Road Bike, Cycling Forums banner
1 - 6 of 6 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
5,196 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I have and try to regularly ride 3 different road bikes, I try my best to set them up to be as close as possible to each other. All 3 are from different eras. Bikes 1 and 2 fit like I want. Bike 3 is my commuter/tour bike. The frame size is at the smallest size I can ride, 56cm. The problem is it feels squirly as compared to 1&2, I sort of feel like I am in too upright a position putting my weight further toward the rear. The stem on the bike is a 10, I am thinking of putting on a 12 or 13 to stretch me out further (a good thing) and by reaching forward will shift some weight forward and stabilize the load (me) a bit. As it stands, the saddle is all the way back and a short (IMO) stem. Lowering the bars does not really seem to help much as I am going for a Rivendell sort of fit with the tourer, why i'm thinking of a longer stem. Lastly, bikes 1&2 have longer stems than 3 and are slightly larger frames. (1 is a 57tt, 2 is a 56.5tt) Am I on the right track? Never had to play with fit this much in the past(as if swapping a stem is alot), what I had was a good fit so I rode it.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
150 Posts
Do you have the same relative KOPS position on all 3? I'd guess you're further behind on the tourer. I believe moving your saddle fore/aft will have a greater effect on weight distribution than bar position.

You can experiment with the bathroom scale to get weight distribution:
1) Pick up bike, stand on scale and observe combined weight of bike and rider.
2) Set front wheel on scale, rear on telephone book (so front and rear height equal), mount bike and assume riding position and observe weight on scale.
3) Calculate weight from step 2 divided be weight from step 1.
4 Do this for each bike.
5) Ponder the differences.

Other factors may play into the handling differences but the above experiment should help you quantify the weight distribution differences.

Have fun finding the sweet spot on your third bike
 

· Registered
Joined
·
5,196 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Funny thing is

Never noticed a problem on #3 until i bought #1 ride. #3 had been in retirement for quite a few years, pulled it back out and going to use it as it was probably designed for back in 1978. Also failed to note no setback on #3 seatpost. The problem with #3 is NOT so glaring that the bike is uncomfortable or unrideable. I started using it as a commuter this past week, on day 3 I rode bike #2. Felt more efficient and stable than #3. I guess the best description of #3z characteristics is like riding with no hands, sitting up, I feel I need to stretch out more and get more weight forward, sort of like adding panniers to the front end.
 

· Resident Curmudgeon
Joined
·
13,390 Posts
I was going to suggest a set back seatpost, when you mentioned your omission. Maybe the combo of longer stem & set back s.p. will do the trick.
 
1 - 6 of 6 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