and a Cat1/Pro the R-33 would be mine. Dave and Mark know their stuff, I can't imagine they would suggest something for giggles and grins. Good luck with your decision and hurry-up Spring is here. BTW it took about 5 weeks for the frame to be delivered.


TH
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
843 Posts
What a pretty frame.

Very nice-looking frame Dereck. I'm sure it'll be as nice to ride too, being a Jackson. I'll be starting to work at a Waterford dealer in a few weeks. I'm looking forward to it. I'm already thinking about color, and whether I want SS lugs or not for the RS-22 I want to have them build.

Bob
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
70 Posts
56 cm RS-11

I'm 6'1 with 35" inseam and ride a 7-year old 56cm stock RS-11. If the angles are still the same you'll be about 1cm forward of where I am, and adding that to your TT will put your headset about 1.2 cm ahead of where mine is. This sounds about right, as I feel I'm a bit behind where I want to be when the seat is centered on the rails, and I can see the front hub a bit over the bars, even with a longish stem.

Overall the frame is slightly smaller than I thought I needed, but I've come to like it more than the 58cm I originally guessed on. 57 is probably better. The riding is great.

As far as the chainstays, isn't the length supposed to be split between the 56 (425) and 58 (430), i.e. 427.5? That's the way I interpret the language on the Waterford site. 425 seems like plenty on mine. You always have the dropout adjusters if you choose to put in the screws.
 

·
Banned forever.....or not
Joined
·
24,412 Posts
Whatever you choose, make sure that they know what size rubber you plan to use. The standard R-22 frame has a very hard time fitting anything bigger than a 23 in back. As long as you're not racing, stick with the more "old school" set up.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
157 Posts
Good Point, Mr Grumpy

MR_GRUMPY said:
Whatever you choose, make sure that they know what size rubber you plan to use. The standard R-22 frame has a very hard time fitting anything bigger than a 23 in back. As long as you're not racing, stick with the more "old school" set up.

Good point, it is a tight squeeze in the rear on both the R and RS. I like to ride a 25 in the winter, when I tried it on the test bike it would not fit (it would fit, but with no safty margin). If you want anything bigger than a 23 make sure they are aware of that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
704 Posts
Indyfan said:
Very nice-looking frame Dereck. I'm sure it'll be as nice to ride too, being a Jackson. I'll be starting to work at a Waterford dealer in a few weeks. I'm looking forward to it. I'm already thinking about color, and whether I want SS lugs or not for the RS-22 I want to have them build.

Bob
Thank you - will post some more shots as soon as I get her fully worked up. Despite starting on the order process last July, am somewhat embarrassed by the bars being between me (near DC) and Glory Cycles, FL!

If you amble off to the touring forum, MB1 has a habit of posting pictures that involve his Waterford fleet :eek: The SS lugs are a very class act indeed - Waterford was my original first choice, having worked at a dealership for a while and seen a lot of their work.

My BJ is in pretty much a classic British 1960's / 70's colour scheme - the last one I had was red with white trim, and I once had a Woodrup in green, black and white - the colours of the brewery that sponsored our club :) - in pretty much that pattern. It would cost a lot to get this done at Waterford, where they charge by the masked off line - not such a sweat if you get staff discount ;) - but BJ throw in whatever colour scheme you fancy.

D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
71 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
Specs in

thanks for all the helpful input. I went with the RS- waterford faxed the frame specs. lo and behold, the stays are 415, not 430. 74.5/73 (SA/HA), 60 ST, 57 TT, with 4 degree slope (i like the bars close to sadle height). just a couple more details to work out!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,085 Posts
allezdude said:
I'm a midwesterner and want to support a local builder.
Awesome. I can't help with any of your queries - though any frame based on "the classic European stage racing frames from the '70's and 80's" sounds great no matter what. But I can say that Waterford rocks.
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Top