You can't be serious!!!

Reply Subscribe

Thread Tools

Search this Thread

12-12-06 | 09:14 AM

#26

Mariner Fan

59'er

Joined: Oct 2005

Posts: 3,307

Likes: 12

From: Alexandria, IN

Bikes: LeMond Maillot Jaune, Vintage Trek 520 (1985), 1976 Schwinn Voyageur 2, Miyata 1000 (1985)

I was wondering how the bike would handle with such a high handlebar + a short stem.

__________________

12-12-06 | 01:18 PM

#27

MnHPVA Guy

Senior Member

Joined: Aug 2005

Posts: 799

Likes: 29

From: Minneapolis, MN

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mariner Fan

I was wondering how the bike would handle with such a high handlebar + a short stem.

If you are accustomed to riding with lower bars and a fair amount of extension, you would think my bikes handle poorly. Just as I would think yours do.

12-12-06 | 02:14 PM

#28

masi61

Senior Member

Joined: Oct 2005

Posts: 3,901

Likes: 526

From: SW Ohio

Bikes: Puch Marco Polo, Saint Tropez, Masi Gran Criterium

Quote:

Originally Posted by MnHPVA Guy

If you are accustomed to riding with lower bars and a fair amount of extension, you would think my bikes handle poorly. Just as I would think yours do.

I think this entire thread has been hijacked. Give Joe a break people! He shows a low end-ish but pretty vintage Eddy Merkxx whose set up is an abomination. From an aesthetic standpoint, there is no dispute: the classic look of that bike has been trashed badly. Now HPVA Guy is opening up arguments on several fronts, including this last comment challenging the "low handlebars with a lot of stem extension" crowd to get all defensive as he seems to be arguing that his ultra long wheelbase monstrosity handles better. I'm sorry Joe. Some days are like this. What started as a promising thread seems to be going down in flames as every classic road cycling hater in cyberland lays in ambush.

edit: its a sad day where affirming the unpopular comments of a legit thread can practically get you banished from the forum.

Last edited by masi61; 12-12-06 at 02:30 PM.

12-12-06 | 02:48 PM

#29

masi61

Senior Member

Joined: Oct 2005

Posts: 3,901

Likes: 526

From: SW Ohio

Bikes: Puch Marco Polo, Saint Tropez, Masi Gran Criterium

Quote:

Originally Posted by MnHPVA Guy

Been there. Done that. 20 years ago. Note extended HT.Of course now it has an even taller stem with less extension

Done that too. Sold my 22" DL-1 and bought a 24" since there is no practical way to raise the bars with rod brakes. My '58 Raleigh RRA Moderne is a 23" though a 21" would be a better fit. My plan is to make a taller clone of the original stem. When showing it off, the stem will be all the way down to the butted part of the long steerer. But it will look like the stock stem at max. height. Fortunately the Brits used to ride large frames, with little seat post showing, so it won't look too odd.

But in most cases I'd rather have crotch clearance at the cost of another 2 inches of stem.

Not when one has a passion for old British iron. (Remember, this is the Classic & Vintage forum.) A modern "Made in China" city or "Comfort" bike wouldn't satisfy that. If comfort were my only criteria, I've got 5 recumbents.

But I do think that those comfort bikes are "Plan A" for a large segment of the population.

Given the equipment and the cheap looking frame I don't know that he's "ruined" much, and he's done nothing irreversable. I assume it suits him better than it used to.

However, geometry is a valid concern. As the bars go up, the seat should go back. My Taylor wasn't as nice to ride with the high bars as my as 3 speeds with their shallower angles. When I figured out why, I went to a stem with less extension and a Brooks B-67, which can be mounted rather far rearward.

If you start with a lightweight touring frame, the longer stays mean that moving up and back won't screw up the weight distribution, as would happen with racing frame.

BTW I will be selling my Paramount track bike. Even I agree that there's no justification for putting high rise bars on that.

I justed wanted to send an olive branch out to MnHPVA Guy. I reread your post above and can appreciate what you've gone through to get comfortable on your bikes. Sorry for any flame. I think many of us do what we have to to be able to continue to ride well. I had back surgery 6 years ago for a badly herniated disc and rehabbed on my way too tall Puch Marco Polo that has very little seatpost and a short 8cm stem. I did over 2000 miles on it last year, and thought it was my permanent ticket back to riding. I'm overweight and have some permanent limitations post back surgery, but 2006 has permitted a progression back to regular rode cycling. In fact I am riding a new compact geometry bike that is on the small side for me. Anyway, hats off to you for doing the field research on fitting your bike despite your physical limitations.

12-12-06 | 02:55 PM

#30

highlyselassie

Senior Member

Joined: Jan 2006

Posts: 248

Likes: 2

Quote:

Originally Posted by MnHPVA Guy

Fortunately the Brits used to ride large frames, with little seat post showing, so it won't look too odd.

It wasn't a case of riding a frame for aesthetic reasons, it was a case of riding the right size frame.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MnHPVA Guy

But in most cases I'd rather have crotch clearance at the cost of another 2 inches of stem.

And here lies the problem...standover clearance. Where did this abomination spring from, some suggest it was contorted out of the rush towards small frames by racers in the 80's. Regardless, it is a nonsense that gets bandied about as if it's the only consideration when purchasing a bike, hence people on frames 2 inches too small. Have we forgotten how to lean?

Last edited by highlyselassie; 12-12-06 at 03:07 PM.

12-13-06 | 02:03 PM

#31

MnHPVA Guy

Senior Member

Joined: Aug 2005

Posts: 799

Likes: 29

From: Minneapolis, MN

Quote:

Originally Posted by MnHPVA Guy

If you are accustomed to riding with lower bars and a fair amount of extension, you would think my bikes handle poorly. Just as I would think yours do.

When I wrote the above, the point I was tryng to make was this;
How we percieve the quality of a bike's handling has more to do with what we have become accustomed to than than any specific geometric or ergonomic criteria. Our subconsious grows to expect a certain reaction from the bike to subtle movements of our hands and bodies. When the reaction isn't what we subconsiously expect, our brain thinks something is wrong, which we interpret as the bike not handling well.

Subtle things -
Weight distribution determines how quickly a bike will react on the roll axis to a given steering input.

Hand position in relation to the steering axis determines with how much force, over what distance and perhaps most importantly at what vector, you need to move your hands to get an expected steering or balancing correction. Change any of these variables, the reaction is different and your subconsious tells you "Somethin' ain't right".

Most of my recumbents have the hand grips 8-10" behind the steering axis, so for small corrections they follow a path close to 45 degrees from the plane of the frame. When I built one with wider bars, and the grips only 5" or 6" behind the steering axis, my muscle memory tried to move my hands along the familar path and met resistance, which I initially interpreted as a tight headset. Until I figured out what was going on, I thought it handled terribly.

Within reasonable limits, it's hard to set up a bike such that someone won't think it handles great. You and/or I may dissagree, but that doesn't mean there's any thing wrong with the bike, just that it's wrong for us.

12-14-06 | 11:34 AM

#32

Mariner Fan

59'er

Joined: Oct 2005

Posts: 3,307

Likes: 12

From: Alexandria, IN

Bikes: LeMond Maillot Jaune, Vintage Trek 520 (1985), 1976 Schwinn Voyageur 2, Miyata 1000 (1985)

Quote:

Originally Posted by MnHPVA Guy

If you are accustomed to riding with lower bars and a fair amount of extension, you would think my bikes handle poorly. Just as I would think yours do.

Actually, my bike has the stem/handlebars up to the height of the saddle. What I noticed was the handlebars were now much closer to me and I felt a definite change in the way it handled. I fixed that problem by buying a longer stem to compensate. The bike pictured has the handlebars jacked way up with no stem to speak of. We can all get used to different handling characteristics but the bike seems to me to be way out of the realm of the norm. That said, you did what you had to do to continue riding and I applaud that.

__________________

12-14-06 | 01:36 PM

#33

lotek

Senior Member

Joined: Dec 2001

Posts: 17,687

Likes: 12

From: n.w. superdrome

Bikes: 1 trek, serotta, rih, de Reus, Pogliaghi and finally a Zieleman! and got a DeRosa

Quote:

Originally Posted by masi61

edit: its a sad day where affirming the unpopular comments of a legit thread can practically get you banished from the forum.

I can say with complete honesty (and some degree of authority) that will never happen.

I look forward to the discussions here, I like the fact that we don't sit around and give
each other "attaboys" (I was gonna use a different analogy but. . . ).
I do appreciate what Joe said in his original post, I find that the extremely high stem
offends my (personal) sense of aesthetics. It just doesn't look right to my eye (and I
have a few bar and seat at same level rides).
I also think that huge amounts of seatpost showing is fugly. but again thats just my opinion.
other than personal opinion, it's all good.
marty

__________________
Sono più lento di quel che sembra.
Odio la gente, tutti.

Want to upgrade your membership? Click Here.