6'7 guy needs help looking for a road bike for a 585 Mile 6DayCharity Bike Ride

On Feb 10, 4:29*pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
wrote:
"Chalo" wrote in message

...





Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:

At 6'7" you need absolutely positively the biggest-possible
production frame you can find, and even that isn't going to be a perfect
fit. Some brands have expanded their upper size range; for example, Trek,
the line we sell, now offers a 64cm size (previously, the biggest was
61cm,
and trust me, a 61cm isn't going to fit someone your size). But you're
going
to have to ditch your notion of a bike under $500. The least-expensive
Trek
model that comes in a 64cm size is the 1.5, at $999.

The 64cm Trek 1.5 has some laughable features for a tall man's bike,
like 41cm chainstays. *With the specified 72 degree seat angle, that
puts the rear edge of the saddle about _one inch_ forward of the rear
hub. *You're also suggesting a bike that accepts 28mm tires at the
widest to a guy who weighs 220 pounds (and is probably quite lean at
that weight).

So your preference is for exactly what seat angle? Given the range of femur
lengths we encounter, we haven't had issues establishing a "normal"
knee-over-spindle position on the 64cm frame. Are you guessing that everyone
needs a slacker seat tube, or do you have experience with a whole lot of
people in the real world? I accept the fact that you may need it, but
suggest that may not be the same for all taller folk. When we come across
someone whose measurements and appearance on the bike make it clear there
are significant fit issues, we recommend they look elsewhere. No biggie;
it's impossible to fit everyone. I never meant to imply that we could. But
that's unusual, not the norm.

Other measurements being held equal, and fitting the seat fore-aft
position according to pedaling balance, a slacker seat tube has the
effect of robbing the frame of forward reach.

FWIW, I'm only 6'3" but with very long arms and legs, and am decidedly
"recreational" in my riding. My present best fitting bicycle (a thirty
year old no-name pile of seamed tubing with slightly uneven dropouts)
has a 67cm seat tube, 63cm horizontal top tube, 74 degree seat tube,
and 90mm stem, with the bartops set up a bit less than an inch below
the seat post.

I've found the high and forward grip is key for me -- I can set myself
with the same back angle, equally comfortable and fast on the hoods,
on a smaller frame, but the drops and bartops become cramped and
awkwardly angled and by that point why bother with drop bars, if the
non-hood hand positions don't work.

The Trek 1.5 could be made to fit me that way, if I'm converting the
frame stack measurement right, but it would take a 130-140mm stem.
Which means for someone longer, no joy.

Its bottom bracket is also rather low to fit 180mm or 185mm cranks
with adequate pedal clearance. It's rare to see a manufacturer spec
appropriate crank lengths for different sized bikes. The manufacturers
that do spec varying cranks then screw it up by not adjusting the
bottom bracket accordingly. It's a surprise to see Trek has adjusted
bottom bracket height slightly, but only by 4mm between XS and XL
frames, less than half what would be appropriate if they (probably--
here's a bit of geometry info they omit) spec 165 for the smallest and
175 for the largest bikes (and less than a quarter the necessary
adjustment for 160 to 180 cranks, which would be better.)

-pm

In article
,
Jay Beattie wrote:

On Feb 10, 3:29*pm, Tom Sherman °_°
wrote:
Lou Holtman wrote:
Op 10-2-2010 22:18, Peter Cole schreef:
Paul wrote:

I wouldn't be too discouraged by the naysayers. If you're
reasonably fit and can get in some longish training rides
beforehand, you should be able to do it.

Is it do able? Sure. Is it fun to do? I doubt it. Should it be
fun? I think so. The victims of the good cause won't be helped if
someone else suffers. There is some stupid idea that charity
rides should be hard and extreme to attract attention in order to
raise money. We see that all the time here. Bloody nonsense in my
opinion.[...]

Sheldon has spoken: http://sheldonbrown.com/thons.html.

But I think he misses the point. "Thons" ARE supposed to make you
miserable. They are endless variations on "They Shoot Horses, Don't
They?" And without misery and suffering, we have nothing much to
talk about. "Hey, I went a lovely ride that was not brutal or epic."
Snore. Won't get chicks with those stories.

Nor with stories involving chafing and boils. Or at least not any
chicks I'd want to get...

--
"I wear the cheese, it does not wear me."

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:

Chalo wrote in message:

The 64cm Trek 1.5 has some laughable features for a tall man's bike,
like 41cm chainstays. With the specified 72 degree seat angle, that
puts the rear edge of the saddle about _one inch_ forward of the rear
hub. You're also suggesting a bike that accepts 28mm tires at the
widest to a guy who weighs 220 pounds (and is probably quite lean at
that weight).

So your preference is for exactly what seat angle? Given the range of femur
lengths we encounter, we haven't had issues establishing a "normal"
knee-over-spindle position on the 64cm frame. Are you guessing that everyone
needs a slacker seat tube, or do you have experience with a whole lot of
people in the real world?

The seat angle's fine. But 47cm chainstays would make a _lot_ more
sense for a 64cm frame, to keep a more acceptable percentage of the
rider's weight on the front wheel. If the 64cm frame's chainstays
were in proportion to the 47cm frame's chainstays, they'd be 56cm
long. 47cm chainstays on the 64cm frame are in proportion to those on
the 56cm frame.

I have fitted a lot of bikes to people. I'm sure it's a tiny
percentage of the number you have, but all the same I expect I have
fitted a much wider range of types of bike to different people than
you have-- including cargo bikes (front and rear loaders), choppers,
tallbikes, delta trikes, upright tadpole trikes, cycle sidecars, swing
bikes, and things that have no summary description. There is no
comparable crust of lore, tradition and superstition about fitting
such bikes the way there is about bikes with sporting pretensions.
One is free to pursue what works instead of what is merely
customary.

It's never optimal to have the rear of the saddle approach the plumb
line over the rear axle. Yet this is what Trek has imposed with their
64cm road bike geometry. It's not even necessary, because according
to their specs the different frame sizes vary a little bit in
chainstay length. If they only varied by a much larger amount, or
were all longer, then the tall frame would be much more workable.

Regarding tires, 220 pounds is fine for a 28c tire that's being ridden on
paved roads. I doubt the OP is looking for that off-road experience that you
may enjoy. There certainly wasn't any indication of that in his post. And
with 28c tires, to answer the next question you might be thinking, yes, that
bike can take fenders.

There's nothing wrong with 28mm tires. But it's an unacceptable
maximum size for a general use bike. My customers who ride for
transportation or travel generally only use a tire that narrow if it's
the widest one their frame will accept.

If sporting frames of 30 years ago could accommodate 40mm tires,
what's the valid reason that today's analogous frames can't do it?
The Trek 1.5 is no race bike; why should it be hobbled with the bike
equivalent of stiletto heels?

What's your beef about the post being carbon (plastic)? They use longer
lengths on mountain bikes without issue. The only thing I dislike is that
it's not a good idea to mount a seatpost-mounted rear rack to one; for
customer that want to do that, no big deal, we swap it out for an aluminum
one.

Plastic seatposts and handlebars are too easy for end users to damage
unwittingly when they slip because they can't be fully tightened.
It's one thing if only a savvy mechanic wrenches on them, but most
bike buyers aren't savvy mechanics... and most savvy mechanics won't
use plastic seatposts or handlebars.

All they did to make it a so-called 64cm frame was put the top of the
head tube high enough that a tall man might not need a Nitto Technomic
stem the way he would with a traditional 59cm frame. In a way, that's
fortunate, because the Trek 1.5 has a plastic fork and can't use a
Technomic or any other similarly high-rise stem.

Really hung up on plastic aren't you?

Yes. I see knackered parts on regularly used bikes every day. Most
of them are still safe because they are not made of brittle plastic.

There are substantial advantages to
threadless stems, but no amount of explaining is going to make any
difference to the Grant Peterson crowd.

I'm with you. But until threadless stems are made with lots of rise,
quills are the thing for many extra-tall riders. Threadless forks
only come so long, and a tall frame often maxes them out before a
stack of spacers can be added. Generally available threadless stems
are of no help in such a situation. That leaves HeadsUp, high-rise
bars, a dummy stem clamp plus 1-1/8" quill stem, or a custom stem.
These solutions are variously hokey, weak, inconvenient, or
expensive.

I have brazed my own stems and sleeved stoker stems to add rise to an
insufficiently tall threadless front end. I've used BMX bars on bikes
that were never intended to use them. None of these workarounds is
satisfactory for the casual tall-guy distance rider (if there even is
such a thing as a "casual distance rider").

I'll only point out one indisputable
fact. Since the change to threadless headsets, the need to replace damaged
headsets has slowed to a trickle compared to the days of threaded headsets.
Why? Because they're so easy to adjust.

And hard to overtighten. And nobody can expand the stem wedge inside
the threaded section or raise the stem quill past its safe extension.
Threadless is the way to go-- there is no doubt about this. But the
lack of the inherent adjustability a quill stem has means that
threadless stems should come in _more_ heights and sizes, not less.
Yet the variety of threadless stems today versus quill stems of the
MTB era is just pathetic.

150mm x 135 degree quill stems used to be common, and a very useful
and popular fit aid. 160mm x 110 degree quill stems were generally
available. 200-300mm quill lengths are still with us. No threadless
equivalents to these things have ever been available, to the best of
my knowledge. That makes it more important than ever to get the
frame's built-in features situated appropriately for the frame's
size. But on Trek road bikes, the top of the head tube does not rise
in step with the frame's size. There's no identifiable reason for
this, but it's common practice today among lots of manufacturers other
than Trek.

A frame with a level top tube will necessarily have a head tube height
that stays level with the seat tube. It's an arbitrary thing, but in
its day it enforced at least that one element of truth in sizing upon
manufacturers. A 64cm frame actually had a 64cm seat tube, and the
head tube was just as high.

It doesn't matter that you or I can
perfectly adjust a threaded headset, nor that it's not rocket science. What
matters is that most people have a much easier time adjusting threadless
headsets, and they're less likely to require adjustment in the first place.
The major cause of headset failure is due to mis-adjustment (typically too
tight), and that's almost impossible to do to a threadless headset, thus
they simply last longer for *most* people.

I agree with your judgment here. So perhaps you can understand my
concern about plastic parts that fail structurally when overtightened
by the end user.

Trek, like the rest of the toy bike industry, apparently hasn't got a
clue about making bikes for big guys. That, sadly, is why
weatherbeaten old bikes that sold for $200 thirty years ago are still
much better for us.

It would help the original poster if you could provide some examples of
those bikes for him to look for.

I furnished three links to appropriate bikes for sale on eBay.

Hold up well over the long run? Low-end brifters? Plastic pedals?
It makes me wonder what you think constitutes holding up well.

The pedals are junk and basically just there for the test ride. We'd almost
rather they came with none at all (as is the case with most nicer bikes).
But "low-end" STI levers have held up very well over the years.

I often have to flood 2000s-era brifters with solvent in the attempt
to get them to index once more. Sometimes it works; sometimes it
doesn't. I administer last rites to more 10 year old brifters
because they no longer work than other shifters of any age.
(Rapidfire and Grip Shift are duking it out for a distant second place
in the race to failure.)

I understand that brifters have become a "checklist item" for many
bike buyers, but regardless of pedigree they seem to display a tiny
fraction of the longevity of thumbshifters, downtube shifters, or bar-
end shifters. It wouldn't hurt if they could be serviced beyond the
"flood with solvent" level, but they can't. (Except Campy, and real
bikes, well... you know what I'm saying here.)

Chalo

"Tom Sherman °_°" wrote in message
...
Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
[...]
Personally, I could care less if the shaft itself was carbon or aluminum,
but the seat clamp mechanism on that post is the best in the business.
Infinite angle adjustment and bolts that never fail.[...]

How can an angle be adjusted 360° or more?

Continuous, not infinite adjustment.

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007

"Infinite" in terms of incremental positioning within its range. Many
seatposts won't allow you to set the seat exactly where you want it
(generally level)- you end up either too high or too low.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

"Jay Beattie" wrote in message
...
On Feb 10, 3:29 pm, Tom Sherman °_°
wrote:
Lou Holtman wrote:
Op 10-2-2010 22:18, Peter Cole schreef:
Paul wrote:

I wouldn't be too discouraged by the naysayers. If you're reasonably
fit
and can get in some longish training rides beforehand, you should be
able to do it.

Is it do able? Sure. Is it fun to do? I doubt it. Should it be fun? I
think so. The victims of the good cause won't be helped if someone else
suffers. There is some stupid idea that charity rides should be hard and
extreme to attract attention in order to raise money. We see that all
the time here. Bloody nonsense in my opinion.[...]

Sheldon has spoken: http://sheldonbrown.com/thons.html.

==========
But I think he misses the point. "Thons" ARE supposed to make you
miserable. They are endless variations on "They Shoot Horses, Don't
They?" And without misery and suffering, we have nothing much to talk
about. "Hey, I went a lovely ride that was not brutal or epic."
Snore. Won't get chicks with those stories. --Jay Beattie.
==========

There are plenty of people for whom pushing their physical limits ends up
being little more than... pushing limits. Many people have amazing
capabilities that they've simply never explored. They get out on what some
might consider an "epic" ride and discover that there's an as-yet untamed
something inside of them, waiting to get out.

Also, comparing them to events that are designed intentionally to elicit
pain & suffering is misleading. The dance contests were designed as an
audience spectacle, a Roman Circus. There is no such feeling for the various
benefit rides. Mainly because there are no spectators.

It's up to the individual to decide how to approach *any* physical endeavor.
If you're of the mindset of "That which doesn't kill me makes me stronger"
then you'll go to bed each night feeling good about your sore muscles and
look forward to doing it again. But nobody is forcing people to approach it
that way, and generally there's not a cult-like mentality that says you
either go the distance or you're cast out. I have customers who are
initially scared of what they're getting themselves into, but come back from
it (whatever "it" is) saying it wasn't nearly as tough as they thought it
would be.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

On Feb 10, 9:17*pm, Chalo wrote:
I'm with you. *But until threadless stems are made with lots of rise,
quills are the thing for many extra-tall riders. *Threadless forks
only come so long, and a tall frame often maxes them out before a
stack of spacers can be added. *Generally available threadless stems
are of no help in such a situation. *That leaves HeadsUp, high-rise
bars, a dummy stem clamp plus 1-1/8" quill stem, or a custom stem.
These solutions are variously hokey, weak, inconvenient, or
expensive.

Yeah. If threadless stems are made at 90 degree angles in lengths up
to 140mm, then geometrically speaking a stem with 30degree rise, say,
ought to be made up to 170mm to keep the same distance from steering
axis to bar clamp. But instead the riser stems max out shorter than
the flat stems. Tall riders need more rise _and_ more reach.

Peter

Op 11-2-2010 0:29, Tom Sherman °_° schreef:
Lou Holtman wrote:
Op 10-2-2010 22:18, Peter Cole schreef:
Paul wrote:

I wouldn't be too discouraged by the naysayers. If you're reasonably fit
and can get in some longish training rides beforehand, you should be
able to do it.

Is it do able? Sure. Is it fun to do? I doubt it. Should it be fun? I
think so. The victims of the good cause won't be helped if someone
else suffers. There is some stupid idea that charity rides should be
hard and extreme to attract attention in order to raise money. We see
that all the time here. Bloody nonsense in my opinion.[...]

Sheldon has spoken: http://sheldonbrown.com/thons.html.



I wise man.

Lou

Peter Meilstrup wrote:

Chalo wrote:

I'm with you. *But until threadless stems are made with lots of rise,
quills are the thing for many extra-tall riders. *Threadless forks
only come so long, and a tall frame often maxes them out before a
stack of spacers can be added. *Generally available threadless stems
are of no help in such a situation. *That leaves HeadsUp, high-rise
bars, a dummy stem clamp plus 1-1/8" quill stem, or a custom stem.
These solutions are variously hokey, weak, inconvenient, or
expensive.

Yeah. If threadless stems are made at 90 degree angles in lengths up
to 140mm, then geometrically speaking a stem with 30degree rise, say,
ought to be made up to 170mm to keep the same distance from steering
axis to bar clamp. But instead the riser stems max out shorter than
the flat stems. Tall riders need more rise _and_ more reach.

That's true-- and if the handlebars in them feature drop and/or
pullback, the stem may have to be even taller or longer to
accommodate. Here's a stem I made to resolve a fit issue:

http://lh5.ggpht.com/_8pxqMHNBvlg/SL...0/coastem1.JPG

Note that if you interpolate a traditional 70 degree road bike stem
with its handlebar clamp plumb underneath the one on my custom stem,
the length is not unusual.

Chalo

Lou Holtman wrote:
Op 10-2-2010 22:18, Peter Cole schreef:
Paul wrote:

I wouldn't be too discouraged by the naysayers. If you're reasonably fit
and can get in some longish training rides beforehand, you should be
able to do it.

Is it do able? Sure. Is it fun to do? I doubt it. Should it be fun? I
think so. The victims of the good cause won't be helped if someone else
suffers. There is some stupid idea that charity rides should be hard and
extreme to attract attention in order to raise money. We see that all
the time here. Bloody nonsense in my opinion.

Perhaps, but the OP wasn't asking for opinions on charity rides.

Jay Beattie wrote:
On Feb 10, 3:29 pm, Tom Sherman °_°
wrote:
Lou Holtman wrote:
Op 10-2-2010 22:18, Peter Cole schreef:
Paul wrote:
I wouldn't be too discouraged by the naysayers. If you're reasonably fit
and can get in some longish training rides beforehand, you should be
able to do it.
Is it do able? Sure. Is it fun to do? I doubt it. Should it be fun? I
think so. The victims of the good cause won't be helped if someone else
suffers. There is some stupid idea that charity rides should be hard and
extreme to attract attention in order to raise money. We see that all
the time here. Bloody nonsense in my opinion.[...]
Sheldon has spoken: http://sheldonbrown.com/thons.html.

But I think he misses the point. "Thons" ARE supposed to make you
miserable. They are endless variations on "They Shoot Horses, Don't
They?" And without misery and suffering, we have nothing much to talk
about. "Hey, I went a lovely ride that was not brutal or epic."
Snore. Won't get chicks with those stories. --Jay Beattie.

Sheldon's primary objection seemed to be that "thons" were bad PR for
cycling. Perhaps, but that's really immaterial to the purpose of a
"thon". At the same time, in at least one "thon" I know, the Pan Mass
Challenge, the granddaddy of all thons ($15M raised each year for
cancer research), is ridden by a large number of very dedicated and
enthusiastic cyclists (some of whom are friends of mine) and is
frequently described as the year's cycling high point. There's
absolutely no "misery" there, more like a rolling party, and these guys
raise megabucks (AFAIK, my friends are the top fund raising group). If
you want "chicks" BTW, there are lots riding.

I've been stuck on a shut down highway for a half hour or so several
times while a 10,000 motorcycle annual charity ride was flagged through.
I read in the paper that those guys raised $50K. That's a chump ride,
not a charity ride, and I was among the chumps.