Thursday, February 17, 2005

Clydesdale Speed Weaponry Wheels by Zipp

Zipp is another company that has focused some attention on the Clydesdale class. Not the cheapest wheels out there but very good performers.

William

Contact:

Contact them for more information
Call ZIPP Speed Weaponry on their toll free Customer Service Hot Line, Monday-Friday 8a.m. to 5p.m (E.S.T.). Their Tech support staff is ready, willing and able to answer your questions!

Zipp Speed Weaponry
1180 N. Main St. Suite A
Speedway IN 46224-6942

Tel: 317.481.1120
Toll Free: 800.472.3972
Fax: 317.243.3879

*************************************************************

At Zipp, we know that larger riders demand more of their equipment. For this reason, we have created our Team Clydesdale wheelsets. Higher spoke counts and stiffer rims make our 404 and 909 wheelset stand up to the additional forces generated by larger riders. No longer do you have to be saddled with slow, heavy wheels. Take a look at Zipp’s Clydesdale wheels and blow the competition away.

404 Clydesdale Tubular
Like a very hot butcher knife through melted butter.
Our most aerodynamic wheelset, designed for use in the broadest range of racing conditions, offering the weight savings of tubular tires. The Clydesdale model adds greater strength with extra spokes for the bigger, more powerful athlete while proving that racers don’t have to be lightweight to compete.

These 404’s are specifically designed and manufactured for the bigger more powerful athlete without compromising aerodynamics or overall performance. While 404’s are well-respected in the triathlon world, they are excellent in road race and time trial applications for Team Clydesdale members due to the specific method of manufacturing we employ. All wheels utilize the Zipp 84 and 202 rear cassette hubs, the new reinforced Pave 360 tubular rim, advanced bearing technology, and the finest spokes in the world. All tubular wheelsets feature the Zipp exclusive Silica Ceramic braking surface while the clinchers are manufactured using the m2cm patent pending molding technology and precision machined aluminum parallel braking surface. Clydesdale athletes prove you don’t have to be a lightweight to compete.

Zipp Clydesdale wheelsets prove that light and strong performance wheels are available to everyone.

Highly Recommended: ZIPP highly recommends the use of ZIPP Carbon/Carbon brake pads for all ZIPP rims and wheelsets. ZIPP Carbon/Carbon pads are engineered for optimal performance and rim longevity under all (including extreme) conditions with both Silica-Ceramic and Aluminum braking surfaces. ZIPP Carbon/Carbon pads are also recommended for use with non-ZIPP products. To find out more about ZIPP Carbon/Carbon pads click here.

Other recommended pads are Shimano or Campagnolo pads designed for use with carbon rims, and KoolStop Black pads.

Total average weight:
700c - front 622g, rear 768g

Average rim weights:
700c - 408g

Rim Depth:
58mm ICT Carbon/graphite composite rim w/ Silica Ceramic braking surface. ABLC dimpling technology applied to rim surface. Zipp specified brake pads.

Spoke Count:
700c - 24 spoke front, 28 spoke rear

Spoke Type:
Sapim CX-Ray spokes and alloy nipples

Hubs:
ZIPP 202 rear hub / 202g and ZIPP 84 frt. hub / 84g

Free Hub Body:
Available in Shimano and Campagnolo system compatible versions. Quick Change free hub body system for full cross system compatibility.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

404 Clydesdale Clincher
Come see how the big boys play.
Our most aerodynamic wheelset, designed for use in the broadest range of racing conditions, retains the convenience of clincher tires. The Clydesdale model adds greater strength with extra spokes for the bigger, more powerful athlete while proving that racers don’t have to be lightweight to compete.

These 404’s are specifically designed and manufactured for the bigger more powerful athlete without compromising aerodynamics or overall performance. While 404’s are well-respected in the triathlon world, they are excellent in road race and time trial applications for Team Clydesdale members due to the specific method of manufacturing we employ. All wheels utilize the Zipp 84 and 202 rear cassette hubs, advanced bearing technology and the finest spokes in the world. All tubular wheelsets feature the Zipp exclusive Silica Ceramic braking surface while the clinchers are manufactured using the m2cm patent pending molding technology and precision machined aluminum parallel braking surface. Clydesdale athletes prove you don’t have to be a lightweight to compete. Zipp Clydesdale wheelsets prove that light and strong performance wheels are available to everyone.

Highly Recommended: ZIPP highly recommends the use of ZIPP Carbon/Carbon brake pads for all ZIPP rims and wheelsets. ZIPP Carbon/Carbon pads are engineered for optimal performance and rim longevity under all (including extreme) conditions with both Silica-Ceramic and Aluminum braking surfaces. ZIPP Carbon/Carbon pads are also recommended for use with non-ZIPP products. To find out more about ZIPP Carbon/Carbon pads click here.

Other recommended pads are Shimano or Campagnolo pads designed for use with carbon rims, and KoolStop Black pads.

Total weight:
700c - 1775g

Wheel weights:
700c - frt. = 813g, rear = 962g

Rim Depth:
58mm Multi-patented rim profile and manufacturing technology.
ICT Carbon/Graphite and alloy composite w/ sub 180g heat treated alloy extrusion. ABLC dimpling technology applied to rim surface.
Welded and Machined braking surface.

Spoke Count:
700c - 24 spoke front, 28 spoke rear

Spoke Type:
Sapim CX-Ray spokes and alloy nipples

Hubs:
ZIPP 202 rear hub / 202g and ZIPP 84 frt. hub / 84g

Free Hub Body:
Available in Shimano and Campagnolo system compatible versions. Quick Change free hub body system for full cross system compatibility.



909 Clydesdale
Bigger, stronger, faster, longer.
This is the ultimate wheelset for bigger, more powerful athletes who really want to go fast. Built for uncompromising speed and performance, these 909’s are blisteringly quick. They are designed to fully harness your power and ensure all the energy you put into your drive train translates directly to forward motion. Built only as a tubular wheelset, and incorporating our new disc manufacturing technology, the 909s represent the finest wheel technology in the world.

Highly Recommended:
ZIPP highly recommends the use of ZIPP Carbon/Carbon brake pads for all ZIPP rims and wheelsets. ZIPP Carbon/Carbon pads are engineered for optimal performance and rim longevity under all (including extreme) conditions with both Silica-Ceramic and Aluminum braking surfaces. ZIPP Carbon/Carbon pads are also recommended for use with non-ZIPP products.

Other recommended pads are Shimano or Campagnolo pads designed for use with carbon rims, and KoolStop Black pads.

Total average wheelset weight:
700c - tubular, front 622g, disc rear 960g

Disc average weight:
700c - 960grams

Braking Surface:
Silica Ceramic braking surface front and rear.
Zipp specified brake pads.

Rim:
Multi-patented rim profile and manufacturing technology
New ABLC dimpling technology applied to rim surface

Spoke Count:
700c - 24 spoke front

Spoke Type:
Sapim CX-RAY bladed stainless steel

Hubs:
ZIPP 202 rear hub/202g and ZIPP 84 front hub/84g

Free Hub Body:
Available in both Shimano and Campagnolo versions. Quick change free hub bodies interchange for cross-system compatibility.



900/840 Disc
The new dimpled disc.
Fast as hell.

The Zipp disc is simply the lightest, most aerodynamically efficient wheel of its kind, ever. And because it is even lighter than most aluminum-rimmed “climbing” wheels, gone are the days when this little demon was relegated to only flat course dominance.

A culmination of over 14 years of disc manufacture and design including literally thousands of National, World, and Olympic medals in dozens of disciplines throughout the last century, the new Zipp discs set a new standard for this century by which all others must be judged. Since every piece of carbon cloth, every hand-laid step in the manufacture of the disc had changed for 2003, many thought that we could rest on our laurels for 2004. So we redesigned the tooling and further perfecting the processing to better optimize the size and shape of each specific dimple, and for good measure we reduced weight at the perimeter edge.Thus, further reducing that critical rotational moment of inertia to well under any traditional aluminum rim and wire spoked wheel. Once again, we have had the opportunity to push the envelope of new alloy usage through our partnership with Alcoa, resulting in even stronger and stiffer hub components. Furthermore, the new disc hub continues to be the world’s only interchange from cassette to track compatibility, again only requiring two tools and a few seconds to complete the transition.

Zipp 900/Discs
The Zipp disc is simply the lightest, most aerodynamically efficient wheel of its kind, ever. No hype, no speculation, just speed. If you are serious about going fast, this is the logical choice. Because ZIPP discs are very light, gone are the days when discs should be considered a flat course wheel only. The 900 disc is generally lighter than most aluminum rimmed rear wheels considered ‘climbing’ wheels, and with unsurpassed lateral stiffness, low overall weight and a low perimeter mass the ZIPP disc accelerates like no other wheel.

Combine this with a total frontal area of only 19mm and patent-pending ABLC dimpled surface technology and you have a wheel built for serious performance.We feel that your event wheels should have maximum value as well, so your Zipp disc can also perform as a track wheel, or be easily converted between Campagnolo and Shimano compatibility; because your wheels should be able to do everything you need them to regardless of how many bikes you have or events you compete in.

Highly Recommended:
ZIPP highly recommends the use of ZIPP Carbon/Carbon brake pads for all ZIPP rims and wheelsets. ZIPP Carbon/Carbon pads are engineered for optimal performance and rim longevity under all (including extreme) conditions with both Silica-Ceramic and Aluminum braking surfaces. ZIPP Carbon/Carbon pads are also recommended for use with non-ZIPP products. Other recommended pads are Shimano or Campagnolo pads designed for use with carbon rims, and KoolStop Black pads.

Disc average weight:
700c - 965 grams

Braking Surface:
Silica Ceramic braking surface. Zipp specified brake pads.

Disc Surface:
Patent pending ABLC skin. Aerospace type construction using unidirectional Carbon Fiber over hollow Kevlar honeycomb core material.

Hub:
ZIPP Rapid Transition Cassette for road and track compatibility.

Free Hub Body:
Available in both Shimano and Campagnolo cassette versions as well as track compatible stainless steel axle system. Quick-change freehub bodies interchange with track axle for cross-system compatibility.

Nimble wheels for Clydesdales

Nimbles come highly reccomended by a few overly tall, strong, and heavy riders that I know. Nimbles are hard to beat for the strength/weight to cost ratio.

William

**************************************

Our uniquely strong and tough materials capability allows us make very light and aero wheels. It also lets us make very strong wheels. By emphasizing strength as a primary design objective, we have adapted CROSSWIND and FLY technology to suit the performance needs of Clydesdale riders.

Strong Service
Like all our wheels, these wheels come with 4 way service support. This includes: a 30 day satisfaction guarantee, a one year warranty, a no-fault reduced-price replacement program, and a consumer direct design quality model that puts our product design staff directly in touch with consumers and holds them responsible for customer service.

CROSSWIND ClydesdaleTM has all the world's best aero and acceleration advantages of the standard CROSSWIND model. We have added 130 grams of our strongest and highest modulus (stiffest) materials to the design, bringing the weight of the wheelbody from 600 to only 730 grams. In tubular models this makes a 840 gram front wheel and 970 gram rear wheel.

CROSSWIND Clydesdale™ wheelbodies are nearly identical in exterior shape to the standard CROSSWIND. The reinforcement has been added primarily to the interior (with only a slight increase in body width) where it has no impact on the superior aerodynamics.

The tubular rim gains only 60 grams to maintain a very light 370 grams in the 700C. In the 650C tubular model it gains only 55 grams to become 345 grams. These remain extreme performers in low inertia, high acceleration. Clincher rims add another 70 grams (also see Clincher).

The Clydesdale CROSSWIND is nominally rated to 280 lb riders (see weight limits for details). The lateral stiffness is 45% greater than our standard CROSSWIND model. It is offered in 650C and 700C models with tubular and (currently 700C only) clincher style rims. Please note that we recommend tubular style for heavy rider because are excellent for strength, toughness and performance (see tubular tire advice). Call us for specific tire recommendations.


Horse FLYTM is a tougher stronger FLY rim laced with a few more spokes into a remarkable race quality wheel for riders needing both strength and extreme performance. The Horse FLY rim adds only 40 grams of uninterrupted ultra high modulus (stiff) material to the standard FLY bringing the rim weights from 340 to only 380 grams (700C) and 310 to 350 grams (650C). This rim alone is capable of supporting 900 lbs without being built into wheel. Spoke counts are 28 front and 32 rear.

The front hub is toughened to mountain bike standards with a 17mm axle and larger flanges and bearings to carry higher loads. The front hub adds only 52 grams to become 120 grams (versus the 68 grams standard).

The rear hub has larger diameter flanges, with a more inboard non-drive side flange. This creates better spoke tension balance between the drive and non-drive spoke, creating a higher strength wheel with greater durability and torque transfer. This hub comes in both Shimano 8/9 and Campy 9/10 (pictured at left) compatible spline configurations.

Horse FLY is nominally rated to 250 lb riders (see weight limits for details). The lateral stiffness is 25 to 40% greater than already stiff standard FLY models. It is offered in 650C and 700C models with tubular style rims. Tubulars are excellent for strength, toughness and performance (see tubular tire advice). Call us for specific tire recommendations.


Nimble sells directly to riders. If you have any questions please call or contact us. Talking with riders is one of the many benefits of being a direct seller of our own products. Thank you! We are delighted by your interest. (See contact us).
Nimble
13017-D Fitzhugh Rd.
Austin, TX 78736-6536
tel: 1-800-531-6331
tel: 1-512-502-1088
fax: 1-512-502-0490
url: www.nimble.net
email: product@nimble.net

Visit the Nimble web site for weights and specs.

Wednesday, February 16, 2005

Big Strong Wheels for Big Strong Riders

This is a response from BigMac to my question about wheels for big guys. As usual he hits the nail on the head. This is frpm the Serotta Forum.

William

********************************************

Big Boy Wheels:

William:

I am not your size and probably considerably older and less skilled. I am however a very muscular 6'2" 230lbs. My first suggestion would be to avoid Mavic K's, with all due respect to the gentleman who suggested them. K's are simply not designed for anyone our size, they will self-destruct in under 1000 miles. The cracking eyelets have been a long standing issue with many alloy rims using SS eyelets, the Mavic K's seem to suffer this more than most but honestly most similarly designed rims can have these problems and in many instances it does not effect structural integrity of wheel. The K's however lack torsional stiffness of a big guy wheel, I can easily produce enough flex to cause rear brake pad rub during in saddle climbing, out of saddle sprints are far worse often accompanied by loud popping, creaking and several spoke failures. Mind you, my expiences are with the sewup version but in most cases these are torsionally stiffer than the wire-on versions.

For prebuilt wheels, I'd follow Sr Jerk's suggestion of Bontrager Race X-Lite sewup. Great wheel, low dish, sewup, great customer support. The Campy Nucleon (aka Neutron) sewup olso features assyemtric rim/reduced dish design however its slightly lower torsional stiffness and customer support pales in comparison to Trek(Bontrager's parent). Sounds like you may be a wire-on/clincher guy, I won't hold that against you but would suggest sewups for best performance, handling, feel and strength. For clincher prebuilts, I'd suggest the Campy Eurus followed by Bontrager Race Lite. The Eurus has worderful torsional stiffness that beats out even the great Race X-Lite sewups. The Race-Lite clincher is lower priced clincher only version of X-Lite offering same performance and 2 extra rear spokes plus Trek support.

If you would like to use custom handbuilt wheels, the options are fewer but the results will be significantly less $$ and potentially stronger rear wheels. Unfortunately, there is not a sufficiently strong sewup rim readily imported in 'States thus I would again reiterate the suggestion for the Race X-Lite prebuilt wheelset as my top choice for sewup wheels. For handbuilt clinchers, the Bontrager Aurora assymetric rim is the best clincher rim available anywhere. Nice alloy rim, welded joint and assyemtric 32H drilling for reduced dish. Lace'em up with Campy or Shimano hubs and they should need very minimal servicing or care for 5k miles at the very least. If you needed any extra assurance, Phil Wood (Shimano spline only) or White Ind (Campy or Shimano spline) hubs are also available in several drilling patterns and feature flange designs which will further reduce spoke tension imbalances in rear wheels. Mind you these are considerably more $$ than C/S hubs and probably overkill for your needs (highly recommended for loaded touring uses however) but it is an option. Avoid King, Edco and several other "lightweight" hubs, they actually increase wheel dish due to poor flange designs, bad news for big guys like you and I. I would also suggest a straight 14g driveside spoke 3x lacing -- a very good friend of mine similar in size and fitness to you(he recently retired from NFL as TE) used DT's butted 13/14g spokes on driveside and his wheels are absolutely bombproof. For leftside (non-drive) rear use a butted 14/15g spoke with 2x lacing, the spoke length and tension left-right will be almost completely equal which results in a VERY strong, durable and torsionally stiff rear wheel. Best of luck.

Ride on!

*********************************
Big Boy Wheels cont...

William:

I'm not really looking to "convince" you to change your ways, I merely suggest you try a quality sewup and let the experience do the convincing. During my frequent travels i often ride loaner bikes and I can assure you the minute I take the initial pedal stroke and just the slightest nudge on the bars, I can identify whether the bike I am riding has clinchers or sewups. If its clinchers I just do not enjoy the experience of riding nearly as much.

I would like to correct a misnomer you seemed to have acquired regarding sewups, clinchers are FAR more prone to roll-off than a sewup. Pro's still use sewups predominantly, by a very wide margin. In fact, many teams and vendors go to great lengths to disguise a sewup to appear like the sponsors' clincher tire for marketing-sponsorship reasons. Why are sewups the pro's tire of choice? Reduced rolling resistance, ride quality and cornering ability are important but somewhat minor factors from race support standpoint. The primary reason is that when a clincher punctures, it flats in under 30 seconds and is basically unrideable. If one was to be descending at high speeds, a puncture could very likely cause a roll-off and very severe crash. Conversely, short of a blown casing, a sewup puncture will cause a very slow leak allowing the rider to continue racing for several minutes while race support vehicle can provide wheel replacement assistance. This alone can save 2 or more minutes for a single rider. A sewup is in fact glued to the rim but that is actually a supplemental retention system. The primary retention is the tires inflation pressure. Unlike a wire-on where the higher the psi, the greater the pressure on bead and casing to prevent dismount, a sewup actually increases it grip on rim as psi increases.

If you're worried about glue softening due to brake induced heat build-up, the easiest response is to improve your descending skills such that you will not need to brake as often. You should basically never use a rim brake enough to cause excessive heat build up in racing or hard training conditions, this is only a concern for loaded touring bike riders. Not good enough? If front brake begins to feel soft or fade due to said heat build up, use a H2O bottle and apply 2-3 light, steady squirts at backside of forkcrown.

Joseba's roll-off was in fact a sewup however it is my understanding from 2 of the now former Once mechanics that the tire in question had flatted prior to the roll-off. This is based on some unscientific video review but primarily a close examination of the tire in question which had a severely punctured casing when examined. Interestingly (or frighteningly as it were), Joseba does not recall much of the actual events leading to his crash.

Enough about sewups v clinchers, the modern clincher is infinitely better than the clinchers of old and if you're happy with'em, no problem. Find a local wheelsmith and have them lace up a set using the Bontrager assyemtric rim in rear, you should have trouble free wheels for many thousands of miles. I would encourage you to use a local wheelsmith only. I would personally never recommend any mail order/online wheelsmith to anyone, but for someone your size it would be even more critical. Big guys like you are hard on all wheels, no matter the quality of build. An occasional tweak or trueing is to be expected, many local wheelsmiths will either not touch a wheel they did not build or will charge a very high fee for any adjustments and offer no warranty for said work. If its a good local wheelsmith, they will provide spoke repairs/replacements at no charge along with any adjustments on wheels they have originally built. Check with local cycling clubs for the referrals, there is usually 1 or 2 local wheelsmiths who's name and reputation exceeds all others. If you are located in SF BayArea, the best wheelsmith is in Berkeley, I'll be happy to give you his name if you require.

Ride on!

Off-The Peg Cross bikes for big guys? No way!

BigMac responds to a question about "off-the-peg" cross frames for big boys. Do they exist?

William

********************************************************

BigMac :

Are you not the young lad in the 260lb range? If so, why would you even consider off-the-peg frame? I do not know your riding experience but my personal experience suggests you are considerably too large and strong for ANY off-the-peg frame. At my relatively diminutive 230lbs, I have broken numerous frames, most custom built with my size/strength in mind. I once went on a demo ride using a team racing support bike that had just had the plastic wrap removed and been assembled by the mechanics yet the right cs snapped on the 3rd or 4th out of saddle stroke up a very mild incline, less than 5km's into ride...14 stitches later to my right shin I knew I shouldn't have ridden such a flyweight frame. I'm not suggesting you'll have similar results with all off-the-peg frames but I am suggesting there is likely not a single off-the-peg frame that will provide even 5k miles of service to someone your size w/o some structural failure. You can pay a few extra bucks now for a properly designed and sized frame or pay similar amount for the same after you've wasted $1000 on the off-the-peg frame that fails...and hopefully does not cause injury during failure.

As for sizing, I would focus more on ST angle and TT length rather than "frame size" which usually reflects ST length, a meaningless dimension imo. There is also a broad differentiation in defining "cyclo-cross" geometry. Many of the younger (mostly mtb influenced) builders consider a 'cross bike as an mtb w/700c wheels witnessed by high bb's, tall and slack front ends and sloping TT's. The more traditional approach is essentially a 70's racing bike geometry with slightly longer stays for mud clearence and canti braze-ons. A typical example of former would be from IF or Brent Steelman. I know folks who use the Rivendell Atlantis for trail riding but unfortunately it's BB/chainstay design makes it a poor 'cross bike -- a major gaffe by Grant imo is widely splayed round cs's that prohibit usage of low q double cranks.

I would suggest you contact Tom Oswald who is located in relatively nearby western PA. He loves racing 'cross, builds nice lugged steel bikes w/o the foo-foo details that don't matter when you're bombing down narrow single track with rocks and mud pounding the underside of frame. I believe his frame pricing is similar to production frames like Atlantis. He can build a frame that will hold up under your considerable load -- at least longer than any production bike -- and hopefully the wait will not be excessive. Of course you could get a Legend 'cross bike as they are once again building canti-bossed frames but I suspect that is well beyond your intended budget.

Ride on!

Bigmac on Rivendell Redwoods & Big frames

Bigmac responding to Brons2, a 6' 7" rider looking for help on getting the right frame for his size.

William

****************************************************************

One thing you need to be aware of with Rivendell sizing is that frame sizes are listed by measuring ST from center BB-top of TT @ seatlug. Most frames, including Serotta are measure c-c thus a 68cm Riv is roughly 66.5cm Serotta. Honestly, ST length is the least important frame dimension, imo, check out TT length, STA(or setback), cs length and front center for proper fit. Redwood (big Rambulliet) is a very nicely constructed frame and relatively stoudt for a production model. If you're riding is limited to Texas, especially the Dallas area and you have even a marginally smooth cadence, i suspect the Redwood is about the best value in a quality frame you will find. I would have just 2 reservations if I were in your shoes; the quill stem and frame durability.

You are obviously a very large rider, considerably bigger than your average rider and if you have large upper body build you likely generate excessive torque on bars/stem. I am 30lbs your junior, albeit very large and powerful upper body build, and I have bent my share of forged alloy stems. I love the threadless stems and particularly a custom fillet brazed steel stem, they are far less prone to flex/bending than most production gear, particularly the current plethora or weight weenie sub 200g stems which should be avoided by anybody your size (actually they should be avoided by everybody but let's not go there right now). The Redwood uses a threaded fork-quill stem setup, it may be fine for your size if you are gentle on torqueing bars and you avoid stem extensions beyond 11cm max. The other alternative is Riv sells a Nitto-produced lugged steel stem which is apparently extremely stiff and strong, although extraordinarily pricey to boot (>$200). Salsa also offers a TIG welded cr-mo stem but it has minimal quill length and is very soft flexing, ime. Of course Serotta and most other builders are now employing threadless setups in which case I would suggest you purchase a custom filet brazed steel stem of any necessary length, be sure builder of said stem is aware of your size, strength and mass.

The frame durability may be a moot point if you are remotely smooth pedaller and ride in relative flatlands of Texas. If you intend to ride competitively, likely sprinting would be your strength or travel with bike for riding in more vertically challenging terrain, I suspect the Redwood is insufficiently stout in bottom-end. I have personally ridden a 64cm Rambu and honestly felt the lateral movement at BB was sufficient enough while climbing that frame would have failed within couple thousand miles. This however does not make it a bad choice for you riding the flatlands, I could have spun all day on flat ground and enjoyed the frames ability to smooth weathered roadways, its just not a suitable climbing or sprinting frame for bigger, heavier riders. Frame builders must make certain choices for production bikes. If one were to build a production frame intended for a rider your size performing out of saddle sprints or hard climbs, the poor "diminutive average" rider fitting same size frame, weighing 200lbs would likely feel beat up, unable to produce a desirable amount of frame flex. I suspect the 68cm Riv production frames were built around former Riv employee Bhima who stood at least 6'6" but weighed maybe 185lbs...soaked through in the rain If you can find a demo Redwood/Rambu to take for a 30-40 minute spin, that would be an invaluable experience, otherwise frankly anything short of a full custom frame is a crapshoot. FWIW: Serotta makes great bigboy frames, probably the best anywhere, if you can afford it they are your safest choice.

Ride on

***********************************************************
Jim:

My apologies for my previous error in thinking you were located in or around Dallas. I had read the Richardson, Tx shops mentioned and errantly assumed you were located in that area. I do know the distance to Austin is substantial, my inlaws are currently in Richardson and my wife grew up in Plano.

Good to hear you got a fine deal on a Cannondale, if it fits well that is a very good choice for someone of your size. i do believe C'dale has discontinued production of such large frames, you buying an NOS model should have no negative impact, in fact I would say you are a very fortunate fellow.

The wheel issue is fairly common one for folks of all sizes, at least if wheel is poorly built as I suspect. The spokes should have been pretensioned during build -- brought to full tension and trued, then backed off and retensioned and trued -- which I suspect was not done. Your ride simply stretched the spokes as would have occurred with a properly constructed wheel. It does not sound as if significant damage was done to rim so in truth I suspect the wheel could be properly retrued using existing wheel components and you'll be good to go...up to a point. These wheels are really a compromise for your specific needs that will likely require considerable maintainence, more than I would consider acceptable: retrue every 800-1k miles and periodic replacement of individual driveside rear spokes due to breakage. Solutions? Bontrager Aurora OSB rear rim. Available for $39 at any Trek dealer, some may even stock them, others could order with maybe 1 week wait. This is hands down the best available clincher rim on market -- welded joint, assymetric offset drilling, minimal decals/logos -- and its roughly 1/2 the cost of Open Pro/CXP33. Use DT straight 14 guage spokes laced 3x on driveside, DT 14g (you could opt for butted 14/15/14 but honestly that's a few cents more per spoke for absolutely zero benefit) laced 2x on left side w/Bontrager rim, the result will be nearly identical spoke length and tension on each side which equals a very torsionally strong and durable rear wheel. This wheel should be stronger torsionally than a traditional 36H rim of similar mass laced with similar spokes. The next step up would be a Bontrager Fairlane(or Maverick as they have recently changed model names but design is unchanged) OSB 36H rear rim. A bit wider and heavier rim (525g or thereabouts), still welded at joint and assymetric drilled but would require a new 36H rear hub to replace your current 32H unit. Personally, I would opt for the 32H setup, however you will need a much more skilled wheelsmith to perform the build than the one who laced the current setup. Speak to members of local cycling clubs for good recommendations of skilled local wheelsmith's (do NOT go mailorder!), I'm sure you will find at least one in a city like Austin.

Your pedal issues could be a bit more troublesome. The best solution would be to have a friend observe you from behind as you pedal at a normal cadence. Alternatively, use a video camera set at hs shutter on a tripod placed again just behind bicycle just left or right of rear wheel with bike on a stationary trainer. Be sure you are sufficiently stretched and warmed up, pedalling in a normal cadence. Now my suspicion is that you are pronating (or supinating as I forget which is which) wherein the ankle is rolling inward at bottom of stroke. This is a biomechanical issue that could be related to saddle height and/or fitness, strength or physiological issues. If your observer or video camera shows lateral ankle movement, this is in fact your problem, not the pedals per say. Solutions? Lowering saddle a bit can help, generally as your fitness improves, some stretching/yoga is highly recommended as well, you will again want to elevate your saddle for more efficient pedalling stroke. You may also need to experiment with orthotics or arch supports. I would recommend you avoid using running shoes while riding, the elevated foam midsoles may exacerbate your problems. If you are not using toe clips with your platform pedals (or even if you are) try a pair of PowerStraps and use the thinnest soled shoes you have...I prefer Mephisto sandals when I use platform pedals -- I find BMX style platforms (MKS brand) with the stubby knubbs hold my feet pretty well -- using PowerStraps for powering up the hills. If you do choose to convert to a clipless style pedal system with requisite shoes, be sure you identify whether an orthodic type device will be required as this will have significant impact on shoe fit choices. Clipless pedals are generally considerably higher q and stackheight (distance from pedal axle center to shoe platform) than platform pedals, with one exception; the Time brand road pedals. If you truly do require high Q pedals, avoid Time and probably look at Speedplay. They offer a model Zero that allows you to limit float rotation (could be very beneficial if you have lots of lateral movement) but they do have a very disconected feel which takes some acclimating and are very wide Q. Look also offers a model with an adjustable q that can be very wide if needed, the balance of pedals are all pretty similar (moderately wide q compared to traditional quill or platform pedals). The last solution could be to add a 1-2mm stainless washer between pedal and crank arm, this however should be a very last case solution given your size/weight to avoid bending of pedal axle. Best of luck to you.

Ride on!

Spectrum on Big Rider Geometry.

Spectrum on Big Rider Geometry.

Tom Kellogg is another builder whom I have had some e-conversations with about building a frame for my big frame. He is very knowledgeable and I believe is another excellent builder who can accommodate the Clydesdale class. Spectrum is highly recommended and his work is top notch.

William

**************************************************************

Bicycle Geometry for Big Riders
When a tall cyclist looks for a bicycle there just aren't that many options available. You can try a local bike shop but the chances are you and the dealer will quickly become frustrated. Stock frames just aren't designed for big riders so you can forget the fit kit run through. You are beyond the kit's realistic size limits anyway as they are designed to get a beginning cyclist into an entry-level bicycle. If you are serious about cycling and are a tall cyclist Spectrum strongly suggests you investigate a Custom frame. You may not buy it from us (even though we think you should) but Custom is still your best option.

So what should big riders look for in a bicycle frame? Lets start with what they shouldn't do. They should not look for a frame that is simply a bigger version of a production frame. The reasons deal with strength and ride quality. As frames (and their tubes) get longer, the stresses put onto the tubes are increased not only because they are longer, but also because the rider is usually heaver and stronger. The tubes are also more highly stressed because the rider farther from the ground. Big production frames often beef up tubing to compensate. Bad idea! Simple beefing up of the frame tubes will cause the frame to loose its resiliency.

Just as critical as expert material choices is the knowledge required to make a large frame fit and function as well as a standard sized frame. Simply expanding the size of the frame results in a frame that works like a truck. There are a myriad of adjustments that a builder must make to larger frames to make them work properly. Front-end geometry changes may be required to compensate for a longer wheelbase. Rear-center and front centers may require adjustment with changes in seat angle or rider center of gravity. While most large riders require shallower seat angles than smaller riders do, this is not always the case Therefore getting fitted properly is critical. Keep in mind that small changes in seat and head angles have disproportionally large effects on larger frames. If you are confused or just have questions about fit, call me. After you've got the fit nailed down, you have to consider materials. For big riders who tend to eat equipment (you all know who you are) Titanium is an excellent choice. It stands up to abuse better than any material out there and it won't rust either. You can consider Aluminum and Carbon but both have serious drawbacks especially for a larger cyclist. If you are looking for a bicycle that will last longer than a few seasons, consider the fatigue numbers associated with aluminum. Aluminum frames accumulate fatigue over the miles. That fatigue will eventually result in failure. Another problem with many of the aluminum frames now is their lack of vertical compliance. Aluminum frames offer a stiff ride but they do so at the expense of comfort.

Carbon frames are often more comfortable than Aluminum but strength is a serious consideration. Under ideal conditions, composites offer significant weight to strength advantages. Some of the current composite frames on the market work very well. But the real world does not offer ideal conditions very often. If you are a rider who does not expect to crash, be hit by a car, or damage your frame, then carbon may be for you. For a larger rider, the biggest drawback to composite frames is their unavailability. There are one or two custom builders working in composites who can build large frames, but the sources for these frames are severely limited. In short, we suggest that tall cyclists look around for a while and consider options. If you are ready to buy a Custom Frame, we suggest Titanium for strength, durability and ride quality, and steel for its beauty, solid functionality and value. But take your time! If you should decide to go Custom and you choose Titanium, your search should be easy as there are only a handful of us out there. Just look through the "marketplace" sections of The Ride and VeloNews. Talk to your riding friends to find out what they know about other builders, and give Spectrum a call if you want to find out what sets us apart.

If you need some help, print out the Buyers Checklist from this site and start comparing now

1190 Dorney Road, Breinigsville, PA 18031-1123 phone:1-610-398-1986 . www.spectrum-cycles.com

Q & A on crank length with Lennard Zinn.

A Q & A on crank length by Lennard Zinn that was posted in VeloNews.

William

*********************************************

By Lennard Zinn
VeloNews technical writer
This report filed November 18, 2003
Dear Lennard;
What is your formula for measuring crank arm length? I have a 73cm inseam with a size 39 foot. I have been on 170's for two years and have been able to progress with all training except hills. I was becoming frustrated because I'm only 130 pounds and should be able to fly up them. I've tried different styles of climbing, etc. My husband and I decided the lack of a 25 was not the issue; I just could not get on top of the gears I was using. I read your column and we had a 165mm from my son's bike and decided to try.

I feel I'm getting on top of the gear, a good feeling because I feel I have somewhere to start now. My legs and intercostals did cramp up during the hill training rides but that should subside as my legs become accustomed to the new circle. My question- what formula do you use and where did it originate? Does it include the foot measurement? Also, going from 170 to 165 would increase saddle height 5 mm but this is too high (for me). Any thoughts on this?

Thanks for your input!
Erica

Dear Erica;
Take a few minutes to check out this site: www.nettally.com/palmk/crankset.html

I think the formula on this site (21.6 percent of inseam) is pretty good. I have been using 21 percent of inseam for the last three years, and it has been working great, but my experience is primarily on the long end with the tall customers I usually deal with as a frame builder. I had to come up with custom cranks (see www.zinncycles.com/cranks.aspx) as well as higher bottom brackets in order to be able to apply the solutions this formula suggests to tall riders, however.

Another interesting formula yielding similar results comes from fit guru Bill Boston (www.billbostoncycles.com). He suggests measuring your femur (thighbone) from the center of the hip joint to the end of the bone in inches. This number will be your crank length in centimeters. For instance, if you have a 20-inch femur, you would have a 20cm (200mm) crank. He also has proportionality formulas on his site based on femur length that give a very wide range of acceptable crank lengths.

Andy Pruitt, director of the Boulder Center for Sports Medicine and fit expert of many superstars, has a few other things to add. "Crank length formulas using femoral length or leg length are fine," he says. "But if your style is mashing, use longer cranks, and if you are a spinner, shorten them a bit. Mountain bike cranks should be a bit longer for that moment to get you over a rock. Use 2.5mm or 5mm longer for purely time trial usage, and vice versa for the track." Pruitt also warns that, although a Marshall University study showed that all participants regardless of body size went faster over short distances with each increase in crank length, you can hurt yourself if you use cranks too long for your legs. In that case, he says that the compressive and shear forces in the knee joints "go up exponentially," due to the sharper knee bend. (Compressive forces in the knee are stagnant, felt behind the knee. Shear forces are the result of fore-aft sliding of the condyles - cartilage-covered rounded femur ends - as they are rotating on the soft meniscus - cartilage pad - atop the knee platform.) So, do not stray on the long side much beyond this proportionality relationship. Cranks that are too short are not dangerous, however. You may forfeit some power by not using your muscles as effectively, but you put less stress on your knees.

Using your 730mm inseam, Kirby Palm's method (X .216) gives you 158mm, while 0.21 gives 153mm. I think that what is particularly significant is that you clearly recognize that crank length should be proportional to leg length. Foot size only comes into play if you have relatively small or large feet for your leg length. With an exceptionally large foot, the effective leg length and leverage is greater, so the crank should be a bit longer, and vice versa. Seems to me that a size 39 foot with a 73cm inseam is not out of the ordinary.

The 165mm crank is 22.6 percent of your inseam, which is much better than the 23.3 percent that the 170s represented for you.

And yes, your seat should go up by 5mm when going to 165mm from 170mm. So should your handlebar. I don't understand why you say that it would be "too high," since the distance to the pedal is the same.

A side note: Since I get so much mail on this subject, I will take this opportunity to clarify a few things. I published some crank-length tests in VeloNews in 1995 and 1996. Some of you may remember them and will have noted that they certainly did not come out with the 0.21 or 0.216 factor I am espousing here. These tests were either inconclusive or seemed to indicate that all riders, regardless of size, put out more maximum power with super-long (220mm) cranks, and that all riders had lower heart rates at low power outputs with super-short cranks (100 to 130mm). My experimental method in these tests was lacking, and if you click on the Kirby Palm link above you can find that pointed out.

I was simply not willing to stop there, since I knew from personal experience that increasing crank length for a tall rider like myself (6 foot 6 inches) made a difference. When racing in the late 1970s, when I went from 177.5mm to 180mm cranks, the improvement in my results was marked. When I was on the national team in the early 1980s, Eddie Borysewicz, the coach at the time, told me that I should be using even longer cranks yet for time trials and hill climbs. Miguel Indurain also understood this and had the clout to get longer cranks made for him, though. Good cranks longer than 180mm cranks were not available when I was racing, but the past three years I have used 202.3mm and greatly prefer them.

Following up on my interest in the subject, I have conducted other crank tests in the last eight years that improve on those early efforts. However, in understanding what went wrong in those 1995 and 1996 tests, I developed higher standards for what constitutes a publishable test, and my subsequent tests still have not met that standard and thus have not been in VeloNews. Too bad, because I have put a lot of time and effort into a number of them! It is one thing if you are a physiology researcher trained to do these sorts of studies and who has funding to do it. It is not easy to do a test in which you eliminate all other variables besides crank length. It requires lots of time, planning, subjects and equipment. Hardly the type of thing that is realistic to undertake with no budget in order to write one article for a cycling magazine where another article on a different subject is due right on its heels.

Anyway, I have conducted all of these recent tests on the road and primarily with tall riders (6 foot 5 and over) because it was simpler and cheaper to use my personal stable of bikes than to always be switching cranks on other people's bikes. By being willing to take my custom crank length recommendations, my tall custom frame customers have also graciously acted as test subjects. While having data showing tall people going faster and generating more power with proportional-length cranks on my own personal bikes is great, testimonials from people may be even more valuable. And my customers always rave about how much more comfortable, natural and powerful they feel on extra-long cranks proportional to their leg length. Tall mountain bike customers report being able to smoothly power over obstacles they could not have before. And the higher bottom bracket makes hitting the chainrings on logs and the like almost impossible, yet the rider's center of gravity is no higher (since the bottom foot is still the same height above the ground due to the longer crank).

All of this indicates clearly enough to me that crank length must be proportional to rider size in some way. Whether you decide it is proportional to leg length, thigh length, overall height or something else is a minor point relative to that. The same goes for what you think the constant of proportionality should be. It could be something different from 0.21 or 0.216, but whatever it is, it will indicate for a lot of people that they should be using a vastly different length than they are. That is the part that is very hard to accept for a lot of people.

No matter our size, all of us are by and large all stuck on cranks of the same length. The 3 percent difference between a 170mm and a 175mm hardly constitutes a length choice, and the 180mm length available in only high-end components still does not broaden the range much. Accepting that cranks should be scaled up or down with rider size opens up a whole can of worms that an awful lot of riders and component companies would just as soon stayed closed.

Obviously, economies of scale of producing cranks go out the window if you have to supply a range from say, 140mm to 220mm. The same goes for bike frames; if a manufacturer increases the bottom bracket height with every increase in frame size in order to accommodate crank arms proportional to the size of the rider, its costs and complexity of frame jigs goes up.

There are obvious practical reasons to stick with the status quo. Those may have to do with what is best for the rider's pocketbook but not necessarily what is best for the rider's performance and comfort. No other conclusion makes sense to me. If you accept that muscles and joints work most effectively when operating in a certain range of motion, then it only makes sense that muscles, bones and tendons work that way for everyone. Short riders should not be required to force their muscles through a greater range of motion than the person with an 80cm inseam riding a 172.5mm crank. And on the other end, 7-foot basketball players do not bend their legs any less when they jump than shorter players. So why should they use minimal knee bend and operate their muscles only through a tiny part of their range when they ride a bike?

Whew! That was a long answer. Sorry.
Lennard

Lennard Zinn; A big guy who builds big bikes.

At one point in time when I was looking to have a custom frame built, I had narrowed it down to two builders, Serotta & Lennard Zinn. At the time, a lot of my fellow racers were riding Serottas so I had a lot of knowledgable people close by for refrence. Zinn was a consideration for me and I talked with Mr. Zinn a number of times over the phone about size and fit. The only problem was that up until that point I had only seen one Zinn up close, and it was a TT bike built for an average sized rider. This was at the National TT event held in Seattle in 94 or 95. The guy was a competitor so I didn't get to see it for too long. In the end I went with Serotta, and they built a fine machine. But I would still consider letting Mr. Zinn build me one next time I'm ready for a new rig.

William
**********************************************
Big and Tall Custom Frames
The biggest frame builder in existence builds big frames. Makes big sense! At 6'6" Lennard Zinn knows what it takes. Light, strong, stable and comfortable custom road and mountain bikes for people from 6'3" and up.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you are over 6'3", our Big and Tall Custom Bike may be the bicycle you have dreamed of but thought could not be found. You are well aware of the difficulties in finding a bicycle to fit you and perform well. I am 6'6" myself and have been building and designing frames for tall riders for over 22 years. Unlike shorter designers, I am able to ride big bikes and evaluate whether they perform to my standards, and I intimately appreciate the compromises in fit and performance that tall riders are traditionally asked to make.

Custom Zinn road and hardtail mountain frames for tall riders are built out of steel or titanium and are designed specifically to address the fit, rigidity, handling and shimmy problem that normally plague the bikes of tall riders. Our full suspension frames go up to XXL (23") and XXXL (25") with 29" wheels for proper positioning and improved handling for tall people with suspension systems designed specifically for big riders.

I am familiar with the shimmy and shake that many tall bicycles get at high speeds or riding with no hands, and I design my bikes to eliminate it. I know how whippy a tall frame can be standing or sprinting, and my designs address that as well. While being stiff, stable, and shimmy free, these frames are also built with the strongest available double-butted tubing-- True Temper OX Gold or Platinum or with oversized high-strength 3A1/2.5V titanium tubing. You get a long-lasting frame with a weight that belies its stiffness, strength and durability.

Big and Tall Custom Bikes are built with oversized tubing and unique frame geometry. The oversized tubing minimizes weight while maximizing stiffness and increasing the resonant frequency of the frame (thus reducing shimmy). The top tube is long enough for proper upper body extension, and by lowering and sloping the top tube we are able to make the bike stiffer, lighter, better. The bottom bracket is raised to accomodate for the crank length you select. The front end geometry provides great stability and minimizes shock transfer into the frame.

On road frames, the seat tube is shortened, and the top tube is lowered to stiffen the main triangle. The head tube on Big and Tall Custom road frames is reinforced and extends 1-1/2" to 3-1/2" above the top tube, making the effective frame size taller than the seat tube length indicates to maintain sufficient handlebar stem height. This design feature increases the rigidity of these tall frames and eliminate high-speed shimmy problems while still allowing the seat and stem to be set as high as needed. By lowering the top tube, the vertical dimension of the frame's front and rear triangles is smaller, resulting in a stiffer frame that will not twist back and forth as easily. We also suggest sloping the top tube to gain even more of the benefits described above. An oversized seatpost (29.8mm on steel big frames and 28.6mm on titanium ones) delivers abundant rigidity with the shorter seat tube.

True Temper makes custom Alpha Q carbon road forks specifically for our Big and Tall road frames. Unlike most carbon forks, which have a steering tube that is around 300mm long, ours is 450mm long! So we can build a bike for a seven-footer and still end up trimming some length off of the fork steerer. Furthermore, the carbon steerer is over twice as thick as the carbon steerers found on other forks, giving it much greater rigidity (a big issue with such a long steerer and a big rider) and strength.

Our mountain frames have sloped top tubes to allow for better clearance and also accept a 29.8mm or 28.6mm seatpost (depending on whether it is a steel or titanium frame), which is better able to handle the long seatpost extension of a tall rider.The head tube accepts 1-1/8" steering tubes and works with standard-length threadless steering tubes from Rock Shox, Manitou, Marzocchi, Fox, and others. As I mentioned on the Custom Mountain Bike page, the 29" wheel option is a good one for tall riders, especially those over 6'6", since the length of the steering tube on a suspension fork no longer is a limiting factor for the handlebar height on a tall rider's bike. The big wheels also roll over obstacles better, increase the bike's stability, and they are in proportion with the tall frame.

We also recommend that tall riders consider purchasing our custom cranks, since a longer crank provides a great leverage advantage and offsets the weight and wind-resistance advantage that small riders have over us. By specifying the crank length at time of frame order, I can make the bottom bracket height appropriate to that crank, so your pedal clearance will be sufficient. Since the bottom foot ends up at the same height above the ground as with a shorter crank and lower bottom bracket, the rider's center of gravity is also the same height above the ground. The frame can also be a bit stiffer and lighter as well, since the seat tube is correspondingly shortened from the bottom up as well.

Our Big and Tall custom frames are built to the same high quality standards as all Zinns. Steel and titanium frames are TIG-welded, or fillet-brazing is an option with steel frames. Steel frames are custom painted and clear coated to your specifications, while this is an option with titanium ones.

To see a variety of frames built with components, please see our bike gallery. You can also see available colors for Zinn Cycles Custom Frames

We also supply Custom Cranks and Ultra-Long-Steerer Carbon Forks.

Lennard Zinn on Big Cranks for Big Folks.

One of the things I discovered when I went to a longer crank (180mm vs 175mm) length was that I was able to utilize more of my natural power climbing. It also enhanced my psuedo-sprinter style in that I could turn more gear at a slightly slower pace. It may not seem like 5mm could make such a big difference, but for me it really did. I probably could go even longer but so far 180mm cranks have been berry, berry guud, ta meh!. ;-)

William

**************************************************************************

Why custom cranks and how long to get them? Here is the formula I recommend:
Crank length (mm) = Inseam (mm) X 0.216

Or, more conservatively for tall riders:
Crank length (mm) = Inseam (mm) X 0.21



Another formula that I like is from fit guru Bill Boston (www.billbostoncycles.com) and comes up with similar results. He suggests measuring your femur (thighbone) from the center of the hip joint to the end of the bone in inches. This number will be your crank length in centimeters. For instance, if you have a 20” femur, you would have a 20cm (200mm) crank.

Andy Pruitt, director of the Boulder Center for Sports Medicine and fit expert of many superstars, has a few other things to add. “Crank length formulas using femoral length or leg length are fine,” he says. “But if your style is mashing, use longer cranks, and if you are a spinner, shorten them a bit. Mountain bike cranks should be a bit longer for that moment to get you over a rock. Use 2.5mm or 5mm longer for purely time trial usage, and vice versa for the track.” Pruitt warns that, although one study showed that everybody was faster with a super-long crank over short distances, you can hurt yourself if you do not stick to proportionality. Pruitt goes on to say that if you use cranks too long for your legs, the compressive and shear forces in the knee joints “go up exponentially.” (Compressive forces in the knee are stagnant, felt behind the knee. Shear forces are the result of fore-aft sliding of the condyles – cartilage-covered rounded femur ends – as they are rotating on the soft meniscus – cartilage pad – atop the knee platform.)

What else to change?
Before I get into the whys and wherefores of these formulas for crank length, I want to tell you what other ramifications adjusting the crank length has on your bike position. If you increase your crank length, you should, at a minimum, lower your saddle and stem by the amount of the change. This maintains the same pedal-to-saddle reach. You could argue that you should also push the saddle forward and increase your stem length by the amount of the change as well. This adds some complexity, because the seat and handlebar should also go up half the distance of the forward movement as well, to maintain the same pedal-to-saddle distance and saddle-to-bar drop. The inverse is true if you switch to a shorter crank – raise the saddle and bar the amount of the length change and perhaps adjust the saddle aft. With a longer crank, your pedal clearance in a corner will be reduced, and vice versa with a shorter crank. So, ideally, the frame’s bottom bracket height should be greater with the longer crank and lower with the shorter one. And since more or less of your leg extension will be taken up in the crank if it is longer or shorter, the seat tube should be shortened or lengthened accordingly (from the bottom, by raising or lowering the bottom bracket).


Why proportionality between leg and crank length?
No other conclusion makes sense to me. Muscles and joints work most effectively when operating in a certain range of motion. Short riders should not be required to force their muscles through a greater range of motion than the person with an 80cm inseam riding a 172.5mm crank. And on the other end, 7-foot basketball players do not bend their legs any less when they jump than shorter players. So why should they use minimal knee bend and operate their muscles only through a tiny part of their range when they ride a bike?


I published some crank-length tests in VeloNews in 1995 and 1996. These tests were either inconclusive or seemed to indicate that all riders, regardless of size, put out more maximum power with super-long (220mm) cranks, and that all riders had lower heart rates at low power outputs with super-short cranks (100 to 130mm). My experimental method in these tests was lacking in those tests, but I was simply not willing to stop there, since I knew from personal experience that increasing crank length for a tall rider like myself (6’6”) makes a difference. It also made sense to me that there must be a limitation dependent on rider size for how long you can go. In the late 1970s, when I went from 177.5mm to 180mm cranks, the improvement in my racing results was marked. In 1980 when I was on the national team, coach Eddie Borysewicz told me that I should be using yet longer cranks for time trials and hill climbs, but I never found anything longer at that time. Since then, I have continued to experiment, lately using the range of cranks that Bruce Boone built for those 1996 tests (eight cranks, evenly spaced between 100mm and 220mm) and find that I am very happy with 202.3mm cranks.

Thus encouraged, I have conducted other crank studies in recent eight years. However, in understanding what went wrong in those 1995 and 1996 tests, I developed higher standards for what constitutes a publishable test, and my subsequent tests still have not met that standard. Too bad, because I have put a lot of time and effort into a number of them! It is one thing if you are a physiology researcher trained and funded to do these sorts of studies. It is not easy to do a test in which you eliminate all other variables besides crank length. It requires lots of time, planning, willing (read, paid) subjects and equipment. It’s hardly the type of thing that is realistic to undertake with no budget in order to write one article for a cycling magazine which still expects an article on something else every two weeks as well. Anyway, I have conducted all of these recent tests on the road with tall riders (6’5” and over) because it was simpler and cheaper to use my personal stable of bikes than to always be switching cranks on other people’s bikes. By being willing to take my custom crank recommendations, my tall custom frame customers have also have graciously acted as test subjects. Besides having data showing people going faster and generating more power on my own personal bikes, it is hard to deny it when you have many people raving about how much more comfortable, natural and powerful they feel on cranks proportional to their leg length. On mountain bikes, tall customers report being able to smoothly power over obstacles they could not have before. And the higher bottom bracket I built into the frame makes hitting the chainrings on logs and the like almost impossible, yet the rider’s center of gravity is no higher (since the bottom foot is still the same height above the ground due to the longer crank).

The results indicate clearly enough to me that crank length must be proportional to rider size in some way. Whether you decide it is proportional to leg length, thigh length, overall height or something else is a minor point. The same goes for what you think the constant of proportionality should be. It could be something different from 0.21 or 0.216, but whatever it is, it will indicate for a lot of people that they should be using a vastly different length than they are. That is the part that is hard to accept for a lot of people. No matter our size, we are by and large all stuck on cranks of the same length. The 3% difference between a 170mm and a 175mm hardly constitutes a length choice, and the 180mm you can find in only top-end component groups still does not broaden the range much. Accepting that cranks should be scaled up or down with rider size opens up a whole can of worms that a lot of riders and component companies would just as soon stayed closed. Obviously, economies of scale of producing cranks go out the window if you have to supply a range from say, 140mm to 220mm. The same goes for bike frames; if a manufacturer increases the bottom bracket height with every increase in frame size in order to accommodate crank arms proportional to the size of the rider, its costs and complexity of frame jigs goes up.

There are obvious practical reasons to stick with the status quo. Those may have to do with what is best for the rider’s pocketbook but not what is best for the rider’s performance and comfort.


The constant of proportionality
Okay, if you have accepted the idea of a proportional relationship between leg and crank length, how would you come up with the constant of proportionality relating them? I propose that one way would be by looking at what works for a wide range of riders. For instance, the world is full of successful bike racers with 80cm (31.5”) inseams. Thirty years ago, racers with inseams this length probably would have been racing on 170mm cranks. Nowadays, they would likely be on the extremely popular 172.5mm length. (In 2003, approximately 50% of the high-end carbon road cranks that FSA sold were 172.5mm, 35% were 175mm, and only 15% were 170mm. Campagnolo’s approximate 2003 sales numbers were 60% in 172.5mm, 30% in 170mm and 10% in 175mm. That is a big change from around 1970, when the vast majority of all high-end road cranks were 170mm.) If a rider has an 800mm (80cm) inseam, 170/800 = 0.2125. In other words, a 170mm crank would be 21.3% of an 80cm leg length. Furthermore, a 172.5mm would be 21.6% of it, while 165mm would be 20.6% and 175mm would be 21.9%. So, if you multiply a rider’s inseam in millimeters by 0.213 or 0.216, you will determine a crank in the same proportion as a 170mm or 172.5mm for a rider with an 80cm inseam. Both riders’ knees and hips will go through the same bending range, and their muscles will reach the same extension and contraction.


If you want to be conservative on the long end, you could go with 0.21 for the constant. This is what I have been doing for a number of years with my very tall custom frame customers. For instance, a 6’7” rider with a 100mm inseam would use a 210mm crank with a 30cm high bottom bracket. Every one of my tall customers opting for custom cranks loves the length. On the other hand, 0.21 gives surprising numbers on the short end, like 168mm for our rider with the 80cm inseam. So you could argue for 0.216, since that yields 172.5mm for an 80cm inseam, consistent with what we see in pro racing. The 6’7” rider’s crankarm gets 6mm longer with 0.216 than 0.21, but notice that we are now haggling over a few millimeters while being centimeters beyond where the tall rider would have been when locked into the normal crank length range.


Can you test for what is ideal for you?
Trying various cranks and seeing how you measure up against other riders with whom you are competitive or timing yourself up a climb you frequently clock is a good way. There are adjustable-length cranks available, but they are boat anchors and increase your stance width, rendering objectivity difficult. On http://www.nettally.com/palmk/Crankset.html Kirby Palm offers some ideas about crank length testing.


*IMPORTANT: Check the tightening torque on your crankarm fixing bolts on your Zinn custom cranks after the first five hours of riding and every 1,000 miles after that. Torque spec for the crankarm fixing bolt is 420-435 inch-pounds (35-36 foot-pounds, or 47-49 N-m)

Zinn Cycles
7437 S. Boulder Rd.
Boulder, CO · 80303 · USA


E-mail us at l.zinn@comcast.net determine the price for orders outside of the continental USA

Tuesday, February 15, 2005

Big Mac on Big Frames.

Here I'm going to seperate out Big Macs response in the previous thread. Very good points were made by other contributors, but think everyone will agree with me that the man knows that of which he speaks.

William

************************************************************

Big Will:

You are definitely on the right track but I do believe I may be able to provide some personal perspective. No I am not your size and perhaps not your strength but quite possibly a similar pedalling style/cadence. I am a relatively diminutive 6'2" 227lb and yes I do own a 64/61 Legend as well as a few lugged steel frames.

I do not believe you will find ANY stock frame that will appropriately meet both your size and strength/stiffness/durability needs. Aluminum and plastic is similarly a poor choice for your needs. Ti is similarly a poor choice with the lone exception of the Legend. Steel can be a very good choice however with some notable compromises albeit at considerable savings versus a Legend.

If you do choose a Legend, it of course will be big $$ but it is in my opinion a "lifetime" investment. I have over 80k miles on my Legend, it's as lively, stable and fun as its maiden ride. I do believe fork choice will be difficult, I use the discontinued F1. I have no real experience with Serotta's F2 but given its Ouzo origins I have very serious doubts about its performance under heavy, aggresive loads such as you and I. The recently introduced Reynolds Peloton is a vast improvement over the Pro in terms of torsional stiffness and feel but it still lags well behind the F1's feel and predictability. I would probably look at a TT Alpha Q or a custom steel fork if I were in your shoes.

I did spend nearly a month (1200+ miles in total) riding a friends Seven Axiom, he is very similar size as you, only 2" shorter. He is a recently retired NFL player of considerable strength and fitness, albeit a bit rougher cadence than I. His frame was custom designed 63/60, moderate sloping TT with stiffest tubes available to Seven at that time (I could be wrong but I have seen no indication Seven can provide larger diameter(stiffer) tubeset). That frame had so little torsional stiffness for its size that I had little trouble causing RD upshifting under moderately hard pedalling loads. That however was not the frames' biggest problem, it had a downright scary front-end stability/shimmy problem that I had not encountered since i had one of those ridiculously light steel Moulton/Fuso's from mid 80's. Nobody building Ti frames has Serotta's Legend tubes which is the only way to really build a frame suitable for your size. You need sufficient TT stiffness to mitigate shimmy/stability issues and fat enough DT and ST to provide sufficient BB stiffness under load. I would also request straight cs's on my Legend, in lieu of the swoopy "S" curve one's. Straight stays are a bit stiffer and your stays will likely be a bit on the long side at maybe 42.25 or more if you use a slack ST angle as I suspect is needed given your size. Longer stays also provide greater clearence for fatter tires which is generally a very good thing for big riders -- 25mm or fatter sewups, never leave home w/o'em. FWIW: my buddy gave his Seven to his little bro' after riding my Legend, he now has his own Legend. Until he rode mine he just had no clue how responsive and stable a Ti frame could be.

So if Legend is beyond your budget, steel can be a very fine choice. Understand however that steel has a somewhat finite life, particularly under the loads provided by you. I have had many steel frames over the years and have been relatively vigilent in maintaining mileage logs, never has one lasted 30k miles w/o a failure, NEVER! Now some were experimental/demo mistakes like my 2 Fuso's but most were custom lugged steel from a plethora of the world's most reknowned custom steel fabricators. A few broke at DT below HT lug, the vaunted "canopener" effect, a few more at base of ST and one at DT base just above BB. Most however failed at right cs, a few mm's behind BB lug, beginning with a crack that when left unchecked resulted in a full wrap-around fracture of cs tube. Most fortunately did not even result in a fall, some however did require a lengthy walk back to civilization.

The real choice for you, imo, is whether you are interested in the slightly smoother, far costlier but lifetime durability of a properly fitted Legend or a custom steel frame for 1/2 the cost, a minimum of 20k miles of servicabilty before a repair is required (if properly designed and built, of course) not to mention the wonderful ride and aesthetics of custom lugged steel. A CSi is certainly an option, as is a Sachs although those both seem like more 'boutique' choices given their relative cost/value. For 30-40% less $$ you could get a similarly beautifully crafted steel frame that will provide equal servicability, probably with far shorter wait. I have personally purchased 2 lugged steel frames in the last 4 years from 2 highly experienced and respected builders nearly half-way around the world from one another. Without any tubing input from me, they chose nearly identical tubesets, semi-custom drawn. In both cases, they used Deda 0.1 (aka Zero Uno) DT's, a vanadium-enriched steel alloy very similar to Columbus Nivacrom. What's unique about these tubes is not the alloy, it's the diameter. Deda provides a tapered(swaged) DT that's 32mm at HT and 35mm at BB, for reference sake a 'traditional' 531 steel DT was 28.6mm (1 1/8") OD. Deda stocks these in something like 0.8mm/0.6mm/0.8mm butting. They will however custom butt these tubes in one-off order if builder has an account with Deda, mine were butted 0.9/0.7/0.9, I was told they can draw as thick as 1.0mm ends if requested. The end result is a very firm BB, not too stiff, just very firm for my size, strength and usage. The TT used by my local builder was a Columbus sourced tube intended for a mtb DT but he was able to find appropriate lugs to fit the tubes OD w/o resorting to 1 1/8" HT or odd-sized seatpin. My custom italian built frame employed more custom drawn tubes throughout, all sourced from Deda using same steel alloy. The result in both cases is superb high-speed stabilty, firm yet resilient ride with proper torsional stiffness at pedals. No, I have not broken either frame but I have no reason to suspect these frames will not fail at somepoint around 25k mark. FWIW: the local bike is a fixed gear and the italian bike resides at my home in Italy which I am at approximately 10 weeks/yr.

Proper sizing is a whole separate issue, as others have noted I too would agree that a 63cm frame seems too small, especially if you're at 2 fists of seatpin. Now some builders will promote 'compact' frames as a means of improving torsional stiffness on large frames. Much like fat, round cs's, this is a REALLY bad idea attempting to compensate for inadequate tubing designs and poor engineering. A big rider will put greater load on seatpin binder, particularly if you're a seated, gear-grinder type which will eventually lead to seatpin failure or seatpin binder failure, either of which could lead to very serious injury. Get a bigger frame. Be sure when you are being fitted that you specify crank arm length and pedal choice. While I am 4" shorter than you -- just barely a fistful of seatpin exposed -- my ST is 1cm longer, measured c-c. Yes, I do have long pbh for my height, I do pedal toes down at bottom of stroke and I use relatively long 177.5 cranks which all contribute to my proper ST height.

If you do choose a Legend, it is possible your wait for frame build may be longer than most if proper tubes are not readily available. I do not know if they regularly stock largest diameter tubes or if these must be special ordered, in fact I believe Serotta has made a few changes to tube sourcing since I bought mine 5 1/2 years ago. My frame did take 2-3 weeks longer than was typical for a Legend per my LBS, maybe it was the paint (a very simple design w/o most decals) or perhaps it was the specially drawn tubes. I do know that at the time I owned a Cannondale Mtb and the DT on my Legend measured at BB was nearly identical OD as the massive Cannondale tubes, the TT on Legend, measured at forward end near HT, is larger diameter than the Cannondale TT. I have had my Legend over 60mph on local mountain descents w/o a single incidence of shimmy or similar stability concerns. These are the ultimate big guy bikes, ime.

The Merckx MXL is likely not built large enough for you, I fit the 63cm(largest size available) and its an absolute perfect fit for my size... and yes I have broken all 3 MXL's I have owned. If you do choose steel, be sure to get silver-brazed lugged steel construction. This is in my experience the best combination of strength AND ease of repair. Remember, just because a tube fails after 25k miles or so, a properly designed and built steel frame can be repaired and likely provide another 25k miles or so before again needing repair. In most cases, i have had my failed frames repaired and they again rode nearly as good as new, after 2 repairs though they seem to have lost much of the steel's life or resilience.

As an aside, I would recommend you change your lifting regimen to lunges and squats. Those inverted leg press machines do not provide a balanced workout and can be very hard on hip flexor and low back injuries. Proper weight training CAN improve explosiveness in sprinting but pedal stroke efficiency is the quickest way to improving speed.

Sorry for being so long winded, this is a topic for which I have endured alot over the years. Besides I'm stuck in a DoubleTree in Tulsa with 14 little 13 year olds and I figured if I get on this computer, the rest of the parents will have to put the kids to bed Best of luck to, glad to see some more big boy riders.

*****************************************************************
posted by Smiley:
I just delivered a CSI for a kid that just graduated from an Ivy League school and was a rower on their varsity team. 6' 4 1/2" and 245 lbs and yearns to get back down to 225 lbs. This kid is all muscels and looks like he could be a tight end in the NFL. Anyway he purchased a 63 ST by 60 TT using a 13 cm stem BUT check this out his STA was 71.5 degree's using an off-set seat post. I set him up with a longer stem cause his current KOP is neutral but my guess is as he gets stronger he'll move back on the saddle rails and then he can shorten his stem so as not to lock out his elbows. I think his bar drop was 7-8 cm . His CSI was built with OS tubing and no complaints from him so far. Serotta has what it takes to build a BIG bike for guys that need it. I am sure if you get a chance to see TT bike you'll be sold on the whole deal. Best of luck big guy .

***************************************************************
Posted by Big Mac:
You bring up an interesting point regarding sizing issues for us folks at the sizing extremes. Body proportions often have larger variations than those of more diminutive size. The young lad you mention is 2 1/2" taller than I, that's over 6cm for the metrically challenged. Despite his larger size, he has been professionally fitted to a frame size that is 1cm smaller in TT and ST. We use identical ST angle for nearly identical KOPS position (I'm 1.2cm behind spindle center), I too use a setback seatpin (Ritchey Pro Road w/ 19mm setback) and relatively long 177.5 cranks. FWIW:Merckx (geos largely influenced by F. Masi and U. DeRosa) has long spec'd larger frames w/sub 72* STA. Why would I, over 6cm shorter, ride a larger frame if both are properly fitted? I would assume Smiley's client is far shorter limbed, relative to his size. I have rather long limbs, for example my pbh is just under 93cm and my wingspan (middle fingertip to middle fingertip measured with arms extended outward from sides, level w/shoulders) is 6'9" -- yah, wide shoulders and long arms in rather ape-like fashion, love them bananas don'tcha know .

TT:
You have an SLX frame with 30k that has never failed? whoa, you must be silky smooth and efficient on frames or very lightweight. I've had a couple SL/SLX frames over the years and they were toast within a year. Are you sure its not SP/SPX (same tubes, just thicker wall thickness/butting)?

BW:
When a chainstay fails, it sounds a bit like a spoke failing, of course if its steel that is. CF and aluminum would have a greater tendency to catastrophically fail w/o warning. This winter I did have a steel cs fail w/o apparent advance warning, it caused a wheel lockup and minor crash. Usually the audible warning noises cause one to stop and dismount before any such drama. In truth, it may have indeed offered an audible warning however it was a very cold morning in Tahoe causing me to wear a wool cap and Gore-tex/fleece hat that may have abated my hearing a bit.

Ride on!

Big Frames for big frames. Part 2

cont.....

Posted by William:

I had never seen a Zinn up close other than a competitors TT bike at the TT nats in Seattle (1995 I think). It was a consideration, Mr. Zinn sent me all the lit and I spoke with him over the phone once about possibly building one for me. I knew a number of racers that had Serottas and liked them. Also the lbs that I went to convinced me that Serotta could make what I needed. So, in the end...



On frames:

This weekend my wife asked me to get her bike out of storage and clean it up (WOO-HOO!!). We picked up a barely used105 equipped, Specialized Allez for her a number of years ago. It was on sale, the price was right, and it fit her. When my bike was done up for team colors I threw hers in too. I cleaned this puppy up, waxed it and put new tubes and tires on it and it looks brand spanking new. Looking at it struck me as to how well we represent the extremes of the Bell curve. I'm riding a 63 and I still have roughly 23 cm of post showing (top of lug to top of saddle). My wifes bike is has a 43 cm ST with about 16 cm of post showing. Her TT slopes down a bit and and it's almost the same height as the back tire. Tiny, tiny, tiny.

It could be good for me that she's getting back into riding...maybe she'll be more likely to ok the custom? Then again, she'll be taking up more disposable income for her gear... Nah! It's all good!

"Hey William, how the heck do you two....."

Ah, ah, ah!! I don't want to hear any of that!!!

William
*********************************************************************

Posted by Sbash:

Hey William!

Have you thought of a Merckx MX Leader if they have one in your size. I'am just a little wimpy dude of 210/215 lbs and right now riding a 60cm Merckx ALU Team and one of the best bikes i have ridden. It is heavy (22lbs) but stout & stable, feels a lot lighter than that and hauls up hills. You might ask the Jerk what he thinks. I will either get a MX Leader or have Dave Kirk build something similar next. I emailed Dave Kirk awhile back and he is the man for this.

SB
PS: I think William, Too Tall, and Ahneida Ride should lead Lance on flat stages. There job, nobody gets by except Lance. Could you imagine those 3 monsters 3 across leading the way.

*************************************************************
Posted by William:

>>>Quote:
Have you thought of a Merckx MX Leader if they have one in your size. I'am just a little wimpy dude of 210/215 lbs and right now riding a 60cm Merckx ALU Team and one of the best bikes i have ridden. It is heavy (22lbs) but stout & stable, feels a lot lighter than that and hauls up hills. You might ask the Jerk what he thinks. I will either get a MX Leader or have Dave Kirk build something similar next. I emailed Dave Kirk awhile back and he is the man for this. >>>


Sbash,

I've had a few others suggest the MX as well. I haven't looked into them to much yet. I had a team mate who rode an MX and he always said he loved it as well. Because of our size diffrences I never got to try it out.

I don't know too much about Mr. Kirks rides. He seems to be highly recomended. I was hoping he would weigh in on this issue as well.

William

************************************************************************
Posted by William:

>>Quote:
PS: I think William, Too Tall, and Ahneida Ride should lead Lance on flat stages. There job, nobody gets by except Lance. Could you imagine those 3 monsters 3 across leading the way. >>>

A line from the movie Independance Day comes to mind here:

"All right gentleman....let's PLOW the road!!"



William

********************************************************************
Posted by Too Tall:

ROTFLMAO
We don't need no steeeenkin draft.

********************************************************************
Posted by Aneida Ride:

Have to agree with William on this one.

Seems like Uncle William is riding a 63. This seems small, especially for
William's size and especially since William perfers to sit on hills. Methinks
that a 64 or 65 would better suit him.

With a larger frame (64 ), I can sit on hills while others are standing.
This is a distinct advantage.

I still think that Dbrk is right. Fist full of post showing. If not,
then consider a larger frame. I see too many bigger guys on
60 or so frames. And they think the frame fits them !!!!

**************************************************************
Posted by William:

Two fists full of Fury....
------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>Quote:
Seems like Uncle William is riding a 63. This seems small, especially for
William's size and especially since William perfers to sit on hills. Methinks
that a 64 or 65 would better suit him.

With a larger frame (64 ), I can sit on hills while others are standing.
This is a distinct advantage.

I still think that Dbrk is right. Fist full of post showing. If not,
then consider a larger frame. I see too many bigger guys on
60 or so frames. And they think the frame fits them !!!! >>>


Gee, thanks AR, make feel like I got reamed even more than I thought I did

I can grab almost two fists of post in my grubby lil'big hands. I've always thought this thing had a bit of post showing. But hey, I thought they knew how to use that Serotta size cycle.

Too many years, and living across the country from where I got it likely counts out any recourse on the matter.

I'm going to go ride it.....INTO THE BAY!!!

William

Just kidding. But it does tick me off.

*****************************************************************
Posted by Aneida Ride:

Two Fistfulls ???
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOW !!!

Dat's a lot ! My fitter suggested a 65. I talked him down to a 64.
Perhaps for sprinting a smaller frame is of benefit ? I dunno.
But from a comfort perspective, that is like me on a 60.

Isn't that constant bent over position uncomfortable and perhaps
contributing to back issues ?

Personally, I think a 66 is closer to reality.

I wonder what size Smiley stuck T**2 with ?

63 ? William, get another fitter !!!!!!

*********************************************************************

Posted by William:

Ahhhh. I feel much better after sprint intervals.


>>>Quote:
Perhaps for sprinting a smaller frame is of benefit ? >>>

That could be a possibility. A smaller triangle should be stronger I would think. One of the things I made clear (at least I thought) was that sprinting (Psuedo/power sprinting if you like) and crit racing was my forte, but I still road raced. I know the type of power I can lay down and I let them know.



>>>Quote:
Isn't that constant bent over position uncomfortable and perhaps
contributing to back issues ? >>>

Certainly is possible. Let's take a looksee at some random measurements:

ST, C2C is 63cm
TT, C2C is 63cm
Saddle height is 87cm
Saddle (nose) to handlebar reach is 65cm
Saddle height over bars is about 13cm
Stem length is 120
Angle. level/horizontal (zero?)
Bar width is 44cm

Impressions anyone?


>>Quote:
I wonder what size Smiley stuck T**2 with ? >>

Me Too? What's the magic number big 2T?


>>Quote:
63 ? William, get another fitter !!!!!! >>

Grrrrrr! Let me clarify again for every one out there. I don't have a problem with Serotta directly. The frames I recieved where incredibly nice. I can't complain about the customer service afterward. The first frame got damaged in shipping (cosmetic), they gave me a second one at no charge (and a free Serotta jersey). It looks like I have a problem with the folks who represent/present Serotta to the public (the bike shop/Serotta rep). I may have been fitted incorrectly and thus have a frame that is really, too small.
As I said before, if I decide to go with Serotta, I won't work with any middle men...I'M GOING STRAIGHT TO THE TOP AR!! THE TOP!!!

William

********************************************************************

Posted by Big Mac:

Big Will:

You are definitely on the right track but I do believe I may be able to provide some personal perspective. No I am not your size and perhaps not your strength but quite possibly a similar pedalling style/cadence. I am a relatively diminutive 6'2" 227lb and yes I do own a 64/61 Legend as well as a few lugged steel frames.

I do not believe you will find ANY stock frame that will appropriately meet both your size and strength/stiffness/durability needs. Aluminum and plastic is similarly a poor choice for your needs. Ti is similarly a poor choice with the lone exception of the Legend. Steel can be a very good choice however with some notable compromises albeit at considerable savings versus a Legend.

If you do choose a Legend, it of course will be big $$ but it is in my opinion a "lifetime" investment. I have over 80k miles on my Legend, it's as lively, stable and fun as its maiden ride. I do believe fork choice will be difficult, I use the discontinued F1. I have no real experience with Serotta's F2 but given its Ouzo origins I have very serious doubts about its performance under heavy, aggresive loads such as you and I. The recently introduced Reynolds Peloton is a vast improvement over the Pro in terms of torsional stiffness and feel but it still lags well behind the F1's feel and predictability. I would probably look at a TT Alpha Q or a custom steel fork if I were in your shoes.

I did spend nearly a month (1200+ miles in total) riding a friends Seven Axiom, he is very similar size as you, only 2" shorter. He is a recently retired NFL player of considerable strength and fitness, albeit a bit rougher cadence than I. His frame was custom designed 63/60, moderate sloping TT with stiffest tubes available to Seven at that time (I could be wrong but I have seen no indication Seven can provide larger diameter(stiffer) tubeset). That frame had so little torsional stiffness for its size that I had little trouble causing RD upshifting under moderately hard pedalling loads. That however was not the frames' biggest problem, it had a downright scary front-end stability/shimmy problem that I had not encountered since i had one of those ridiculously light steel Moulton/Fuso's from mid 80's. Nobody building Ti frames has Serotta's Legend tubes which is the only way to really build a frame suitable for your size. You need sufficient TT stiffness to mitigate shimmy/stability issues and fat enough DT and ST to provide sufficient BB stiffness under load. I would also request straight cs's on my Legend, in lieu of the swoopy "S" curve one's. Straight stays are a bit stiffer and your stays will likely be a bit on the long side at maybe 42.25 or more if you use a slack ST angle as I suspect is needed given your size. Longer stays also provide greater clearence for fatter tires which is generally a very good thing for big riders -- 25mm or fatter sewups, never leave home w/o'em. FWIW: my buddy gave his Seven to his little bro' after riding my Legend, he now has his own Legend. Until he rode mine he just had no clue how responsive and stable a Ti frame could be.

So if Legend is beyond your budget, steel can be a very fine choice. Understand however that steel has a somewhat finite life, particularly under the loads provided by you. I have had many steel frames over the years and have been relatively vigilent in maintaining mileage logs, never has one lasted 30k miles w/o a failure, NEVER! Now some were experimental/demo mistakes like my 2 Fuso's but most were custom lugged steel from a plethora of the world's most reknowned custom steel fabricators. A few broke at DT below HT lug, the vaunted "canopener" effect, a few more at base of ST and one at DT base just above BB. Most however failed at right cs, a few mm's behind BB lug, beginning with a crack that when left unchecked resulted in a full wrap-around fracture of cs tube. Most fortunately did not even result in a fall, some however did require a lengthy walk back to civilization.

The real choice for you, imo, is whether you are interested in the slightly smoother, far costlier but lifetime durability of a properly fitted Legend or a custom steel frame for 1/2 the cost, a minimum of 20k miles of servicabilty before a repair is required (if properly designed and built, of course) not to mention the wonderful ride and aesthetics of custom lugged steel. A CSi is certainly an option, as is a Sachs although those both seem like more 'boutique' choices given their relative cost/value. For 30-40% less $$ you could get a similarly beautifully crafted steel frame that will provide equal servicability, probably with far shorter wait. I have personally purchased 2 lugged steel frames in the last 4 years from 2 highly experienced and respected builders nearly half-way around the world from one another. Without any tubing input from me, they chose nearly identical tubesets, semi-custom drawn. In both cases, they used Deda 0.1 (aka Zero Uno) DT's, a vanadium-enriched steel alloy very similar to Columbus Nivacrom. What's unique about these tubes is not the alloy, it's the diameter. Deda provides a tapered(swaged) DT that's 32mm at HT and 35mm at BB, for reference sake a 'traditional' 531 steel DT was 28.6mm (1 1/8") OD. Deda stocks these in something like 0.8mm/0.6mm/0.8mm butting. They will however custom butt these tubes in one-off order if builder has an account with Deda, mine were butted 0.9/0.7/0.9, I was told they can draw as thick as 1.0mm ends if requested. The end result is a very firm BB, not too stiff, just very firm for my size, strength and usage. The TT used by my local builder was a Columbus sourced tube intended for a mtb DT but he was able to find appropriate lugs to fit the tubes OD w/o resorting to 1 1/8" HT or odd-sized seatpin. My custom italian built frame employed more custom drawn tubes throughout, all sourced from Deda using same steel alloy. The result in both cases is superb high-speed stabilty, firm yet resilient ride with proper torsional stiffness at pedals. No, I have not broken either frame but I have no reason to suspect these frames will not fail at somepoint around 25k mark. FWIW: the local bike is a fixed gear and the italian bike resides at my home in Italy which I am at approximately 10 weeks/yr.

Proper sizing is a whole separate issue, as others have noted I too would agree that a 63cm frame seems too small, especially if you're at 2 fists of seatpin. Now some builders will promote 'compact' frames as a means of improving torsional stiffness on large frames. Much like fat, round cs's, this is a REALLY bad idea attempting to compensate for inadequate tubing designs and poor engineering. A big rider will put greater load on seatpin binder, particularly if you're a seated, gear-grinder type which will eventually lead to seatpin failure or seatpin binder failure, either of which could lead to very serious injury. Get a bigger frame. Be sure when you are being fitted that you specify crank arm length and pedal choice. While I am 4" shorter than you -- just barely a fistful of seatpin exposed -- my ST is 1cm longer, measured c-c. Yes, I do have long pbh for my height, I do pedal toes down at bottom of stroke and I use relatively long 177.5 cranks which all contribute to my proper ST height.

If you do choose a Legend, it is possible your wait for frame build may be longer than most if proper tubes are not readily available. I do not know if they regularly stock largest diameter tubes or if these must be special ordered, in fact I believe Serotta has made a few changes to tube sourcing since I bought mine 5 1/2 years ago. My frame did take 2-3 weeks longer than was typical for a Legend per my LBS, maybe it was the paint (a very simple design w/o most decals) or perhaps it was the specially drawn tubes. I do know that at the time I owned a Cannondale Mtb and the DT on my Legend measured at BB was nearly identical OD as the massive Cannondale tubes, the TT on Legend, measured at forward end near HT, is larger diameter than the Cannondale TT. I have had my Legend over 60mph on local mountain descents w/o a single incidence of shimmy or similar stability concerns. These are the ultimate big guy bikes, ime.

The Merckx MXL is likely not built large enough for you, I fit the 63cm(largest size available) and its an absolute perfect fit for my size... and yes I have broken all 3 MXL's I have owned. If you do choose steel, be sure to get silver-brazed lugged steel construction. This is in my experience the best combination of strength AND ease of repair. Remember, just because a tube fails after 25k miles or so, a properly designed and built steel frame can be repaired and likely provide another 25k miles or so before again needing repair. In most cases, i have had my failed frames repaired and they again rode nearly as good as new, after 2 repairs though they seem to have lost much of the steel's life or resilience.

As an aside, I would recommend you change your lifting regimen to lunges and squats. Those inverted leg press machines do not provide a balanced workout and can be very hard on hip flexor and low back injuries. Proper weight training CAN improve explosiveness in sprinting but pedal stroke efficiency is the quickest way to improving speed.

Sorry for being so long winded, this is a topic for which I have endured alot over the years. Besides I'm stuck in a DoubleTree in Tulsa with 14 little 13 year olds and I figured if I get on this computer, the rest of the parents will have to put the kids to bed Best of luck to, glad to see some more big boy riders.
*********************************************************************

Posted by Too Tall:

D##ds! F.Y.I. am riding a 64X64 with a 110 stem and lots of setback and 'zactly a fistful of seatpost showing. Maybe it's because I'm an even ape. The business of setting the HT size and TT height is still a tough calculation for me esp. with aesthetic considerations.

***********************************************************************
Posted by William:

BIG MAC,

Long winded? Not at all. Very interesting reading. Thank you for taking the time to write up the post on your experiences with tubing and big bike building. It’s very much appreciated. Hey, your being holed up in Tulsa is our gain.

According to you and Too Tall, the Legend might be the way to go. At this point I don’t know what were talking in $$$ but I’m already wincing at what it might be.

I’ve often wondered why they didn’t use larger diameter tubing. Esp in the chain stays. AR commented that his ride had pretty beefy ones. The seat stays & pin also seem a bit thin for the size of the frame, esp with the amount of post that shows to accommodate my size. I hate to think what would happen if that let go…OUCH!! I’m running 180mm cranks that put me into the position on the saddle that I’m at.

You mentioned fracture of the cs tube. Did you get any warning signs other than a visible crack? Any “tinging”, or popping sounds during hard efforts?

Thanks again, this is exactly the type of info I was looking for.

Too Tall: “an even Ape”. What’s the difference between an even ape, and an odd ape?

Below is a pic from when I first received the bike. You can really see the amount of post showing and the tube choices used. BTW, check out the old school Aerospoke. You want a work out? Put that sucker on and go climb some hills.



William
Team Gorilla
(Where our rider’s daily caloric intake is equivalent to the GVW of a Mack Truck!!)
********************************************************************

Posted by TooTall:

When Big Mac suffers we benefit. Be strong my man be strong. walk away from the mini-bar.

Willm', My wingspan is exactly the same as my height (even ape rating). Your crit position is excellent. Yer freakin' thighs are scary.

I wish I could deal with that much drop. After racing season is kerput you should ride my bike and see what happens. I have a Fit stick so we can keep measures after all is said and done. A handful of stems, a few hills and a few espressos later.... If you decide to go for it I'll hook you up with Smiley, who lives about 1 mile from me and can work the frame details and shop sale. I'll build it if you want...lot's of loctite and (yes yes B.M.) Linseed oil too

Macman, my SLX Clark Kent is doomed? Say it ain't so. 30,000miles +. Good thing I only use it as a backup bike.

***********************************************************
Posted by Ahneida Ride:

Big Mac

Thanks for the distilled wisdom. I always enjoy your posts.
Thanks Prof.


Uncle Willliam,

As Big Mac suggested, I have the straight Beefed up Chain Stays.
I believe my frame has the largest coventional Ti tubes that Serotta
stocks. They do offer an even larger size, I believe on special order.
I did witness one such frame at the factory. Man, these are big tubes !
T**2 frame may be constructed of these.

63 still looks small.

Too bad the F1 is no longer available. But I ran in to the guy who
built em for Ben. He claims certain "items" in his shop !!!!! Don't tell anyone !
He said that the F1 is the only carbon fork that can pass steel
saftey standards. It was specifically designed to pass this test.

Legends are $$$$$. You should really demo T**2's bike and mine.
You cannot afford an error here.

**********************************************************************
Posted by William:

>>>Quote:
As an aside, I would recommend you change your lifting regimen to lunges and squats. Those inverted leg press machines do not provide a balanced workout and can be very hard on hip flexor and low back injuries. Proper weight training CAN improve explosiveness in sprinting but pedal stroke efficiency is the quickest way to improving speed. >>>

I use lunges as well, Heiden style. The closest I get to squats is on the smith machine or hack squats. The leg press is just a component of my training, not the focus. I’m kind of a genetic freak when it comes to my lower body, I have lots of endurance and I can build strength and size quite easily. I have to be careful in how I approach training, I’m not body building here.
As far as pedal stroke efficiency, I’m always concentrating on being smooth on the bike, but even in the gym, I’m spinning before and after lifting to practice that smooth pedal stroke even when my legs are on fire. It’s also good for working out that good old lactic acid build up.

Thanks again BM!

William

***********************************************************************
Posted by Smiley:

I just delivered a CSI for a kid that just graduated from an Ivy League school and was a rower on their varsity team. 6' 4 1/2" and 245 lbs and yearns to get back down to 225 lbs. This kid is all muscels and looks like he could be a tight end in the NFL. Anyway he purchased a 63 ST by 60 TT using a 13 cm stem BUT check this out his STA was 71.5 degree's using an off-set seat post. I set him up with a longer stem cause his current KOP is neutral but my guess is as he gets stronger he'll move back on the saddle rails and then he can shorten his stem so as not to lock out his elbows. I think his bar drop was 7-8 cm . His CSI was built with OS tubing and no complaints from him so far. Serotta has what it takes to build a BIG bike for guys that need it. I am sure if you get a chance to see TT bike you'll be sold on the whole deal. Best of luck big guy .

*****************************************************************
Posted by Big Mac:
Smiley:

You bring up an interesting point regarding sizing issues for us folks at the sizing extremes. Body proportions often have larger variations than those of more diminutive size. The young lad you mention is 2 1/2" taller than I, that's over 6cm for the metrically challenged. Despite his larger size, he has been professionally fitted to a frame size that is 1cm smaller in TT and ST. We use identical ST angle for nearly identical KOPS position (I'm 1.2cm behind spindle center), I too use a setback seatpin (Ritchey Pro Road w/ 19mm setback) and relatively long 177.5 cranks. FWIW:Merckx (geos largely influenced by F. Masi and U. DeRosa) has long spec'd larger frames w/sub 72* STA. Why would I, over 6cm shorter, ride a larger frame if both are properly fitted? I would assume Smiley's client is far shorter limbed, relative to his size. I have rather long limbs, for example my pbh is just under 93cm and my wingspan (middle fingertip to middle fingertip measured with arms extended outward from sides, level w/shoulders) is 6'9" -- yah, wide shoulders and long arms in rather ape-like fashion, love them bananas don'tcha know .

TT:
You have an SLX frame with 30k that has never failed? whoa, you must be silky smooth and efficient on frames or very lightweight. I've had a couple SL/SLX frames over the years and they were toast within a year. Are you sure its not SP/SPX (same tubes, just thicker wall thickness/butting)?

BW:
When a chainstay fails, it sounds a bit like a spoke failing, of course if its steel that is. CF and aluminum would have a greater tendency to catastrophically fail w/o warning. This winter I did have a steel cs fail w/o apparent advance warning, it caused a wheel lockup and minor crash. Usually the audible warning noises cause one to stop and dismount before any such drama. In truth, it may have indeed offered an audible warning however it was a very cold morning in Tahoe causing me to wear a wool cap and Gore-tex/fleece hat that may have abated my hearing a bit.

Ride on!
************************************************************

Posted by Smiley:

Mr Mac ,
Interesting doing BIG guy fits , the client has BIG feet yet short toes and he has a nice pedalling stroke , why do I say this cause he gets lenght in his saddle to pedal axel distance but he had NOT toe over lap or even came close . We measure cleat center to tip of shoe for a toe overlap confirmation. Also he has a long neck and maybe a tall profile head. Yes things do get really funky when your dealing with everything BIG. I always am amazed when I need to realx the Seat tube angle beyond 72 degree's and trust me we double and triple check this with a digital angle finder on 2 fits , the initial and final check out fit to make sure all is OK. Since the client was getting back into cycling I did not want to push 180 mm cranks on him so we stuck to 175's ( Shimano 9 speed guy , if he picked 10 speed it would have been 117.5's ).
On a separate note if you were an NFL scout you would think Tight End for this kid. Nice guy and I would be scared to call him to ask him to ride with us today cause he's probably very good by now.