Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Click the "Create Account" button now to join.

To disable ads, please log-in.

Shop at TeamEstrogen.com for women's cycling apparel.

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 84
  1. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Posts
    9,324

    To disable ads, please log-in.

    Quote Originally Posted by Triskeliongirl View Post
    The only thing I think you might want to reconsider are the bar cons vs sti shifters. Sti is just so easy to shift since your hands are already on the hoods. I don't think I would like having to move to the drops everytime I wanted to make a shift.

    It just becomes automatic. I don't even really think about shifting. You just do it. It doesn't take that long either to move your hand.

    V.
    Discipline is remembering what you want.


    TandemHearts.com

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    San Antonio, TX
    Posts
    2,024
    I am also curious why you can't use front racks. I have no problem on my frame and it is sport not touring geometry with a longer wheelbase. All I am worried about is that you are being talked out of some of the great advice you gave me when I built my bike, such as having eyelets for a front rack and canti bosses installed. I am not saying to not trust your builder, but I am curiuos about the reasons behind some of his recomendations.

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    2,556
    What I wrote in the first paragraph is what I'm getting even though it disagrees with his recommendation. I am getting a front rack. I'm hand-building my own wheels. I'm not getting STIs even though he prefers them. I'm not doing cantis partly because of his recommendation and partly because I don't like adjusting them (and I've adjusted thousands of center-pull brakes). I've heard conflicting things about them (much better than V-brakes, worse than V-brakes, best brakes for touring). If he had recommended them I would have gone for cantis, but it would have been on the basis of recommendations and not personal experience.
    Oil is good, grease is better.

    2007 Peter Mooney w/S&S couplers/Terry Butterfly
    1993 Bridgestone MB-3/Avocet O2 Air 40W
    1980 Columbus Frame with 1970 Campy parts
    1954 Raleigh 3-speed/Brooks B72

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Traveling Nomad
    Posts
    6,763
    DebW,

    I think you'll be fine with the things you've spec'd out. As I mentioned, I have bar-end shifters and love them. I too was used to STI before I tried bar-cons and initially resisted my salesperson at Bike Friday when he suggested them, since bar-cons were an unknown to me. But after just a couple of rides I loved them and agree with V that shifting with them becomes second nature. I especially love that they are friction in the front, unlike with STI. I can trim my front chainring so much more easily! I was always having trouble with that with STI. It's also much, much easer shifting to the big ring than with STI, which was always difficult for my left hand to do (hand strength issue) when it got tired -- that was the same for STI or Campy shifting.

    I have V-brakes on my Friday and also have a front rack, and my bike is not long wheelbase (to the contrary!) nor does it have hardly any fork rake (the fork is small and straight), but it works, somehow -- I'm not as knowledgeable as you and Triskeliongirl on the technical reasons, I just know what works for me.

    I also have a mix of mountain (XT in back) and road (Ultegra in front) components, which also works great.

    The color you picked also sounds wonderful. Exciting!

    Emily
    Last edited by emily_in_nc; 01-29-2007 at 06:16 AM.
    Emily

    2011 Jamis Dakar XC "Toto" - Selle Italia Ldy Gel Flow
    2007 Trek Pilot 5.0 WSD "Gloria" - Selle Italia Diva Gel Flow
    2004 Bike Friday Petite Pocket Crusoe - Selle Italia Diva Gel Flow

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    North Andover, Massachusetts USA
    Posts
    1,643
    Quote Originally Posted by DebW View Post
    What I wrote in the first paragraph is what I'm getting even though it disagrees with his recommendation. I am getting a front rack.
    What I find really interesting is that I don't remember Peter recommending not getting a front rack when he built my bike. I wonder if his view of racks has changed, or if it's because I was configuring a bike for loaded touring as opposed to his recommendation to you of "sport" touring (whatever that is).

    Congrats on the bike order - I'm sure you'll enjoy it.

    --- Denise
    www.denisegoldberg.com

    • Click here for links to journals and photo galleries from my travels on two wheels and two feet.
    • Random thoughts and experiences in my blog at denisegoldberg.blogspot.com


    "To truly find yourself you should play hide and seek alone."
    (quote courtesy of an unknown fortune cookie writer)

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    San Antonio, TX
    Posts
    2,024
    Quote Originally Posted by DebW View Post
    What I wrote in the first paragraph is what I'm getting even though it disagrees with his recommendation. ....
    Ahh, thanks for the clarification! It sounds like you will have a wonderful bike! Yeh I do see the advantages of side pull brakes, I was torn myself. I also really see the advantage of going custom, which I think is the most important decision you made. If I had it to do over I would probably have done that too, but we all learn about this stuff as we go.

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    San Antonio, TX
    Posts
    2,024
    Quote Originally Posted by DeniseGoldberg View Post
    ... or if it's because I was configuring a bike for loaded touring as opposed to his recommendation to you of "sport" touring (whatever that is)....
    Loaded touring means a bike optimized for self-supported touring, including camping gear, etc. Sport touring means you can still tour, but with lighter loads, i.e. no camping gear. The reason to go sport tour rather than loaded tour is if you want to use the bike to do both fast road rides and light touring. A loaded tourer will be very stable with a heavy load, but then it will feel sluggish on a fast road ride. A sport tourer is a good all around bike, but will be less stable if very heavily loaded down, although I like this style bike and find that as long as I pay attention to balance my load it is just fine.

    I AGREE DEB IS GOING TO HAVE ONE SWEET BIKE!!!

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    San Antonio, TX
    Posts
    2,024
    I just had another thought. Maybe he didn't want to configure it with front racks, cuz then he thought you would try to carry too much weight if you filled both front and rear bags to max capacity. But, I remember you advised me to get a front rack so I could better balance my load, but not necessearially make it very heavy.

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    2,556
    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.
    Oil is good, grease is better.

    2007 Peter Mooney w/S&S couplers/Terry Butterfly
    1993 Bridgestone MB-3/Avocet O2 Air 40W
    1980 Columbus Frame with 1970 Campy parts
    1954 Raleigh 3-speed/Brooks B72

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    San Antonio, TX
    Posts
    2,024
    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.

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    San Antonio, TX
    Posts
    2,024
    Quote Originally Posted by DebW View Post
    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?

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Traveling Nomad
    Posts
    6,763
    Quote Originally Posted by DebW View Post
    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
    Emily

    2011 Jamis Dakar XC "Toto" - Selle Italia Ldy Gel Flow
    2007 Trek Pilot 5.0 WSD "Gloria" - Selle Italia Diva Gel Flow
    2004 Bike Friday Petite Pocket Crusoe - Selle Italia Diva Gel Flow

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    2,556
    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.
    Oil is good, grease is better.

    2007 Peter Mooney w/S&S couplers/Terry Butterfly
    1993 Bridgestone MB-3/Avocet O2 Air 40W
    1980 Columbus Frame with 1970 Campy parts
    1954 Raleigh 3-speed/Brooks B72

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Riding my Luna & Rivendell in the Hudson Valley, NY
    Posts
    8,403
    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
    Our bikes...OurBikes...and my mountain dulcimer blog
    Ruby's Website and My blog
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    San Antonio, TX
    Posts
    2,024
    Quote Originally Posted by DebW View Post
    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!

 

 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •