Frames for Long Distances??
 

So help me understand what makes a frame more suitable for long distance riding? As I get into this more it is apparent how much I have too learn!
Thanks!

There are two main priorities when you are looking for a long distance frame. First and foremost is you want a frame that will fit you properly and is comfortable to ride. Second, you need your frame to do the things you want it to do. Such as, being able to attach any accessories that you want. If you want to carry a front load then a low trail frame, if you want a eyelets, you need a frame with those. Other than that it doesn't really matter a whole lot. If you are going to do something like endurance racing then I would suggest a carbon frame. Other than that it doesn't really matter what you get. :)

I think you'll find quite a difference of opinion on what a long-distance bike should be in the first place. People have very specific requirements for trail, handlebar bags, fenders, steel frame, etc., but a lot of the high-mileage riders use completely different equipment.

A couple of years ago, I tried to photograph all the bikes on a 600k brevet to illustrate this. Ideas seem to be regional, also.
http://s192.photobucket.com/albums/z...view=slideshow

IMO, fit is more important than geometry. I can ride for well over 6 hours on a race geometry frame if the fit is right.

However, I'm 6'2" tall and weigh between 155 and 160 lbs.

This ^.

Fit trumps geometry, wheel size, and even material.

Must be comfortable. Listen to your body, and it may tell you to do uncool things like raising your handlebars a little or use bigger tires or lower gears. ;)

Along this whole idea of "fit" Vs. frame "geometry", what's your approach to tackle this? We often read about people getting a professional fitting session and still feeling uncomfortable (or worse... even more uncomfortable than before!) and/or experiencing discomfort (pain somewhere!) after spending several hours on the saddle. There seem to be many fitting philosophies (methods) out there to drive us insane. So, how does an off-the-rack bike (with an appropriate fitting session) fare against a custom bike (frame made to your body measurements) for these purposes of riding long distances comfortably?

I've done the fitting session and I am considering a custom bike.

I've never been able to find a bike that fits well and has the features I want in the showroom. However, I am able to order frames from a geometry sheet with good success. A fitting session should allow a cyclist and his fitter to find a correctly fitting bike, but the search should not be limited to the showroom stock.

A custom bike is about fit and performance details that add up to a efficient and fast machine. In my case, I need a thicker walled tubeset to produce a stiff enough frame in my size. I also benefit from a lower BB height, road race headtube and fork rake geometry, and long enough chainstays for my weight distribution. I also like tires in the 700x28 to 700x32 range, since I'm now doing some gravel events. I'll never find a standard bike with all of these features. A custom bike is not just about fit, it's also about structural engineering, philosophy, and personal expression.

Having said that, All of my standard bikes can perform the kind of 200k rides that I enjoy. I can take almost any bike with a 59 to 60cm virtual top-tube length and adjust the saddle, and change the stem and handlebar and get to a comfortable fit. These two bikes are not the same, but the reach to the pedals and the contact points on the handlebar are the same;

http://i289.photobucket.com/albums/l.../IMG_08851.jpg

http://i289.photobucket.com/albums/l...IMG_0984-1.jpg

of course fit is crucial.

A few frame specifics like frame angles, increased wheelbase, lower BB drop and such contribute to a bicycle frames ride as much as the front end geometry being chased after and all in vogue nowadays.

I always found a larger tire to give more pneumatic trail on the front end, and different feel on a long ride, so there's the 35c question too if sticking with 700c wheels.

A slightly longer wheelbase, tire fit, greater drop, and a slacker set of angles contribute to better handling too as far as i can tell.

I have to disagree. Longer wheelbase, greater drop, slack angles etc. change the way a bike handles (it steers slower) but doesn't make it handle better or worse. It depends on what you are looking for. Race bikes, which put a premium on handling, have very short wheelbases and quick steering. You can be just as comfy on a race geometry frame as on a frame with slack geometry.
Fit is all about having your body in a optimal position on a bike based on your physiology. A persons optimal contact points/positions for the type of riding they are doing don't/shouldn't change regardless of the frame geometry.
Fat tires are a cheap fix and a crutch for poor frame/wheel choices.

The problem with "pro" fittings is that the vast majority of fitters have zero experience with long distance riders and their requirements so often times they will put you in a position like you're going to be doing crit races. Here in the states there are probably only a half dozen or fewer really good long distance fitters so most of us end up doing it ourselves and that entails a lot of trial and error. If the frame is the right size for you it's just a matter of adding the appropriate accessories to get your contact points in the correct spots. That may mean changing out stems, handlebars, seats, seat posts etc.
If you're looking for a fitter here's what I'd suggest you look for:
1. They guarantee their work. That means if your not comfortable after your fitting you go back and they fix it.
2. They should have a good understanding of the issues that long distance riders have to deal with.
3. They should be willing to spend the amount of time it takes to get your fit right. Don't forget, as you tire on the bike your body position will change and that can have an affect of your fit.
4. They give you a set of dimensions that you can use to find an appropriate frame/bike. There is a stock frame out there that will fit %90+ of us. It's just a matter of finding it.

Hello
we have a good number of high end riders in my club (2-3 1200k+ yearly ,RAW, RAAM etc). Many feel that carbon doesnt have the durability for randoneering and I've been told that if I continue using my favorite carbon I'll destroy it. Every frame builder I've spoken to tells me that's nonsense. But the I've never met a framebuilder that rides 10k+ miles a year. Anybody else have direct experience? Barring frame damage due to crashes, where would fatigue - related frame damage likely appear?
thanks

Listen to your frame builder. I've been using the same carbon bike (Colnago C-50) since 2005 for randoneuring including numerous 1200ks, all the associated brevets as well as two RAAM's, a boat load of endurance races and I ride it between 6k and 10k miles a year on top of that. "fatigue" is not an issue with good quality carbon frams.

What are some of these issues that should be reflected in a frameset (for those considering going the custom route) and/or in the fitting? Would like to compare notes.

True! In your opinion, how does a good long-distance fit allow for body exhaustion leading to position sloppiness?

Are you saying that for most people, you should be able to find an off-the-rack frameset your size (this will take care of 90% of your L.D. needs), and fitting (whether you do it slowly yourself or professionally) will take care of the "last mile" (the remaining 10%)?

+1

Aircraft that will travel millions of miles and have a life cycle over dozens of years are being made of CF. Durability will not be an issue for all but a very small percentage of users.

plenty of people ride carbon long distance, including RUSA president Mark Thomas. I'm a framebuilder that wouldn't hesitate to ride carbon, but I have no idea how many miles a year I ride, I did 2500 miles that RUSA kept track of.

Fit: Yes, fit is important, but over the last few decades, it has become an obsession. IMO it's kind of silly. The basics of fit can be learned from any number of websites. You can set yourself up according to those basics and do well, perhaps making some minor adjustments as you gain experience. Those opinions, FWIW, generally draw howls from the folks who think bike fit is a dark art practiced only by "gurus" who charge hundreds of dollars, and that if you don't follow that path you'll forever be uncomfortable and slow and injury-prone and also really uncool.

Short, non-ranty version: Long distance fit is like regular fit but with the handlebars a little higher - unless you want to go really fast, in which case long distance fit is just like regular fit. You can figure it out for yourself unless you don't want to, in which case there are lots of folks of varying competence who will take your money to do it for you.

Geometry: Two broad schools of thought here. One is that modern race bikes have geometry pretty well sorted out and that they work for everything. This geometry generally consists of 73 or 74 degree angles with about 45 mm of rake. In my experience, that works just fine. The other school of thought is that bikes meant for carrying front loads need lower trail. In practice, this means 73 or 74 degree angles with about 60 mm of rake. In my experience, that also works just fine. IOW, if you stick with 73 or 74 degree angles with any reasonable fork rake, it will work just fine. Like fit, geometry is a topic for hot debate because we need something to argue about and partial birth abortion is no fun.

So, short non-ranty summation: If you want to do LD really fast, get a race bike, of whatever material suits you. Lots of people do, and do fine. If you want to do LD really slow but with plenty of comfort, get a touring bike. Lots of people do, and do fine. And if you're in between those two, get something in between those two. Lots of people do, and do fine.

HTH!

The main issue is your contact points, hands, feet and butt. Most "pro" fitters will have you in a position that puts way too much pressure on the hands. They are often unaware that little minor issues at 200kms can escalate into ride ending issues at 1200kms so they often satisfied with "good or close enough" When you get tired you change position either knowingly or unknowingly and that can effect how you interact with the bike. That is why some people have no problems on shorter distances and "suddenly" have them latter on. As an example, on longer rides as I tire I spend more and more time riding with my forearms on the bar tops. This is great for the hands (and quite aero) but it puts me on the nose of the saddle and caused me some saddle issues until I figured out what I was doing.
I think that Six Jours is pretty spot on with doing your own fit as long as you are in tune with what your body is doing and know the right adjustments to make when you have a problem. It's not magic but there is a knowledge base there. Getting fitted is a great idea if you are new or fairly new to the sport and/or are unfamiliar with what you are doing. Sometimes it's nice to get a second set of eyes looking at what you're doing (but only if you are having an issue, don't try to fix something that isn't broken). If you are getting hot spots on your feet, you need to know if you need to move the cleat forward or back, maybe your shoe is too narrow, different cleat/pedal combo or you just need arch support. There are lots of things to know and adjustments to make and when you make a change it's helpful to know how that change can effect other areas. If you are comfortable with them I'd say fit yourself.

yep. The only people who really need a custom frame are those people way outside the normal body build. If you're 7'2" tall or 3'8" tall you might need a custom frame. If you have the money and want a unique bike, you might need a custom frame. Other than that 90+% of us do not need a custom frame.

I agree with everything you said except this little part (the really slow part I'm fine with. ;)). Mainly because you can be just as comfortable on a race bike as a touring bike if either/both are set up properly. All touring geometry does is allow you a more "stable" platform to carry a load with. The geometry does nothing for comfort. Unless you're talking about being able to carry wine and cheese in your handlebar bag. Then you might be more comfy on a touring bike. ;)

eh, what? You're suggesting basic bike design variants like wheelbase and bottom bracket drop, frame angles and tire size DON'T affect the ride quality, stability and comfort of a bike for riding long distances? The comfort over rough roads, pneumatic dampening and forgiving pneumatic trail of a larger tire are simply a 'cheap fix' for a poor frame and wheel choice? Huh??

That philosophy is radical, man! yes, fit matters. and race bikes get ridden a lot on long distance events.

None of which contradicts that frame angles, drop, and tire size affect how a bike feels on a long haul. The original poster asked "What makes a difference in frames for riding long distances." he didn't ask how crucial a bike fit is on a bike with race geometry for timed long distance events.

bike fit is important on any ride. cleat burn is an important issue, so is weight distribution. But a bigger tire sure fixes that problem of poor roads and the chipseal buzz. YMMV.

Dropping down a mountain pass on a long wheelbase bike, low bottom bracket and bigadze, supple, 35c tires feels and handles distinctly different than a snappy carbon whip. Riding a stable bike at highway speeds with fat tires is a pleasure. Snap some pictures, http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=291343 grab a snack, look around you. There's a pothole, a log in the road, no matter, THWUMP> keep on trucking.

More like a pleasure ride on a roller coaster on rails doing 50mph, less caroming a skeleton sled down the luge track at Mt VanHovenburg. I've done both, i can tell the difference.

The bike matters, man.

Fit issues are solvable, but finding the ideal fit and the ideal bike is far from easy. I know a few, lucky, cyclist who can show up at a bike shop and pick a bike that will fit and function well for 200k or longer events. These riders are often mid-sized people and are more adaptable that the average person. The number and types of bikes available for these riders is also robust enough that bike selection becomes easy.

If a rider is taller and heavier than normal, finding a bike at retail becomes more difficult. Most retailer carry a few token models in the larger sizes. They don't want to own inventory for the tall cyclist who may, or may not, show up. They don't want to lose a sale, so the larger cyclist is provided a very limited choice. If the bike shop is skilled, they will replace the stem if needed and adjust the saddle position carefully, but most will limit bike fitting to adjusting the seatpost.

Every steel bike I've owned, except one, has been overly flexy for my 200 lbs size. The problem is that the materials used for a bike with a 56cm geometry can be stiff enough for a 150 lbs cyclist, those material are no longer create a structure as stiff when scaled up to a size 63cm. Longer headtubes, and the loss of the pure triangle apex at the headtube, is part of the problem but scale is also at work here.

When Trek made it's size 63cm racing model, they used a thicker walled tubing than on the other four sizes. Size specific material selection helped to overcome the issues associated with larger sized frames.

The same issue is also true for Carbon Fiber bikes. To build a bike that will satisfy the weight expectations of the market, materials are used sparingly. Some of the better bike builders expect heavier cyclist to use larger sizes. So, it is possible to find a beefy bike in the larger sizes, if a buyer has the wallet and searches carefully. Also, headtubes are becoming arched to maintain strength and stiffness. Tapered headsets with larger lower bearings helps improve stiffness also. The design freedom and the improved strength gained from carefully shaped tubes and brackets is a major benefit that Carbon Fiber provides.

Having a bike with the best balance between strength and weight improves performance. The frame should provide enough vertical compliance to provide a smooth ride but also needs to be stiff enough to efficiently transmit power and to corner well. This advantage of the ideal frame can become make-or-break for the cyclist after a dozen hours on the bike.

I don't really agree with this. I mean I guess I could have figured out my fit eventually, but I spent almost two years on it before finally paying a guy. He diagnosed various stability, flexibility and alignment issues very quickly, and very slowly adjusted my bike to suit. I'm not sure I ever would have gotten things like cleat position/shimming correct on my own.

Best thing I've ever done for my cycling.

This is essentially my opinion as well. Of course the frame has to fit, but after that the most important consideration is how much stuff do you want to carry, and how do you want to carry it? Secondly, what sort of surfaces will you ride on?

For me, I want to carry enough to do a 600 with very few stops. In fact I want to be able to, in theory, complete such a ride without stopping for food even once. So I want a pretty big bag, and I want it in front of me so I can 'graze' as I ride. This necessitates as a 'low-trail' bike, as when I've tried this with bikes with regular geometry the handling becomes unpleasant.

The road surface is of secondary importance in my opinion, because I have traversed some pretty thoroughly awful roads on everything from 23s to 42s. I certainly prefer bigger tires, but a bit of gravel does not become impassable just because you decided to take your race bike that day. If you decide that like me you like big comfy tires on your LD bike, consider one that takes 650B wheels. A frame like this will often have clearance for tires in excess of 35mm, and there are some excellent tires in this range available in this size.

First off, I never said that tire size didn't affect ride quality. What I said was that it was a crutch for poor fame and wheel choice. Very simply you can do the same with a good compliant frame and wheel choice as you can with big tires. That's hardly radical, it's simple fact.
Geometry in and of itself does not have a great impact on comfort. How the frame designer puts the materials together does. You can have two frames with exactly the same geometry one very stiff and one very compliant. Just go down to your lbs and ride a couple different "race" geometry bikes. Very similar geometry, very different rides. Same thing with randoneuring and touring frames. Bike fit is important whether you are on a randoneuring frame or a race frame. We're not talking touring here, that's not even long distance riding.


You've been drinking too much coolaid. I've been over 70mph very comfortably on my "racing" geometry bike. I can take pictures too. That arguement is nuts and it has nothing to do with fatigue over long distances.

When it comes to bike fit... but more specifically "bike fitting"... I have to agree with these posts:

In my opinion, bike fit really has become an obsession over the last ten years or so. Yes... fit is important, but that 2mm adjustment is not going to make or break the day for 99% of riders on the road. Riders seem to have totally lost perspective on bike fit.

In my opinion, this has led to the point that Homeyba made:

I'll go even further. Most fitters have little to no experience with ANY serious riders. Our LBS has an employee who is their "Certified Fitter"... and she's only a fitter because she went to a silly two day training seminar and got a certificate to hang on the shop wall. She charges good money to tell folks that they need to buy a different stem or offset seatpost and generate sales for the shop. You'd learn more by reading Steve Hogg's website for a couple of hours.

The increased demand for bike fitting has resulted in dozens of these "ill-fitters" to pop up everywhere. They probably do more damage than good for the average cyclist. Hell... every weekend warrior around here thinks that if they ride more than 20 miles on a bike that wasn't "professionally fitted" that they'll burst into flames and die an agonizing death.

Now don't get me wrong about bike fitting. Distance riders like Homeyba and his ilk are studs... I mean that seriously... and riding in that rarified air demands the best analysis and fit that can be had. But that much fitting effort is wasted on the rider whose big event is a 25 mile romp on Saturday mornings and a fully supported metric century every year.

This. And do a little research on your own so that you can actually UNDERSTAND why you're making those changes.