Re: [CR]Rivendell-type riding position, aesthetics of fit (long)


Example: Production Builders:Cinelli

In-Reply-To: <1d8.6010b14.2bb28f95@aol.com>
References: <1d8.6010b14.2bb28f95@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 05:39:47 -0800
To: NortonMarg@aol.com
From: Jan Heine <heine@mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: [CR]Rivendell-type riding position, aesthetics of fit (long)
cc: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org

Stevan,

I totally agree with you, of course. You pointed out something very important - frame size matters. Self-centered individual I am, I forgot that part! The "fistful of post" rule works well on my bikes, but I am a pretty average guy - 6' exactly.

Of course, the Campy NR seatpost was designed for Italian racers. So for an average 1960s Italian racer (5'7"?), on a 1960s bike (isn't that when the alloy one came out), it'll be in the middle of the adjustment range. This looks different for you, being 6'4" - you'll have to extend the post to the max to replicate those proportions. I guess the "shorty" posts that we find so useless in this country were for rather short riders, where they make sense.

That said, I don't think you can do the "bars as high as the seat" position Rivendell advocates, elegantly with a frame sized like a racing bike. My opinion (and please treat it as such): If you want a randonneur position, size your bike as a randonneur. If you want a racing position, size your bike as a racer.

Finally, some custom steel stems break, too. I won't name names, but locally made product (Seattle) has been known to fail. Of course, many modern stems with removable face-plates have an abysmal record. But fortunately, those are outside our timeframe.

Jan Heine, Seattle