Looks like the frame will (maybe!) be available August 1.
http://somafab.blogspot.com/2008/04/...xte-frame.html
Printable View
Looks like the frame will (maybe!) be available August 1.
http://somafab.blogspot.com/2008/04/...xte-frame.html
My husband talked to our local Soma dealer (the Bicycle Business, Soma's current featured dealer) and they said they expected it any day. I thought about getting on the waiting list but I decided to go with the Speedster and then see what the reviews/geometry for the first run of mixtes looks like.
I'm still pretty excited about it, though. Rivendell's mixte doesn't appeal to me personally for several reasons, and the Velo-Orange models are too similar to what I already have, and I don't know of any other mixtes being made right now.
I am keeping my fingers cross for the Soma mixte. The bike store I am working with said 'they are tight' with Soma and have already put in place my needs. Ohhhhh, I am so hoping I get one of these. I really want a new commuter bike that has some versatility....keep your fingers crossed for me. I can't believe there will be many other there wanting the 'smallest' size they have:o....
The geometry is up now on the website. Scroll down to the bottom.
That is CRAZY geometry. The size medium has a 555mm effective top tube! That is a dude's bike. I'm glad I didn't hold out for one of these because I don't think it would fit me. The proportions really do seem like they are intended to fit men more than women: shorter legs in proportion to the upper body, steep seat tube angle.
yes, and the small has a top tube length the same as my Bianchi (which was a 49cm with a 51.5cm top tube.)
what's up with that?
AAAACK:confused:...
My goodness!!!!! :eek:
what were they thinking?
Are they assuming you'll put townie-style bars on it, to bring the reach back into humanly possible ranges?
I'll keep riding my relatively short (!) top-tube road bikes for a while longer. ;)
(just measured one of my "boy" cyclocross bikes, and the top-tube is actually shorter than the comparable mixte.) I really hope my Soma LBS www.freerangecycles.com will have a couple so I can try them out. But for many reasons, I probably won't be buying one this year.
The initial post on the subject of the mixte said that it was intended to be more aggressive than the others on the market ... so I was thinking drop bars or bullhorns. But the reach is way too long for that, at least for me and probably for most women.
They never marketed it as a women's bike, though. I guess they built it for the boys.
I can tell you what they were thinking since I was thinking pretty much the same thing!Quote:
Originally Posted by KnottedYet
If it's ok for me to participate (I'm clearly not neutral since I'm trying to develop and market a line of mixte bikes), I'm quite interested in this discussion.
I looked at the Buena Vista geometry and I agree - they are not specifically targeting women, otherwise I thought the dimensions seem quite reasonable considering there are 4 sizes and only one size with 26" / 650C wheels.
I would argue that producing a range of sizes with the top tube lengths that might be appropriate for many shorter torsoed women requires use of a different wheel size - 700C wheels are too large.
Having a small or compact frame is not a problem usually in terms of saddle height, since long seat posts are available. The potential problem with a small frame here is if one desires say drop bars to be level or higher with the saddle without using a funky stem. It can be hard to figure out from the geometry chart the handlebar height issue.
Most of the comments have concerned the top tube measurement, and I want to argue that top tube dimension is not that meaningful by itself, you have to consider it together with the seat tube angle. Suppose bike A) has a 53.0 cm top tube and a 75 degree seat tube angle, and bike B) has a 55.0 cm top tube and a 73 seat tube angle. For the same position of the saddle relative to the bottom bracket, the reach to the handlebars will be (almost) identical - each degree of set back of the seat tube uses up about 1 cm of horizontal length of the top tube.
The important, but often unpublished, frame dimension in this discussion is the front center - the distance from the cranks to the center of front wheel. The front center determines the amount of toe overlap (toe hitting the front wheel) and also, in combination with rear center (chainstay length), the weight balance between the front and rear wheels.
The "small" model Buena Vista is about as short a front center as is reasonable with 700C wheels and the chosen head tube angle.
[/QUOTE]
(just measured one of my "boy" cyclocross bikes, and the top-tube is actually shorter than the comparable mixte.)
[/QUOTE]
Again, I question this if you are properly considering seat tube angle, do you have the make and model - is the geometry published? I'd be happy to calculate the front-center with BikeCAD.
The real issue here is that 700C wheels are just too big for many smaller frame sizes. The top tube lengths that are desirable for you and someone seeking a WSD frame would require smaller diameter wheels, and in a road bike non 700C wheels are often a hard sell, or so I've been told.
Thank you for your input furryblue. I am worried that even the XS might be too much of a reach for me. I dream of a bike with 700c wheels, but reality speaks and I know that just won't cut it for me. I will be looking at the XS with 26" wheels (if one is in the cards for me). I really like the idea of a mixte where I don't have to worry about the top tube...
Michael Furryblue,
I appreciate what you are saying about the crank, but being a similarly built woman, the space between my butt and my palms SEEMS to be that top tube length. Us gals have lots of leg, so distance to the crank, even for the shorter of us, is not the big issue.
your input IS appreciated.
And all of that is fine, if what you want to do is make a bike to fit a typical man. Which Soma apparently did. It is just disappointing that it's a mixte, because those generally are designed so that they fit women who have trouble with regular road bikes. I guess they saw a need to make a mixte designed for men, which is fine, but certainly not something I'm going to spend my money on.
I'd also note that the steep seat tube angles on the Buena Vista are also going to be an issue for women with long femurs.
Michael - I'm 5'8" and have no issues with fit on any of my 4 "boys" bikes. No toe-overlap, either, so not too worried about the front-center measurements. But I will admit I was kinda hoping the Buena Vista would have a more average (or even low key) geometry, rather than an aggressive one.
Hmmmmm.... went to the website to get the real measurements (instead of the ones I took myself) of my utility bike, and while the Buena Vista doesn't come in "my" size, I think the 50cm BV might actually do what I want. Oh, now temptation rears it's ugly head again! (I *might* even be able to work the 54cm BV) Gee, I hope Free Range Cycles gets some BV's built up! I wanna try them!
[QUOTE=mimitabby;334154]Michael Furryblue,
I appreciate what you are saying about the crank, but being a similarly built woman, the space between my butt and my palms SEEMS to be that top tube length. [/QUOTE.]
Hi Mimi,
My basic point was that the size "small" Buena Vista has about as short a top tube length as is possible for a 700C wheel given the constraints of front center and the head tube angle.
The distance you are describing (butt to palms) is the "cockpit length" or something like that and it is not the same as the top tube length.
I'm doing the best I can to explain, but I don't think I am communicating clearly.
Let me try again.
Let's suppose you drop a plumb line from the nose of your saddle, and you find the horizontal distance from the center of the bottom bracket to the plumb line is say 1.5 cm, meaning the nose of your saddle is 1.5 cm behind the bottom bracket's center along a horizontal plane.
You can maintain that SAME saddle position relative to the cranks with various seat tube angles by sliding your saddle appropriately back or forth on the rails.
If your "reference" seat tube angle is say 73 degrees, then for a 74 degree seat tube angle you would slide your saddle back, about 1 cm, so that you maintain the same 1.5 cm (example) horizontal position behind the crank center.
So what? If your top tube length is say 53 cm with the 74 degree seat tube angle, and 54 cm with the 73 degree seat tube angle, and you adjust the position of the saddle for 74 degrees by sliding the seat back to maintain the same horizontal position relative to the crank center, then the cockpit length is the same: because you have to slide the saddle back for the 74 degree seat tube angle, you are adding an extra 1 cm in length.
All that is to say you cannot equate cockpit with top tube length - you have to factor in the seat tube angle.
That is kind, thank you.Quote:
your input IS appreciated.
Let's try and make this quantitative - if it's a bike model with published dimensions (Surly, Gunnar, Soma) let me know and I can calculate and compare the dimensions with the Buena Vista. I think when you look at the geometry specs you are perhaps not properly factoring in the effects of seat tube angle. Give me some numbers and we can calculate and compare.Quote:
Originally Posted by KnottedYet
Hi Xeney - So here's my challenge to you and others.Quote:
Originally Posted by xeney
One could definitely make a bike that would fit a women with a long femur and short torso, but likely it wouldn't be 700C wheels. Would a smaller size set of wheels (26", or even 24") be a deterrent?
I have heard repeatedly that there is a general bias against road bikes with wheel sizes other than 700C, and that bias is the driver behind a lot of poor bike designs in my opinion.
Surly 52 cm Cross Check.
Brooks B67 slid back as far as it will go. Approx 5 cm seat post out.
Dimension 120 degree stem on the standard cut steerer tube. (3 0.5cm spacers) Moustache bars with the bar ends at just about even vertically with the steerer. Top of bar (top of stem) nearly even horizontally with top of saddle.
I tend to prefer 175mm cranks due to my preference for mashing, and my femur length and difficulty getting a good KOPS. BTW, don't discount KOPS/Pat-to-Met just cuz some whippersnapper wrote an article "disproving" it. If you read what he has to say, it actually boils down to KOPS/Pat-to-Met. I got pretty grumpy after reading that article...
If I get a Buena Vista I would either have moustache bars or Nitto All-Rounder bars put on it. The All-Rounders would certainly shorten the cockpit. I like both these bars on my bikes that have them. (My 1987 Giant RS940 has All-Rounders. I'd like to convert her to 650b wheels, she'd be perfect for that with her low brake bridge and fork. If I do that, I'll also have her powdercoated, which means spending enough money in all that I really can't afford a Buena Vista. :eek:)
If you have the time and interest to compare fits of the CC vs. the BV, go for it! I'd be interested in seeing what you come up with. There are other Surly riders who also might be interested. (but I really shouldn't buy another bike right now... but it'd be interesting to see how they compare... oh, but I *really* shouldn't buy another bike right now)
FurryBlue - I think you did a very good job of explaining the effect of seat tube angle on cockpit length and how it plays into reach. I also liked the way that you explained how top tube length is important as it affects (with the head tube angle) toe overlap. But all in all, top tube length is a huge component of reach and the concerns these women have about the reach of these frames seems justified.
I'm learning a ton about frame geometry from reading this discussion!
FurryBlue -- re: your question about wheel size bias. (For background, I'm 5'1", short torso) When I was looking for my first road bike (maybe 15 years ago?) I wouldn't have known that I ought to be biased towards 700c wheels, but a small amount of research informed me about toe overlap being an issue with what was "standard" for road bikes, and I also had learned of Terry's approach to using a smaller front wheel. I was a poor student and couldn't afford a Terry, so I was basically discouraged from road bikes and spent my money on a mountain bike that became my all-purpose workhorse.
I started looking for a road bike again a couple of years ago, and this time I picked up a used touring bike outfitted with 650c wheels. I wasn't even interested in wheel size when I went for a test ride. All I knew was the bike felt incredible, and I was in love.
When I lost that bike and started looking for a replacement, all I could find (maybe I was looking at the wrong time of year?) were bikes with 700c wheels. And they all felt high to me, center-of-gravity-wise as well as difficult to step over (I have a bad hip). Long story short: the replacement bike has 650c wheels.
Maybe with the right frame design I might be comfortable on a bike outfitted with 700c wheels, but in my opinion the industry bias towards this wheel size generally makes it more difficult and more expensive for someone my size to find a bike that fits.
I'm sure some riders have their reasons for insisting on 700c wheels. I know that there are women about my height who use 700c, and I'm sure that setup makes sense for them based on the type of riding they do, skill level, etc.
Speaking just for myself, a smaller wheel size would NOT be a deterrent. I also commute on a folding bike with 20" wheels.
I've also never been picked to participate in a focus group, I think because researchers pick up pretty quickly that I'm not in sync with whatever plays well in Peoria . . .
Wheel size would not be a deterrent for me, either, but that seems a little irrelevant to this discussion given that they made the Buena Vista to work with 650B wheels. If they were doing that already I don't think it was wheel size that caused them to make the effective top tube so long and the seat tube angles so steep. I think they were just interested in building a men's mixte.
I had my custom Luna made with a slacker seat tube angle because on my other bike my weight was sort of balanced right on top of the crank, like a unicycle effect. I felt my weight too far forward onto my hands, and could not 'get behind' my pedaling. When you feel your weight falling forward most people just label it too long a reach, but I found it all works together- head tube angle, seat tube angle, top tube length, etc......to either make you comfortable or uncomfortable. Weight balance is a big part of the whole reach issue.
On my Luna, even though the reach is pretty similar to my older bike, the seat is further back from the crank and I no longer feel like my hands have to keep me from falling forward. Now my legs do that automatically. Thus, it no longer feels like the reach is too long. :)
Wonderful - I'll work up some numbers later.Quote:
Originally Posted by KnottedYet
Thanks Wahine. I don't mean to discount the concerns of those for whom the BV mixte may be a poor fit. I did want to point out that comparing fit between bikes strictly from top tube length alone is inadequate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wahine
Designing stock bikes that are not intended to fit a specific person is kind of tricky. As has been pointed out in various discussions, many women fit the long legs, short torso model, but some don't.
This discussion started out with comments on the BV saying "what were they (BV designers) thinking" and my point is that I can well imagine what they were thinking - they were thinking about a small range of sizes based on 700C wheels and one size with 26" wheels, and the BV geometries are roughly what one would come up with given those parameters.
I agree though that to better design some stock sizes specificially for women who have long legs/short torso I would do the following: i) use slacker seat tube angles, ii) have several sizes using smaller wheels.
Hi Xeney, you know, at first the SOMA blog said something about 650B compatibility, but I'm skeptical.Quote:
Originally Posted by xeney
Rivendell's Saluki and Bleriot are 650B specific and have a 67 mm bottom bracket drop, and that ends up being quite a low bottom bracket height. The issue with a low bottom bracket is more tendency to scrape the pedals on the ground when pedaling through corners.
The BV geometry says the bottom bracket drop is 74 mm, that is even lower than the Riv 650B specific designs which some complained were too low. So I guess you could put 650B wheels on the bike, but I don't think it's a good idea.
Great comments. The Luna bikes look really nice to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by BleeckerSt_Girl
Thanks for your comments Jocelyn.Quote:
Originally Posted by jocelynlf
For my riding style the issue with 650c is most of the available tires are narrower than I like, and the mountain bike 26" tires tend to be heavy. But fit wise, I think those wheels are the way to go for many shorter people.
http://www.terrybicycles.com/movies.html
Georgena Terry has some really swell videos here that illustrate her frame design choices....might add to the conversation....
(also her video on cleaning and lubing was helpful for me)
Love her videos. I feel like I'm sitting at her table drinking a glass of iced tea while she explains stuff to me.
Hi KnottedYet, Sorry for the delay in this response.Quote:
Originally Posted by KnottedYet
I hope this is not to much detail, I'm going to compare two sizes of the Surly Cross Check with the small size Buena Vista. I used the BikeCAD applet and some educated guesses to come up with the numbers.
Let me start with the 52 cm Cross Check. I calculate it has a front center of 590 mm. I believe that is about as short a front center as is really desirable for medium width (say 700 X 35C) wheels. To "normalize" the reach, I calculate that if the seat tube angle of the 52 cm Cross Check was changed to 73 degrees, then the effective top tube length (giving the same front center) would be 551.9 mm.
By the way, it's just a guess, but looking at the drawing and with a 110 X 120 degree stem, I'm guessing your saddle height is about 680 mm which sounds a little low for someone who is 5' 8"
Now let's consider the 50 cm Cross Check before moving on to the Buena Vista. It has a 542 effective top tube with a 74 degree seat angle which yields a front center of 589.3 mm. Notice the front center has only changed about 0.7 mm, and if we "normalize" to a seat tube angle of 73 degrees then the effective top tube is 551.2 mm, only .7 mm change. So as far as reach to the bars and front center goes, the 52 cm and 50 cm Cross Check are virtually the same. The reason is the design is hitting the constraints of the 700C wheel size.
Finally, let's go to the 50 cm Buena Vista. I calculate it has a 583.0 mm front center which is a little short in my opinion for the larger 700 C tires, and an effective top tube length (normalized to a 73 degree seat tube angle) of 545.5 mm, so 6.4 mm less than the 52 cm Cross Check - that's like a quarter of an inch, so we are talking small differences here. Now, the Buena Vista also has a longer head tube, so even though the frame is a smaller size (50 cm BV versus 52 cm CC), it is easier to get the handlebars up high. I calculate that you (KnottedYet) would achieve the same reach the to the handlebars and same handlebar height with the 50cm BV by switching to a 100 mm X 0 degree stem and eliminating 5 mm of spacers.
By the way, a fun and useful tool for stems and so on is here:
http://alex.phred.org/stemchart/Default.aspx
In conclusion, the 50 cm Buena Vista would fit KnottedYet about as well as the CrossCheck just in terms of reach to the handlebars - the effective horizontal reach is about a quarter inch less but head tube is taller so it's easy to get the bars higher and so the stem changes to a flatter and shorter one.
The Buena Vista has a nice low bottom bracket which I think is better for a road bike (the Cross Check is a bit high at 66 mm compared with 74 mm for the Buena Vista). However, there are some aspects of the Buena Vista geometry that are less desirable than the CrossCheck if we assume the CrossCheck is a good fit for KnottedYet:
i) the Buena Vista has a steeper seat tube angle and so you would need about another cm of setback in your seatpost to achieve the same saddle/crank relative position. Since you state you are already all the way back on the rails with your current seatpost, you would need a different seatpost.
ii) toe overlap will be somewhat increased and if you want to run larger tires and or fenders you might be less happy than with the CrossCheck
iii) although both the BV and the CC have the same head tube angle and the same fork rake, the handling will be a little different because of the weight balance and wheelbase: the BV has a shorter front center (puts more weight over the front wheel), and a longer rear center (also puts more weight over the front wheel), so if the Cross Check feels properly balanced then the Buena Vista won't feel as balanced. The balance issue will be more pronounced if you stick with your current seatpost and position your entire body more forward with respect to the cranks.
Xeney...look at this pic. Is this the new one or has Soma made these in the past?
Oh, wow. There are older bikes branded Soma -- I think it was one of the 80s Japanese manufacturers, and I've seen mixtes from that older Soma brand on eBay. But that is the current Soma logo! I have no idea how old that is but it's a sharp looking bike.
It looks more upright than the Buena Vista, though. And the Buena Vista only comes in white. Must be an older frame ... did they ever do custom work?
On the Soma Blog it says that was the Buena Vista prototype.
Cool:) Looks like it's gonna be a sweet bike:)
Thank you ladies for letting me in. As you can tell from the log in I'm a guy. Came accross this site doing a search for the new Soma mixte. from what I'm reading on this forum I'd say the geometry for this frame isn't very lady-like. My lady stands 4' 13", she currently rides two road bikes with 48 cm top tubes, and one hybrid, 15" Trek. All these bikes have 700 wheels on them. I've had my lady on a 650 wheeled bike and she dwarfed it. I don't buy that she should be on a 650 bike, no way, no how. My lady isn't over stretched on her road bike at all. I feel most bike builders just don't want or aren't capable of building women's smaller frames with 700 wheels. My lady's feet do not hit her front wheel. So, what's with all the "you should be on a 650 automatically if you're under 5'5"?" Baloney!!!
Ok, thanks for listening to the rant. The reason I was looking at Soma was because the only choices it seems for mixtes are all used mixtes from the 70's and 80's. For my lady's golden years I want to build her a nice new mixte with a 44 tooth single chain ring up front and an eight speed out back using a new Grip Shift 8 speed system, no drop bars this time around. Masi isn't even an option as they only want to sell complete bikes. I have been enlightened reading all the replies here on this forum. Why not get a woman's view? I am trying to build a woman's bike. I'm hoping someone over at Soma will read the views presented on these forums and tweak the dimensions for this frame.
I really don't want to build on an older frame that I will have to convert the wheels from 27" over to 700. It seems a lot of the older mixtes I've been looking at also have crappy brakes. Anyway, thank you ladies, I will keep hoping for a new frame for my lady. Thank you for all the insight.
Welcome, Thommy, and good luck with your lady's new bike:)
Have you looked at the Rivendell Mixte? It's beautiful, but pricey.
CA
Velo Orange has a mixte, also and so does Masi. I put a deposit down on the Masi and they said it would be over a month. The Masi starts at 16" which may be a little big, but the Velo Orange one is built to fit. It's pricey too at around $1600 for the frame.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thommy
You mean, 5' 1"? ;)
I hope you find a good bike for your lady. Good luck! :)
Yes, 5' 1". No, Rivendell is too pricey. I have many many parts, no reason to pay for someone else's labor and overhead. I really enjoy building the bikes and wheels from the ground up. In my opinion the Masi looks cheesy and I really don't like the guy on the Masi website's goofy haircut. I can't wait to actually see a Buena Vista frame "live". I will be measuring it carefully.
Hi ladies and gents. Have any of you looked at the fixedgeargallery.com website ? Pull it up and click on the far left of the page under "Interbike Photos" day 2. Look at the first and second pages, there are Soma's display of the Buena Visa in white. Looks like we're getting closer. Hope everyone has a great weekend.
Mid-life Crisis Bike Redux!
I can get a 54 cm Soma Buena Vista (in the new graphite color, with the very sexy new Sutro Tower In the Fog headbadge) and transfer all the goodies from my Surly to the new frame for about $100. Plus $75 for caliper brakes. Plus $500 for the BV frame.
If the bike worked out, I could sell the Surly frame to help defray costs.
My long arms would appreciate the 1 cm longer toptube. And the BV fork has front pannier mounts.
My LBS was telling me how easy and cheap it would be, etc. Bunch of enablers.
The graphite mixte frame is out of stock until Fall, so I've got time to stew on this...