Big Bill's Big Barbarian Bike Blog

Ode To Tubulars

2006-10-23T04:36:00.000-07:00

Ok, so this posting has nothing to do with being a Clydesdale cyclist....true. But, it's a slight diversion from the on going battle we large powerful folks find ourselves in with the mainstream bike industry. So, set down your battle axe, stop swinging your mace, and put those pikes on the ground....at least until you're done reading my little story about tubulars.

Big Bill (and AL)

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

Way back when I was just a little bitty boy living in a box under the stairs in the corner of the basement of the house half a block down the street from Jerk's Bike shop
You know the place
well anyway, back then life was going swell and everything was just peachy

Except, of course, for the undeniable fact that every single morning
My mother would make me glue up a big ol' Conti tubular before breakfast

Awww - BIG MESSY TUBULAR
EVERY SINGLE MORNIN'
It was driving me crazy

I said to my mom
I said "Hey, mom, what's with always glueing tubulars?"
And my dear, sweet mother
She just looked at me like a cow looks at an oncoming train
And she leaned right down next to me
And she said "IT'S GOOD FOR YOU!!!!!"
And then she tied me to the wall and stuck a funnel in my mouth
And force fed me nothing but Tufo glue until I was twenty six and a half years old

That's when I swore that someday
Someday I would get outta that basement and travel to a magical, far away place
Where the sun is always shining and the air smells like warm clinchers
And the tubes are oh so fluffy
Where the shriners and the lepers ride Campy equiped bikes all day long
And anyone on the street will gladly shave your back for a nickel

Wacka wacka doodoo yeah

Well, let me tell you, people, it wasn't long at all before my dream came true
Because the very next day, a local radio station had this contest
To see who could correctly guess the number of Assos cream packs in the Jerk's........bibs
I was off by three, but I still won the grand prize
That's right, a first class one-way ticket to

France
France

Oh yeah
You know, I'd never been on a real airplane before
And I gotta tell ya, it was really great
Except that I had to sit between two large Albanian female cyclists with excruciatingly severe body odor
And the little kid in back of me kept throwin' up the whole time
The flight attendants ran out of Dr. Pepper and salted peanuts
And the in-flight movie was the American Flyers re-make with Pauly Shore
And, oh yeah, three of the airplane engines burned out
And we went into a tailspin and crashed into a hillside
And the plane exploded in a giant fireball and everybody died
Except for me
You know why?

'Cause I had my tray table up
And my seat back in the full upright position
Had my tray table up
And my seat back in the full upright position
Had my tray table up
And my seat back in the full upright position

Ah ha ha ha
Ah ha ha
Ahhhh

So I crawled from the twisted, burnin' wreckage
I crawled on my hands and knees for three full days
Draggin' along my big leather suitcase and my wheel bags
And my Legend Ti and my twelve-pound pack of clinchers
And my lucky, lucky autographed glow-in-the-dark 90 cm stem
But finally I arived at the world famous Chez Holiday Inn
Where the towels are oh so fluffy
And you can eat your Du fromage right out of the ashtrays if you wanna
It's OK, they're clean

Well, I checked into my room and I turned down the A/C
And I turned on the OLN
And I'm just about to eat that little chocolate mint on my pillow
That I love so very, very much when suddenly, there's a knock on the door

Well now, who could that be?
I say "Who is it?"
No answer
"Who is it?"
There's no answer
"WHO IS IT?!!"
They're not sayin' anything

So, finally I go over and I open the door and just as I suspected
It's some big fat Euro-pro with a Flock-Of-Seagulls haircut, a polka dot jersey, and only one nostril
Oh man, I hate it when I'm right
So anyway, he bursts into my room and he grabs my lucky stem
And I'm like "Hey, you can't have that"
"That stem's been just like a stem to me"
And he's like "Tough"
And I'm like "Give it"
And he's like "Make me"
And I'm like "'Kay"
So I grabbed his shaved leg and he grabbed my esophagus
And I bit off his ear and he chewed off my eyebrows
And I took out his appendix and he gave me a Rolf beating
Yes indeed, you better believe it
And somehow in the middle of it all, the phone got knocked off the hook
And twenty seconds later, I heard a farmiliar voice
And you know what it said?
I'll tell you what it said

It said
"If you'd like to make a call, please hang up and try again"
"If you need help, hang up and then dial your operator"
"If you'd like to make a call, please hang up and try again"
"If you need help, hang up and then dial your operator"

In France
France

Well, to cut a long story short, he got away with my stem
But I made a a solemn vow right then and there that I would not rest
I would not sleep for an instant until the fat Euro pro one-nostrilled man was brought to justice
But first, I decided to buy some more clinchers

So I got in my car and I drove over to the bike shop
And I walked on up to the guy behind the counter
And he says "Yeah, what do ya want?"
I said "You got any Conti's?"
He said "No, we're outta Conti's"
I said "You got any Kenda's?"
He said "No, we're outta Kenda's"
I said "You got any Blue Hutchinsons?"
He said "No, we're outta Blue Hutchinsons"
I said "You got any Michelins?"
He said "No, we're outta Michilens"
I said "You got any Vittorias?"
He said "No, we're outta Vittorias"
I said "You got any purple Vredestiens?"
He said "Wait a minute, I'll go check"
"NO, we're outta puple Vredestiens"
I said "Well, in that case - in that case, what do you have?"
He says "All I got right now is this box of one dozen starving, crazed weasels"
I said "OK, I'll take that"

So he hands me the box and I open up the lid and the weasels jump out
And they immediately latch onto my face and start bitin' me all over
(rabid gnawing sounds)
Oh man, they were just going nuts
They were tearin' me apart
You know, I think it was just about that time that a little ditty started goin' through my head"
I believe it went a little something like this . . .

Doh
Get 'em off me
Get 'em off me
Oh
No, get 'em off, get 'em off
Oh, oh God, oh God
Oh, get 'em off me
Oh, oh God
Ah, (more screaming)

I ran out into the street with these flesh-eating weasels all over my face
Wavin' my arms all around and just runnin', runnin', runnin'
Like a constipated weiner dog
And as luck would have it, that's exactly when I ran into the girl of my dreams
Her name was Zelda
She was a Norse Olympic cyclist with a slight overbite and hair the color of strained peaches
I'll never forget the first thing she said to me.
She said "Hey, you've got weasels on your face"

That's when I knew it was true love
We were inseperable after that
Aw, we ate together, we cycled together
We even shared the same jar of Assos chami cream
The world was our clincher
So we got married and we bought us a house
And had two beautiful children - Lance and Mario
Oh, we were so very very very happy, aw yeah

But then one fateful night, Zelda said to me
She said "Sweetie pumpkin? Do you wanna subscription to VeloNews?"
I said "Woah, hold on now, baby"
"I'm just not ready for that kinda commitment"
So we broke up and I never saw her again
But that's just the way things go

In France
France

Anyway, things really started lookin' up for me
Because about a week later, I finally achieved my lifelong dream
That's right, I got me a part-time job at The local Performance bike shop
I even made employee of the month after I put that grease fire out with my face
Aw yeah, everybody was pretty jealous of me after that
I was gettin' a lot of attitude

OK, like one time, I was out in the parking lot
Tryin' to remove excess tubular glue off a customers Nimbles with a sawsall
When I see this guy Marty tryin' to carry a big ol' Waterford up the stairs all by himself
So I, I say to him, I say "Hey, you want me to help you with that?"
And Marty, he just rolls his eyes and goes
"NO, I want you to cut off my arms and legs with a Campy chain tool"

So I did

And then he gets all indignant on me
He's like "Hey man, I was just being sarcastic"
Well, that's just great
How was I supposed to know that?
I'm not a mind reader for cryin' out loud
Besides, now he's got a really cute nickname - Campy-Boy
So what's he complaining about?

Say, that reminds me of another amusing anecdote
This guy comes up to me on the street and he tells me he hasn't had a flat in his tubulars for three days
Well, I knew what he meant
But just to be funny, I took a big bite out of one of his Vitoria Corsa's
And he's yellin' and screamin' and whining all over
And I'm like "Hey, come on, don'tcha get it?"
But he just keeps rolling around on the sidewalk, blathering, and screaming
(screaming sounds)
You know, just completely missing the irony of the whole situation
Man, some people just can't take a joke, you know?

Anyway, um, um, where was I?
Kinda lost my train of thought

Uh, well, uh, OK
Anyway I, I know it's kinda a roundabout way of saying it
But I guess the whole point I'm tryin' to make here is

I HATE TUBULARS!!!

That's all I'm really tryin' to say
And, by the way, if one day you happen to wake up
And find yourself in an existential quandry
Full of loathing and self-doubt
And wracked with the pain and isolation of your pitiful meaningless existence
At least you can take a small bit of comfort in knowing that
Somewhere out there in this crazy old mixed-up universe of ours
There's still a little place you can buy clinchers...it's called

France

I said "F!!!!" (F!!!!)
"R!!!!" (R!!!!)
"A!!!!" (A!!!)
um......
"NCE!" (NCE)

FRANCE FRANCE FRANCE FRANCE FRANCE
FRANCE FRANCE FRANCE FRANCE FRANCE
FRANCE FRANCE FRANCE FRANCE FRANCE!!!

William

Custom is as custom does

2006-03-03T04:30:00.000-08:00

Custom is as custom does

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

There is a lot of talk that gets thrown around as to whether a "custom" is necessary or even a good thing. You even hear people state that 99.9% (or some close approximation) of the people out there don't need a "custom". "You'll just end up with a whacked out piece of crap", I've heard tossed out here as well.

First, IMO, there are two types of customs:

1.) Builds that are for people that fall outside the bell curve.
Face it, bigger bike manufacturers build what they think they can move. The frame sizes are targeted toward the masses and they build a small number of frame sizes to cover that target group. People on the fringes of the curve who are very tall, small, or have funky arm/leg/torso measurements get left out and have to either make one of those stock frames work, getting real funky with super long/short stems and flagpole or non existent seat posts, or go custom. Builds for us on the fringes can get us proportionally correct frames sizes, and proper tubing choices to match strength to weight ratios. A very small person doesn't need super strong/heavier tubes, while the Clydesdales should probably ride nothing but. Just because it's "custom" doesn't mean it won't be proportionally correct or handle correctly. Look at Curt Goodrich's 65 cm Blue & white wonder in the CPG-issimo thread. It's a good example of a custom done right. I believe the Skunkbird and her twin fall into that category of "proportionally correct" customs. In my case, custom is the only option.

2.) Frames by small builders who don't stock frames.
Each frame is built for the person ordering it. It doesn't need to be a bell curve fringe special, it can be a "regular" size and have a standard, proven (what ever you define that as) geometry. Yet, you can pick color schemes, braze on or clamp, ornate or simple lugs, fillet, tig etc.... This I also define as a "custom".

Custom isn't a bad word.

As far as the build:
I would agree that there should be some re-checks and balances between builder & fitter if some unusual measurements are being sent in for a build (for those builders that use a middle man). If they understand the relationships of the different angles, tube types and lengths involved, shouldn't they have an idea weather certain measurements will yield a crappy handling bike? If that is understood, then do they go ahead and build it anyway knowing that their name will be on a crappy handling bike? Or do they go back and ask the fitter to verify those measurements to try and get an idea of what the reasoning is behind them?

If working directly with the builder, if the customer is pushing measurements that seem out of whack, do you try to politely correct them and explain why you think it won't work? If they insist, do you decline the build, or is the customer always right and build it anyway?

William
*******************************************
true dat

odds, bigs, and smalls need em

everyone else doesn't

if ya can't "fit" on a racing bike

get a randonneur

and don't "fit" by the numbers to establish the contact points*

*this was the cause of all doof's illin...fitter moved him forward 2.5cm to achieve KOPS...which created the 58cm bike with the 62.5 f-c....

Doc Doofus
********************************************************************
"Need"? No... but maybe yes.

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

There isn't one precise geometry that is the only one that works for any one person, I think. It's interesting to have bikes that work but have different personalities. Change the angle here, raise the front there, you stay balanced but the bike behaves differently. That's cool too.

Tom
*******************************************************************
i think the "custom" aspect of what you're refering to
has more to do with emotion than intellect, more tied
to the heart than to the head.

framebuilders are less likely to be tailors (yet knowing
about "fit" is important) and more likely to be folks that
live outside the lines of conventional industry commerce
and simply enjoy the task of trying to "make" something
really nice/precise without having to worry about the clock,
the model year, trends, the expiration date, blah, blah, blah.

often, when the client seeking something "mighty fine"
meets the maker that offers just such a tangible good,
the fireworks begin.

e-RICHIE (aka:Richard Sachs)
******************************************************************
another part of the equation is trust. who do you trust? as a few threads lately have said, riders don't always trust their fitters. or the shops and salesmen they talk to. so who, then, to trust? stock geometry is one thing to trust (or not.) i think some people go the custom route because when dealing with a certain level of builder, there is a level of trust.

climb1742
******************************************************************
"We can rebuild him....

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

We have the technology. We have the capability to make the world's second bionic man. William will be that man. Better than he was before. Better . . . stronger . . . faster."

Hey pal, let us hem-in those trunks you call legs, shorten the guns, and maybe then you too can buy off the rack. You know, it might be cheaper for you in the long run. Er... short run, rather.

Kevan
****************************************************************
the problem with the whole "fitting" thing is someone is learning their craft with your money.

coylifut
***************************************************************
who are you refering to, the fitter or the builder?

e-RICHIE
***************************************************************
I'd add a third reason......

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

and that is to get a combination of otions not available on any other stock bike.

If I want all of the following on a bike:

1.) Fender eyelets
2.) Pump peg
3.) Ability to handle 28 tires
4.) 3 bottle mounts for long unsupported rides
5.) Longer headtube to eliminate spacers
6.) Slightly upsloping TT to improve aestetics
7.) 72.5 degree ST angle to fit perfectly with a Brooks saddle.

You have to go custom, don't you.

Len
***************************************
i'm speaking in very general terms here -

agreed. the stew of options make it harder to find a stock
bicycle that will suit. rivendell would be one choice. i know
of few others. otoh, the ability to braze up a frame that
incorporates the laundry list of desires doesn't guarantee
that it'll all work. as climb infers, the trust has to be there.
the client needs to trust that the end meets the fantasy.
the builder needs to trust that he client "really" wants
all this. and the fitter, well...

e-RICHIE
***************************************************************
couldn't agree more.......

I was trying to point out that the more one off things you want (many not related to fit), the fewer selections are available in the marketplace.

I don't happen to like grant's fit philosophy for me, so a riv, while a great bike, is not something that works for me, so what do I get?....obviously custom.

I see these blanket statements like "99.9% of the people don't need custom" as if fit is the only reason to go custom.

Trust is implicit....I wouldn't buy a custom from someone I didn't trust to deliver a bike that works as the minimum.

Len
**************************************************************
""I see these blanket statements like "99.9% of the people don't need custom" as if fit is the only reason to go custom.""

agreed 118%!
(the extra 18% is for my jewish brethren during our holiday.)

e-RICHIE
*************************************************************
There's a picture on the web of a happy customer and a bike, built by a seemingly well credentialed builder. The saddle is literally pushed as far forward as its rails allow. Bad design? Poor communication process? Inexperienced customer? [shrugs]

bluesea
*************************************************************
""I see these blanket statements like "99.9% of the people don't need custom" as if fit is the only reason to go custom.""

Right on!

For those of us to are fortunate enough to fit on stock bikes, and for those of us (like me) who want to ride stock geometry, there are still great reasons for custom. I love the ability to pick my own paint (or lack of paint), decals, and assorted braze ons.

I think that there are two parts to custom, fit and finish. I agree that ninetysomeodd* percent of people don't need to design thier own fit, but I think that almost everyone should design thier own finish if possible.

Who wants to pay thousands of dollars for a bike and say "it rides great, I just wish it looked a little different?"

*genetic freaks like King Kong and William certainly need to go custom on fit. Hmm, now that I think of it, has anyone seen King Kong and William in the same room?

Bradford
*********************************************************
[QUOTE=Bradford]
I think that there are two parts to custom, fit and finish. QUOTE]

and mebbe design and construction too!

e-RICHIE
********************************************************
I was thinking of design as part of fit and holding construction constant.

Just for the record, I agree with your philosophy on custom bikes; if I were to go custom, I'd go to someone like you, answer all the questions you asked, and then ride whatever you made for me.

Bradford
*******************************************************
Well, there's custom builders like Sach's and Kellog, Holland (and some others). IMO you could pretty much trust any of them to get it right. It's not like you see many of these up for resale which is a testmament to their work.

IMO a step down is Serotta custom, I mean Ben isn't actually watching and talking to you (though he does travel around and get personal with his customers and perspective clients). At least Serotta have a tool (size cycle) that ought to be fairly consistent in fit though it depends a lot on the fitter's personal interpretations and biases. It also means a dealer has to be super invested in selling Serotta because the dealers have to invest so much money in the machine and in attending yearly workshops. Seven has a tool too in their fit by numbers.

Then there's Calfee, Moots, IF and a ton of others who do anything you want but you and your shop better know exactly what it is you want. This is plenty good for a bunch of us who have ridden many bikes over many tens of thousands of miles. The best of these builders also offer stock bikes in every cm dimension (not just 5 sizes in 2 cm increments) so they truly can fit 99.9% right off the shelf.

But I think some of us buyers are too confining in where we are willing to look. Even on this forum the same 6-7 names keep coming up over and over. Believe me there is some pretty nice work being done by others and it's not all just racer oriented. Co-Motion comes to mind and I'm not talking tandems. They get it when it comes to bikes, racer or multipurpose (think Dirt's Kirk).

One of the biggest issues in custom is when the buyer has way more money and pride than sense or experience. There is not a thing wrong with starting out on a Giant or Trek or Cannondale. I know a bunch of these guys who started out this way and 1-2 decades later are still more than happy with these bikes. The truth is there are a lot of good bikes out there but you wouldn't know it if you just hung out on this forum.

vaxn8r
********************************************************
thinking und ranting.

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

underneath all these discussions i tend to hear a kind of of bullish stupidity coming from the consumer (something like: 'here i am entertain me'). i think we've developed this attitude of entitled helplessness when it comes to our purchases. there are too many guys in porches that can't drive, too many dudes on fast motorcycles that don't know how to corner, and too many folks on bikes that blame everyone but themselves for the fit.

it takes work, intellectual curiosity, maybe some mentoring, and a lot of energy to enter a bike shop with a grounded but basic knowledge of 1) who you are on a bike, and 2) what parameters constitute fit. even if you are starting as a total beginner.. there is a burden of knowledge one has to develop. you don't sell a superbike to a 15 year old kid that's never ridden a moto and expect good things to happen. and yes there are some buidlers whom you just let do their thing (dario and e-richie for example).. but finding them takes a little knowledge and they don't make it easy just by the nature of the time it takes to survive the list (i mean that in a good way). getting their frames requires commitment and a kind of informed surrendering.

any given fitter is selling you a system of fit (personal or informed by a culture like serotta or seven) and it's really that the buck stops with the consumer. you can't show up like a dumb mule and leave with a good fit. maybe you can in cases like serotta but even then you are buying blindly into someone elses methodology.. no matter how well intended or supported by stats in the end.. your bike fit is up to you. i love serotta but i see many folks on them with what i think are horrendous positions on the bike... it has to be hard to fit a guy that rides a bike versus fitting a cyclist. i'm sure they are among the best at it.

i found myself saying this earlier in the week in another post.. one of the beautiful things about cycling is that it is a skill. yes you can just sit there and pedal... but really.. it takes time to become a cyclist. and it does take a certain amount of intellectual effort and rigour just to understand how and why to sit on a bike. it's like being an artist.. any jackass can wake up one day and proclaim themselves an artist... but really... i think it takes a lot more than that. anybody can ride a bike.. but being a cyclist is not easy. i'm willing to say only 33% of the guys that think they are cyclist are in fact cyclists.... because they haven't done the work, the light isnt on. they might be strong and even fast... but what they are doing has nothing to do with cycling. they are bike riders.

in a post lance era.. 80% of the guys i see riding in a peleton training have no idea that they have no idea how to ride in a pack. they think because maybe they are fit and have the gear that all you have to do is sit there and not overlap wheels.... and they are blind to the whole beautiful vocabulary of riding in a pack. it's an entire language unto itself... and like all languages you have to be internally driven to learn how to speak it. you have to be humble and patient (and curious) and know how to sit on back and see all of the details unfolding in front of you. the peleton is an epic tale and not a trashy novel. there is so much going on if you can see it.

the option of a custom fit is awesome and only limited by the lack of knowledge of the guy being fitted. the more you know the better your bike will fit. its not that you need to be a fitter yourself.. its that you need to know who you are on the bike. that being said.. any stock bike that fits is just as good as custom if its the right bike for you. it's literally all on you. rather than buyer beware.. i think it's fitter beware.. the fitter needs a customer that knows who they are and what they want in order to give the ideal fit. being a cyclist is truely a skill unto itself.

no matter how good you are... there is more to find out on every ride. even the way you break your wrist in the drops can be honed.. so that you learn to ride in a way that makes it impossible for you to be hooked. so much going on... every pedal stroke... even moving up through the pack and being that guy that is the smoothest wheel to be on.. takes a kind of intellect. fit certainly does. the custom or stock stuff is secondary to all of this.
oh and a shout out to tom kellogg.. i'd let him just look at me on the bike and do whatever he wanted.. i can see that he gets it too. cycling is a kind of thinking.

Inomalley
********************************************************************
Posted by lnomalley
i think we've developed this attitude of entitled helplessness when it comes to our purchases.

I like a good steam of conciousness free of qualifying statements.

coylifut
*******************************************************************
It always kills me when I hear the phrase "99% of us don't need custom". As if 'need' were the only reason to go custom. What about 'want' as a valid reason?? I wanted custom so I could get the aesthetic I wanted without messing with the frame designers critical handling numbers.

My frame has some very specific and subtle adjustments made to the std Serotta measurements that allow me to get EXACTLY the saddle-bar drop I wanted and EXACLTY the aesthetic I wanted (very slight, almost unnoticeable tt slope, paint options, etc). Otherwize, the handling measurements (trail, front center, etc etc) are exactly the same as the proven Serotta std geometry for a 58cm frame.

The problem with this argument occurs when we fail to differentiate between those adjustments that do not affect the designers tried and true critical handling numbers and those that do.

I completely agree that it is VERY risky when the fiter or customer changes things that affect handling metrics. Perhaps a good piece of advice to the novice getting a custom frame is to compare things like trail, front center, etc on the proposed custom frame with those same measurements from the stock frame. If they are different, the fitter better have a good reason that they need to be or I'd go find someone else.

Yes, there are some clown-bikes out there...however some of them just look funky due to crazy high rise stubby stems, but the handling measurements tied to the frame may be fine - a stem change is an easy remedy. The unfortunate examples are those $8000 custom rigs with crazy numbers that don't come close to resembling a proven geometry to solve a fit problem that could have been remedied by a more experienced frame designer in a better manner.

Wayne77
***************************************************************
[QUOTE=Wayne77]It always kills me when I hear the phrase "99% of us don't need custom". As if 'need' were the only reason to go custom. What about 'want' as a valid reason??QUOTE]

from post #4 above:
i think the "custom" aspect of what you're refering to
has more to do with emotion than intellect, more tied
to the heart than to the head.
etc.

e-RICHIE
*************************************************************
o'malley is so right

doof did his first race in 1982

he once had a cat 2 card

he has always been a bike rider

he has never been a cyclist

he is trying

but he is not even close
__________________
you're very special

now shut up

Dr Doofus
************************************************************
quote;
i'm willing to say only 33% of the guys that think they are cyclist are in fact cyclists.... because they haven't done the work, the light isnt on. they might be strong and even fast... but what they are doing has nothing to do with cycling. they are bike riders.

What???? What does this mean? A bike rider can't be a cyclist without pack racing skills?

Quote;

the option of a custom fit is awesome and only limited by the lack of knowledge of the guy being fitted.

Or the fitter..

I went to Michael Sylvester a super star fittter who I was told could help me figure out my bike set up.. I was going to surrender to his knowledge.
I left feeling more than confused....knowing that his philosophy of "fit is the most important part" (more important than bike handeling), clashed with my idea that performance is everything..

I'd let Dario or e-Richie do their thing...They wouldn't desin a piece of junk.

Shinomaster
**********************************************************
to wit...
there is no reason to sweat any of this if you
don't trust yourself first. climb touched on "trust".
ask yourself, "what do i know?". sometimes, learning
more means getting experience, not paying someone
to tell you stuff. imo, this is particularly telling when
it comes to "fit". i'm amazed how many get a really
fine bicycle and, prior to that, get "fitted". wtf? isn't
there/shouldn't there be a timeline or learning curve
during which one finds out what works and what doesn't
before spending long on a nice ride? it seems counter-
intuitive that there'd still be "contact point mysteries"
when you've already had a small fleet over the years.
pay attention. ride lots. if you want to move up the
price point food chain, take your hard earned knowledge
and trust in yourself and --- go wild.

e-RICHIE
*********************************************************
some of us don't sweat money, so have to be carefull because every bike is a big expense...If I was loaded I'd try everything till I got it right. No big woop.

Shinomaster
********************************************************
Posted by shinomaster
some of us don't sweat money, so have to be carefull because every bike is a big expense...If I was loaded I'd try everything till I got it right. No big woop.

why not derail the maytag and make your own?
there is precedence, i'm told.

e-RICHIE
*******************************************************
everyone here knows the jerk's opinions on "fit" and "custom" bikes. check the archives. here's a modest proposal;

when an out of shape, inflexible person comes into one's shop or one's workshop, or factory looking for a bike; take some measurements, plug them into the old coni formulas or just give him a racing bicycle that has worked for countless other people of his height, body type and intended use.

it takes only a few hours a week to gain the flexibility to maintain a generic racing position on a racing bike. if the individual in question is going to use the expensive "made to measure" bicycle a few times a week in its intended role, he'll grow to love it. if he doesn't use it at all at least he'll have a great looking bike to look at rather than some travesty designed for someone who doesn't ride. his friends who read the robb report won't make fun of him, the fact of the matter is, if one is not going to ride, one can not ride anything. you might as well not ride a bike that looks good, would handle well and will be there for you should you ever start riding.

otherwise just get the right type of bike for the type of riding you are going to do.

jerk
******************************************************
I have less knowledge/experience than the previous posters, but I can present more of a "newbie" opinion.

I got a Serotta because I liked the fitter, if he would've sold Indy Fab or Seven I would've went with those. Not knocking Serotta (and I'm very glad I went with Serotta, knowing what I know now), but to me the fitter was most important--and I'm not saying fitter IS the most important, but purchasing from a company where the fitter is your only contact, well the dude better be good. In a perfect world we'd all fly up to NY and deal with Kelly

Stock frames fit me weird because I have a long torso (which is much cooler than saying "I have a short inseam for my height" ), but even my Lemond fit weird. The bike itself (the Lemond) was probably "too small", but I could barely clear the top tube.

I got a Serotta with a 5.5° slope, pretty slight and only noticeable if you see it from a profile view. I also opted for less head tube than they suggested, told him I would rather deal with spacers for now.

I'm still not totally comfortable with the slope, but if it works

To get a "stock" geometry bike would be something like Giant-type geometry, or like a Trek Pilot--and that's WAY too much slope imho. So I compromise and get slope but not as much.

My question is, how will a framebuilder deal with my inseam/and/reach on a horizontal top tube frame? Surely people of my dimensions (hey--I look normal, never even knew about this until I started shopping for road bikes) have been riding bikes longer than slopers have been around. How else could the fitter have dealt with this?

Anyways, I'm happy with my bike--just a few thoughts I had.

21 Grams was too disjointed for me, Annie Hall is always great "But Alvy, even Freud speaks of a latent...".

and ps, I think a lot of folks here probably are like me--and want to spec everything how they like it, not only stock geo--but a stock bike (frame+components) was out of the question. I even checked out some of the Lemond slopers but I would've sold or tried to swap out 90% of the components, and the colors I liked didn't come with the gruppo I liked--so yeah, "custom" means different things to different people

Serpico
*****************************************************************
Fittings...

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

About a month ago, I was fitted at a well known bike shop in Boston and the next day I was fitted at a well known bike shop in Connecticut. Both shops had the Serotta fitting bike. At the end I was more confused than ever because I got two very different recommendations. One recommendation was for a small frame (52) and 110 stem; the other for a larger frame (54) and 110 stem.

I don't believe that there is anything flawed about the fitting bike concept, I think rather that the input from the rider is extremely important. By input I mean past experience, how he feels on the bike he's presently riding, what actual use he'll give to the bike he is buying, physical condition, how long and often he plans to ride, and so on. If the buyer has no idea of any of the above, then any frame that is not extremely large or small will do in terms of helping him for setting a benchmark.

Of course, even if the rider can answer the questions above, the fitter must have a great deal of experience and training to be able to interpret the information and come up with a sensible recommendation. In few words, I believe that a great deal of experience from the rider and the fitter is needed in order to achieve a good fit. Of course, we can define experience right after we define good.

Catulle
*****************************************************************
Posted by shinomaster
quote;
i'm willing to say only 33% of the guys that think they are cyclist are in fact cyclists.... because they haven't done the work, the light isnt on. they might be strong and even fast... but what they are doing has nothing to do with cycling. they are bike riders.

What???? What does this mean? A bike rider can't be a cyclist without pack racing skills?

yep

doof knows physiology, but that doesn't make him a coach

a guy who knows brazing and has memorized the pegoretti geos is not a freame builder

you can take five years of classes and not be a potter

a guy can shoot and dribble and be no "balla"

you can be strong and fast and have a fly rig, but if your understanding of a pack is "don't overlap wheels and take your turn at the front" because that's what you've done on every stupid group ride with the "fast" guys for the last ten years, you still don't have a clue and you're not a cyclist

Dr. Doofus
*****************************************************************
Alright, Doof, state the obvious for idiots like me

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

You said: "if your understanding of a pack is "don't overlap wheels and take your turn at the front" because that's what you've done on every stupid group ride with the "fast" guys for the last ten years, you still don't have a clue and you're not a cyclist"

Speak some on the understanding of a pack. You've piqued my curiosity.

Tom
*****************************************************************
tools or toys ?

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

bro this is a hard crowd i.m.h.o. cyclist can get the most out of any bike , bike rider needs all the help he can get ,cheers

Fixed
****************************************************************
Posted by Tom
You said: "if your understanding of a pack is "don't overlap wheels and take your turn at the front" because that's what you've done on every stupid group ride with the "fast" guys for the last ten years, you still don't have a clue and you're not a cyclist"

Speak some on the understanding of a pack. You've piqued my curiosity.

its a mystery to doof

that's why doof is a moron with good LT power

its just called talent

a parallel

doof was the killinest and illinest passer from the wing and the baseline on his HS bball team

but

he never, never, never understood basketball as more than a 2 or 3 man game

fool just never saw the whole floor or understood how offenses really work

definition: the limit of one's talent

doof knows what cats in the carolinas are always in the right move -- and they see it before it happens

doof sees it after...waaaaay after

he doesn't see the pack

they see the pack

just like a real passer sees the floor, and sees the opening before it happens

(larry larry larry bird/game's so well rounded its absurd*)
Dr. Doofus
*****************************************************************
Posted by Tom
You said: "if your understanding of a pack is "don't overlap wheels and take your turn at the front" because that's what you've done on every stupid group ride with the "fast" guys for the last ten years, you still don't have a clue and you're not a cyclist"

Speak some on the understanding of a pack. You've piqued my curiosity.

If I'm not mistaken, the main point is to use your *own* mind and senses to learn and figure things out for yourself. Kind of like the Japanese carpentry apprenticeship I had to go through, where questions were extremely and abusively discouraged in the early stages. The one's who were unable to progress in this manner were deemed unsuitable for the trade. Competence and focus is demonstrated by the types of questions asked.

bluesea
****************************************************************
>>Posted by Serpico

Stock frames fit me weird because I have a long torso (which is much cooler than saying "I have a short inseam for my height" ), but even my Lemond fit weird. The bike itself (the Lemond) was probably "too small", but I could barely clear the top tube.

I got a Serotta with a 5.5° slope, pretty slight and only noticeable if you see it from a profile view. I also opted for less head tube than they suggested, told him I would rather deal with spacers for now.

My question is, how will a framebuilder deal with my inseam/and/reach on a horizontal top tube frame? Surely people of my dimensions (hey--I look normal, never even knew about this until I started shopping for road bikes) have been riding bikes longer than slopers have been around. How else could the fitter have dealt with this?

Anyways, I'm happy with my bike--just a few thoughts I had.>>

You're happy with your bike so you are home free. I won't pretend to fit you to a different one, but I, like you, have a longish torso/shortish legs and I, like you, do not have this imbalance in an extreme, Yosemite Sam, two standard deviations kinda way. Jeans off the rack. No small children pointing, gawking, or shouting rude remarks in public. Normal lookin', at least as far as the legs go. As a consumer--not a builder--I don't find a horizontal top tube to be a problem. I have a little less seat post showing than some folks might want to see (although rather more than Dbrk's fistful francais) and a little less "clearance" than some folks recommend, but none of this is a problem as far as I can tell. I'm easily and safely able to ride, mount, and dismount my bike(s). I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with the sloping solution at all, and if Mr. Kellog wants to build me one at the long-lost-bro discount, I'm interested. I'm just saying that I haven't found that I need a sloping top tube to get the reach I want. Stock nag, off the peg, in a 56 (which is kinda like a 54.5 c-c) works, which may sound a hair tall for somebody just a hair over 5'8", but which is just fine for me, with the saddle where I want it and a reasonable stem.

I think folks are being pretty hard on those who seek expert advice on fit. Sure, people have the capacity to learn, and sure, folks should pay attention to what works and what doesn't work. But things change for people over time--families, careers, schedules, bodies, injuries, recovery time and, for many, commitment to, and time for, cycling. It's easy to develop a problem or to find that what once worked doesn't seem to work as well anymore. Or folks get used to a series of compromises and wonder if there might be something better. So they look for help. I dunno, I'm not a pro cyclist but I'm a pro at something. I sometimes seek advice in my work, which I'm supposed to know pretty well. It's not considered slacking.

djg
**********************************************************************
I know I've asked some dumb questions here but the last time the jerk shot me down pretty hard. So I went to the search function and found out that I knew the answer all along, but had been lazily looking for someone to *dictate* a solution and therefore relieving myself of the need to think, analyze, discriminate, experiment. Not that I won't ask a dumb question again, but I'm working on it.

bluesea
*********************************************************************
coming late to the party....

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

I think that two points have been made about experience.

First, if you're a newbie, it makes sense to talk to a "fitter" with lots of experience.
Second, if you are experienced yourself, you likely don't need
someone to tell you what works. Bottom line: experience.

Re: who "needs" custom? I say, why not custom, everything "should" be
made to measure. Why are there expensive stock bikes? They have
nothing to do with riding bikes, and everything to do with selling bikes.
Who would choose stock over custom? Not me. Maybe someone who
doesn't know exactly where they want to sit.

Personally, I've spent the better part of 30 years riding and thinking about
bikes, and my position on the bike, and the aesthetics of the bicycle, so
hopefully i've learned something about myself, and what I like.

Ever watch a great musician play an instrument? It's really the same as
watching a great rider do their thing. No one would expect you to be
able to play the violin just becuase a musician handed you one! And you wouldn't
be able to make great music just becuase you had one custom made.
In both cases, you would be hopeless.

Ride yer bike!

-Grant McLean
*********************************************************************
Posted by e-RICHIE
why not derail the maytag and make your own?
there is precedence, i'm told.

I saw Graham Obree ride against Chris Boardman in, ah, Winter 94-95. What a guy. His bouts with depression are terrifying. He's one of my favs!

Anyway, this is the best thread I've read. I have two friends that had some money and bought their first bikes custom. They are miserable on them. Why, because they don't know how to ride. Jerk's so right. Put them on a standard bike, rather than one built to be comfy. There is no way to be comfortable on a road bike unless you ride one a lot and know what you want. And what you want will probably be like the bike Jerk would put you on in the first place. These high-dollar comfort bikes are nasty looking.

Peter W.
*******************************************************************
I’m just going to chime in something that hasn't been said yet (after 5 pages!!!). There are some people with health issues that can't be on "standard" geometries regardless of how much they ride/train. Many people have back issues from injuries such as fused vertebrae or herniated discs. This is just the tip of the iceberg. Not everybody is biometrically compatible. I would venture to guess that we are looking at the classic bell curve. Ale-Jet is closer to one end and someone with serious back issues is on the other. That's why most bike geometries are aimed at somewhere near the middle of the curve. No need to get all touchy-feely about it.

That said I got my Serotta custom because I already had a geometry that handled the way I wanted it so I didn't want any surprises. I just wanted a different "feel" to the bike that wasn't offered in the previous bike's lineup at the time.
__________________
-Eric aka: Ergott
******************************************************************
Originally Posted by ergott
I’m just going to chime in something that hasn't been said yet (after 5 pages!!!). There are some people with health issues that can't be on "standard" geometries regardless of how much they ride/train. Many people have back issues from injuries such as fused vertebrae or herniated discs. This is just the tip of the iceberg. Not everybody is biometrically compatible. I would venture to guess that we are looking at the classic bell curve. Ale-Jet is closer to one end and someone with serious back issues is on the other. That's why most bike geometries are aimed at somewhere near the middle of the curve. No need to get all touchy-feely about it.

That said I got my Serotta custom because I already had a geometry that handled the way I wanted it so I didn't want any surprises. I just wanted a different "feel" to the bike that wasn't offered in the previous bike's lineup at the time.

Eric,

I don't think anyone should need to explain ordering a made to measure
bike. Maybe the other way around. Why get a stock one? What benefit
for the rider is there by ordering a frame designed with no one particular
in mind?

-Gee
****************************************************************
Not an expert, but I think that handling dictates the geometry on many high end bikes that have been in the peleton for a while (Colnago, DeRosa, Merckx etc.).
__________________
-Eric
****************************************************************
Originally Posted by ergott
Not an expert, but I think that handling dictates the geometry on many high end bikes that have been in the peleton for a while (Colnago, DeRosa, Merckx etc.).

I'm not sure we are on the same page.
Geometry and fit are related, (but seperate) issues.
A made to measure bike can be designed to fit differently
than a stock bike, and ride the same. Or it can be designed
to ride differently, and fit the same as a stock bike.

Or both.

Also, just because the pros ride it, doesn't mean it's good.
Every Colango comes with a 43mm rake fork, regardless of size.
That makes no sense, unless someone can explain to me the "magic" that one.
All the different size bikes have different amounts of trail,
and thus handle differently, since Colnago changes the head tube angle,
and not the rake.

-Gee
****************************************************************
Originally Posted by ergott
Not an expert, but I think that handling dictates the geometry on many high end bikes that have been in the peleton for a while (Colnago, DeRosa, Merckx etc.).

if you make a frame designed for someone with physical
limitations that won't allow him/her to assimilate what
might be considered a "normal" riding position, more often
than not the details that affect how the bicycle rides and
behaves are skewed. sometimes, in order to concede to
a pre-existing condition, "fit" details can turn "handling"
details into a nightmare of a bicycle. sure, the client is
happy that he/she can ride comfortably, but the satisfaction
with the bicycle itself is not always 100%.

e_RICHIE
***************************************************************
Originally Posted by Grant McLean
I'm not sure we are on the same page.
Geometry and fit are related, (but seperate) issues.
A made to measure bike can be designed to fit differently
than a stock bike, and ride the same. Or it can be designed
to ride differently, and fit the same as a stock bike.

Or both.

Also, just because the pros ride it, doesn't mean it's good.
Every Colango comes with a 43mm rake fork, regardless of size.
That makes no sense, unless someone can explain to me the "magic" that one.
All the different size bikes have different amounts of trail,
and thus handle differently, since Colnago changes the head tube angle,
and not the rake.

-Gee

What I meant is that let's say for example, a Merckx and DeRosa have different geos, but both can be made to fit a rider that fits on one of them. I think that the difference between the two (barring materials) would be the handling. Then again I really don't claim to be an expert here. I'm just trying to learn more.
__________________
-Eric
*****************************************************************
Originally Posted by e-RICHIE
if you make a frame designed for someone with physical
limitations that won't allow him/her to assimilate what
might be considered a "normal" riding position, more often
than not the details that affect how the bicycle rides and
behaves are skewed. sometimes, in order to concede to
a pre-existing condition, "fit" details can turn "handling"
details into a nightmare of a bicycle. sure, the client is
happy that he/she can ride comfortably, but the satisfaction
with the bicycle itself is not always 100%.

Interesting.
Thanks.
__________________
-Eric
*****************************************************************
Originally Posted by ergott
Not an expert, but I think that handling dictates the geometry on many high end bikes that have been in the peleton for a while (Colnago, DeRosa, Merckx etc.).

Except that....
...many of the bikes in the peloton are custom made for each rider. Or made by a custom maker and painted with someone else´s colors because they are sponsors footing the bills (as was the case with Lemond).

Catulle
****************************************************************
Originally Posted by Catulle
...many of the bikes in the peloton are custom made for each rider. Or made by a custom maker and painted with someone else´s colors because they are sponsors footing the bills (as was the case with Lemond).

True enough!!
__________________
-Eric
*****************************************************************
Originally Posted by Catulle
...many of the bikes in the peloton are custom made for each rider. Or made by a custom maker and painted with someone else´s colors because they are sponsors footing the bills (as was the case with Lemond).

i'd normally defer to the lad in the panama hat, but i think
pros in the peloton are now more likely to have their own unique
scents brewed by the local nose-meister than they are to have
specially made frames. with the exception of some high profile
prima donnas, most of these paid racers are on bicycles made
in asia and decorated with french and italian sounding names.
bananas, okay!??

e-RICHIE
***************************************************************
Originally Posted by ergott
What I meant is that let's say for example, a Merckx and DeRosa have different geos, but both can be made to fit a rider that fits on one of them.

Ok, I see what you are saying.

Yes, that's correct.

-Gee
**************************************************************
Originally Posted by e-RICHIE
i'd normally defer to the lad in the panama hat, but i think
pros in the peloton are now more likely to have their own unique
scents brewed by the local nose-meister than they are to have
specially made frames. with the exception of some high profile
prima donnas, most of these paid racers are on bicycles made
in asia and decorated with french and italian sounding names.
bananas, okay!??

e-Richie is right. Today, it's pretty rare to see a division 1 team not
using their sponsors gear. It can still be custom. But "generally"
it's not a "re-badged" frame from another builder. For example, Lampre guys
really did ride Cannondale bikes, but most were custom sizes or geometry.

I do remember seeing photos in BiciSport of Andrea Tafi riding a "cervelo"
that for sure was a C40 repainted. And Tyler Hamilton riding a "Look" that
was clearly a Cervelo P3. But beyond some custom TimeTrial and
special purpose bikes, I believe that to be uncommon
in 2005. Bianchi built those FG lite's for DiLuca, and they don't even
sell that frame (without carbon seatstays) But they are Bianchi's.

Anyone know of a specific example from the last year or so of a top rider
who rides something that's "undercover"?
_gee
***************************************************************
Originally Posted by Grant McLean

Anyone know of a specific example from the last year or so of a top rider
who rides something that's "undercover"?
_gee

yeah i do. maybe you have read that cipollini sonny bono-ed
a tree two days a go while skiing. his boards had dynastar
graphics but they were really volants.

e-RICHIE
**************************************************************

Big Shoes for Big Stinky Feet!!

2006-03-03T03:29:00.000-08:00

You guys know how hard it has been in the past to find a pair of good cycling shoes to fit on those canoes you call feet. In recent years it has become easier to find shoes for us knuckle draggers. We can even go the custom route through Lamson and Rocket7....which is the way to go if you've got the coin to lay down. If not, here are a few more options for you to consider on your quest for a good shoe.

William

***************************************************
I'm curious to see what brands of cycling shoes folks size 12 (U.S.) and above use for road, Cross, and/or mtb?

I rode with Nike 15's on an SPD platform for a few years before I switched to Sidi at the same time I went to the Speed Play platform. I've been riding Sidi's ever since. The last year or so though I've started getting a little numbness in one of my big toes on long rides. Never had that problem before. It seems that my feet have become a little more "boxed" (hammer toe?) then I remember them being in the past and I'm thinking I need to find a shoe with a little more room in the foot bed.

As I said, I'm curious to see what brands the Big Foots here use.

William

************************************************************
90s -- lamson

2003 - now -- R7

Doc Doofus
***********************************************************
I use sidi as well but the Doof is on the right track, take a look at the Rocket 7's if my piggy bank would allow it its what i would have!

Loctite
+*********************************************************
BiGwILlI - Before I went custom Sidi was all I used. Are you using or tried the "mega" Sidis?

Too Tall
************************************
Hammer Toe:
Same problem with me. I used Sidis for years (47, not narrow) because of my skinny foot. Great shoes. Then I began to hurt in my right foot because ... well, just because. (Explanation too long.)

Tried PI. Nope. Carnac. Nice, but too wide. Adidas. Almost perfect, but not enough heel support. Northwave. Swimming in them. DMT. Ditto. Shimano. Yuck.

Finally settled on Specialized. Very nice shoes and they work for the time being. Eventually, though, I know I'm going to have to go the custom route.

That said, feet and butts are the two most personal things that attach to a bike. Your mileage may vary.

Elephantino
********************************************************
I've been using the Shimano 215s, one pair is 47 and the other is 46.5E. The E has a bigger toe box, so the half size smaller works, and I use an extra foot pad in the 47 to make it work. I'm somewhere in between in actuality, as I have a lower volume foot but on the bigger side for length, so it's hard to get a shoe that fits in all respects, so I have to fiddle a bit.

It looks like they make the E up to 48. Depending on your basic size, William, this may be of use. Problem is that the odds are pretty poor that a shop would stock them, but a good shop probably would do a special order on the condition that if you don't like them you don't have to buy them.

keno
**********************************
bro my 13 year old has 13 size foot wears dmt flash carbon. cheers

Fixed
******************************************************
When I first got into cycling I was "forced" to spend top $$$$ on Rocket custom 7 shoes, because I could not find anything for my size 16! Two years later I found a pair of Northwaves in a size 50 (which translates to american size 15) I ordered them from online just to see how they fit (I even found them in a clearance sale for under $40)...they ended up fiting just fine! Since then I found another pair of Northwaves. Rocket 7 are the lightest and stiffest though.

george
*****************************************************
BTW,
I think it was mentioned that R7 no longer does the custom molded sock like they used to. However I spoke with them recently (while getting repairs done to my shoes) and apparently they will still send out the fiberglass 'sock' for the true custom fitting when needed, but they request that the sock be molded at a specialist's office in your area. Too many people were screwing it up on their own. Awesome shoes.

BostonDrunk
****************************************************
BD / Others, I can do the sock fitting for you in trade for potables Highlanders spoken at TTs

George - YOU GOT MAIL!

BiGwIlLy - I've got a set of Euro 51 Megas that I use infrequently. If your shop does not stock them or you want a test drive let me know. I use these only for really nasty offroad stuff where I don't want to destroy my customs.

Too Tall
**************************************************
TT, I might have to take you up on it. I'll check with my shop but I'm pretty sure they won't have anything in my size.

William
*******************************
william, i do not know if shimano makes your size or not,
but as a sidi user myself (11 1/2, average width, arches)
i found the pimpin'silver shimano shoes to have slightly
more of a toe box _ in a good way.

Manet
************************************************
i wear a 13d street shoe and have found the sidi 48 to be a perfect fit bike shoe.

alancw3
***********************************************
I have super narrow low volume feet, and found the Sidi Narrow to be the only shoe that really fits. I wear a 47. Before that I had some Diadoras that were too wide, and before that some Time Equipes that I bought in a smaller size and cut holes for my big toe.

bcm119
**********************************************
Since I grew up in the Pacific Northwest (Boring, OR to be specific...it's east/southeast of Portland on your way to Mt. Hood), I've been biased to Nike since birth. Always wore their basketball shoes and when I got into cycling I decided to try their shoes.

I ended up finding a used pair of the Nike Lance shoes in 47 on eBay for a steal. Since I wore a ton of Nike's in the past w/out any problems, I made an educated stab at the fact that my feet would work well with these. After using them for the past 6 months I haven't had any problems. I'm probably luckily and only represent the minority.

-Thanks, Todd
****************************
Another vote for Specialized. I never found a pair of Sidi's that would fit me properly (I tried regular and wide, 47-49). A LBS that sells both brands suggested I try Specialized, and the 47s were "just right".

--Marcus
***************************
I have a pair of Specialized Carbons as a backup pair, and they are more of an 'american' fit, wider than sidis, flatter than Carnac.

BostonDrunk
*******************************************
Carnac high end road shoes were perfectly comfy in 47 for my otherwise size 12 feet. But because I like to stop and walk around on my rides I gave up on all road shoes and wear Shimno MO20 mountain shoes most often now.

Ken Robb
*******************************************
I use specialized too (MTB and Road). Size 48 works great from me. I'm sure those R7s etc are great, but my wife would kill me.

Scrooge
*******************************************
My size 48 wide feet were previously happy in Carnacs, but they've changed the last, and Carnacs don't work anymore. Now I'm using a Lake model (The Hampstens are high on Lakes) and it works fine. I covet a pair of R7s, though.

rpm
******************************************
I am a size 14
And, I only use Sidi Genius 5's in a size 49. They fit perfect and are 1/2 the price of customs. Even less when you can find them on ebay.

I would spend the $$$$$ on customs, but I see no reason too. I can go 100 miles in my Sidi's without issue.

Good luck!

Steve
*****************************************
for what it's worth, shimano r215s come in "regular" and "wide"...may help.

climb1742
****************************************
I've got Sidi road, mountain and winter shoes. All in size 50.

I can't tell you how happy I was when Sidi started making shoes in sizes above 48. I still remember buying a pair of size 48 Carnac Legends and cutting a hole in the toe before my first ride.

Steve D.
***************************************
So, for the record and in no particular order we have the following entries as possibilities for Big guy shoes:

Lamson
Rocket 7's
Sidi
Sidi Genius 3's
Sidi Genius 5's
"Mega" Sidis
Carnac
Specialized
Shimano 215s
Shimno MO20
DMT's
Northwaves
Nike
Lakes

Did I leave anything out?

William
************************
Say, up in Harlem,
At a table for two,
There were four of us,
Me, your big feet and you!
From your ankles up, I say you sure are sweet,
From there down, there's just too much feet!
Yas!

Your feet's too big!
Don't want ya 'cause your feet's too big!
Can't use ya 'cause your feet's too big!
I really hate ya 'cause your feet's too big!
Yeah!

fiamme red
************************************
Sidi Genius.....w/ aftermarket inserts....careful there is not much room in the shoes, so the inserts are the thinner kind

ti boi
***********************************
Am I the only one on this forum that likes diadora!

mike P.
***********************************
yes.

f#ck diadora.

rocket 7 is the only way to go. but if you copy the jerk's all white color scheme you owe him big time royalties.....

jerk
**********************
Sidi Genius 5 size 49

have they stopped making the narrow model this year? Anyone know?

I'd love a white pair!

(if anyone knows a place that would look after me at around the $160 mark please PM)

I'm going to look like a long stretched out Jerk!

The Spider

Another Big Strong Wheel Set-up suggestion

2005-05-31T03:47:00.000-07:00

I'm always on the lookout for wheel set-ups for us big honking knuckle draggers who have a history of destroying wheels built for mere mortals. ;-) Here is a good suggestion from ergott (of the Serotta Forum) that I'm going to try out. I've already heard good things from some other big folks about the Velocity Deep V rims. I'll post a review at a later date as to who built them and how I like the set up.

William

PS: ergott's (Eric) suggestion is in response to a quote from the "Big Strong Wheel" thread below (also found on this blog). CROM!!! :-)

"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."

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

While the above does make for a strong, durable wheel I must clarify that the differences in spoke length and gauge do not change the tension difference between the sides. It just makes the best of the situation. By the way, the 2X on the non-drive has no positive effect on the wheel. It might save 7-8 grams at the most.

Eric

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

All very good information. I still stand by the fact that gauge and spoke length do not effect tension differences between the flanges. The flange geometry effects tension differences. The two different gauge spokes makes for a stronger wheel. By using a lighter gauge spoke where the tension is low, the spoke is closer to its elastic limit and therefore compliments the heavier gauge on the drive side. There is less of a chance of slack spokes during impact. 13/14 gauge double butted spokes (2.3/2.0/2.3mm) are far better than straight gauge spokes because the stresses of impact and load are transferred to the narrower gauge in the middle of the spoke rather than the ends which are prone to fatigue. You want a big boy wheelset:

front
32 or 36 holes
3 cross (4 cross for 36)
2.0/1.8/2.0mm double butted spokes.
Velocity Deep or comparable rim.

rear
36 holes
4 cross for 36
2.0/1.8/2.0mm non drive double butted spokes
2.3/2.0/2.3mm drive side double butted spokes
same rim

hubs:
DT 240s/Phil Wood/Shimano

All is lost if not built by a master wheel builder. If you ever have a problem with this setup I promise to buy them from you!

Other hubs don't have ideal flange geometry (including Campy, trust me I have a set myself, but I don't weigh that much).
Since all current drivetrains are 10 speed you can run Shimano 10 hubs with either drivetrain with no problems. I have used Dura Ace cassettes with my Record bike since there was D-10. Shifts fine.

Eric

Aero, Tension, and Low Spoke Counts Oh My!!

2005-05-05T13:11:00.000-07:00

Breaking spokes, wheels that don't stay true, rubbing brake pads. The bane of those big and tall. You know what I'm talking about. But do we really need beefy aero wheels? Or just well built hoops at the hands of people who know what they're doing?

The following comes from the Framebuilders list. Obviously the topic generally revolves around frame building, but many times it branches out....and these folks know of what they speak.

William

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

I'm curious to get everyone's opinion on minimum spoke count wheels such as the Rolfs, Cryseriums (sp?) etc. Some of these wheels have as few as 12 spokes and most are radially laced. All of them require very strong rims to counteract high spoke tensions. Very strong rims also means very heavy rims which puts all the rotating mass at the outside of the wheel. Compare this to a set of tubular rims laced 3x with 28 or 32 15/16 gage double butted spokes and you create a much lighter wheel which according to the laws of physics would take less force to accelerate. So does the wind resistance of 28 or 32 spokes offset the additional mass of these minimum spoke count wheels or are they just another marketing ploy?
Hal Bielstein

**************************************************************************************************
I don't know about others' opinions, but I'm not a big fan - AT ALL. I'm not denying their performance, because they are really light and they typically offset the stiffer/heavier rim by using straight pull spokes with the nipples on the hubs. I think it's just a trade off between how aero you want your rim vs. how light you want your wheels. The Cane Creeks and Ksyrium SSCs spin up really quickly and actually do ride pretty well. They've managed to use a pretty low spoke count with a fairly light non-aero rim.

That said, I think it's all a bunch of marketing hype. My big complaint comes from their durability. Last summer riders in my group were put out of commission on two occasions. The first was a Ksyrium that broke a spoke, and with that low spoke count there was no way to even get the wheel true enough to continue the ride. So he had to call his wife to rescue him on the side of the road. As an added kick in the ass, none of the local bike shops carried that spoke, so he waited a week for one to come in. His wheels had less than 1000 miles on them at the time.

The second occasion was the previous generation (pre 10 speed) Dura-Ace. Same thing happened: A spoke broke and the wheel came out of true so badly there was no way to continue. Those wheels had less than 50 miles on them at the time. She had just bought them two days prior.

I've been running 28 spoke Ritcheys, which admittedly aren't the best wheels, but I've got a good 4000 miles on them and have had 3 broken spokes. In each case, I was able to compensate enough with the neighboring spokes to complete the ride and fix it when I got home. I finally got rid of the black-anodized bladed spokes that came stock and laced it up with some DT competitions and I haven't broken another one since.

Just my 2 cents,
Sean

*************************************************************************************************
I wrench for a Mavic sponsored team and have also worked neutral
support at several rides/races.

For racing the wheels do offer an advantage in stiffness, weight, and
aerodynamics.

For the other 99.9% of the population they pretty much are a marketing
tool. With the exception of top of the line models, most use
considerably heavier rims, are a bear to work on, and have a harsh
ride. For any non-racing application I'd much prefer a more
conventional wheelset. I personally use Mavic Cosmos wheels on my road
and cross bikes and a set of 32 hole Open Pro wheels on my
commuting/light touring bike even though I have a basement full of
Ksyrium and Cosmic wheels.

I've had great success with Mavic wheels. Our team is mostly juniors
and we've used Ksyrium and Cosmic wheels for cross without any
problems (and teenagers are arguably harder on equipment than many
pros!) We have dented a few Kysrium rims from cross - that happens
when you ride half a lap on a flat - but they are pretty easy to
rebuild. Just make sure you take apart the hubs every so often clean
any dirt out of the hub/cassette interface. Fortunately, Mavic hubs
are a snap to take apart so this only takes a few minutes.

Prior to moving over to Mavic I used Campy wheels on my personal bikes
and had great luck with them. Only real difficult part of their wheels
is that some require you to remove the tire and rim strip to true
them. Fortunately, I only had to do that once.

Been less than impressed with Rolf wheels. I wrenched on a 7 day
charity ride and of the 11 broken spokes I repaired 7 were on Rolf
wheels. The Ritchey OEM wheels are also notorious for snapping spokes
though their WCS models seem to be much better. Haven't had enough
hands-on experience with Shimano wheels to fairly comment.

Chris Lowe

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

Hal et al,
Perhaps a bigger factor for some riders (especially a Clydesdale like me) is the overall lateral stiffness of the wheel. True, the rim is heavier, and true, the rotating weight is therefore greater, but the stiffness Iin my experience, using Ksyriums) is WAY greater for climbing or sprinting than the hypothetical set of tubulars you mentioned, particularly for bigger folks. To me, that's the greatest benefit of the Ksyriums I ride--along with the fact that, touching wood, I haven't had an issue with them in 3 years, while any standard wheel would have given me at least a broken spoke or two.

In terms of marketing, I'm not sure why they don't focus on the strength and stiffness more than the 'aero' and just sell 'em to crit racers all day long...

John Cully

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

Harold wrote
>>>The bottom line still is that if you break a spoke, you're gonna be
thumbing home.>>>

There is a solution! I'm 6'6" and 240 and I got tired of pushing my bike
home with broken spokes.

I bought a Stein tool for removing the cassette (available at Harris) and I
carry 3 spokes in my seat post.

I filled the post with foam and then stuck a cork in the end and pushed the
spokes through the cork. The foam keeps them from rattling on the tube.

I feel much more confident knowing I'm not going to get stuck in the
boonies!
Jim

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

I don't really understand though.

Yes, I have had all my wheels custom made. But I weight 230lbs and have
broke a single spoke in all my life, that included Mountain biking. How
are all these spokes breaking all the time?

I also ride normal stuff, 32 hole, Mavic or Campy rims and DB spokes.
Same for MTB.

Dave Bohm

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

dave bohm wrote:
How are all these spokes breaking all the time?

making them from aluminium as in Mavic Ksyriums helps a lot ;)
--

Marten Gerritsen

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

Sean Ebert:

Both of the incidents I referred to (Dura Ace and Ksyrium) were faulty spokes. Close inspection by the bike shops revealed flaws near the heads. As for the spokes I broke on my Ritcheys, I later found out there was a recall due to a bad batch of the black bladed DTs. Since switching to round double-butted (and building them myself), I've not had a problem.

**********************************************************************************************
Sean Ebert:
I'm not a wheel expert (and only recently acquired a tensiometer), but I'm operating under the impression that tension is determined by the strength of the hubs and rims, not by the weight of the rider you're building for.

From: Jim Blair
To: dave bohm >, framebuilders@phred.org
Subject: Re: [Frame] Minimum Spoke Count Wheels
Date: Wed, 04 May 2005 14:57:23 -0400

Dave wrote
How are all these spokes breaking all the time?

Doers a wheel builder tension the spokes the same for say a 160 lb rider
and a 240 lb rider?
Jim

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

Seen a few snap. Most were due to the heads shearing off the nipples
at the rim. High spoke tension and alloy nipples are a less than ideal
combination!

Chris

On 5/4/05, Harold Bielstein wrote:
Thanks Chris- great information - appreciate your input. I guess I've
only seen the lower end of that wheel type spectrum. The bottom line
still is that if you break a spoke, you're gonna be thumbing home. Have
you had any experience with Velomax's wheels?

******************************************************************************************
Chris Lowe:
Umm that should be tiny fraction of all RIDERS.

On 5/4/05, Chris Lowe wrote:
Simple: the market for crit racers represents a tiny fraction of a
percentage of all racers. The reality is the majority of Ksyrium SL,
Zipp, Campy Bora, etc. wheels sold will never see competition just
like the majority of Ferraris sold will never be driven past 100mph.
Take a look at the number of USCF license holders and compare that to
the number of bikes sold.

Chris Lowe

On 5/4/05, john cully wrote:

In terms of marketing, I'm not sure why they don't focus on the
strength and stiffness more than the 'aero' and just sell 'em to crit
racers all day long...

***********************************************************************************
I have about 1200 miles on a set of Campy Eurus wheels (21 rear, 16 front
spokes, 28.5mm rim depth). So far I have had no problems, and they seem
to maintain true very well (no adjustments needed). I weigh 175 lb in r
iding gear, and while I avoid obvious road hazards, I do not baby them ei
ther. This is consistent with one test report I have read, and my LBS ag
rees.

I do worry about spoke breakage due to the high spoke tension and uniquen
ess (availability) of the spokes. I think the attachment design has a la
rge influence on this though. Straight-pull spokes (no elbow) are much l
ess likely to fail, since the bend is where most spokes break. Campy’s
design uses threads at both ends of the spoke, with the hub ends secured
by a T-nut that slides into the flange from the side, and has a circular
seating surface. Spoke failure due to impact damage is something else a
gain. If you don’t want to walk home, better have a spare wheel, or sp
are parts, tools, and not be in too much of a hurry.

WARNING: Engineer speak follows!

There are definitely some drag reduction benefits in deeper rims, but mos
t agree that you need more than 30mm rim depth to really get at it. Note
that full aero rims are ~60mm deep, and not suitable for general use due
to wind effects. I can hold a straight line with the Eurus wheels in gu
sty conditions, but it takes effort. Deep rims might exacerbate a shimmy
problem, with unsteady flow providing an excitation force. The Eurus spo
kes are “aero” shaped, but I don’t believe the thickness-to-chord r
atio is much over two (haven’t measured), so they are not much better t
han round spokes of the same thickness. However, they are about half as
thick as round spokes, and there are half as many of them, so the spoke d
rag must be about one fourth. For conventional wheels, the wheel drag is
maybe 10% of total bike + rider drag, so taking a wild guess, maybe ther
e is a few percent total bike + rider drag reduction possible here, less
in an extreme cross-wind (deep rims actually have lower drag in a moderat
e cross-wind).

On the flat at constant speed the power lost due to the extra weight is e
ssentially zero since it only affects rolling resistance. When accelerat
ing, the effective mass increase is doubled due to rotational inertia (as
suming all the weight increase is at the tire radius). For reference, Ca
mpy Eurus vs. Neutron (18.5mm, 22 front 24 rear spokes), both clinchers,
weight difference is 110g per pair. Let’s say I could save as much as
125g per wheel by going to a lighter shallow rim. This would equal 250g
per wheel set in mass, and 500g per wheel set “effective” mass. So f
or accelerating on the flat, I have added about 0.6% to total bike + ride
r mass (which is about 87 kg for me), and about the same in instantaneous
power required at the same acceleration rate. Climbing a significant hi
ll (say 7%) at a steady speed, the effect is only from hauling the increa
sed mass up the slope. I know that 1 kg mass increase is about 1% in pow
er under these conditions, so the heavier rims cost about 0.25% in power.

Adding up the numbers, the aero benefits will far outweigh any weight pen
alty on the flat (where close to 90% of rider power is in overcoming drag
), and probably come close to canceling out the weight penalty on a climb
, where close to 90% of rider power is used for climbing. Acceleration p
ower will always be increased, but maybe the extra lateral stiffness of t
he deeper rim will offset some of this.

Martin Manning

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

A long time lurker, but I wanted to comment regarding wheels.

1. Spokes should **NEVER** break unless it is from a manufacturing
defect.
Manufacturing defects are rare and any spoke that is defective will break
either during the initial build or within the first few days of use.
Spokes that
break after this time do so because they are not stress relieved. There
are residual stresses at the elbows of the spokes that are caused by
the manufacturing process. If you don't relieve these stresses, then
eventually the spoke will break. I weigh over 200 pounds, often
commute with as much as 80 pounds on my bike, and have not had
a broken spoke not due to an accident as far back as I can remember,
at least 10-15 years, and I've never heard of a spoke breaking in any
of the 30-50 wheelsets I've built in that time either. Proper stress
relieving
results in a strong wheel which doesn't go out of true nor break spokes.

2. The weight of the wheel is inconsequential. If you take a bike, put
it in the largest gear (say a 53X12), and flip it upside down, you can
likely spin the rear wheel up to 40 MPH with one full crank revolution
from using just your arm. If you ride this bicycle and try to accelerate
it up to 40 MPH, you might never make it. The first example shows
the amount of power necessary to accelerate the wheel. The second
example shows the amount of power necessary to accelerate the
bike/rider combo. In relation to the mass and power necessary to
accelerate the complete bike/rider combo, wheel weight is basically
inconsequential. Aerodynamic effects outweigh weight in all but steady,
steep climbing. As a real life example, look at match sprinters, who
rely on acceleration the most of all bicycle racing events. They will
always use a heavy but aerodynamic wheelset.

3. In general, wheels that don't go out of true when a spoke breaks
aren't
built with enough tension. The amount of tension you can put into the
spokes greatly determines the load carrying and impact handling
capacity of a wheel, so whether you build for a 100 pound cyclist or
a 200 pound cyclist, you should use the same tension.

4. Harshness from certain wheelsets because they are "stiff" is not
backed up by measurement. Radial stiffness of most wheelsets is in
the 5000 lb/inch to 15000 lb/inch range. A 200 pound load on the ends
of this spectrum result in rim deflections of 0.04 inches in the least
stiff wheel to 0.013 inches in the stiffest wheel. Meanwhile, between the
tires and saddle, the amount of deflection is magnitudes greater,
probably on the order of a half inch or so, which is 12.5 times greater
than the least stiff wheel. It is hard to imagine that a rider could feel
something that offers that little contribution. It is likely that
wheelsets
which are described as "stiff" may sound differently or transmit
different frequencies of vibration, and these may be interpreted as
harsh.

Thanks for all the information on your list.

Wayne Lim

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

So now the big question. As a frame builder producing a complete bike for a customer, will you stake your rep on a set of minimum spoke count wheels? Or do you spec a set of aftermarket wheels or do you build a set yourself? Whats the general consensus?
Hal Bielstein

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

I have thought about this. I have had my fair share of issue with trick
aftermarket wheelsets and customers. They are a great money maker, I
might still offer them, but I have considered doing what e-richie does
and get somebody really good, like Joe Young to provide them for me.

Dave Bohm

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

alas. great advice from bohemian-issimo.
e-RICHIE

*******************************************************************************************
I build some frames, But I build waay more wheels. It
definitely belongs in the precision watchmaking
category of jobs, not many people do it well anymore.
Heck if QBP has it's way not only will you pay a lot
for a small order, but oem bike assembly will occur
there too. It's just one more way to remove labor and
services from the stores, that lbs' simply cannot do.

Low spoke count, high spoke count, carbon fiber helium
filled spoke rims welded by pass joints, who cares.
What ever the customer pays for and makes them grin is
the final answer. I have done plenty of low spoke
count wheels,a nd high ones, and properly designed for
an individuals needs, I've had no problems across the
board.

MYLES
*************************************************************************************

yeah,

custom wheels is my opinion. Why?
because why throw on wheels for 320lb guy on a frame
for a 130 lb woman?

I came into frame building from wheel building. My
favorite wheels are my 260 gr alum fiamme Ergals..

Build a pair of those up and you learn much. It's easy
to over tension those, even using 36 spokes. It's
weird to see a wheel want to buckle in the stand.

If your going to build, or have contract built wheels,
to go with your frame, you better understand how a low
spoke count wheel usually has a greater interia.
((less spokes mean higher tension each, and there is
also much more space between spokes that the rim has
to stabilize it's self. A double wammy. do the math)

For a store the pre-builts make sense, no labor
charge, and much, much more profit.

There is a vendor I'm working with that's about to do
330 gram clinchers.. the question is how to sell my
current customer on two sets of wheels...

Also consider how much drag is by using more, much
smaller spokes that have signifiacntly less drag...

cheers
Ed "a true race wheel is too light for touring or even
daily training, and only last a season anyhow"
westhead
***************************************************************************

I build all the wheels for my bicycles. The only exceptions are when
the customer brings his old parts or the customer wants some specific
wheelset that is commercially available. I try to discourage the "wheel
systems" based on performance per dollar analysis. The general
population usually doesn't go fast enough to get anything out of these
fancy wheels, except perhaps bragging rights.
Omar Khiel
***************************************************************************

A fun experiment... let the air out of your tires, and check the spoke tension, fill your tires again and check the tension.

Nat"going drink another cup of coffee and watch a movie while building up a pair of track wheels with DT comp, Campy Omega V-profile, Gipiemme Special Hubs, and Linseed Oil"Weller

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

The conversation then branched off into spoke tension ....

William

**************************************************************************
daniel:

I have yet to make a contribution, so why start now.
When I was in Italy many decades ago, I befriended a bike store owner,
and he taught me how to build wheels. I asked him why not just make each
spoke the same tension? He replied by saying, we are not dealing with
perfect materials. The rim is not a perfect circle. I do not understand
when people say there must be uniform tension. If every spoke had the
same tension, the wheel would be out of true.

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

cosmetic trueness is a myth; you must err on the
side of proper and equal tension. furthermore,
rim materials and production tolerances many decades
ago bear no resemblance to current offerings.
e-RICHIE

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

Even spoke tension. IT's important to realize that
tension increases and decreases as the wheel turns...
pardon the pun. In my humble opinion, perfect even
tension is relatively impossible. Within 5% or so, is
another story. Huge differences in tension can cause
things like premature spoke break-age, inability of
wheels to stay in true, and possibly low tides in
montauk.

myles

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

Gott agree with Richard on that one. I recently built a wheel with an
old GEL 280 rim and couldn't help but notice how much more difficult
it was to build than an Open Pro. The rim simply wasn't round to begin
with.

You can make a wheel that has a deviation of only +/-5% tension and is
laterally and vertically true enough not to be noticed using modern
materials. Forced to compromise, I'll go with even spoke tension over
perfect trueness everytime.

Chris Lowe

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

snipped:
"I recently built a wheel with an old GEL 280 rim..."

this example as well as ed's ergal 290 (or was it 260?)
gram rim illustrates the contrast when you use 20-30
year old technology. rims today are quite stout, and
machined sidewalls are a plus too. proper tension over-
rides cosmetic trueness any day of the week but today's
offerings allow that both are a possibility.
e-RICHIE

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

Your friend in Italy is absolutely correct!
Omar Khiel

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

I agree that today's rims are closer to true out of the box. But, the
example you mentioned, the difference you noticed was from the welded
seam versus the pinned seam. The welded seam rims are much more stable
to build. The machined sidewalls are also done to improve tolerances.
I will bet that the GEL and the Open Pro were rolled on the same or
similar machine at Mavic. They have always been good on tolerances.
They run into trouble when they get too light. A good example of this
was the Open 4CD which just pre-dates the Open Pro.
Omar Khiel

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

Having built hundreds of wheels, I have observed that it is possible to
arrive at what Richard calls "cosmetic trueness" with uneven/incorrect
tension. The same wheel can be re-tensioned properly and cosmetic trueness
will follow. Like many things you will find that there are multiple ways to
get the wheel true, but only one way to really do it correctly.

Tony Pereira

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

but...
cosmetic trueness must take a backseat to
proper and equal tension if IF the wheel
is to have integrity.
e-RICHIE

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

I completely agree. I was trying to emphasize that cosmetic trueness is not
an indicator of correct tension.

Tony Pereira

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

Is it just me, or does this thread have a decidedly "eastern" tone? The Yin and Yang of wheelbuilding... The ideals of cosmetic trueness and even tension can never be achieved simultaneously. These are false virtues. One can defeat the other, but the true ideal, integrity, is only possible with a peaceful compromise. Otherwise, self destruction is assured.

MPM

Clydesdale Speed Weaponry Wheels by Zipp

2005-02-17T03:25:00.000-08:00

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

2005-02-17T03:06:00.000-08:00

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.

Big Strong Wheels for Big Strong Riders

2005-02-16T13:37:00.000-08:00

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!

2005-02-16T11:59:00.000-08:00

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

2005-02-16T11:48:00.000-08:00

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.

2005-02-16T04:15:00.000-08:00

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.

2005-02-16T03:57:00.000-08:00

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.

2005-02-16T03:38:00.000-08:00

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.

2005-02-16T03:31:00.000-08:00

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

Big Mac on Big Frames.

2005-02-15T11:34:00.000-08:00

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

2005-02-15T11:25:00.000-08:00

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.

Big Frames for big frames. Part 1

2005-02-15T11:01:00.000-08:00

This section comes from a question I posed on the Serotta forum...ok, the only bike forum I hang out on. The topic was "Big Frames for the big". If you are like me you have been disappointed in the fact that it just isn't easy to find frames for people our size so we almost always have to go custom. Custom is nice, don't get me wrong. But it would be nice to have more options.

I've left out a few posts that wandered off topic. I almost left out the weight lifting divergence by my friend Roy Munson, but then realized that many responses that followed tied the two topics together so I left it in.

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

A BIG question for the frame builders on the forum...
What do you take into consideration when building a frame for large, aggressive, powerful riders? Material, tubing, angles, lugged vs. tig welded?

So far, the "production" bikes that I've ridden I've turned into wet noodles. I think that they just take the same tubing and geometry and expanded it out to make a larger bike. Not really taking too much consideration for the larger forces that could likely be applied by larger, more powerful riders.
My first custom frame was a disappointment in the beginning only because (in hindsight) I don't feel that the builder took me too seriously about what kind of forces I know I can generate when laying down the power. The second time around was better but I was pretty turned off by the experience by that point. Ben & Co, did a fine job and I felt like they took me seriously in the frame they built for me. I will be honest and say that there is a small amount of dead feel (slight lack of crispness) in the handling that I like, but that might just be a trade off to get the stiffness I need in the BB...I don't know.

Why do I ask?
My wife is softening on the issue of getting another custom built for me. She still wants me to keep costs down as much as possible though. I had been looking around for used frames, but honestly, for what I need, there is practically nothing out there. So, with the advances in tubing and materials, I would like to be (in the words of DWF) edumacated on what the frame builder POV is on building frames for the likes of me and similar ilk out in the world.

Thank you in advance!

William

*****************************************************************8

posted by Too Tall

Willm, we are cut from similar cloth and you do pay a price for being uh...special but only in as much that effort required to make a great ride is high and meebbe rarified. I had two customs that ARE junk (name withheld cause it makes my mad) and one really great one (ClarkKent) before Serotta built my Ti Legend...heaven.

Kelly B. and Smiley teamed to design/build what is one of the finest custom Ti rigs for a tall guy EVER. No, you don't have to give up any "crispness" or lively feel if you are careful with design. My next move will no doubt be a custom CSI. Aside from Serotta I have confidence a guy like Matt Barkley and Dario P. could do you right.

If you are ever in my neck-o-the-woods. BYO saddle and I'll fit you onto my Legend. I'll need the keys to your Porsche and fingerprints first

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

Posted by William

Issue numba two:

Do you think longer crank length has much of an impact on the BB? Just like when your trying to loosen a bolt with a socket wrench and it's stuck, put a breaker bar on it to increase the leverage to break it free. In comparing crank length of say 172.5 or 175 to 180mm, do you think there are differences in the forces that are applied that would be large enough that they should be taken into consideration?

William

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

Posted by William

>>Quote:

Kelly B. and Smiley teamed to design/build what is one of the finest custom Ti rigs for a tall guy EVER. No, you don't have to give up any "crispness" or lively feel if you are careful with design.

Interesting, I always thought that I would pretty much have to stick with Steel. I like steel. But I did always wonder what all the hub-bub about Ti was. That hearting to hear, I like a snappy/crisp handling ride and thought that I might have to give it up to get proper sizing.

>>Quote:

If you are ever in my neck-o-the-woods. BYO saddle and I'll fit you onto my Legend. I'll need the keys to your Porsche and fingerprints first>>

I might take you up on that. And believe me, if there was a Porsche in the family, my wife wouldn't let me near it . How about the keys to my Dodge and a paw print from our Basset Hound?

William

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

Posted by Too Tall

Basset hounds rul...bring him. No MiniVans.

Yeah of course, longer lever arms more tangentinal force..also, my impression and gut feeling is that TALL riders issues with frame flex are affected more by their actual height above the BB esp. out of the saddle rather than pedaling forces measure from hips down.

I picked Ti becuase of two things. Ben claimed he could build a Ti bike that I'd love eg. stiff and durability. Cha Ching! When I hop on my (steel) SLX Clark Kent the similarities are scary. Keep in mind the genius of Kelly and Co. with materials design. If you (yah big ape) asked for a super light weight Ti bike that sprints well he might ask you to reconsider. My Ti frame is no featherweight. Rigged out with uberwheels and common DA stuff it's something like 21lbs....unless ZAP has filled the seattube with lead shot again.

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

Posted by Aneida Ride:

In my case, Serotta oversized the tubing and used the Rapid Tour
chain stays. Shorter top tube. Bike is perfect.

I have little doubt that Serotta specializes in Clysdale Legends and can build
the frame of you dreams. But Garbage in, Garbage out. Kelly needs to know
how you want this puppy to ride.

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

posted by William

>>Quote:

Yeah of course, longer lever arms more tangentinal force..also, my impression and gut feeling is that TALL riders issues with frame flex are affected more by their actual height above the BB esp. out of the saddle rather than pedaling forces measure from hips down.

I have the feeling that you're spot-on. I know that when I'm out of the saddle sprinting balls to the walls is when if feel the most "squish" in a frame. I could make that old Fuji Roubaix flex enough to get it to shift gears by itself...if spokes didn't start breaking first. I think where I start treading into that "freak-O-nature" range is my body make-up. I'm very tall, but I also carry a lot of muscle mass, especially my lower body. I'm built like a tree trunk. During the off season my weight training program includes leg presses where I'm working up to 1,100+ lbs. for reps (spinning before & after with lots of stretching in between). I love making the roid boys shake their heads. The point being (and I hate sounding like I'm pulling my own chain) that with my sprinting style and longer cranks, I know I'm creating some crazy forces on the frame that most bikes don't encounter, even big ones.

>>Quote:

I have little doubt that Serotta specializes in Clysdale Legends and can build
the frame of you dreams. But Garbage in, Garbage out. Kelly needs to know
how you want this puppy to ride>>

I don't think my first custom builder believed me...and I broke it for him. The second one faired better but as I said before, I was pretty disgusted by that point. With the CSI I had built, I have a feeling that my LBS thought they knew what I needed better than I did. Maybe all the info didn't make through the middle man? Maybe it did? Anyway, don't get me wrong, I do really like it. It has a smooth and true, solid ride. Great on long rides. It just lacks some of the quick handling characteristics I like in a bike. I'm willing to let Serotta & co. try again. I believe To Tall knows of what he speaks and his word is worth considering. If I do, I would prefer to work directly with them instead of going through a middle man again.

William

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

William,

If Serotta can't build the appropiate frame, at least they will tell you.

You have really no option, but to call Serotta and chat with Kelly,
their chief designer. He'll give ya the scoop.

Serotta used to offer a supersized Tubing. I suspect it was for guys
like you.

My Serotta is a 64 Rapid Tour Legend. If you weigh between 220 and
270 it should easliy accomodate you. You are welcome to demo it.

NH,

They do make 100 lb plates.

Posted by William:

>>Quote:
Is that some special Gold's Gym type machine, or does your gym have larger than 45lb plates? >>>

The old gym that I went to had an old custom built machine that I could put one 100lbs plate and eight 45's on each side. They only had two 100lbs plates which is why I had to use so many 45's. Then I would pile about five more 45's on top of the sled. The gym I'm at now has plenty of 100's.

>>Quote:
My Serotta is a 64 Rapid Tour Legend. If you weigh between 220 and
270 it should easliy accomodate you. You are welcome to demo it.>>

I weigh in at 255-260 and stand 6', 6" tall. Thanks, the offer is very much appreciated.
I think that I fall into the part of the bell curve that is "experimental" for most frame builders. I could be wrong but that's the feeling I get after asking around a bit. I'm sure Serotta can do it as well as a few other builders. Like you said, good communication is key.
BION, I was actually told by one builder that guys like me shouldn't ride. He was probably kidding but he kept a pretty serious poker face.

William the Big Ape

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

Posted by Smiley:

William , when we built the Legend Ti for Too Tall we built it with one design goal , NO BB FLEX and this bike stands today as an example of what Serotta can do. It was built with non stock very oversized tubes, I saw the tandems serotta built and this frame has these tubes in the main traingle. I think you'll have to wait for these tubes to be available as Needs Help was awiting the shipment of something in this range. If enough of you BIG guys place orders with Serotta they will get these gonzo tubes in. Too Tall is a machine and if anybody can flex a frame using 180 mm cranks with his leverage ...I'd bet on the Big guy every time. Fact is too Tall could probably ride with 190 mm cranks if someone made them. Best of luck in your quest and your better served in talking to the factory or like Too Tall did see Serotta ( Ben ) and challenge him to build you a no flex frame.

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

Gorilla
------------------------------------------------------------------------
William.

I'm 6'4 about 245 right now. I should be at 225. I have riden this frame
at 250+. So it will easily take your weight. I see you reside in RI.
Perhaps we could both drive and meet halfway ? This way you could
offer Kelly some specific feeback on one particular large beefy frame.
I think this would provide Kelly with valuable insight.

My LBS guru has fitted numerous big/tall guys. One in particular was a NFL
or NBA monster. 6'6 to 6'8 and 275 Lb, The First thing Rick did was to
call the factory and ask if Serotta could build a machine for this guy.
The factory replied "sure" . He purchase a CIII.

The real problem was finding someone to test ride it before delivery.

Visit the Serotta Photo gallery and the 2003 open house gallery.
About 6 picts in, there is one of Kelly and my bike. Note the
beefed up chain stays.

I understand your predicament. I could not find a "balll park" bike
to demo either and had to take a leap of faith. Serotta got it spot on.
I suspect that you will take a 65 at least. I've seen a 65/66 Ottrott
( also fitted by Rick ) at the Serotta Grand opening. It looked just
fine.

William, I hope this helps,
*****************************************************************

Posted by Peter:

William,

The only and BEST way to get it right is to order ANOTHER Serotta. You need to tell them, "I own a frame with serial number "x". Look up the specs. This is what I like about it (fill in the blank). This is what I don't like (fill in the blank). And this is how I want my new frame to ride, compared to my existing frame."

You absolutely, positively need your existing frame specs to provide a frame of reference for comparison with the qualities you desire in your new frame. That's why you should stay with Serotta-they'll have the specs of the existing frame and you'll both be speaking the same language. You can pick many other qualified builders out there but you'll be practically starting out at ground zero again if you choose that route.
****************************************************************************

Posted by Needs Help:

Peter,

If a builder screws up your first frame, then order another one from him because then he has a better frame of reference? That could get expensive.
*************************************************************************

Posted By Aneida Ride:

Nh,

William did not indicate that Serotta screwed up. Actually, he claimed they
did a "fine job". He seems very pleased with this iteration.

The real question is. Currently, what builder has the highest
probability of creating William's perfect frame ?
*************************************************************************
Posted by Bruce H.:

I am riding a stock steel Rapid Tour. I am 6'2" and about 240 right now. (Stress induced wt. gain) I have put over 4,000 miles on it and I work the pedals hard (speedplay zeros).
I have had no problems to date and absolutely love riding this bike.
Bruce H. [who leg presses a hefty 220 lbs on my best day!]

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

Y'all quit trying to start a big guy war. Don't you know...us "freaks" are at peace. Willms leg pressing ability is too cool. We are very different smokes. If we were on a team together I'd be the guy who is placed second to last in the sprint line and he'd be the closer.

Peter, surprisingly Serotta and Co. might not retain specs. for all their bikes made. At least, this was my experiance when calling regards a used frame made in (93?).

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

Posted by Roy Munson:

I hate to break this to you guys, but being big and having gym lifts does NOT make one a great sprinter. How many bozo's do you meet who think because they go to the gym and are heavy that they would tear the leg's of everyone in a sprint. Weightlifting strength has very little transference (if that's a word) to the bike. As an off-season training supplement, weight lifting is not bad, but on the bike strength is best done on the bike. Training the legs in the gym during a cycling season is ridiculous if you want to be a good cyclist.

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

Posted by William:

>>>Quote:
If a builder screws up your first frame, then order another one from him because then he has a better frame of reference? That could get expensive. >>>

AR is correct. Serotta did a good job on the frame I recieved. I just don't think it's exactly what I asked for. I place more of the onus on the lbs than Serotta. We had some differences on what I wanted and what they felt I needed. Bottom line, at this point I can't prove it either way.

>>>Quote:
Y'all quit trying to start a big guy war. Don't you know...us "freaks" are at peace.>>>

Yeah, us big freaky guys are usually pretty laid back....but the "Walk sofltly and carry a big stick" rule usually applies here.

HEY ROY!! YOU CALLING ME BOZO MAN??!!! ;-)

>>Quote:
I hate to break this to you guys, but being big and having gym lifts does NOT make one a great sprinter. How many bozo's do you meet who think because they go to the gym and are heavy that they would tear the leg's of everyone in a sprint. Weightlifting strength has very little transference (if that's a word) to the bike. As an off-season training supplement, weight lifting is not bad, but on the bike strength is best done on the bike. Training the legs in the gym during a cycling season is ridiculous if you want to be a good cyclist. >>>

No one claimed that having big lifts makes you a good sprinter. Go back and read. The only reason I brought up the lifting was to illustrate that I can create some very heavy forces on a frame and that should be taken into consideration when a chosen builder is trying to build me one. As I said, my first custom builder didn't believe me and I broke the frame for him.

Now, lifting is part of my off-season training and I spin before, strectch in between sets, and spin after to keep my muscles loose and add that cycling specific muscle memory to the mix. I don't advocate this for anyone but my self. Does it work for sprinting ability? It works for me.

>>Quote:
I see you reside in RI.
Perhaps we could both drive and meet halfway ? This way you could
offer Kelly some specific feeback on one particular large beefy frame.
I think this would provide Kelly with valuable insight.>>>

AR, I might have to take you up on the offer.

William (The ape lifting sprinter)
*******************************************************************************

Posted by Roy Munson:

>>>Quote:
The only reason I brought up the lifting was to illustrate that I can create some very heavy forces on a frame and that should be taken into consideration when a chosen builder is trying to build me one. As I said, my first custom builder didn't believe me and I broke the frame for him.>>>

Are you lifting the frame or riding it? Again, what difference does weightlifting have on riding?

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

Posted by flydhest:

Roy,

It has a lot to do with it. Now . . . I won't argue that he who can press the most sprints the best. Far from it. In fact, I would look at the two separately, find me someone who has really strong legs but isn't all that fast in a sprint, and I'll probably show you someone who hurts frames. Really good sprinting is often about using the bike correctly to transfer your strength to going forward---fast. If you have a lot of strength and aren't the fastest sprinter, the effort is likely going somewhere. This is a good recipe for broken frames.

I don't know anything at all about William. Some strong guys who have smooth strokes break frames just from the forces doing their things. Others break frames due to a less than great pedal stroke that can torque the hell out of a frame.
*************************************************************************

Posted by Aneida Ride:

Hey Big Galooth,

Demo ride is available any time. My Pleasure.

Send me a E-mail or PM.

Finding the right LBS/Fitter is the Key. The fitter needs to accurately
present you to Serotta. Garbage in = Garbage out.

Good Luck and Best Regards,

********************************************************************
Posted by zap:

Weight lifting is one of the best ways to gain strength for cycling. Heavy weights should only be done in the off season and done in conjunction with cycling after weights reaps maximum benefits. Keep it up William!

Typically you will lose peak strength as the cycling season progresses, but you are getting fitter and losing weight as your speed improves. I had my best cycling season after I was able to squat 325 lbs.

Too Tall is correct in that the riders height needs to be factored in. IMO, the taller you are, the stronger the frame needs to be. For example, a rider that's 6'7" , weighs 205lbs will need a stronger frame than a rider equally talented thats 6'0" and weighs the same (205lbs).
**********************************************************

Posted by Roy Munson:

Weight lifting is one of the best ways to build strength for cycling. For the inexperienced cyclist, yes. For a seasoned cyclist, not the case. Strength is best built on the bike.

I think height is important because as the bike gets bigger, the tubes get longer. I could very likely be wrong, but I think it's an accurate statement.
***************************************************************

Posted by zap:

It works for me and many others who have plenty of experience including USCF racing. I've been cycling for 18 years and started weight training when I got involved in a national decathlon training program in Canada some 27 years ago. Kept it up when I competed in Track events and Biathlons (yes, the real one w/rifles).

Plenty of Pro's use weight training in the off season as well.

Weight training is also fun and helps burn a few extra calories during the off season. The additional benefit of weight training is that it helps strengthen bones.

Roy. Try it. You might like it.
************************************************************************

Posted by Roy Munson:

I was a competitive powerlifter, so I know a tad about weight lifting, which is why I don't use weight training for my legs. None of those little knee bend squats either - deep, full squats. Cat 2 USCF racer as well. Lifting is FAR more damaging to muscles than cycling, so it takes forever to recover. Far better results using on the bike resistance training. You should try it, you might like it.

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

Posted by zap:

I agree with you that little knee bends are useless. Ditto on weights causing more muscle damage, hence weights in the off season.

Yes, resistance training on the bike is an important training method as well. As are intervals, etc.... I do it all but could probably do with more interval training during the season.

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

Well Roy,
Then you would also know that the body will only adapt to the stress that is applied to it. Power is what propels you forward on every pedal stroke. Power is what moves you up the hill, power is what moves you to the line in all out balls-to-the-walls sprints. The more power you can develop, the easier it is to propel your weight forward. If all you do is ride the bike, then you adapt to carrying your body weight on the bike. If you adapt to carrying your body weight + the strength you've built with weight training, moving just your body weight becomes easier.

You would also know that 1,100 lbs on a leg press is allot different then trying to squat that same amount. A lot less stress on the joints, back and knees since the press carries a portion of the weight. I don't do squats myself due to a back injury when I was rowing competitivley. I have no joint problems at all. Well, I do on my hands but that's from full contaqct stickfighting, not lifting.

Weight training is called for by Eddie B., and he's not just refering to track riders either. I would say that the majority of pro cyclists use some form of weight training in the off-season. Every major sport has been improved by better training involving weight training. With that said, you have to know how to apply it for whatever sport you're involved with. I have been involved in competitve sports all my life and I know what works for me. I'm a power rider and devlop lower body strength easily. The reason why I can sprint and climb well for somone my size is because of my power training and how I apply it for cycling. I will clarify the sprinting part, I'm not talking about that jack-rabbit quickness to get up to speed. I'm more of a drag racer with a long wind-up. With the big gears, I'll start my sprint much farther out than most people, I have the power and the spinning ability to wind it up and hold top speed longer than most people. When most sprinters try to come around, there's nothing left because I've already spun them out. I've won and placed enough to claissify it as successful for me.
I'm also a power climber. Sit in the saddle and power up. I know that the weight training is helping to carry my 255-260 lbs arse up the hill. Pressing for reps in the off-season makes it a heck of a lot eaiser. Of course you have to take into consideration that your training for cycling, not power lifting or body building. And, you still have to work on spinning to stay on top of the gears. It's not just about mashing strength.
Not much more I can say. I know hitting the weights helps me. Many other elite level coaches call for it as well. If you don't need it, more power to you. But trying to use a blanket statement that,...

"Weight lifting is one of the best ways to build strength for cycling. For the inexperienced cyclist, yes. For a seasoned cyclist, not the case".

...sounds to me like an your own opinion. Of course, that's just MY opinion. I think we all know the old saying about opinions. But look at most elite level training programs and you will certainly find weight training as a part of them.

Bottom line, I know what works for me.

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

Posted by William:

>>>Quote:
Hey Big Galooth,

Demo ride is available any time. My Pleasure.

Send me a E-mail or PM.

AR,>>>
Again,
Thank you very much, and I'll be in touch.

William (Grape Ape)

************************************************************************
Posted by Djg:

Isn't Lennard Zinn supposed to specialize in this sort of thing?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've never had one of his bikes, so I'm going by rep only, but he's about your height and a former US team member and I believe he's especially interested in (and experienced at) building frames for larger/taller riders. It might be worth talking to him.

Welcome Big Barbarian Cyclists!!!

2005-02-15T03:42:00.000-08:00

Welcome to Big Bill's (aka-William) Big Barbarian Bike Blog. In the pages to follow I will be gathering information from different cycling forums, web pages, and articles written by myself and others that pertain to the Big people of the cycling world. Tall, strong, heavy, or all of the above. Frames wheels, building techniques, clothing and training tips for those of us on the far side of the bell curve.

"Gentlemen, let's plow the road"

Bill.