DebW in the 21st century?

[DebW]

Peter and I talked about that at length. In his experience, front panniers make the bike less stable and make cornering more awkward. In my experience, they make it more stable and improve cornering (vs a load on the rear only). And since I stated that I'd pull a trailer for loads more than 20-25 lb, he found it odd that I might put 5 lb in each of 4 pannier bags. With a trailer, we could stick to a more sport geometry and not have to extend the wheelbase, making the bike more suitable for fast rides. Peter said that he will have to change the geometry to accommodate a front rack. I don't understand if foot clearance is the problem or just stability. I've only used high-mounted front racks, and now only low-rider racks are available.

Now that I know my current bike fits me quite well, and that the new bike will be very similar in terms of fit, I'm even more inclined to have the new bike lean towards the touring side. The current bike has a fairly short wheelbase and is more suited to agressive riding, so as long as I can keep it going, the new bike doesn't have to do everything.

[Triskeliongirl]

Hey Deb, it sounds like you may just need to give yourself a bit of time to work through these issues. I know it took me a while to figure out exactly what I wanted my travel bike to do. In the beginning I too leaned towards it being sportier (i.e. carbon fork) but in the end decided that being able to carry stuff in both front and back pannier bags, even if not a lot was important to me. I also like the idea of versatility. Yes a trailer is a fine option, but the trailer itself weighs a lot, so if it were me I would still want to be able use pannier bags for touring. I am not sure how sporty the original geometry is that he proposed. I hope he understands that you are not racing. Does your frame builder really 'get' what you want this bike to do? I know a lot of very traditional framebuilders still think in terms of a loaded touring bike or sport bike, but can't appreciate that sometimes we want a bike that is good for sport riding and light touring. The framebuilder I worked with Bilenky, seemed to get it. In fact, he offers a bike called the tourlite (and the fork he made me is his tourlite fork, which comes with rack mounts) which is designed precisely for this application. Maybe you could compare the geometry of that bike to the bike your frame builder is proposing to build you. Or maybe that is what your builder is offering you by suggesting that he lengthen the wheelbase if you want front racks.

[Triskeliongirl]

I don't understand if foot clearance is the problem or just stability. I've only used high-mounted front racks, and now only low-rider racks are available.

I think it is only stability, cuz think about it, if your foot can clear the front tire, and the panier bag is forward of that, it will clear too. But I think that either he was designing you a pretty aggresive bike in the beginning, or assuming that you wanted to carry a hefty load on the front. Has he given you any specs on the proposed geometry?

[emily_in_nc]

Peter and I talked about that at length. In his experience, front panniers make the bike less stable and make cornering more awkward. In my experience, they make it more stable and improve cornering (vs a load on the rear only).

I totally agree! My DH and I did a two-day "shakedown" tour in preparation for a longer credit-card tour on our Bike Fridays back in 2004. I used only rear panniers on the shakedown tour, and the bike handled poorly. I decided to put a front rack and front panniers on for the nine-day tour, and I got smaller panniers for the rear so that my load was very well balanced between front and rear, and like you, I didn't carry that much of a load overall -- I'd say I was carrying about 20 lbs in all four panniers (total) + the weight of panniers, racks, and a front bag, so maybe 30 lbs. total extra weight on my bike. It handled beautifully! Sure, it was a little slower to get up to speed, but other than that, I never even knew I had the panniers on it. I definitely disagree with Peter on this one. In fact, in the bike touring research I did before our tour, I read many experienced tourists who said that if they only took two panniers, it would be the front two, and none on the rear at all!

Stick to your guns for sure!

Emily

[DebW]

Now Peter is rethinking wheel size after I told him how close to toe clip overlap I am on my current bike. My shoes are 41 and I get overlap by moving my cleats back a few millimeters. He's also saying sub-73 seat angle but I don't have the full specs yet.

[BleeckerSt_Girl]

Deb,
at 5'7" and 32" inseam, I'm trrying to understand why you would need wheels smaller than 700 to avoid toeoverlap.
I'm 5'5", inseam 30", shoe size 9. On my Rivendell 54cm w/700 wheels, I seldom if ever get toe overlap- it's just not a problem.
Is the issue for you because your top tube is going to be shortened to accomodate your "women's reach"? Is it because this is going to be a WSD?

[Triskeliongirl]

Deb,
at 5'7" and 32" inseam, I'm trrying to understand why you would need wheels smaller than 700 to avoid toeoverlap.
I'm 5'5", inseam 30", shoe size 9. On my Rivendell 54cm w/700 wheels, I seldom if ever get toe overlap- it's just not a problem.
Is the issue for you because your top tube is going to be shortened to accomodate your "women's reach"? Is it because this is going to be a WSD?

Lisa, its not just your height and inseam, reach is also dicated by BOTH the length of your arms/torso and the length of your femur. The length of the femur dictates how far back your saddle is relative to the bottom bracket. Long femured people (like me) sit very far back, further lengthening our reach, so then we need a shorter top tube to reach the handlebars. Then arm and torso length also effects reach. Toe clip happens when the top tube gets too short to accodomodate a 700c wheel. Some manufacturers fix this by slackening the head tube angle, but then the handling becomes sluggish, which is why some of us need bikes with smaller front wheels. Other manufacturers fool women into thinking they are buying a bike with a short reach by reporting a short top tube, but then steeping up the seat tube so much that they can never get set up properly on the bike. You are lucky 700c wheels work well for you body, makes life much easier!

[KnottedYet]

Thank you for explaining that, Trisk! Very cool. I feel pretty lucky now that I have such a long torso and long arms, and now I understand why pretty standard bike geometries seem to fit me fine even though I've got such long femurs! (it's the torso and arms)

Thanks!

[BleeckerSt_Girl]

You are lucky 700c wheels work well for you body, makes life much easier!

Well, I wouldn't say my bike is a perfect fit though- I do have reach issues, becuase it's a man's bike and i have a typical woman's measurements. I had to put a REALLY short stem- shorter than I'd have wanted- to make the reach comfortable. Now the steering is less steady than I'd like.
That's one reason I am reading this thread with interest- I want to understand all this women's custom fit stuff better. Thanks for expalining some of those things to me- lots of good info!

[Triskeliongirl]

Well, I wouldn't say my bike is a perfect fit though- I do have reach issues, becuase it's a man's bike and i have a typical woman's measurements. I had to put a REALLY short stem- shorter than I'd have wanted- to make the reach comfortable. Now the steering is less steady than I'd like.
That's one reason I am reading this thread with interest- I want to understand all this women's custom fit stuff better. Thanks for expalining some of those things to me- lots of good info!

Yeh, I remembered that but didn't want to say anything since there isn't much you can do about it now. That is the *other* solution, use a short stem, but as you can see that can create handling issues. BUT, you seemed to be really happy with it until we brought it up. I had a short stem on a bike once and it was OK but I had trouble climbing out of the saddle. It was only when I went to a longer stem that I found out how much better that is. But too long can also have problems. Its all about balance on the bike. That is why I think Deb is so smart to be going custom. Often it doesn't cost anymore than buying a high end bike, and if you have confidence in your builder's ability to fit women, it can really be the best option. The trick is finding the right builder! The main reason I didn't go custom was that I didn't have anyone local that I trusted to do it right. Just the fact that Deb's builder suggested 650c wheels makes me trust that he gets it.

[Triskeliongirl]

Now Peter is rethinking wheel size after I told him how close to toe clip overlap I am on my current bike. My shoes are 41 and I get overlap by moving my cleats back a few millimeters. He's also saying sub-73 seat angle but I don't have the full specs yet.

Aaah, I like the sub-73 STA, that is one terrific reason to go custom. I really have to struggle to find seat posts laid back enough to get set up properly even on my 73 STA bikes. From what you are saying lately, maybe having him favor a touring geometry is what you want, but to not use super heavy tubes like for camping style self supported loaded touring. I do think the long reach side pulls will be much easier to adjust with diff. sized wheelsets than cantis, but I still love the braking power of my cantis, and the ease of mounting a rear rack. Will you go 26" as in mountain bike size or 650B for your touring wheelset? I looked up his website, and saw he lists bikes as road and touring, at least in his 'stock' frames, but not in between, and his 'road' frames seem to be road racing, so maybe that was the source of the problem with the front rack. Another advantage of 650 wheels is that you will have more room for a carradice bag if you want. Mine just fits with the 700c wheel in back, but barely. Again, while I LOVE my travel, and LOVE what I paid for it, if I had it to do over (i.e. using what I learned from doing it, and of course weren't as concerned about educating 2 kids) I would do exactly what you are doing, gone custom, and tried for a sub73 STA and 650 wheels. But if you are going to have it accept 26" wheels, do you want the option of going wider than 32c or to use both wide tires and mud guards? If so you may need to rethink the brakes. I would get him to confirm that you can use BOTH mudguards and 32c tires with long reach side pulls. Maybe it depends on exactly where he puts your bridge. What fun you must be having designing this bike!

[DebW]

From what you are saying lately, maybe having him favor a touring geometry is what you want, but to not use super heavy tubes like for camping style self supported loaded touring.

Yes, I think that is a good description. But not sure if the tubes need to be somewhat heavier because the wheelbase is stretched. I'll have to ask.

Will you go 26" as in mountain bike size or 650B for your touring wheelset?

I'll do 26" MTB rims and 32mm tires for the touring wheels so I can manage unpaved rail trails.

I looked up his website, and saw he lists bikes as road and touring, at least in his 'stock' frames, but not in between, and his 'road' frames seem to be road racing, so maybe that was the source of the problem with the front rack.

Since most of his frames are custom, I guess the categories are somewhat arbitrary. His bias is to "build it for the way you will use it most". He's built too many touring bikes for people who ultimately seldom tour.

But if you are going to have it accept 26" wheels, do you want the option of going wider than 32c or to use both wide tires and mud guards? If so you may need to rethink the brakes. I would get him to confirm that you can use BOTH mudguards and 32c tires with long reach side pulls. Maybe it depends on exactly where he puts your bridge. What fun you must be having designing this bike!

I originally asked for fender brackets, and he thought 32 was the widest tire he could design for. Later I said that fenders weren't so important if it compromised something else. We'll see what he comes up with.

[Triskeliongirl]

I went through a similar thing with fenders. On the phone he thought he could make it accomodate 32c tires and fenders, but when he saw my frame the bridge got in the way. So, I sat down and compared my terry 'sport bike' (isis) to my terry 'touring bike' (classic) by looking at them and the biggest difference I noticed was not that the geometry in terms of frame angles and tube lengths, but the distance between the 2 seat stays and the 2 fork blades was wider on the touring bike, and the bridges were set higher, to allow clearance for wider tires and fenders. What I am now starting to wonder, is if that is also a big part of the 'touring geometry' that is just not obvious from looking at a geometry table. I sacrificed fenders cuz I don't use them where I live and I worried about moving the bridge, but if I were building from scratch like you, I might rethink it. Maybe what will help is to start imagining what you will do with this bike when you retire. Do you anticipate wanting to tour in a place where it does rain, and having mudguards would be helpful. This will be your only 'travel bike' so what will do it with it when you travel? Do you want to land somewhere and go for a fast club ride, or tour? You have your old bike for fast riding, so if you were thinking you just wanted the new one to do fast riding at home and tour when traveling, then maybe you do want a full blown tourer. Another thing I will warn you, is that while I thought I would use my new S/S coupled bike for traveling and commuting, I realized locking it is a major hassle (requires a front skewer lock avail from peter white AND 2 other locks), so keeping your old bike for everyday use and the new bike for touring and travel may help you narrow down your choices. BUT, if you go the touring route don't let him overbuild it. Be honest with him on the rider plus luggage weights you want it to support, and stress you still want to keep it as light but functional as possible.

[DebW]

Another thing I will warn you, is that while I thought I would use my new S/S coupled bike for traveling and commuting, I realized locking it is a major hassle (requires a front skewer lock avail from peter white AND 2 other locks), so keeping your old bike for everyday use and the new bike for touring and travel may help you narrow down your choices.

I didn't think about the locking issue with the S&S couplers. Though it takes a special tool to open the couplers so I doubt that your average thief could steal it easily. When I commute I bring my bike into my office, so that part isn't an issue anyway. But camping on a bike tour I'd want to lock it over night.

That is why I think Deb is so smart to be going custom. Often it doesn't cost anymore than buying a high end bike, and if you have confidence in your builder's ability to fit women, it can really be the best option. The trick is finding the right builder!

Well, the custom frame certainly isn't cheap, and I haven't seen a price yet on the components. But I'm sure it will be worth it to have a perfectly fitting bike tailored to my needs.