Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Classic & Vintage
Reload this Page >

Brooks saddle angle

Notices
Classic & Vintage This forum is to discuss the many aspects of classic and vintage bicycles, including musclebikes, lightweights, middleweights, hi-wheelers, bone-shakers, safety bikes and much more.

Brooks saddle angle

Old 03-08-21, 07:37 AM
  #26  
noglider 
aka Tom Reingold
 
noglider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: New York, NY, USA
Posts: 40,176

Bikes: 1962 Rudge Sports, 1971 Raleigh Super Course, 1971 Raleigh Pro Track, 1974 Raleigh International, 1975 Viscount Fixie, 1982 McLean, 1996 Lemond (Ti), 2002 Burley Zydeco tandem

Mentioned: 495 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7014 Post(s)
Liked 1,764 Times in 1,099 Posts
Originally Posted by Het Volk View Post
I was worried that I would lose ability to ride in the drops since the B17 is supposed to be for upright riding.

Who says the B17 is for upright riding? I don't remember seeing it on an upright bike, but I'm sure there are some with B17's. I have B17's on most of my bikes, and they have drop bars. I'm one of those who prefer the nose tilted up. Mine is tilted up more than most people's, so there might be an anatomical reason. Maybe my pubic bone is higher in relation to my sit bones than on other people. I haven't measured that in myself or in anyone else.
__________________
Tom Reingold, tom@noglider.com
New York City and High Falls, NY
Blogs: The Experienced Cyclist; noglider's ride blog

“When man invented the bicycle he reached the peak of his attainments.” — Elizabeth West, US author

Please email me rather than PM'ing me. Thanks.
noglider is offline  
Likes For noglider:
Old 03-08-21, 07:53 AM
  #27  
easyupbug 
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,239

Bikes: too many sparkly Italians, some sweet Americans and a couple interesting Japanese

Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 435 Post(s)
Liked 357 Times in 268 Posts
After many years all my saddles, including Brooks & Selle Anatomica, get set up with an incliometer to 2º to 3.5º nose up, your sweet spot will likely vary.
easyupbug is offline  
Old 03-08-21, 08:09 AM
  #28  
Kobe 
Senior Member
 
Kobe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Schwenksville, Pa
Posts: 2,784

Bikes: '80 Mercian Olympic, '07 Rivendell AHH, '16 Clockwork All-Rounder, '19 Gunnar Sport

Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 248 Post(s)
Liked 204 Times in 131 Posts
I have B17's on 5 bikes, 2 with upright bars and 3 with drop bars. All of them are pointed up otherwise I feel like I am sliding forward.
__________________
Kobe is offline  
Old 03-08-21, 08:40 AM
  #29  
amedias
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Devon, UK
Posts: 128
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 42 Post(s)
Liked 112 Times in 38 Posts
Originally Posted by noglider View Post
Who says the B17 is for upright riding?
Brooks do to some extent.

They've always recommended the different models as suitable (primarily) for different positions. That's not to say you can't use a Swift with a high bar position or a B17 with a low one but they are designed differently on purpose and for intentionally different riding positions. I think however that over time some of it has been 'misrepresented in repetition' in that B17 is not exclusively for 'upright' riding as such but for 'less extreme' angled/racing riding postion.

Brief and simplified* version is:

B17 for minimum bar drop/bars level (or above saddle)
Team Pro/B17 Narrow for small/medium drop
Swift for medium/high drop
Swallow (also) for medium/high drop.

Over the years Brooks have explained this either by vague terms like 'more upright' and 'more aggressive', and by quoting riding position angles (like they do now ie: 45deg/60/90), so although they've always been differentiated by intended riding position it's not always been exactly clear what they mean by that, and it's even more vague when you also have width playing a part. There's a lot of overlap in what can work in what position but they are definitely intended for different riding positions not just different sit bone widths.

There's more to the differences in shape that meets the eye on first glance. Not just width across the back of the cantle plate, but in flatness and angle of dropoff at the sides of the cantle, and also differences in absolute nose width, where and how quickly the nose tapers and how flat the saddles are fore and aft.

*And the B67 and flyers for properly upright town bike position.

Last edited by amedias; 03-08-21 at 08:53 AM.
amedias is offline  
Old 03-08-21, 11:10 AM
  #30  
Het Volk
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 266
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 142 Post(s)
Liked 102 Times in 59 Posts
Originally Posted by pcb View Post

Nice America! Have you ever tried it with front bags i/o rear? Those Fujis have fairly low-trail geometry, and some folks find they handle better with more loading in the front.
Great observation. It has close to 0 trail based on my measurements. I have not yet taken the plunge for a front loading bad / rack system. Interestingly, there is only one mount for what appears to be fenders. However, given the tight clearances, perhaps the mounts were for a front rack system, since fenders were not really in vogue in the early 80's when this model was released.

At the time I purchased the rear rack, I was not as informed on trail and geometry, and real bike racks were kind of the norm (a decade ago). But I love this bike for what it does, which is that it is a great commuter bike. Only thing I might change is currently, running a 42x18, which, for what I am doing with it, a little bit too much gear when going up hill.
Het Volk is offline  
Old 03-08-21, 12:07 PM
  #31  
pcb 
Senior Member
 
pcb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Joisey
Posts: 1,477
Mentioned: 91 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 376 Post(s)
Liked 613 Times in 278 Posts
Not to get too far offtrack, but zero trail is unlikely. That's for like circus/trick bikes? The America, Touring Series and S12-S/Ltd are supposed to have trail in the 30s, which is standard French front-loading territory.

In my metro NYC market there wasn't much awareness/discussion about trail back then, the early '80s, and between the folks I knew and what I saw in the magazines, there wasn't any awareness of French rando/front-loaders. A touring setup always started with a rear rack, and lotsa folks toured with 20-30lbs in the rear and only a handlebar bag in front. Front racks were for trans-continental, true long-distance riders. FWIW, no internet then, and whatever hotbed of rando-love was happening in the Bay Area or elsewhere didn't filter down to Jersey. Whaddya gonna do? Fuggeddaboutit.

That changed a bit when the Blackburn LoRiders were introduced, and we started setting up more bikes with low-mounted panniers, but there weren't any trail discussions that I remember. I did a tour on a Fuji Touring Series V frame with only LoRiders and Specialized Tailwind panniers, and it was the best, most natural touring setup/handling I ever rode. I was unaware that the TSV low-trail geo contributed to that.

There were a bunch of Treks that were low-trail designs as well, so it kind of feels like it was considered a viable geometry choice for non-rack bikes, without much specific awareness about biasing the frames for front loading.

Anyhow, the deal with the America was that it was marketed as a deluxe Touring bike, but it was actually a Sport-Tour bike that wasn't well-suited for touring use. Didn't mean you couldn't tour on it, but tire clearance wasn't great, not much room for fenders, shorter chainstays making rear pannier clearance difficult, not enough braze-ons for easily attaching racks and such. When the touring bug hit hard and Miyata/Panasonic started bringing in their actual long-distance touring models, we couldn't sell Americas to tourists any more. Fuji corporate higher-ups were very race-/performance-oriented, and it took several years and a lot of pushing to get them to make the Touring Series. And by the time the Touring Series came to market, the touring boom was dying.

There was a little less fender awareness overall back then, but serious tourists were certainly aware, and we sold a bunch of Bluemels. Just not to America riders, because they didn't really fit.

The good news is you could get a front rack to work on your America, and go with smaller front panniers and maybe a rack-top bag to duplicate the capacity you have now in the rear. You could use a rear rack-top bag as well. You might find the bike handles better with the front load, but as with most things, you won't know for sure until you try.

A front rack similar to this Velo-Orange should work OK on the front, mounts behind the brake and to the dropouts. And you can even still find vintage Blackburn LoRiders that use a fork clamp and the fender/rack boss.
https://velo-orange.com/collections/...eur-front-rack

I've tried low-trail bikes with big porteur-style racks and didn't like the handling at all. But I have very fond memories from 40yrs ago of riding that old TSV with the Lowriders and being amazed at how "normal" the handling felt. Staring at all that weight surrounding the front wheel, shaking my head that it almost felt like it wasn't there. And absolutely no tail-wagging like I had with rear loads on every bike I rear-loaded. I've got a TSIV in the stand right now I'm thinking of rigging that way. My youth is calling!

Bikepacking has ended all this, I suppose. I'm reduced to being an old geezer, shaking my durn head at the newfangled contraptions all these young'ns are riding.

I snagged this photo from the internet, have no other info about the bike/etc. But that's the standard Lowrider mounting on forks w/o Lowrider mounts in the blades. Looks clunky, works solid.







Originally Posted by Het Volk View Post
Great observation. It has close to 0 trail based on my measurements. I have not yet taken the plunge for a front loading bad / rack system. Interestingly, there is only one mount for what appears to be fenders. However, given the tight clearances, perhaps the mounts were for a front rack system, since fenders were not really in vogue in the early 80's when this model was released.

At the time I purchased the rear rack, I was not as informed on trail and geometry, and real bike racks were kind of the norm (a decade ago). But I love this bike for what it does, which is that it is a great commuter bike. Only thing I might change is currently, running a 42x18, which, for what I am doing with it, a little bit too much gear when going up hill.
__________________
Fuggedaboutit!

Last edited by pcb; 03-08-21 at 12:14 PM.
pcb is offline  
Old 03-08-21, 12:09 PM
  #32  
HTupolev
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Seattle
Posts: 4,140
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1906 Post(s)
Liked 1,170 Times in 568 Posts
Originally Posted by Het Volk View Post
It has close to 0 trail based on my measurements.
That would surprise me a lot. I haven't carefully measured my '79 Fuji America, but the lug joining the top tube to the head tube says "73," and a quick eyeballing suggests a fork offset of somewhere around 60mm. This would give a trail of about 42mm with my 28mm tires.



Interestingly, there is only one mount for what appears to be fenders. However, given the tight clearances, perhaps the mounts were for a front rack system, since fenders were not really in vogue in the early 80's when this model was released.
Eyelets aren't really purpose-specific. When I had a rack on my America, I used its single rear eyelet for both the rack and the fenders. (I put the fenders stays on the "outside", to minimize the unsupported load on the bolt.)



With front eyelets, it's most convenient to attach racks to eyelets that sit in front of the fork blades, and fenders to eyelets that sit behind the fork blades. That's why on bikes that have two pairs of eyelets on the front dropout, they usually put one set in front of the blades and one set behind, like on my Campeur:

HTupolev is online now  
Old 03-08-21, 12:17 PM
  #33  
Het Volk
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 266
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 142 Post(s)
Liked 102 Times in 59 Posts
Originally Posted by pcb View Post
Not to get too far offtrack, but zero trail is unlikely. That's for like circus/trick bikes? The America, Touring Series and S12-S/Ltd are supposed to have trail in the 30s, which is standard French front-loading territory.

So - this is how I ended up with my nil trail statement, as imprecise as it is. Just eye balling it, not a lot of trail from what I can gather, but guessing the angle of the photo is skewing this determination,

Built to be a beer bike

Last edited by Het Volk; 03-08-21 at 12:34 PM.
Het Volk is offline  
Likes For Het Volk:
Old 03-08-21, 12:30 PM
  #34  
Het Volk
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 266
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 142 Post(s)
Liked 102 Times in 59 Posts
Originally Posted by pcb View Post
Not to get too far offtrack, but zero trail is unlikely. That's for like circus/trick bikes? The America, Touring Series and S12-S/Ltd are supposed to have trail in the 30s, which is standard French front-loading territory.

In my metro NYC market there wasn't much awareness/discussion about trail back then, the early '80s, and between the folks I knew and what I saw in the magazines, there wasn't any awareness of French rando/front-loaders. A touring setup always started with a rear rack, and lotsa folks toured with 20-30lbs in the rear and only a handlebar bag in front. Front racks were for trans-continental, true long-distance riders. FWIW, no internet then, and whatever hotbed of rando-love was happening in the Bay Area or elsewhere didn't filter down to Jersey. Whaddya gonna do? Fuggeddaboutit.

That changed a bit when the Blackburn LoRiders were introduced, and we started setting up more bikes with low-mounted panniers, but there weren't any trail discussions that I remember. I did a tour on a Fuji Touring Series V frame with only LoRiders and Specialized Tailwind panniers, and it was the best, most natural touring setup/handling I ever rode. I was unaware that the TSV low-trail geo contributed to that.

There were a bunch of Treks that were low-trail designs as well, so it kind of feels like it was considered a viable geometry choice for non-rack bikes, without much specific awareness about biasing the frames for front loading.

Anyhow, the deal with the America was that it was marketed as a deluxe Touring bike, but it was actually a Sport-Tour bike that wasn't well-suited for touring use. Didn't mean you couldn't tour on it, but tire clearance wasn't great, not much room for fenders, shorter chainstays making rear pannier clearance difficult, not enough braze-ons for easily attaching racks and such. When the touring bug hit hard and Miyata/Panasonic started bringing in their actual long-distance touring models, we couldn't sell Americas to tourists any more. Fuji corporate higher-ups were very race-/performance-oriented, and it took several years and a lot of pushing to get them to make the Touring Series. And by the time the Touring Series came to market, the touring boom was dying.

There was a little less fender awareness overall back then, but serious tourists were certainly aware, and we sold a bunch of Bluemels. Just not to America riders, because they didn't really fit.

The good news is you could get a front rack to work on your America, and go with smaller front panniers and maybe a rack-top bag to duplicate the capacity you have now in the rear. You could use a rear rack-top bag as well. You might find the bike handles better with the front load, but as with most things, you won't know for sure until you try.

A front rack similar to this Velo-Orange should work OK on the front, mounts behind the brake and to the dropouts. And you can even still find vintage Blackburn LoRiders that use a fork clamp and the fender/rack boss.
https://velo-orange.com/collections/...eur-front-rack

I've tried low-trail bikes with big porteur-style racks and didn't like the handling at all. But I have very fond memories from 40yrs ago of riding that old TSV with the Lowriders and being amazed at how "normal" the handling felt. Staring at all that weight surrounding the front wheel, shaking my head that it almost felt like it wasn't there. And absolutely no tail-wagging like I had with rear loads on every bike I rear-loaded. I've got a TSIV in the stand right now I'm thinking of rigging that way. My youth is calling!

Bikepacking has ended all this, I suppose. I'm reduced to being an old geezer, shaking my durn head at the newfangled contraptions all these young'ns are riding.

I snagged this photo from the internet, have no other info about the bike/etc. But that's the standard Lowrider mounting on forks w/o Lowrider mounts in the blades. Looks clunky, works solid.

BTW - thanks so much for such a deep dive on the America and its history. It is really kind of an misfit in bike design because as you noted, not really a touring bike, not a racing bike. It was if you took a race bike frame, with French touring geometry. However, I am going to circumvent this somewhat, as I found some NOS 650C Mavic rims that I am building, to then allow for better tire & fender clearance, with a dynamo hub on the front for power (yes - I know, 650B is the rage, but for this frame, 650C makes more sense in terms of clearance. 650B are actually larger size, and the larger tired available would not fit within this frame regardless.
Het Volk is offline  
Old 03-08-21, 12:33 PM
  #35  
davester
Senior Member
 
davester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Berkeley CA
Posts: 2,307

Bikes: 1981 Ron Cooper, 1974 Cinelli Speciale Corsa, 2000 Gary Fisher Sugar 1, 1986 Miyata 710, 1982 Raleigh "International"

Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 804 Post(s)
Liked 813 Times in 348 Posts
I have three Brooks B17 Imperials on my bikes. All of them are essentially level. When I set them up initially, I simply moved the saddle back if I was sliding forward and forward if I was sliding backwards until I found the sweet spot. The best bike fit info I've found generally says that you should set the saddle height and fore-aft position first based on how they affect the pressure of your hands on the handlebars (i.e. close to zero) and only then do you move on to adjusting handlebars and stem length. I think that folks who have big tilts to their saddle are generally poorly fitted to the bike and need to adjust stem length.

Unfortunately, setting fore-aft position can be difficult with a Brooks because the straight section of the rails is generally shorter than other saddle brands, necessitating experimenting with seat posts that have different setbacks.
davester is offline  
Likes For davester:
Old 03-08-21, 12:38 PM
  #36  
HTupolev
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Seattle
Posts: 4,140
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1906 Post(s)
Liked 1,170 Times in 568 Posts
Originally Posted by Het Volk View Post
So - this is how I ended up with my nil trail statement, and is imprecise:

Built to be a beer bike
There are a lot of issues here. The photo is taken up close and with a downward angle, so there's a lot of camera perspective to account for.

The biggest issue, though, is that your vertical line doesn't seem to be referenced to anything. It doesn't look like it's at anything close to the correct angle, and it passes through the end of the QR skewer instead of the center of the hub.

I did a quick mock-up. This is still a very rough approximation, but I think it's a bit closer to the reality:

HTupolev is online now  
Likes For HTupolev:
Old 03-08-21, 01:33 PM
  #37  
tyrion
Senior Member
 
tyrion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 3,784

Bikes: Velo Orange Piolet

Mentioned: 27 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2032 Post(s)
Liked 1,574 Times in 765 Posts
Originally Posted by noglider View Post
Who says the B17 is for upright riding? I don't remember seeing it on an upright bike, but I'm sure there are some with B17's. I have B17's on most of my bikes, and they have drop bars. I'm one of those who prefer the nose tilted up. Mine is tilted up more than most people's, so there might be an anatomical reason. Maybe my pubic bone is higher in relation to my sit bones than on other people. I haven't measured that in myself or in anyone else.
My theory is: the outer side edges of a B17 are sloped forward-down more than the center section of the saddle, so the wider your sit-bone contact points the more saddle up angle on you need. Sit-bone contact width is a combination of bone structure and forward lean angle - more aggressive riding stance narrows the width of the contact points.
tyrion is online now  
Likes For tyrion:
Old 03-08-21, 08:06 PM
  #38  
noglider 
aka Tom Reingold
 
noglider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: New York, NY, USA
Posts: 40,176

Bikes: 1962 Rudge Sports, 1971 Raleigh Super Course, 1971 Raleigh Pro Track, 1974 Raleigh International, 1975 Viscount Fixie, 1982 McLean, 1996 Lemond (Ti), 2002 Burley Zydeco tandem

Mentioned: 495 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7014 Post(s)
Liked 1,764 Times in 1,099 Posts
This has been an educational thread on the topic of saddles and trail.

In 1981, my commuter bike was a rebuilt ~1975 Motobécane Mirage. Along with many other American cyclists, I believed that cargo did not belong in front. So I couldn't figure out why my bike rode better when I had a handlebar bag on it.
__________________
Tom Reingold, tom@noglider.com
New York City and High Falls, NY
Blogs: The Experienced Cyclist; noglider's ride blog

“When man invented the bicycle he reached the peak of his attainments.” — Elizabeth West, US author

Please email me rather than PM'ing me. Thanks.
noglider is offline  
Old 03-08-21, 08:23 PM
  #39  
pcb 
Senior Member
 
pcb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Joisey
Posts: 1,477
Mentioned: 91 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 376 Post(s)
Liked 613 Times in 278 Posts
We're drifting pretty far from a discussion about saddle angles now, fwiw.

I don't know if I'd say misfit, but the America is/was an intriguing bike. Issue #1 was it wasn't a touring frame, it was a road-sport frame, but Fuji either didn't see it that way, or didn't care and called it a touring bike because it was the closest thing they had and people wanted touring bikes. That's mostly a corporate/marketing issue. Issue #2, the trail, does strike me as a little strange. But there were other contemporary non-touring, road-sport bikes in Fuji's line with low trail, and like I said, a bunch of Treks, too. I wonder why they spec'd low trail, but didn't follow through with recommending front loads. If anything, low trail designs are worse with heavy rear loads,especially loaded high.

And to drift even further, I don't know if you've checked recently, but I don't think you're going to find any 650c tires much wider than 25-26mm. I know of two, the Terry Tellus, which is labeled 28 but is undersized. And there's a Panaracer Pasela that's labeled 28, not sure if actually gets that wide. And I think that's only available from Rodriguez Cycles in Seattle.

The other thing is a 650c wheel, especially with a fairly narrow tire, will lower your bike/bb substantially, to the point where you might have issues with pedal strike on corners. I'm seeing a tensioning device under your bags, so I'm assuming you're running a single freewheel and not a fixed gear? So you don't have to pedal through corners, but if you forget and do, you might send up some sparks. You're going from 622>571, so you're lowering the bb almost 26mm, and you're not gaining back some height by using significantly wider tires, because there aren't significantly wider tires in 650c.

You might want to check out your tire options and bb height issues before you dive too deep into 650c.

Oh, and check brake reach, too. You'll need mighty long calipers to reach those 650c rims.

650b conversions on Americas seem to work out nicely. You can get nice 32-584 tires from Grand Bois, and Hutchinson still makes the Confriere d'650b, also 32mm. I'm not sure an America would fit a 38mm, but 32s would get you lots of fender clearance. Google around, here's one thread without final answers, but pointing in the right direction, from right here:
Fuji America Tire/Fender Clearance

Originally Posted by Het Volk View Post
BTW - thanks so much for such a deep dive on the America and its history. It is really kind of an misfit in bike design because as you noted, not really a touring bike, not a racing bike. It was if you took a race bike frame, with French touring geometry. However, I am going to circumvent this somewhat, as I found some NOS 650C Mavic rims that I am building, to then allow for better tire & fender clearance, with a dynamo hub on the front for power (yes - I know, 650B is the rage, but for this frame, 650C makes more sense in terms of clearance. 650B are actually larger size, and the larger tired available would not fit within this frame regardless.
__________________
Fuggedaboutit!

Last edited by pcb; 03-08-21 at 10:40 PM.
pcb is offline  
Old 03-08-21, 10:40 PM
  #40  
Het Volk
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 266
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 142 Post(s)
Liked 102 Times in 59 Posts
Originally Posted by pcb View Post
We're drifting pretty far from a discussion about saddle angles now, fwiw.
But this is why we come here. I find these threads to be like a sports bar conversation, but for bikes. I learn a lot from this site, which is better than I can say for most places on the inter-webs.

Originally Posted by pcb View Post
We're drifting pretty far from a discussion about saddle angles now, fwiw.

I don't know if I'd say misfit, but the America is/was an intriguing bike. Issue #1 was it wasn't a touring frame, it was a road-sport frame, but Fuji either didn't see it that way, or didn't care and called it a touring bike because it was the closest thing they had and people wanted touring bikes. That's mostly a corporate/marketing issue. Issue #2, the trail, does strike me as a little strange. But there were other contemporary non-touring, road-sport bikes in Fuji's line with low trail, and like I said, a bunch of Treks, too. I wonder why they spec'd low trail, but didn't follow through with recommending front loads. If anything, low trail designs are worse with heavy rear loads,especially loaded high.
Why I am growing more fascinated by this bike. Under no circumstances would this frame, clearance and geometry likely be built today. I am guessing even a custom frame builder would steer a client away from this proposed design, tube size and mount options. However, that is what makes this so great. It is the Platypus of bike design (sorry Grant Petersen). It has one foot in road racing (think diameter tubing, shorter chainstays, few mounts for racks, and tight clearance), and yet, has a geometry up front as if it were a French Constructeur design. I suppose, the nearest current design is the Surly Pack Rack, except the tubing seem a little wider, and the mounts are more numerous allowing for a more dedicated touring bike from Surly, which always has commuting vs. racing in mind.

However; and this is going to contradict my assertion above on this being an odd duck; there is a case to be made that this actually a great Randonneuring bike for brevets and randos. Randonneuring is kind of a lost discipline as bike packing has kind of taken up all of the long-distance cycling oxygen. The only issue again, is the lack of clearance for larger tires and fenders, which is so often a wanted


Originally Posted by pcb View Post
The other thing is a 650c wheel, especially with a fairly narrow tire, will lower your bike/bb substantially, to the point where you might have issues with pedal strike on corners. I'm seeing a tensioning device under your bags, so I'm assuming you're running a single freewheel and not a fixed gear? Because tensioners are dangerous on fixed gears. You're going from 622>571, so you're lowering the bb almost 26mm, and you're not gaining back some height using significantly wider tires, because there aren't significantly wider tires in 650c.

You might want to check out your tire options and bb height issues before you dive too deep into 650c.

Oh, and check brake reach, too. You'll need mighty long calipers to reach those 650c rims.

650b conversions on Americas seem to work out nicely. You can get nice 32-584 tires from Grand Bois, and Hutchinson still makes the Confriere d'650b, also 32mm. I'm not sure an America would fit a 38mm, but 32s would get you lots of fender clearance. Google around, here's one thread without final answers, but pointing in the right direction, from right here:
Fuji America Tire/Fender Clearance
  • 650B - While I hear 650B conversion could work, looking at the clearance, and wanting fenders, my tire size under even a 650B was going to be limited, You are only reducing the wheel diameter size so much with 650B.
  • 650C Tire Size - I understand there are limited options, and Panaracer 28 was the plan all along. As you noted, this bike is not really meant to be gravel or fully loaded long-distance touring bike. If it was targeted towards those types, as you noted, it was a mistake by Fuji either our of folly (error), or by design (i.e. - could be given existing inventory of materials and costs, this was a way to get into the Touring market without the additional costs of design and manufacturing). To me, 28MM tires are fine for a commuting, long-distance daily rides, or randonneuring bikes, and the smaller size of 650C vs. 650B will then allow for fender clearance.
  • Brake Reach - I already purchased some extra long-reach, single-pivot brakes to handle the need for fenders and the additional reach.
  • Chain Tensioner - It is basically an Alex free-hub, with 7 speed cassette using Surly Singulator to tension the chain. I am not sure about the current 42 x 18 set-up, and if I am going to use this for more long-distance riding, either will replace entire front crankset and chain ring to get to a 38T or 40T chainring ( approx. 62 gear inches), or move it to a 42 x 20 to help a little bit on the hills. But thinking more and more, I add some DT shifters (I just do not like the idea of bar end....talk me out of it).
  • Pedal Strike - I thought about this. A couple thoughts that got me past this. (A) I am not going to be racing crits, or using this to barrel down mountain passes. It really is not going to be taking sharp corners. (B) with 28MM tires, the overall drop in BB height relative to the road is not going to be as severe compared with 700C and 25MM tires. (C) Plus, the cranks are 170MM, so there is less of an issue than the 175 I run on my Gios Compact Pro.

Originally Posted by pcb View Post

I don't know if I'd say misfit, but the America is/was an intriguing bike. Issue #1 was it wasn't a touring frame, it was a road-sport frame, but Fuji either didn't see it that way, or didn't care and called it a touring bike because it was the closest thing they had and people wanted touring bikes. That's mostly a corporate/marketing issue. Issue #2, the trail, does strike me as a little strange. But there were other contemporary non-touring, road-sport bikes in Fuji's line with low trail, and like I said, a bunch of Treks, too. I wonder why they spec'd low trail, but didn't follow through with recommending front loads. If anything, low trail designs are worse with heavy rear loads,especially loaded high.
As they say, "you don't know what you don't know", and while riding with heavy loads is obviously different than riding my racing or cross bike without loads (out of the saddle you have to be careful not to sway as much for sure), but I cannot say I notice it being bad. However, I want to get a front handlebar bag for the front and try that out. With the Brooks B17, I could also run a fairly robust saddle bag in the rear and may ditch using panniers outside of when needing to go get a large number of groceries.

Why they spec'd low trail. Completely spit balling here, but it could be that while the French Constructeur design is now common knowledge amongst bike geeks (thanks to Jan Heine at Renee Herse), back in the pate 70's and early 1980's, who knows, those elements of those bikes could have been somewhat baked into the backs of the minds of bike designers at the time, and when one thinks Touring, one things Low-Trail.

Secondly, the thinking when carrying a load is "stability" as opposed to "lively". Are you going to be racing a office park crit with this bike, or carrying food for a picnic on an all day ride? Where is being nimble going to benefit the rider? This bike handles really well when going slow, and that is a benefit even more so when carrying heavy loads

Last edited by Het Volk; 03-08-21 at 10:43 PM.
Het Volk is offline  
Old 03-08-21, 10:55 PM
  #41  
Het Volk
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 266
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 142 Post(s)
Liked 102 Times in 59 Posts
Originally Posted by repechage View Post
Looks like a B17 to me with the bag loops and holes up top on center.
Brooks saddles as a natural variable product, vary. My guess, when you sit the saddle sags.
otherwise the declination should cause you to slide forward.
you might check the tension- too limber and the saddle will splay and wear out faster. Too tight will not help either.

nice bike.
Literally brand new B17. And I weight 150 pounds, so cannot imagine there is much sag. I used to have a Specialized Romin on it, which was great as well (the Fizik Arionne was a different story, Hated that saddle).
Het Volk is offline  
Old 03-08-21, 11:05 PM
  #42  
Het Volk
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 266
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 142 Post(s)
Liked 102 Times in 59 Posts
PCB:

Would this front rack work with the Fuji America fork mount bracket?
Het Volk is offline  
Old 03-09-21, 12:25 PM
  #43  
pcb 
Senior Member
 
pcb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Joisey
Posts: 1,477
Mentioned: 91 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 376 Post(s)
Liked 613 Times in 278 Posts
Hard to say since the diagrams and photos aren't showing a lot of fit detail. Strikes me as being designed for modern-tech gravel bikes with disc brakes, thru-axles and fat fork blades, so there may be issues trying to use it on a 40yr-old road frame with rim brakes, qr skewers and skinnier fork blades. Dimensionally it looks maybe OK.

But it's hard to tell how far back the top/rear edge/corner of the rack sits, I'd be concerned about that corner in relation to the down tube. Can you swing the fork 90-deg in either direction without that corner hitting the downtube? I don't think that rearward reach is adjustable, if you want to keep the rack level.

The upper mount uses a hose clamp, hopefully it can clamp down small enough to fit a smaller-diameter road fork, but you'd want to check that. Is the clamp somehow integral with the mounting piece, or can you use any hose clamp that fits your fork blade well? Keep in mind hose clamps have sharp edges and such, I'd want to give a good tape wrap or similar to protect my hand skin when attaching/removing bags/gear.

It's also unclear to me if there's room behind the rack, at the crown, for your brake, and how hard is it going to be to adjust/tinker with the brake with the rack installed.

And maybe getting access to your front qr skewer is going to be tricky. That's kind of always the case with low-mount racks, but that v-shaped base leaves less room for your hand/palm.

I'm kind surprised there's so little detail shown for a $150 rack. The line drawing with the dimensions doesn't even show the upper rack mounts. Maybe I'm expecting too much....

Just a quick note on your stability thoughts above. I don't have a lot of touring or heavy load-carrying experience, but every bike I rode with a rear rack, heavy rear panniers and stuff loaded on top of the rack handled _very_ differently than when the bike was unloaded. Lots of compensation and body english needed when trying to stand and pedal, definite feeling the weight wag a little side-to side then as well, front end wanting to jump up wheelie-style on steep seated climbs if I sat too upright. I was always conscious of all that weight back there., I could always feel it on the bike. None of that was horrible or caused me to crash or made me hate my tour/life. But the contrast from that to the LowRiders on my TSV was unbelievable. The TSV, with 20lbs in low-mounted bags around the fork, handled almost identically to my unloaded road bikes. The load mostly disappeared. I only noticed/felt the weight at really slow speeds and tight turns, trying to do a u-turn at zero mph, maybe took a little more effort to keep the bars straight on slow climbs? But keep in mind these are 40yr-old memories for me. At least I didn't have to worry about inadvertent wheelies.

My TSV memories dovetail with what folks seem to say about low-trail front-loaders, but when I tried them they didn't work for me. That was with a standard front rack and large bar/porteur bags, which is what you usually see. What's exciting me a little bit about getting my TS-IV built, being that I've still got my original LowRider rack to fit it with, is to see if my 40yr-old memories match today's reality, when I'm 40yrs older, 40lbs heavier on a good day, and easily 40% less fit.

__________________
Fuggedaboutit!
pcb is offline  
Likes For pcb:
Old 03-09-21, 08:20 PM
  #44  
Het Volk
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 266
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 142 Post(s)
Liked 102 Times in 59 Posts
pcb Thanks so much for the wealth of the information.
Het Volk is offline  
Old 03-09-21, 08:33 PM
  #45  
the sci guy 
bill nyecycles
 
the sci guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Houston TX
Posts: 3,308
Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 766 Post(s)
Liked 320 Times in 178 Posts
I have a B17 on my Super Tourer and it is slightly angled up because I kept sliding forward.
However I will say I find it very uncomfortable still. I don’t ride it very often so many it’s not broken in yet? I haven’t treated it with proofide yet either most because I’m forgetful but I’ve had it for over 2 years but I’ve only got maybe 400 miles on it. Thinking of ditching it but it looks so wonderful on the bike and matches my Brooks grips.
__________________
Twitter@theSurlyBiker
Instagram@theSurlyBiker
the sci guy is offline  
Old 03-09-21, 08:43 PM
  #46  
jamesdak 
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Utah
Posts: 7,785

Bikes: Paletti,Pinarello Monviso,Duell Vienna,Giordana XL Super(2)Lemond Maillot Juane (2) & custom,PDG Paramount,Serotta CSI,Fuji Opus III,Davidson Impulse,Pashley Guv'nor,Evans,Fishlips,Prologue TT,Y-Foil,Softride, Tetra Pro, CAAD8 Optimo,Klein Quantum II

Mentioned: 137 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1986 Post(s)
Liked 2,603 Times in 1,090 Posts
Add me to the nose up a bit with a Brooks or my Gyes saddles. If not I slide forward and wind up with too much weight on my hands.







And yet with all my Modern saddles I use a board and protractor to make sure they are level or they don't fee right under me.
__________________
Steel is real...and comfy.
jamesdak is offline  
Likes For jamesdak:
Old 03-10-21, 10:44 AM
  #47  
pcb 
Senior Member
 
pcb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Joisey
Posts: 1,477
Mentioned: 91 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 376 Post(s)
Liked 613 Times in 278 Posts
No worries, mate!

BTW, reposting this lovely pic of jamesdak's lovely Fuji S12-S 650b conversion, posted just above. I don't know if tire clearance on the S12-S is more generous than on the America, but your America could look very similar to it, fit-wise, w/650b.

Originally Posted by Het Volk View Post
pcb Thanks so much for the wealth of the information.

__________________
Fuggedaboutit!
pcb is offline  
Old 03-10-21, 11:17 AM
  #48  
mstateglfr 
Sunshine
 
mstateglfr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Des Moines, IA
Posts: 14,643

Bikes: '18 class built steel roadbike, '19 Fairlight Secan, '88 Schwinn Premis , Black Mountain Cycles Monstercross V4, '89 Novara Trionfo

Mentioned: 116 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8648 Post(s)
Liked 5,268 Times in 3,042 Posts
Some cyclists enjoy the nose pointing up skyward because numbnuts syndrome is fun for them.
Some cyclists enjoy the nose pointing up skyward because it creates a hammock for the b17 saddle and they stay put in the middle of it.

B17 saddles are, to me, something that is more for function than form. Ive never seen a b17 with the nose pointed up 25 degrees and thought- 'wow that looks great!', but Im sure the fit and comfort is fantastic for the user.
mstateglfr is offline  
Old 03-11-21, 11:17 AM
  #49  
noglider 
aka Tom Reingold
 
noglider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: New York, NY, USA
Posts: 40,176

Bikes: 1962 Rudge Sports, 1971 Raleigh Super Course, 1971 Raleigh Pro Track, 1974 Raleigh International, 1975 Viscount Fixie, 1982 McLean, 1996 Lemond (Ti), 2002 Burley Zydeco tandem

Mentioned: 495 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7014 Post(s)
Liked 1,764 Times in 1,099 Posts
Originally Posted by mstateglfr View Post
B17 saddles are, to me, something that is more for function than form. Ive never seen a b17 with the nose pointed up 25 degrees and thought- 'wow that looks great!', but Im sure the fit and comfort is fantastic for the user.
Are you implying that some people choose their saddle angle for the way it looks?
__________________
Tom Reingold, tom@noglider.com
New York City and High Falls, NY
Blogs: The Experienced Cyclist; noglider's ride blog

“When man invented the bicycle he reached the peak of his attainments.” — Elizabeth West, US author

Please email me rather than PM'ing me. Thanks.
noglider is offline  
Old 03-11-21, 11:23 AM
  #50  
mstateglfr 
Sunshine
 
mstateglfr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Des Moines, IA
Posts: 14,643

Bikes: '18 class built steel roadbike, '19 Fairlight Secan, '88 Schwinn Premis , Black Mountain Cycles Monstercross V4, '89 Novara Trionfo

Mentioned: 116 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8648 Post(s)
Liked 5,268 Times in 3,042 Posts
Originally Posted by noglider View Post
Are you implying that some people choose their saddle angle for the way it looks?
No. I was saying the I view the b17 as function(use) rather than form(looks).
I dont think the nose up position looks good, but I am sure its comfortable. When I had a couple b17 saddles, mine was also pointed up(moderately) and I disliked the look but liked the comfort.
mstateglfr is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.