Finding a bike that fits.

Rolando said:

I have, so far , had no luck finding a bike that I can safely and
comfortably ride. All modern bikes, it seems, are made to a geometry
adopted some years ago to cater for the new breed of "off road" and
"cross country" machines.

It's still entirely possible to source current equipment that has the
overall design unchanged from before mountain bikes existed.
<snip description of changes>

Quoted message said:

These changes, exacerbated by my upper leg bones being short relative
to my lower leg bones (equally on both legs) means that when I adjust
the seat post so that I can just reach the ground with my toes, I
cannot get the balls of my feet onto the pedals

I can't get a traditional Dutch roadster (which exhibits roughly 0%
mountain bike DNA) so I can easily get a foot down and be on the saddle
at the same time. The simple solution is to step down from the saddle
when I stop, or stop with a foot down on a raised kerb. It's not really
a huge problem. On my old tourer I /could/ get a foot down, but only
just and I'd step off the saddle anyway as it was more comfortable.
Again, 0% MTB DNA in that bike.

My round-town hack bike these days is a Brompton folder. I can put a
foot down and have the saddle at the right height at the same time,
which is nice. Aside from that, it's incredibly convenient for a number
of other reasons.

Pashley make some of their "classic" bikes with 26" wheels, e.g.,
http://www.pashley.co.uk/products/princess-sovereign.html
http://www.pashley.co.uk/products/princess-classic.html

Another route that should work, albeit at a high cost, is a custom
build. Another expensive option is go for a completely different
configuration, and get a recumbent bike where the bottom bracket
distance is independent of altitude.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

In article <[email hidden]>,
Peter Clinch <[email hidden]> writes:
|> Rolando wrote:
|> > I have, so far , had no luck finding a bike that I can safely and
|> > comfortably ride. All modern bikes, it seems, are made to a geometry
|> > adopted some years ago to cater for the new breed of "off road" and
|> > "cross country" machines.
|>
|> It's still entirely possible to source current equipment that has the
|> overall design unchanged from before mountain bikes existed.
|> <snip description of changes>

True, but in the UK not from before the racing brigade took over Raleigh
and the CTC. Pashley and others come fairly close, for short cyclists,
but I had to go to Holland to get one for me (at 6'2"😉. The problem
is actually being unable to get a long enough stem, bizarrely enough;
not primarily the frame size.

|> I can't get a traditional Dutch roadster (which exhibits roughly 0%
|> mountain bike DNA) so I can easily get a foot down and be on the saddle
|> at the same time. The simple solution is to step down from the saddle
|> when I stop, or stop with a foot down on a raised kerb. It's not really
|> a huge problem. On my old tourer I /could/ get a foot down, but only
|> just and I'd step off the saddle anyway as it was more comfortable.
|> Again, 0% MTB DNA in that bike.

I can't ride ANY bicycle and get a foot down from the saddle without
causing severe knee pain. This modern fetish for monkey bicycles
is responsible for a lot of such problems, and a lot of people giving
up cycling after a short trial. I have met a good many, but failed to
persuade any to ignore the damn bicycle shop and other 'experts' and
try a traditional configuration.

|> My round-town hack bike these days is a Brompton folder. I can put a
|> foot down and have the saddle at the right height at the same time,
|> which is nice. Aside from that, it's incredibly convenient for a number
|> of other reasons.

But it's incredibly short wheelbase and unstable, so you need damn
good balance to ride it, and taller riders can't stop very fast.
Still, at least it's not a Bickerton, which was as hard to ride as
a short wheelbase recumbent.

Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

"Rolando" <[email hidden]>typed

Quoted message said:

I have, so far , had no luck finding a bike that I can safely and
comfortably ride. All modern bikes, it seems, are made to a geometry
adopted some years ago to cater for the new breed of "off road" and
"cross country" machines. Sadly, instead of restricting these changes
to those bikes for which they were originally introduced, they were
applied universally to ALL bikes, including those intended for "comfort
commuting". The most noticeable changes that I am aware of are the
raising of the bottom bracket (the cylindrical box through which the
crankwheel spindle passes) and the sloping rear tube into which the
seatpost fits, this has been brought forward to a more vertical angle.
These changes, exacerbated by my upper leg bones being short relative
to my lower leg bones (equally on both legs) means that when I adjust
the seat post so that I can just reach the ground with my toes, I
cannot get the balls of my feet onto the pedals, if, alternatively, I
still further raise the seat post so that I can pedal through a full
360 degrees, I cannot then reach the ground. I should point out here
that I am not noticeably deformed, I look like a fairly normal elderly
man of about 5' 7", also it goes without saying that I have tried all
the different frame sizes, but the problem has not been solved. I
recently paid a visit to a cycle retailer in York who imports bikes
from Holland, where they still make their machines pretty much the same
as we used to make ours. I came close to success with the Dutch bike I
tried, which was a ladies bike with, I think, a 20" frame,
unfortunately, I understand all the Dutch bikes come with 700mm wheels,
which is just over 27.5" in "old money". In the days when I had no
problem finding a bike I could ride, wheel sizes were, I think, 28" for
tall riders, and 26 7/8" for "shorties" like me. I am now looking into
the possibility of buying an elderly, renovated British bicycle,
preferable a man's with 26 7/8" wheels and built to the old geometry,
but such machines appear to be in very short supply. Has anyone else
had this problem, and solved it?

A 700c wheel measures 27.5 inches only if it has 39mm tyres on its 622mm
beadseat. These are rather larger than standard touring tyres, which are
maybe 28-32 mm wide, giving a wheel diameter of about 26 3/4 inches.

Touring bikes with low bottom brackets are available and St John Street
Cycles make machines withe smaller 26 in 'mountain bike' wheels.

It isn't really necessary to reach the ground anyway.

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email hidden]
Edgware.

In article <[email hidden]>,
Helen Deborah Vecht <[email hidden]> writes:
|>
|> A 700c wheel measures 27.5 inches only if it has 39mm tyres on its 622mm
|> beadseat. These are rather larger than standard touring tyres, which are
|> maybe 28-32 mm wide, giving a wheel diameter of about 26 3/4 inches.

They are, however, the traditional touring (roadster) width, and are a
damn sight more comfortable - and sometimes faster than the narrower
(originally racing) section over roads with an averagely poor surface.

The key to the above is to remember that the reason that wide tyres
were slow was that the natural latex / cotton outers could not take
much pressure, and that rolling resistance is roughly inversely
proportional to the pressure for any normal (not knobbed) tyres.
So people in the 1950s and 1960s went for narrower tyres as the
roads improved, because 1.5" ones could not be pumped up hard. But,
with modern outers, you can pump them up to 50+ psi without problem
and get the best of both worlds.

Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Nick Maclaren said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
Peter Clinch <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

My round-town hack bike these days is a Brompton folder. I can put
a foot down and have the saddle at the right height at the same
time, which is nice. Aside from that, it's incredibly convenient
for a number of other reasons.

But it's incredibly short wheelbase and unstable, so you need damn
good balance to ride it, and taller riders can't stop very fast.
Still, at least it's not a Bickerton, which was as hard to ride as
a short wheelbase recumbent.

Which is to say, not difficult at all?

The Chocolate Bickie wasn't difficult to ride as long as one remembered that
bits of it were occasionally wont to exhibit Peter Turnbull-style navigation
tactics...

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
Ernesto, give me that Kit-Kat, or I will kill you.

in message <[email hidden]>, Rolando

(') said:

These changes, exacerbated by my upper leg bones being short relative
to my lower leg bones (equally on both legs) means that when I adjust
the seat post so that I can just reach the ground with my toes, I
cannot get the balls of my feet onto the pedals, if, alternatively, I
still further raise the seat post so that I can pedal through a full
360 degrees, I cannot then reach the ground.

As you say, frame design has changed, and it is not uncommon on a modern
bike to not be able to get both tiptoes down at the same time. This isn't
normally a problem, but it isn't something that's special to you.

Quoted message said:

I came close to success with the Dutch bike I
tried, which was a ladies bike with, I think, a 20" frame,
unfortunately, I understand all the Dutch bikes come with 700mm wheels,
which is just over 27.5" in "old money".

No. The 700c standard is 622mm rim diameter, and is smaller, not larger,
than the old British 27" standard.

Quoted message said:

In the days when I had no
problem finding a bike I could ride, wheel sizes were, I think, 28" for
tall riders, and 26 7/8" for "shorties" like me.

I don't recall this standard. My first bike had 28" wheels, but they were
already obsolete in the 1960s and 27" was normal for mens' bikes. There
was a size called 26" which was normal for womens' bikes, but this was a
British standard and different from the current 26" (actually 559mm)
wheels, which are to an American standard.

Quoted message said:

I am now looking into
the possibility of buying an elderly, renovated British bicycle,
preferable a man's with 26 7/8" wheels and built to the old geometry,
but such machines appear to be in very short supply. Has anyone else
had this problem, and solved it?

I think your best advice is to look at Dutch bikes, which are, as you say,
most similar in geometry to the classic British roadster. The 700c wheels
are not a problem, as they are smaller than 27" and, indeed, if there was
a 26 7/8" standard, 700c would be smaller than that, too. As cycles sold
in Britain have for many years been primarily sports machines, bottom
brackets are higher than they used to be as people expect to be able to
corner fast without pedal strike. However, you can cut as much as an inch
off the bottom bracket height of many modern hybrids simply by fitting
narrower tyres, which will be more suitable for road use in any case.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

...but have you *seen* the size of the world wide spider?

In article <[email hidden]>,
"Dave Larrington" <[email hidden]> writes:
|> >
|> > But it's incredibly short wheelbase and unstable, so you need damn
|> > good balance to ride it, and taller riders can't stop very fast.
|> > Still, at least it's not a Bickerton, which was as hard to ride as
|> > a short wheelbase recumbent.
|>
|> Which is to say, not difficult at all?

Which is to say, impossible for 20% of the population and extremely
difficult and dangerous for another 50%.

|> The Chocolate Bickie wasn't difficult to ride as long as one remembered that
|> bits of it were occasionally wont to exhibit Peter Turnbull-style navigation
|> tactics...

I got off the monstrosity after 10 yards and wheeled it back to the
shop. There was far too much flex in the steering linkage, due to
its gross under-engineering. 'Lightweight tourers' are bad enough,
but that!

And that is another great myth of cycling. In no other branch of
engineering do even the most clueless newbies believe that flex in
a control linkage is a good thing, and it is grounds for failing
inspections in most of them. But bicycles are made to enhance it!
Bizarre.

Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Nick Maclaren said:

Which is to say, impossible for 20% of the population and extremely
difficult and dangerous for another 50%.

I'm intrigued as to where those figures come from! I'm not aware of any
large, systematic sampling that's been done on rider capability on SWB
recumbents. beyond which I'd have to ask /which/ short wheelbase
recumbent. Mine is easier for me to ride than Roos', both are easier
for me than a Baron.

That's 70% having really serious problems. I have doubts about that level.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

In article <[email hidden]>,
Peter Clinch <[email hidden]> writes:
|>
|> > Which is to say, impossible for 20% of the population and extremely
|> > difficult and dangerous for another 50%.
|>
|> I'm intrigued as to where those figures come from! I'm not aware of any
|> large, systematic sampling that's been done on rider capability on SWB
|> recumbents. beyond which I'd have to ask /which/ short wheelbase
|> recumbent. Mine is easier for me to ride than Roos', both are easier
|> for me than a Baron.

Well, the 20% is for people with significant hearing impairment, which
is going to be comparable to the number with significantly impaired
middle-ear balance (for obvious reasons). That is a standard figure,
which you could find on the net somewhere.

The 50% was a guesstimate, based on the experiences of people I have
spoken to (including a manager of a recumbent 'school'😉 and those that
I have read. Please note that I was referring to riding in traffic.
If you can't signal for a period of 10 seconds while turning a shallow
curve over a normally rough road, and start on the flat without
wobbling significantly, you are in considerable danger. I agree that,
in a recumbent, you could probably rig up a decent mirror, so don't
need to look over your shoulder.

My recollection is that the school manager said that about half their
customers had significant problems with a short wheelbase recumbent,
even in quiet rural lanes. I couldn't ride one at all, of course,
and wasn't happy even with the long wheelbase ones - a tricycle was
fine :-)

|> That's 70% having really serious problems. I have doubts about that level.

No, not really serious - just minor. I am one of the 20%, and cycled
100 miles in north Cornwall and Devon last week without problems.
I don't think that you realise how common minor balance problems are.

Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

in message <[email hidden]>, Nick Maclaren

(') said:

And that is another great myth of cycling. In no other branch of
engineering do even the most clueless newbies believe that flex in
a control linkage is a good thing, and it is grounds for failing
inspections in most of them. But bicycles are made to enhance it!

That's a complete canard. Name one bicycle design currently in production
which is 'made to enhance flex in a control linkage'.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; making jokes about dyslexia isn't big, it isn't clever and
;; it isn't furry.

In article <[email hidden]>,
Simon Brooke <[email hidden]> writes:
|>
|> > And that is another great myth of cycling. In no other branch of
|> > engineering do even the most clueless newbies believe that flex in
|> > a control linkage is a good thing, and it is grounds for failing
|> > inspections in most of them. But bicycles are made to enhance it!
|>
|> That's a complete canard. Name one bicycle design currently in production
|> which is 'made to enhance flex in a control linkage'.

Ooh, I HAVE caught you a good one in the dogmas, haven't I?

Any bicycle built with lightweight tubing that has the front forks
either with a vertical oval cross-section or more flexible than the
main tubes. You, of course, will claim that the resulting flex in
the control linkage is not deliberate, which is equivalent to saying
that the designers are either incompetent or negligent.

Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Nick Maclaren said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
Simon Brooke <[email hidden]> writes:
|>
|> > And that is another great myth of cycling. In no other branch of
|> > engineering do even the most clueless newbies believe that flex in
|> > a control linkage is a good thing, and it is grounds for failing
|> > inspections in most of them. But bicycles are made to enhance it!
|>
|> That's a complete canard. Name one bicycle design currently in production
|> which is 'made to enhance flex in a control linkage'.

Ooh, I HAVE caught you a good one in the dogmas, haven't I?

Any bicycle built with lightweight tubing that has the front forks
either with a vertical oval cross-section

??? I don't know of any. I know of one which are tapered, and those
which are straight, but no vertical ovals.

Quoted message said:

or more flexible than the
main tubes. You, of course, will claim that the resulting flex in
the control linkage is not deliberate, which is equivalent to saying
that the designers are either incompetent or negligent.

How about it being a design compromise. Being in Dundee I am somewhat
familiar with the concept of a hill which to those in Cambridge must be
somewhat alien..

...d

in message <[email hidden]>, Nick Maclaren

(') said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
Simon Brooke <[email hidden]> writes:
|>
|> > And that is another great myth of cycling. In no other branch of
|> > engineering do even the most clueless newbies believe that flex in
|> > a control linkage is a good thing, and it is grounds for failing
|> > inspections in most of them. But bicycles are made to enhance it!
|>
|> That's a complete canard. Name one bicycle design currently in
|> production which is 'made to enhance flex in a control linkage'.

Ooh, I HAVE caught you a good one in the dogmas, haven't I?

Any bicycle built with lightweight tubing that has the front forks
either with a vertical oval cross-section or more flexible than the
main tubes.

I asked you to name one such. Do so. Just one. Any one, taken at random.
Come on, if they're common that can't be hard.

Quoted message said:

You, of course, will claim that the resulting flex in
the control linkage is not deliberate, which is equivalent to saying
that the designers are either incompetent or negligent.

Guess what? The Maclaren struts and wishbones and stub axles on your car
flex, too. Every mechanical structure under load flexes a bit. The forks
on good bikes[1] are designed and made to minimise, not to enhance,
undesirable flexing, just like the Maclaren struts and stub axles on your
car are. But perfect stiffness is not possible, and is consequently not a
useful design goal.

Not all flexion is undesirable, of course - the curved forks on older steel
bicycles (the ones you claim to like) /are/ designed to flex to give some
degree of suspension.

[1] Some of the sliding stansion forks used on mountain bikes, particularly
cheaper mountain bikes, are not as stiff as they should be, but even these
can't be said to be 'made to enhance flex'. They're made to limit flex,
but don't do it very well - their designers are designing to a budget and
to a marketable fashion, which is different from being either incompetent
or negligent.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; "If I were a Microsoft Public Relations person, I would probably
;; be sobbing on a desk right now" -- Rob Miller, editor, /.

Nick Maclaren said:

And that is another great myth of cycling. In no other branch of
engineering do even the most clueless newbies believe that flex in
a control linkage is a good thing, and it is grounds for failing
inspections in most of them. But bicycles are made to enhance it!
Bizarre.

Flex is called compliance, and should not be confused with free play.
If a steering system is stiff enough, it's not automatically going to be
improved by increasing stiffness.

---
Marten (even my mother got along with my Bickerton) Gerritsen

INFOapestaartjeM-GINEERINGpuntNL
www.m-gineering.nl

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Nick Maclaren

(') said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
Simon Brooke <[email hidden]> writes:

[...]

Quoted message said:

I asked you to name one such. Do so. Just one. Any one, taken at random.
Come on, if they're common that can't be hard.

Quoted message said:

You, of course, will claim that the resulting flex in
the control linkage is not deliberate, which is equivalent to saying
that the designers are either incompetent or negligent.

Guess what? The Maclaren struts and wishbones and stub axles on your car
flex, too.
[...]

MacPherson was the strut guy, Maclaren is the person you're
flaming^H^H^H^H^H^H^H discussing flex with.

In article <[email hidden]>

Rolando said:

I have, so far , had no luck finding a bike that I can safely and
comfortably ride. All modern bikes, it seems, are made to a geometry
adopted some years ago to cater for the new breed of "off road" and
"cross country" machines. Sadly, instead of restricting these changes
to those bikes for which they were originally introduced, they were
applied universally to ALL bikes, including those intended for "comfort
commuting". The most noticeable changes that I am aware of are the
raising of the bottom bracket (the cylindrical box through which the
crankwheel spindle passes) and the sloping rear tube into which the
seatpost fits, this has been brought forward to a more vertical angle.

I think we know what a bottom bracket is :-) Frame angles haven't
changed much since the sixties, in fact ATBs are closer to the old-style
'roadster' than the 'racers' of the seventies.

Quoted message said:

These changes, exacerbated by my upper leg bones being short relative
to my lower leg bones (equally on both legs) means that when I adjust
the seat post so that I can just reach the ground with my toes, I
cannot get the balls of my feet onto the pedals, if, alternatively, I
still further raise the seat post so that I can pedal through a full
360 degrees, I cannot then reach the ground.

That's OK - you don't need to touch the ground while you're pedalling,
and you don't need to sit on the saddle while you're stationary.

Quoted message said:

I should point out here
that I am not noticeably deformed, I look like a fairly normal elderly
man of about 5' 7", also it goes without saying that I have tried all
the different frame sizes, but the problem has not been solved.

I suggest you'll have more luck trying shorter cranks - it's the cranks
that determine how far your knees go up and down, and many modern bikes
have longer cranks than was common in days of yore.

Quoted message said:

I
recently paid a visit to a cycle retailer in York who imports bikes
from Holland, where they still make their machines pretty much the same
as we used to make ours. I came close to success with the Dutch bike I
tried, which was a ladies bike with, I think, a 20" frame,
unfortunately, I understand all the Dutch bikes come with 700mm wheels,
which is just over 27.5" in "old money".

700C, not 700mm - that's the standard size for road bikes these days,
and is actually 622mm rim diameter.

Quoted message said:

In the days when I had no
problem finding a bike I could ride, wheel sizes were, I think, 28" for
tall

700B (635mm) = 28 x 1 1/2" and was used on some old British roadsters,
700A (642mm) = 26 x 1 3/8" on others and 28 x 1 1/4" (647mm) on Dutch
bikes.

Quoted message said:

riders, and 26 7/8" for "shorties" like me.

26 x 1 3/8" (590mm) - the standard 3-speed utility size.

Quoted message said:

I am now looking into
the possibility of buying an elderly, renovated British bicycle,
preferable a man's with 26 7/8" wheels and built to the old geometry,
but such machines appear to be in very short supply. Has anyone else
had this problem, and solved it?

As I said, shorter cranks is probably the main thing to look for unless
you really don't think you can manage getting on and off a high saddle.
The problem is that these days shorter cranks are generally only fitted
as standard to kids' bikes, and those are going to be a bit small for
someone of your height. Short cranks are easy enough to buy and
retrofit though. If you also want a low seat then one option might be
to get a suspension bike and remove the suspension - there must be
plenty of cheap ATBs on the tip with knackered suspension. :-)

Rob Morley wrote:
(snipped)

Quoted message said:

700C, not 700mm - that's the standard size for road bikes these days,
and is actually 622mm rim diameter.

Quoted message said:

In the days when I had no
problem finding a bike I could ride, wheel sizes were, I think, 28" for
tall

700B (635mm) = 28 x 1 1/2" and was used on some old British roadsters,
700A (642mm) = 26 x 1 3/8" on others and 28 x 1 1/4" (647mm) on Dutch
bikes.

(snipped)

So what does the "700" refer to?
Genuine Q from a mere bicycle user.

Marcus Red said:

Rob Morley wrote:
(snipped)

Quoted message said:

700C, not 700mm - that's the standard size for road bikes these days,
and is actually 622mm rim diameter.

Quoted message said:

In the days when I had no
problem finding a bike I could ride, wheel sizes were, I think, 28" for
tall

700B (635mm) = 28 x 1 1/2" and was used on some old British roadsters,
700A (642mm) = 26 x 1 3/8" on others and 28 x 1 1/4" (647mm) on Dutch
bikes.

(snipped)

So what does the "700" refer to?
Genuine Q from a mere bicycle user.

According to Sheldon: 'In the French system, the first number is the
nominal diameter in mm, followed by a letter code for the width: "A"
is narrow, "D" is wide. The letter codes no longer correspond to the
tire width, since narrow tires are often made for rim sizes that
originally took wide tires; for example, 700 C was originally a wide
size, but now is available in very narrow widths, with actual
diameters as small as 660 mm.'

More at <http://www.sheldonbrown.com/tire-sizing.html>

Tim

Marcus Red <[email hidden]>typed

Quoted message said:

Rob Morley wrote:
(snipped)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

700C, not 700mm - that's the standard size for road bikes these days,
and is actually 622mm rim diameter.

Quoted message said:

In the days when I had no
problem finding a bike I could ride, wheel sizes were, I think, 28" for
tall

700B (635mm) = 28 x 1 1/2" and was used on some old British roadsters,
700A (642mm) = 26 x 1 3/8" on others and 28 x 1 1/4" (647mm) on Dutch
bikes.

(snipped)

Quoted message said:

So what does the "700" refer to?
Genuine Q from a mere bicycle user.

The wheel diameter when you use a certain tyre. (39mm with a 700c frexample)

Wheel rims can tolerate all manner of tyre widths. This will change the
overall wheel diameter.

The wheel rim has a critical dimension called the bead seat diameter.
This is 622mm for a 700c wheel, which is a popular touring/road size.
Put 18mm racing tyres on such a wheel and your wheel diameter is less
than 26"...

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email hidden]
Edgware.