#71
|
|||
|
|||
Bike adjustments
Frank Krygowski wrote:
I'd love to hear from Andrew and Chalo, about what their shops do to choose frame sizes and fit a new bike to a rider. I usually fit a buyer to whichever frame size is the tallest that makes sense to stand over (for the application), then work out their preferences with stem and handlebar variations. Nine times out of ten, that's the best approach. I can't think of a time when a customer ever asked for a lower position than their bike allowed. |
Ads |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
Bike adjustments
Frank Krygowski wrote:
I don't disagree with your reasons. But I still bet that for most people, it's a matter of aesthetics. I think the easy higher bar height available for most folks when they use a sloping top tube frame is a benefit. Handlebar stems don't vary as much as they used to. |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
Bike adjustments
On Tue, 10 Dec 2019 06:25:24 +0700, John B.
wrote: Of course, I have other shoes available, but prefer the construction boots: http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/pics/drivel/slides/shoes.html After I took the photo, I found another 10 pairs. My goodness, all those shoes! You must be a wealthy man. But I count 15 pairs and one lonely sandal. I just counted 27 pairs in the photo. That includes a pair of roller skates (2nd row, first pair), sandals (2nd row, 2nd pair), Wellingtons (1st row, 2nd pair), and a really ancient pair of bicycle "touring" shoes with flat soles (2nd row, 2nd from last on the right). Most of shoes were acquired over the last 45 years or so. On the average, I would guess one pair per year, which is easily affordable. However, I have the incurable habit of buying new shoes just before the old shoes self destruct. I don't have the good sense to simply recycle the old shoes, since they are still wearable and can theoretically be repaired. So, I save them, resulting in an obvious surplus of old shoes. I recently decided that it was time to purge my collection, and donated those that were in tolerable condition and dispatching to the local dump all but 10 of the best pairs. Since then, I have added one pair of construction boots, awaiting the inevitable demise of my current daily carry boots. https://www.sears.com/wolverine-men-s-6inch-steel-toe-work-boot-w08308/p-067VA11220601P I don't particularly like this style, but Wolverine discontinued the style I prefer. https://www.shopyourway.com/wolverine-mens-cirrus-alloy-toe-work-hiker-boot-brown/315548 Imelda Marcos's shoe collection, originally about 3,000 pairs: https://www.google.com/search?q=imelda+marcos+shoes&tbm=isch -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
Bike adjustments
On Mon, 9 Dec 2019 16:46:39 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote: On 12/9/2019 12:21 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote: On Mon, 09 Dec 2019 09:13:56 +0700, John B. wrote: But from your posts you seem to be an electronic sort of guy. Do electronic guys wear hulking great boots? Generally no. The local electronic types favor sandals, bare feet, various "athletic" shoes, and ecologically correct, fair trade, and sustainable shoes. Like these? https://safr.kingfeatures.com/idn/cn...OTA wLmdpZg== Yep. Among my friends are a few that subscribe to nearly every eco-fad. For example, "grounding" and "earthing" have been around for a while: https://www.earthrunners.com/pages/earthing-shoes Generous surface area connecting your foot and the grounded conductive element allows for ample electron transfer. and Insulated modern rubber shoes interrupt our body's ability to connect with earth in the way our ancient ancestors lived. Ummm... right. Perhaps you should wrap your bicycle tires in aluminum foil to be sure that you're getting the necessary grounding? -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
Bike adjustments
On Mon, 9 Dec 2019 22:25:07 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote: On 12/9/2019 5:20 PM, James wrote: On 10/12/19 4:32 am, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 12/9/2019 11:59 AM, jbeattie wrote: On Sunday, December 8, 2019 at 6:48:49 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote: On 12/8/2019 7:48 PM, James wrote: On 8/12/19 10:28 am, wrote: As part of the ordering process of my gravel bike I was measured last Wednesday to determine the correct frame size. The measuring program didn't take the handlebar/shifter/shifter position into account in contrast to saddle make and type. I found that strange because most of the time you are riding on the hoods. It was a rainy day yesterday so I took the time to measure all my current bikes which I adjusted by 'feel' giving the purpose/riding style of that bike. Results: https://photos.app.goo.gl/1HbWyM6g1gNqoyMx5 So today I went back to the LBS (another 100 km round trip) to discuss this. In the meantime the manufacturer emailed the shop a drawing of their proposal. Strangely this drawing did show the measurements of the position of the shifter on the handlebar and this came very close what I measured on my bikes especially measurement E, F and D. With the mechanic we figured out the correct frame size taking the chosen handlebar, a stem length of 110 mm and the new Ultegra shifters and the manufacturers proposal/my measurements into account. My question is what do these measurement programs exactly do? Are there people that close a bike only based on these measurements? The last bike I bought (gravel) was advertised with a chart that was scaled to leg length.* According to my leg length I should have chosen an XL frame, but I reviewed the frame angles and geometry against my custom road racing bike, and decided on a L size frame.* The XL would have had my hands too high.* Even so, with the L frame I have the head stem all the way down, and I used a longer stem than the supplied one of course, and I used a longer seat post too. I also dislike the sloping top tube "compact" design, for the simple reasons that; a) longer frame tubes would probably weigh less than a long seat post, and a longer seat post likely stresses the frame more. b) the sloping top tube is very difficult to sit on while you're stopped somewhere to admire the view and eat a banana. c) the area in the triangle is reduced which restricts that available to carry water bottles or frame bags and stuff, if you so desire. While bucking current fashion, you are not alone. The #1 item in custom orders is 'level top tube'. I wonder why this is the #1 request. Is it people who are invested in using their old Silca frame pumps? I suspect it's just aesthetics. And if a person likes it, why not? A custom bike should accommodate one's quirks. I identified 3 reasons above that have nothing to do with aesthetics. Using a frame pump isn't a reason for me, but perhaps for a small group. The only practical reason I can think for a sloping top tube is increased stand over clearance, but that has never been a problem for me.* A non-practical reason might be to boast a slightly lesser frame weight, or stiffness increase perhaps, but these are advertising claims. I don't disagree with your reasons. But I still bet that for most people, it's a matter of aesthetics. You mean two right angle triangles back to back aren't an elegant sight :-( -- cheers, John B. |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
Bike adjustments
On Mon, 09 Dec 2019 20:23:21 -0800, Jeff Liebermann
wrote: On Mon, 9 Dec 2019 16:46:39 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 12/9/2019 12:21 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote: On Mon, 09 Dec 2019 09:13:56 +0700, John B. wrote: But from your posts you seem to be an electronic sort of guy. Do electronic guys wear hulking great boots? Generally no. The local electronic types favor sandals, bare feet, various "athletic" shoes, and ecologically correct, fair trade, and sustainable shoes. Like these? https://safr.kingfeatures.com/idn/cn...OTA wLmdpZg== Yep. Among my friends are a few that subscribe to nearly every eco-fad. For example, "grounding" and "earthing" have been around for a while: https://www.earthrunners.com/pages/earthing-shoes Generous surface area connecting your foot and the grounded conductive element allows for ample electron transfer. That's just silly. Just take the shoes off and walk. that will give you all the grounding possible. Of course, it takes a bit of time to attain the ability to walk over any surface without shoes but after all, anything worth doing is worth doing well. :-) and Insulated modern rubber shoes interrupt our body's ability to connect with earth in the way our ancient ancestors lived. Ummm... right. Perhaps you should wrap your bicycle tires in aluminum foil to be sure that you're getting the necessary grounding? Grounding spikes (or nails) will prove a better solution. https://www.alibaba.com/showroom/met...nd-spikes.html A spike or nail inserted into the tire so that the point reaches the metal rim and the head contacts the road will provide a far better and longer lasting "ground" than any flimsy aluminum foil :-) -- cheers, John B. |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
Bike adjustments
On Mon, 09 Dec 2019 20:10:30 -0800, Jeff Liebermann
wrote: On Tue, 10 Dec 2019 06:25:24 +0700, John B. wrote: Of course, I have other shoes available, but prefer the construction boots: http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/pics/drivel/slides/shoes.html After I took the photo, I found another 10 pairs. My goodness, all those shoes! You must be a wealthy man. But I count 15 pairs and one lonely sandal. I just counted 27 pairs in the photo. That includes a pair of roller skates (2nd row, first pair), sandals (2nd row, 2nd pair), Wellingtons (1st row, 2nd pair), and a really ancient pair of bicycle "touring" shoes with flat soles (2nd row, 2nd from last on the right). Most of shoes were acquired over the last 45 years or so. On the average, I would guess one pair per year, which is easily affordable. However, I have the incurable habit of buying new shoes just before the old shoes self destruct. I don't have the good sense to simply recycle the old shoes, since they are still wearable and can theoretically be repaired. So, I save them, resulting in an obvious surplus of old shoes. I recently decided that it was time to purge my collection, and donated those that were in tolerable condition and dispatching to the local dump all but 10 of the best pairs. Since then, I have added one pair of construction boots, awaiting the inevitable demise of my current daily carry boots. https://www.sears.com/wolverine-men-s-6inch-steel-toe-work-boot-w08308/p-067VA11220601P I don't particularly like this style, but Wolverine discontinued the style I prefer. https://www.shopyourway.com/wolverine-mens-cirrus-alloy-toe-work-hiker-boot-brown/315548 Imelda Marcos's shoe collection, originally about 3,000 pairs: https://www.google.com/search?q=imelda+marcos+shoes&tbm=isch On a bit more serious vein, why metal toe shoes? They always seemed heavier than plain toes and I wore common old military "brogans" (work shoes} and Redwing boots for probably 30 years and never bumped a toe. -- cheers, John B. |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
Bike adjustments
On Tuesday, December 10, 2019 at 2:41:49 AM UTC+1, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 9 Dec 2019 04:27:09 -0800 (PST), wrote: On Monday, December 9, 2019 at 9:21:33 AM UTC+1, John B. wrote: On Sun, 8 Dec 2019 23:27:31 -0800 (PST), wrote: On Monday, December 9, 2019 at 12:57:20 AM UTC+1, John B. wrote: On Sun, 8 Dec 2019 04:02:35 -0800 (PST), wrote: On Sunday, December 8, 2019 at 8:20:33 AM UTC+1, John B. wrote: On Sat, 7 Dec 2019 23:03:31 -0800 (PST), wrote: On Sunday, December 8, 2019 at 12:49:42 AM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote: On Saturday, December 7, 2019 at 3:28:56 PM UTC-8, wrote: As part of the ordering process of my gravel bike I was measured last Wednesday to determine the correct frame size. The measuring program didn't take the handlebar/shifter/shifter position into account in contrast to saddle make and type. I found that strange because most of the time you are riding on the hoods. It was a rainy day yesterday so I took the time to measure all my current bikes which I adjusted by 'feel' giving the purpose/riding style of that bike. Results: https://photos.app.goo.gl/1HbWyM6g1gNqoyMx5 So today I went back to the LBS (another 100 km round trip) to discuss this. In the meantime the manufacturer emailed the shop a drawing of their proposal. Strangely this drawing did show the measurements of the position of the shifter on the handlebar and this came very close what I measured on my bikes especially measurement E, F and D. With the mechanic we figured out the correct frame size taking the chosen handlebar, a stem length of 110 mm and the new Ultegra shifters and the manufacturers proposal/my measurements into account. My question is what do these measurement programs exactly do? Are there people that close a bike only based on these measurements? Lou Lou, if its a compact, buy a "medium." Done. Why should it be any more difficult than buying one of your Canyons? The measurements are intended to impress you. Shop drawings and proposals? What, are you buying from General Dynamics? What are you buying? Back in the day, seat tube length was a big deal, but now with compacts and long seat posts, the important measurement is TT, so I suppose they're trying to get your TT just right to size the bike with a stem that is not too short or too long, which might affect steering in some metaphysical way. Unless you're built like ET, they'll pull a "medium" out of stock, declare it custom and hand it to you. Yes that is what I thought. 7 body measurements (left and right footlength ???) which resulted in 19 adjustment proposals, even a seattube angle of 73.74 degrees. WTF? Bike will be custom build (parts) but frame will not be custom. I just wanted the right size to begin with (over-the counter) and not ending up with a 80 mm stem. These are good guys btw but they soon found out that I'm not the average customer ;-) They are dealers of BMC, Cannondale, Cervelo, IDworx, Santos, De Rosa, Bianchi and the brand I'm buying now which made me part of an American family. How about that for marketing ;-) Lou. It used to be much simpler. Buy a bike that you could stand over; set the seat height and position; set the stem position; ride the bike and make any more changes. It still works for me :-) -- cheers, John B. Yes I remembered that time, where all frames had horizontal top tubes, only 2 saddles and handlebars to choose from and of course that awful quill stem. Most of the time people rode to large frames. That time passed thank god. Lou Really? And just how are modern bikes fitted better? Do your feet reach the pedals better? Do your hands reach the handlebars better? Never said that. Chosing a bike frame by just stand over height doesn't work anymore with sloping top tubes and handlebars that come in different shapes (drop and reach). But tell us how far back your memories reach. Brooks, for example made various models of bicycle seats in 1880 -- You are playing silly again. Well, you said that, " I remembered that time, where all frames had horizontal top tubes, only 2 saddles and handlebars to choose from". I was amazed that you could be that old and asked you how far back your memories went. Certainly if you could remember back when there were only two bicycle seats to choose from it must have been Before Brooks (for example) started selling more than one model of seat. So who's being silly? You for exaggerations to bolster your arguments? Or me for questioning your exaggerations? -- cheers, John B. John you started to ridicule todays bike fitting by stating that the stand over height method and raising/lowering the saddle and handlebar still works for you. Bike fitting today and the past is all about getting your butt, feet and hands on the right position relative to each other while riding your bike depending on: - preference, - riding style, - your physical condition/ability, - body proportions. Today there is a lot more choices in handlebar drop/reach, frame geometries and saddles then there were in the past. They all determine were your butt, hands and feet end up giving a particular frame. A simple test if your nutts don't hit the top tube and the lower/raise a handlebar and saddle would be a not so smart method to choose a frame size/bike. Lou I originally said, "It used to be much simpler" and it really was. And "fitting" a bike as I described it accomplishes everything that your multi hundred dollar "fittings" do. I assume that you did notice my last caveat, "then ride the bike and make any more changes". But perhaps you are correct and modern day man needs to have his bike "fitted". It apparently is a recent necessity as I don't believe that Eddy Marckx ever had a bike fitting, and he won 11 Grand Tours and more than 500 bike races. For that matter Frank (another old guy) has never mentioned a bike fitting and he has ridden across the U.S. and in innumerable foreign places, or Jay the intrepid (semi old) who rides to work come rain or come shine, who has never mentioned a fitting, or Terrible Tom (yet another oldie) who spends his days climbing mountains. Strange isn't it that none of these old geezers has ever mentioned whacking out nearly 300 dollars to have their arse fitted to a bicycle and yet they ride/have ridden a substantial number of miles/kilometers. -- cheers, John B. Who said that a fit cost multi hundreds of dollars/euro's? They charge anything extra for it when buying a new bike in almost any bikeshop here. You can however go to a bikeshop for only a bike fit. Then it cost around 100 euro. A fit takes about an hour. Personally I would not spend that money for just a fit. Lou |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
Bike adjustments
On Tue, 10 Dec 2019 00:01:18 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Tuesday, December 10, 2019 at 2:41:49 AM UTC+1, John B. wrote: On Mon, 9 Dec 2019 04:27:09 -0800 (PST), wrote: On Monday, December 9, 2019 at 9:21:33 AM UTC+1, John B. wrote: On Sun, 8 Dec 2019 23:27:31 -0800 (PST), wrote: On Monday, December 9, 2019 at 12:57:20 AM UTC+1, John B. wrote: On Sun, 8 Dec 2019 04:02:35 -0800 (PST), wrote: On Sunday, December 8, 2019 at 8:20:33 AM UTC+1, John B. wrote: On Sat, 7 Dec 2019 23:03:31 -0800 (PST), wrote: On Sunday, December 8, 2019 at 12:49:42 AM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote: On Saturday, December 7, 2019 at 3:28:56 PM UTC-8, wrote: As part of the ordering process of my gravel bike I was measured last Wednesday to determine the correct frame size. The measuring program didn't take the handlebar/shifter/shifter position into account in contrast to saddle make and type. I found that strange because most of the time you are riding on the hoods. It was a rainy day yesterday so I took the time to measure all my current bikes which I adjusted by 'feel' giving the purpose/riding style of that bike. Results: https://photos.app.goo.gl/1HbWyM6g1gNqoyMx5 So today I went back to the LBS (another 100 km round trip) to discuss this. In the meantime the manufacturer emailed the shop a drawing of their proposal. Strangely this drawing did show the measurements of the position of the shifter on the handlebar and this came very close what I measured on my bikes especially measurement E, F and D. With the mechanic we figured out the correct frame size taking the chosen handlebar, a stem length of 110 mm and the new Ultegra shifters and the manufacturers proposal/my measurements into account. My question is what do these measurement programs exactly do? Are there people that close a bike only based on these measurements? Lou Lou, if its a compact, buy a "medium." Done. Why should it be any more difficult than buying one of your Canyons? The measurements are intended to impress you. Shop drawings and proposals? What, are you buying from General Dynamics? What are you buying? Back in the day, seat tube length was a big deal, but now with compacts and long seat posts, the important measurement is TT, so I suppose they're trying to get your TT just right to size the bike with a stem that is not too short or too long, which might affect steering in some metaphysical way. Unless you're built like ET, they'll pull a "medium" out of stock, declare it custom and hand it to you. Yes that is what I thought. 7 body measurements (left and right footlength ???) which resulted in 19 adjustment proposals, even a seattube angle of 73.74 degrees. WTF? Bike will be custom build (parts) but frame will not be custom. I just wanted the right size to begin with (over-the counter) and not ending up with a 80 mm stem. These are good guys btw but they soon found out that I'm not the average customer ;-) They are dealers of BMC, Cannondale, Cervelo, IDworx, Santos, De Rosa, Bianchi and the brand I'm buying now which made me part of an American family. How about that for marketing ;-) Lou. It used to be much simpler. Buy a bike that you could stand over; set the seat height and position; set the stem position; ride the bike and make any more changes. It still works for me :-) -- cheers, John B. Yes I remembered that time, where all frames had horizontal top tubes, only 2 saddles and handlebars to choose from and of course that awful quill stem. Most of the time people rode to large frames. That time passed thank god. Lou Really? And just how are modern bikes fitted better? Do your feet reach the pedals better? Do your hands reach the handlebars better? Never said that. Chosing a bike frame by just stand over height doesn't work anymore with sloping top tubes and handlebars that come in different shapes (drop and reach). But tell us how far back your memories reach. Brooks, for example made various models of bicycle seats in 1880 -- You are playing silly again. Well, you said that, " I remembered that time, where all frames had horizontal top tubes, only 2 saddles and handlebars to choose from". I was amazed that you could be that old and asked you how far back your memories went. Certainly if you could remember back when there were only two bicycle seats to choose from it must have been Before Brooks (for example) started selling more than one model of seat. So who's being silly? You for exaggerations to bolster your arguments? Or me for questioning your exaggerations? -- cheers, John B. John you started to ridicule todays bike fitting by stating that the stand over height method and raising/lowering the saddle and handlebar still works for you. Bike fitting today and the past is all about getting your butt, feet and hands on the right position relative to each other while riding your bike depending on: - preference, - riding style, - your physical condition/ability, - body proportions. Today there is a lot more choices in handlebar drop/reach, frame geometries and saddles then there were in the past. They all determine were your butt, hands and feet end up giving a particular frame. A simple test if your nutts don't hit the top tube and the lower/raise a handlebar and saddle would be a not so smart method to choose a frame size/bike. Lou I originally said, "It used to be much simpler" and it really was. And "fitting" a bike as I described it accomplishes everything that your multi hundred dollar "fittings" do. I assume that you did notice my last caveat, "then ride the bike and make any more changes". But perhaps you are correct and modern day man needs to have his bike "fitted". It apparently is a recent necessity as I don't believe that Eddy Marckx ever had a bike fitting, and he won 11 Grand Tours and more than 500 bike races. For that matter Frank (another old guy) has never mentioned a bike fitting and he has ridden across the U.S. and in innumerable foreign places, or Jay the intrepid (semi old) who rides to work come rain or come shine, who has never mentioned a fitting, or Terrible Tom (yet another oldie) who spends his days climbing mountains. Strange isn't it that none of these old geezers has ever mentioned whacking out nearly 300 dollars to have their arse fitted to a bicycle and yet they ride/have ridden a substantial number of miles/kilometers. -- cheers, John B. Who said that a fit cost multi hundreds of dollars/euro's? They charge anything extra for it when buying a new bike in almost any bikeshop here. You can however go to a bikeshop for only a bike fit. Then it cost around 100 euro. A fit takes about an hour. Personally I would not spend that money for just a fit. Lou Comprehensive fits (£250) take up to four hours Read more at https://www.cyclingweekly.com/fitnes...JT1L1CyRivE.99 (note: Pounds Sterling 250 is abut US$ 330) Dynamic Premium Fit - $400 https://www.trekbicyclesuperstore.co...ting-pg731.htm Mobile Bike Fit: $395.00 https://www.bcbikefit.com/pricing/ -- cheers, John B. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
USE Alien adjustments | Chris M | Techniques | 7 | February 19th 06 02:43 PM |
Some adjustments to bars | Ken M | General | 14 | January 1st 06 05:40 PM |
derailer adjustments | Bob Rutledge | Techniques | 2 | December 10th 05 08:42 PM |
Derailleur adjustments | D.M. Procida | UK | 2 | August 8th 04 12:03 PM |
derailleur adjustments on new bike? | Monique Y. Mudama | Mountain Biking | 22 | June 28th 04 05:32 PM |