Grant Petersen's ideas

Olebiker said:

I have come to understand why he likes Brooks saddles. You have to
have a well broken-in Brooks saddle to be able to ride with all of your
weight on the saddle as is the result of setting up a bike the way he
recommends.

I never had a problem riding on new Brooks saddles. These days I have
a comfortable bike, so who cares? ;-)

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

"Olebiker" wrote...

Quoted message said:

Please excuse me, but I'm feeling a little cranky today.

I've been reading some of Grant Petersen's ideas on bicycle equipment
and bike fit, and I have just about come to the conclusion that Grant
must not actually ride a bike. He just enjoys being an iconoclast.

I've heard reports that he does indeed ride a bike, and moves pretty fast on
one, too. I think he does enjoy being an iconoclast.

Quoted message said:

I have come to understand why he likes Brooks saddles. You have to
have a well broken-in Brooks saddle to be able to ride with all of your
weight on the saddle as is the result of setting up a bike the way he
recommends.

I liked my Brooks just fine from day one, on one bike with an upright
position and another with a more bent over position.

Quoted message said:

Cloth handlebar tape with shellac over it.... Why do that when there
are good modern products that last a long time and are more
comfortable?

The shellaced cloth tape on my winter commuter and my tourer lasts a lot
longer than the cork on my road bike and looks good, too.

Quoted message said:

I have been riding for more than 30 years as an adult and thoroughly
enjoy most of the modern equipment. I don't miss friction shifting and
leather saddles one bit.

Just my $.02 worth.
--
mark

[censored] writes:

<I have come to understand why he likes Brooks saddles. You have to
have a well broken-in Brooks saddle to be able to ride with all of your

weight on the saddle as is the result of setting up a bike the way he
recommends>

What wrong with that? Hey, if a Brook, or any other saddle, is
comfortable, ride it!

<One thing I read recently was Grant making fun of folks who use
STI-type shifters. He says we shift too much. I don't know about the
rest of you, but I like being in the most efficient gear whenever I
can, and I like not having to move my hands when I do it. With my
Campy Ergo shifters I hardly even think about it anymore much less
shift and then have to trim the shifter to center it over the cog. >

Here we agree. Grant's thing is bar-ends/bar-cons. He likes the way
they shift. He also likes friction shifting. Having rode with friction
for 16 of my 20 years with friction, I find ergo far more comfortable.
Of course, I don't do way-out-there type of touring. In that case, I
may want dt friction shifters - in the event my shifters breakdown.
Otherwise, give me my Ergolevers, thank you.

<Cloth handlebar tape with shellac over it.... Why do that when there
are good modern products that last a long time and are more
comfortable? >

Again, to each is own. Cork works well and is more comfortable to me.

The key with Grant's philosophy is comfortable. If you ain't
comfortable, you won't ride. Things like more upright position and
smaller large chainrings work for some, if not most people. Other
things like friction shifting, strapless pedals, shellac bars, 650B
wheels, etc., well, if it gets you riding then go for it.

I'm a member. In order to figure out what works for me, I've learned to
read and filter out the stuff that I don't like. For example, I use
clipless pedals (speedplays) on my "go-fast" carbon (plastic for you
Riv folks) bike. Love it and wouldn't ride long without it. On the
other hand, I like the strapless, MKS pedals Riv sells for my commuter.
Its a relatively short 10-mile commute with lots of hills. The
strapless pedals work well as I can wear any shoe and don't need to be
clipped in while commuting. Take what you can and leave the rest....

Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.misc
From: "Olebiker" <[email hidden]> - Find messages by this author
Date: 20 Apr 2005 10:42:50 -0700
Local: Wed,Apr 20 2005 10:42 am
Subject: Grant Petersen's ideas
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse

Please excuse me, but I'm feeling a little cranky today.

I've been reading some of Grant Petersen's ideas on bicycle equipment
and bike fit, and I have just about come to the conclusion that Grant
must not actually ride a bike. He just enjoys being an iconoclast.

I have come to understand why he likes Brooks saddles. You have to
have a well broken-in Brooks saddle to be able to ride with all of your

weight on the saddle as is the result of setting up a bike the way he
recommends.

<I started thinking about this last Saturday while riding 62 miles into

an unrelenting headwind on TOSRV South. If I had my bike set up the
way Grant suggests, I would be like a sail in that wind.>

Not necessarily. One thing to note is not everyone is "flexible". If
you are comfortable riding with your bars lower than your saddle,
great. What Grant is trying to preach is basically, as most people get
older, a more "upright" position is easier on the back, neck, hands,
wrist, etc.

Of course, there are many people who ride with their bars 2, 3, 4 or
more inches lower than their saddle. If they're happy, I say keep on
riding!

T. E. Lawrence (of Arabia)
"Olebiker" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
<< You have to have a well broken-in Brooks saddle to be able to ride with
all of your weight on the saddle as is the result of setting up a bike the
way he recommends.>>

My experience with a Brooks was that you had to have a well-broken-in ass.

--
Bob C.

"Of course it hurts. The trick is not minding that it hurts."

"Olebiker" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Please excuse me, but I'm feeling a little cranky today.

I've been reading some of Grant Petersen's ideas on bicycle equipment
and bike fit, and I have just about come to the conclusion that Grant
must not actually ride a bike. He just enjoys being an iconoclast.

I have totally come around to Grant's way of thinking. I now have my bars
set at the same height as my saddle, and my hand numbness and back/neck pain
have gone away. He's right. Thing is, bikes used to be fit and designed like
he says---but the racer aesthetic took over sometime in the 80s.

Quoted message said:

I have come to understand why he likes Brooks saddles. You have to
have a well broken-in Brooks saddle to be able to ride with all of your
weight on the saddle as is the result of setting up a bike the way he
recommends.

I'm still breaking in my Brooks, but you don't quite have his philosophy
right. The point isn't to put all your weight on your saddle---it's to
evenly distribute the weight between your ass, hands, and feet. Riding a
bike with 3-4 inches height difference between saddle and bars puts lots of
weight on your hands, and that's a problem for a lot of people. Maybe not
for flyweight racers, but for anybody with upper body mass it's a problem.

Quoted message said:

I started thinking about this last Saturday while riding 62 miles into
an unrelenting headwind on TOSRV South. If I had my bike set up the
way Grant suggests, I would be like a sail in that wind.

That's why we ride the drops....

Quoted message said:

One thing I read recently was Grant making fun of folks who use
STI-type shifters. He says we shift too much. I don't know about the
rest of you, but I like being in the most efficient gear whenever I
can, and I like not having to move my hands when I do it. With my
Campy Ergo shifters I hardly even think about it anymore much less
shift and then have to trim the shifter to center it over the cog.

Yes, that's a bit iconoclastic, but so are people who ride fixies and single
speeds. I do remember riding a bike with downtube shifters, and I shifted
less, but didn't ride any less.

Quoted message said:

Cloth handlebar tape with shellac over it.... Why do that when there
are good modern products that last a long time and are more
comfortable?

Yeah, I disagree with him on this one, too. Why use anything but Cinelli
cork?

Quoted message said:

I have been riding for more than 30 years as an adult and thoroughly
enjoy most of the modern equipment. I don't miss friction shifting and
leather saddles one bit.

[censored] Durbin

I understand where he's coming from---but I also see the beauty in
simplicity. I think canvas bags and leather saddles have something the
modern nylon and plastic will never have---style. :-) Plus, I like knowing
my Brooks will last 30+ years.

psycholist said:

T. E. Lawrence (of Arabia)
"Olebiker" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
<< You have to have a well broken-in Brooks saddle to be able to ride with
all of your weight on the saddle as is the result of setting up a bike the
way he recommends.>>

My experience with a Brooks was that you had to have a well-broken-in ass.

My experience is completely different, which is to be expected as you
and I are not the same person. I've had 2 brooks and they work great!
My second was fit and ready to use within the first 50 miles. The
Selle I had was so bad that I couldn't ride it. Unfortunately,
especially with saddles, to each his own.

--
Linux Home Automation Neil Cherry [email hidden]
http://home.comcast.net/~ncherry/ (Text only)
http://hcs.sourceforge.net/ (HCS II)
http://linuxha.blogspot.com/ My HA Blog

Grant indeed rides; back in the late 70's and early 80's he even raced.
Now he rides for pleasure and transportation. Pretty fast, too.

If you follow Grant's writings his general thesis is that much of what
is sold today fits a narrow segment of the population. He is more
about being expansive. His writings on brifters and friction vs index
are meant to get people to think about what they are doing; does the
average recreational rider really need to keep shifting between gears
in a narrow range while riding on relatively flat terrain, or is
shifting a convenience to get around adjusting effort?

As for the Brooks saddle debate, there are several components. First,
most folks ride saddles that are too soft, and then when they feel pain
they go the wrong direction and opt for softer/cushier. Allan Larson,
2003 RAAM solo winner, rode cushy in 2002, and had 8 months of numbness
in places guys do not want to be numb. In 2003 he rode Brooks saddles
and had no long term numbness issues. A solid platform that fits the
ischial tuberosities well is more comfortable than a soft platform of
any type. The important aspect of Brooks vis a vis the upright riding
style he espouses is that for most folks the ischial tuberosities are
more spread as one sits upright, so one needs a wider saddle. That is
why he rides the B17, which is quite wide. If one were to take a more
agressive position, with bars a couple or more inches below the saddle,
the B17 would be too wide and uncomfortable for most folks. In those
cases a narrower Brooks, a Team Pro, Swift, etc. would be better.

I ride with my bars about even, or just above saddle height. I have
no problems with wind, or no more than anyone else. When it gets
strong I go to the drops. Did that on Monday on my 15 mile commute
home into winds steady over 20 MPH with gusts much higher. Did it on a
ride up the coast last fall, again with winds steady in the 15-25 MPH
range, and ended up pulling long train of cyclists with me.

Again I think that Grant is writing about exploring all the options and
choosing one's that work for you rather than buying into the latest fad
just because it is a fad. Last I rode with Grant I rode a bike with
STI shifters and Cinelli cork tape and he did not seem offended. I
think he would be equally accepting of my bike with indexed barcons and
the one, sitting here in my cube, with barcons set to friction mode.
Big world, lots of choices, not everyone needs to ride 15 lb bikes with
10 sp Ergo and corn-cob clusters and bars 5" below the saddle; lots of
folks are better off with alternative options.

- rick

Quoted message said:

Please excuse me, but I'm feeling a little cranky today.

So you saw the forecast for rain for this Sunday's Chico Wildflower too?

Quoted message said:

I've been reading some of Grant Petersen's ideas on bicycle equipment
and bike fit, and I have just about come to the conclusion that Grant
must not actually ride a bike. He just enjoys being an iconoclast.

No question. People don't pay much attention to those who are "normal." It's
probably very good for his business. The downside is that you become so
closely associated with certain things that you can't change, even if you
wanted to, because you're trapped into the persona you've created.

Quoted message said:

I have come to understand why he likes Brooks saddles. You have to
have a well broken-in Brooks saddle to be able to ride with all of your
weight on the saddle as is the result of setting up a bike the way he
recommends.

Leather saddles are an interesting item. I have an ancient Ideale 90IR (the
cool one with alloy bars for an undercarriage) on my rain bike. It began its
life looking relatively normal, but after several seasons of use on my rain
bike, it's taken on the appearance of a saddle that's been out in the world
a bit too long. And yet it's extremely comfortable, just as always, despite
a very different shape.

Quoted message said:

I started thinking about this last Saturday while riding 62 miles into
an unrelenting headwind on TOSRV South. If I had my bike set up the
way Grant suggests, I would be like a sail in that wind.

In general, most of us with "conventional" riding positions tend to spend
most of our time up on top, particularly on the hoods. If the bars are
higher up, it's more likely you'll use the drops more often, which will
probably be in a similar position to the "conventional" setup when on the
hoods. However, I'm not endorsing really high bars; for many of us, it feels
very awkward climbing with your hands up high. Not everybody, but many of
us.

Quoted message said:

One thing I read recently was Grant making fun of folks who use
STI-type shifters. He says we shift too much. I don't know about the
rest of you, but I like being in the most efficient gear whenever I
can, and I like not having to move my hands when I do it. With my
Campy Ergo shifters I hardly even think about it anymore much less
shift and then have to trim the shifter to center it over the cog.

Grant & Jobst both seem to feel that excessive shifting is going to cause
global warming or some other serious malady. I don't get it. My rain bike
has downtube friction shifting (original Campy Nuovo Record), so it's not
like I don't know the difference. Yes, it's kinda fun to go retro once in a
while. But overall, the effect is yuck. Plan to shift ahead of time, make
sure it's safe since your hands aren't near the brake levers, compromise on
the gear you want because you're not going to be shifting as often... Next
thing you know somebody's going to want wool shorts with a leather chamois.

Quoted message said:

Cloth handlebar tape with shellac over it.... Why do that when there
are good modern products that last a long time and are more
comfortable?

I found that I never had to use shellac to get that effect; a drippy nose
wiped on a glove that subsequently grips bar tape did the trick just fine.
In any event, what's the reason you'd want hard-as-a-rock bar tape anyway?

Quoted message said:

I have been riding for more than 30 years as an adult and thoroughly
enjoy most of the modern equipment. I don't miss friction shifting and
leather saddles one bit.

With the exception of leather saddles, I agree. No, I don't use a leather
saddle on my dry-weather machine; my Selle Italia Flite something-or-other
has been extremely comfortable on 200k rides. But so is the leather saddle
on my ancient Cinelli.

Quoted message said:

[censored] Durbin

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
People don't pay much attention to those who are "normal." It's
probably very good for his business.

I think Mike hit it on the head. It is great that Grant helps expand
the available products to cyclists. But his incessantly whining/
putting down cyclists who like modern things is grating. At some
shows/ centuries they'll give away his catalog/ reader and the themes
and tone never changes. Some oldie but goodies: 1-it's ok for people
to use index shifting though a 3 year old could friction shift, 2-it's
ok for people to dress in lycra so that they can pretend to be wanna be
racers. His broadsides do get my attention and I read the catalog with
interest but damn if I'll ever buy anything from him.

Once came across an interview Grant did of a Canadian (I believe)
framebuilder. Grant started out lauding the the "old school" way the
guy built his frames, and the inteview was quite good. Mid interview
the framebuilder mentioned that STI Index shifting is the best cycling
invention to come along in memory--for the rest of the interview Grant
was HAD to keep returning to this point, and make long
question/statements about how the framebuilder was wrong.

-Jay

"Kristen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Gooserider" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

I have totally come around to Grant's way of thinking. I now have my

bars

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

set at the same height as my saddle, and my hand numbness and back/neck
pain have gone away. He's right. Thing is, bikes used to be fit and
designed like he says---but the racer aesthetic took over sometime in

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

80s.

Back in the 1970s, your typical cyclist was very athletic. Even if we

weren't

Quoted message said:

racers, we were young and fit and rode hard. You hardly saw any senior
citizens on bikes back then. Today, the average age of cyclists has

increased

Quoted message said:

(a lot). Grant Peterson's ideas make sense for the older or less active
population. Taking his ideas as gospel for all riders would be a big

mistake.

Quoted message said:

Any attempt on his part to make his ideas sound universal is pure

marketing

Quoted message said:

hype.

That's not the point. Grant's ideas represent functional, "real", bicycles,
which have practically disappeared from the marketplace. Bikes used to have
rack and fender eyelets, clearance for wider tires, and smaller chainrings.
Even Eddy Merckx would have had a hard time with the high gearing present on
today's bikes. You don't have to be a senior citizen to appreciate real
world gearing, fenders, cushy tires, and a position which eliminates hand
numbness.

Jay K said:

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
People don't pay much attention to those who are "normal." It's
probably very good for his business.

I think Mike hit it on the head. It is great that Grant helps expand
the available products to cyclists. But his incessantly whining/
putting down cyclists who like modern things is grating.

Grant preaches to the choir then sells to them. It's an old formula, he
just leaves his tent in one place. Whatever.

Gooserider said:

Grant's ideas represent functional, "real", bicycles,
which have practically disappeared from the marketplace. Bikes used

to have

Quoted message said:

rack and fender eyelets, clearance for wider tires, and smaller

chainrings.

Quoted message said:

Even Eddy Merckx would have had a hard time with the high gearing

present on

Quoted message said:

today's bikes. You don't have to be a senior citizen to appreciate

real

Quoted message said:

world gearing, fenders, cushy tires, and a position which eliminates

hand

Quoted message said:

numbness.

I agree with most of that. But to me the "sport touring" bikes of the
'80s met most of those requirements at a much lower cost. What seems to
be missing in the current marketplace are decent bikes with the
qualities you describe (as well as conventional 32 or 36 spoke wheels).
Unlike the Rivs, I'd like to see bikes that incorporate some modern
advances like threadless headsets, perhaps indexed DT or bar end
shifters, SPD pedals, and nylon saddles. The extreme retro thing (toe
clips, friction shifting, cotton tape, lugged stems,etc), are a turn
off to many folks. And the fancy paint and lugwork adds unnecessary
cost.

Art Harris

Gooserider said:

"Olebiker" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Please excuse me, but I'm feeling a little cranky today.

I've been reading some of Grant Petersen's ideas on bicycle equipment
and bike fit, and I have just about come to the conclusion that Grant
must not actually ride a bike. He just enjoys being an iconoclast.

I have totally come around to Grant's way of thinking. I now have my bars
set at the same height as my saddle, and my hand numbness and back/neck pain
have gone away. He's right. Thing is, bikes used to be fit and designed like
he says---but the racer aesthetic took over sometime in the 80s.

Quoted message said:

I have come to understand why he likes Brooks saddles. You have to
have a well broken-in Brooks saddle to be able to ride with all of your
weight on the saddle as is the result of setting up a bike the way he
recommends.

I'm still breaking in my Brooks, but you don't quite have his philosophy
right. The point isn't to put all your weight on your saddle---it's to
evenly distribute the weight between your ass, hands, and feet. Riding a
bike with 3-4 inches height difference between saddle and bars puts lots of
weight on your hands, and that's a problem for a lot of people. Maybe not
for flyweight racers, but for anybody with upper body mass it's a problem.

Quoted message said:

I started thinking about this last Saturday while riding 62 miles into
an unrelenting headwind on TOSRV South. If I had my bike set up the
way Grant suggests, I would be like a sail in that wind.

That's why we ride the drops....

And people got out of the habit of using the drops because they had the tops too
low and couldn't stay in the drops for long.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

One thing I read recently was Grant making fun of folks who use
STI-type shifters. He says we shift too much. I don't know about the
rest of you, but I like being in the most efficient gear whenever I
can, and I like not having to move my hands when I do it. With my
Campy Ergo shifters I hardly even think about it anymore much less
shift and then have to trim the shifter to center it over the cog.

Yes, that's a bit iconoclastic, but so are people who ride fixies and single
speeds. I do remember riding a bike with downtube shifters, and I shifted
less, but didn't ride any less.

Quoted message said:

Cloth handlebar tape with shellac over it.... Why do that when there
are good modern products that last a long time and are more
comfortable?

Yeah, I disagree with him on this one, too. Why use anything but Cinelli
cork?

Because Profile cork costs less, is cushier and doesn't curl up on the edges as
much as Brand-C. The Cinelli's on my bike right now and it isn't a big deal, but
I do believe the Profile's just a bit better.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I have been riding for more than 30 years as an adult and thoroughly
enjoy most of the modern equipment. I don't miss friction shifting and
leather saddles one bit.

[censored] Durbin

I understand where he's coming from---but I also see the beauty in
simplicity. I think canvas bags and leather saddles have something the
modern nylon and plastic will never have---style. :-) Plus, I like knowing
my Brooks will last 30+ years.

The sense of things that will last is nice in itself.

Ron

"Gooserider" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

That's not the point. Grant's ideas represent functional, "real",
bicycles, which have practically disappeared from the marketplace. Bikes
used to have rack and fender eyelets, clearance for wider tires, and
smaller chainrings.

If you want a commuter bike, check out what Joe Breeze is selling now:
http://www.breezerbikes.com/

RIvendell offers lugged/fileted threadless stems and has built
threadless bikes. They also tried a lower price
complete bike with indexed bar cons, it sold so slowly they dropped it.
Grant really didn't invent any of this
stuff, it was common in 1930-1950s, a fellow named Velocio promoted
cycletouring* and pushed bike design
to accomodate it. The racers of the day made fun of them and ridiculed
the need for fenders, gears etc.
As for practical bikes, Gunnar and Kogswell will be happy to sell you
less expensive versions of a Sport bike.
A Rivendell/Sachs/Kvale frameset is around $2500, that gets you a mid
level factory built Pinarello,
a top Pinarello Dogma is $4000, a Trek OCLV frameset is how much ?,
which would you want to ride for
the next 15 years ?

Scott Goldsmith
*Cycletouring means both day rides for fun and cyclo-camping
For info on Velocio, the new edition of "Dancing Chain" has a chapter.

FWIW, complete Rivendell bikes like the Romulus and Rambouillet come
with indexed shifting (bar ends), no bar tape (you get to choose), no
saddle (again, you get to choose), and no pedals. Seems to leave the
door open for most of what you ask.

- rick

Actually, the reason the lower priced complete bike, the Romulus,
disappeared was not slow sales. The problem was two-fold. One, they
underpriced it and were barely breaking even. The other reason is it
was just a modified version of the Rambouillet they were selling with a
simpler paint job (one color, not two) and chainstays that were not
heat treated. So the idea was to collapse the product catalog, keep
just the Rambouillet and offer it as a complete bike as well as frame
only, at a price that included some profit. But the Romulus has, by
accident, made a return visit to the catalog. They neglected to cancel
the order and so another batch is coming, though to differentiate it
ever further Grant had Toyo braze on cantilever studs so that one could
use cantis and thus use wider tires.

My two most commonly ridden bikes are: 1) a 1988 Trek, not almost 18
years old with much of the original components, and 2) a 2003 custom
frame built much like a custom Riv, but a builder Grant tried to
recruit. I have no problems with riding a 17-18 year old bike, and
expect I will be riding it when it is 25-30 years old, as well. The
new custom I expect to last as long as I can put a leg over the top
tube, probably 30 or more years unless a car gets me first.

- rick

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 15:41:27 GMT, RonSonic <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

That's why we ride the drops....

And people got out of the habit of using the drops because they had the tops too
low and couldn't stay in the drops for long.

Hey Ron - how much of your riding do you do in the drops? I assume you have
your handlebars in the higher position, level with the saddle? Think you
use the drops more now with the better positioning? Due to some flexibility
issues from a tweaked lower back I'm just getting back into riding the
drops - I probably ride 20% of my route that way just to get the practice,
and I'm interested in other's experiences.

jj

21 Apr 2005 05:29:31 -0700,
<[email hidden]>,

Peter Cole said:

Grant preaches to the choir then sells to them. It's an old formula, he
just leaves his tent in one place. Whatever.

What irks me about the Rivendell cult is that they're pretending to
have rescued or reinvented things that never really went away.

There have always been frame builders using brazed lug construction,
building custom bikes and pricing their bikes far more reasonably than
Rivendell does.

Give me a Mercian any day. They're prettier, less expensive, offer
more options and have a history of building excellent frames since
Grant Petersen was still riding training wheels.
--
zk