Orbea Onix Dama vs Onix -- more on the women's specific myth

Orbea Onix

Orbea Onix Dama

I know I've gone over this before, but more on the "Women's Specific"  myth. 

My primary gripe is that the geometry changes that are actually made to the frame are minimal, and usually very poorly thought out.  Also, yes, some women have longer legs and shorter torsos -- but a lot of them do not.  In fact many men have long legs and short torsos, rather than the shorter legs and longer torsos that the bike manufacturers would have you believe.

For instance, look at the Onix series of bikes from Orbea -- they have their standard version and the Dama, or women's specific version.

The Dama, size 53 is essentially just the size in between the standard Onix sizes 51 and 54 -- possibly a slightly taller scaled head tube.  The Dama size 49, has an effective top tube of 51 cm.  The standard Onix size 51 also has a 51 cm effective TT.  The women's version has a head tube length of 110 mm, the standard version has a 122 mm one. 

If women did have shorter torsos wouldn't they need to make the reach and overall cockpit of the bike more relaxed rather than more aggressive?  Especially since the women's bike has a seat angle that's a full degree steeper (while still maintaining a 51 cm eff. TT), making it's weight bias more forward, upsetting the handling and making it squirrely at high speeds.

Again, I'm not saying that women shouldn't have their geometry tailored to them -- in fact they should, and just as often as the men-folk.  These are not well-thought out changes, they're token, and gimmick and marketing.  These changes are made because they're easy, not because they work.

Don't be fooled; more thought goes into how to "accessorize" a bike in pink and purple bits to make it "Women's Specific" than goes into the fit and the geometry.

"Barefoot" running shoes -- my $.02

It seems every time I look at a running or triathlon magazine these days, there's an article about barefoot running technique.  The book by Christopher McDougall Born to Run has created so much pop culture force behind it that it has nearly become mainstream.  Meaning even people outside the running or endurance sport circles consider running in minimalist shoes to now be the norm.

In fact, the evidence for "barefoot" running technique has been around for many years, and many of us who frequently keep up with the newer research trends have been aware of it for some time now.

I began my transition to minimalist shoes about 4 or 5 years ago.  Notice I didn't say I switched to them -- it took me roughly 8 months to make the move full time (i.e. when I could run a marathon in them).  Switching too soon is the number one mistake amongst runners, and is the reason why physical therapist, orthopedic surgeons, podiatrists, etc, have seen a huge uptick in running related injuries as a result of people switching to lower profile shoes.

I won't get into the why and how of what makes people fail and injure themselves -- suffice it to say that they either aren't a good candidate for running in minimalist shoes (Yep, that's right, not everyone can or should run in them) or they tried to run too much too soon in them.

Today I'd like to share my experience with the different shoes I have had in the last half-dozen years or so.

6 or 7 years ago I was running in some very rigid, motion-controlling shoes.  I was a heel striker who had a pair or Nike Air Structure Triax shoes for the road, and a pair of Montrail Hardrocks with custom orthotics for the trail. 

My education as a PT had reinforced to me, in error -- it was 10 years prior--, that I needed to control my mid-foot motion when I ran to prevent injury (I was frequently experiencing ITB syndrome, plantar fasciitis, among others).  My continuing self education, formally in classes geared towards PTs and informally from just voraciously reading research articles, began to reinforce to me that perhaps there was another way.

When I was deciding what new shoe I wanted to buy I was having a little trouble.  At the time there were really no viable mass-market shoes that fit the bill -- at the time, the shoe industry was still in full swing telling us that we needed the super-duper max-flow cushioning, motion control wonder-shoe.

Then as I thought about it more, it dawned on me:  back in the 1960's and 1970's, before the shoe industry went completely haywire, shoes were simpler; usually not much more than a thin layer of rubber and a few millimeters of EVA padded the bottoms of the shoe.  We used to make fun of these "old school" shoes, since the cushion, the striping, the decals of today's shoes certainly had more pizazz, more sizzle.

So I decided that fashion aside, I just had to get some old school wonders to try out this minimalist thing.  It made sense to do this also because these older shoes can be found online for cheap -- I think I paid 40 bucks for that first pair.  If I can, when I'm experimenting with some new idea, I like to keep it simple, and not have to drop a lot of coin on it, in case it doesn't work out.

I chose three of the shoes I have used in the last 5+ years to demonstrate some of the pros and cons of the varying avenues of the minimalist shoe revolution.  I actually haven't used very many pairs of shoes in this time -- they tend to last so darn long because the proper form to run in them is not dependent on having a lot of cushioning or motion-controlling, which new shoes tend to lose the ability to do as they age and break down.  When you have a shoe that affects your gait in some way (again, by either controlling some motion or providing artificial cushioning) then that shoe is going to lose that ability over time and you'll have to buy new shoes sooner. 

Anyway, here are the three and my thoughts on them:

The Old-School dreamboats

These are the classic Saucony Jazz Low Pro, which was one of the best selling shoes of it's day -- more than thirty years ago!

I was initially a little embarassed, I have to admit, when I first ran in these shoes.  They were my first pair, and I had always worn the latest, modern marvel of shoeware, and these were a bit doofy looking.  But they grew on me, and quickly.  They have a very comfortable fit, the tread was perfect for either road or trail runs, and they have just enough strength through the sole of the shoe that they were good at resisting small rocks from gouging the underside of my feet when I stepped on one wrong.  I used these shoes for 2 years!  The EVA foam in the sole packed down in the first few months -- there was a slight depression inside the shoe where my heel rested, as well as my metatarsals (balls of the feet), and even a couple of the toes, which rather than being a negative, actually made the shoe really feel like it fit like a glove.  After 2 years of many miles, though, they "packed down" a little too much -- I began to feel more pebbles "poke through" when I ran, and so it was time to try something else.

Shortly after this the first printing of Born to Run had come out and manufacturers had begun to offer some low profile options.  I decided to go with this pair of Nike Zoom Streak XCs.  They are made for those running cross-country and track middle to long distance, but without the spikes.

I found these to be very light, having an all-mesh upper, which was great most of the time.  In the winter, however, I'd have to wear two pairs of thin socks with a vapor barrier between to keep the wind, rain and snow from abusing my feet.  The soles were nearly as resistant to poking as the Sauconys were, and the sole performed well on the road and trail.  Aside from the cold-weather short-comings, the soles did wear out faster -- there seemed to be less rubber on the underside of the shoe to protect the foam from getting torn up by the ground.  Also, the all-mesh upper, while light, was prone to tearing, and after about a year I was left with a number of holes in he shoes as you can see. So I got (only?) a year out of these and they cost me about $75, so about 4 times the yearly cost of the Sauconys.

After going back to my old school choice for a while, I recently decided to try a new generation shoe again.  I figured it had been a while, perhaps they had improved the offerings.

I went with these New Balance Minimus Trail shoes. 

They cost me about $100, and I've had them a little over a month, so I don't know what the longevity will be just yet.  They have a very comfortable, anatomic fit, but the lacing doesn;t extend as far up on the shoe as I'd like to improve the fit through the toe box.  The sole is made of a Vibram checker-board pattern of sorts, and there seems to be little to no "foam cushioning" inside them.  They're comfortable to wear, and they definitely look cooler than my previous entries (I think anyway).  My main complaint is that they are terrible at resisting small rock pokes through the sole.  The Vibram is strong, but there isn't one continuous piece of it on the underside; it has that checkerboard pattern which makes the bottom of the shoe articulate more than any other I've used.  I understand that they're going for a barefoot feel, but it makes the sole of the shoe so flexible that I jab the bottom of my foot a couple times every single run -- road or trail.

I don't know how long these are going to last.  I think I'm going to tire of their "pokiness" long before the Vibram wears out.

So for now, still my favorite, considering all of the pros and cons, are the Sauconys.  They don't look new, but the old school style is starting to grow on me (I began wearing my old ones to work on occasion).

I know there are many other options out there, so tell me, which ones have you had experience with?  Any out there that you love?  Lemme know

J

Earthquake proof bikes!

Remember in mid February when that 6.3 magnitude earthquake hit Christchurch, NZ?  This was before all the volcanoes started erupting, before all the tornadoes hit the US, before the tsunami and resulting nuclear crisis in Japan.....it seems like the year ought to be older.  This is merely an interesting story about 2 bicycles who survived the quake. 

About 3 years ago, I collaborated with Seven Cycles to build steel road bikes for a very nice couple from Grand Junction, who had retired and planned to spend a lot of time traveling and riding their bikes.  Because of the travel we built them with S&S couplers, which, if you're not familiar, allow the bike frames to be broken down into two pieces and packed into an airline approved hardcase -- your bike is well protected and you don't get charged bike fees on the plane, which can run $100 per leg.

As with all the custom bikes I build, not only was the frame geometry full customized for their riding style and purpose, but the fork was rake-matched for optimal handling as well (eat your heart out twitchy stock bikes).

They rode these bikes all over and if the bikes had passports, the stamps in them would rival any globetrotter's.  Paris, London, Sydney, all over the US..........you get the idea.  I think in two years the bikes had been ridden about 12,000 miles and had flown upwards of 45,000 miles.

Spring of 2010, they came back and again told me how much they loved their bikes, but....

But, they wanted to be able to run bigger tires to handle some moderate off-road, muddy, gritty trails as well as be a little more forgiving on the rough cobbles common throughout Paris.

This time they opted for titanium bikes with S&S coupler (and custom paint to boot) that could fit up to 35mm tires.  No compromises on function, of course, so we went outside to Waterford to build custom steel forks with the proper rake (in this case 58 mm) that fit the fatter tires and still had an appropriate axle to crown measurement to keep the head tube at the angle it was designed for.

The bikes were finished, and almost immediately whisked off to Paris to see the 2010 Tour.  These bikes, like their steel siblings, traveled far and wide until late January 2011.  

They were taken to New Zealand to tackle the Otago Trail.  Two weeks of every trail and road condition imaginable and they had safely and successfully completed their mission.  The bikes were cleaned as best as possible, and carefully packed away into their travel cases.  They soon found their way to the concierge's locked storage at the Crowne Plaza Hotel in downtown Christchurch, while the owners continued site-seeing on foot the remainder of the trip.

On that late day in February the earthquake hit.  My clients were in the lobby of the hotel, saying it felt like being in an elevator that suddenly drops, except that instead of dropping down, everything lurched sideways.

Like nearly everyone in that part of New Zealand, they fled to a safe area -- in this case a nearby park -- and took up residency with tarps and sheets of plywood supplied by the Kiwi government.  

Everything was left at the hotel.  Everything.  Bikes, computers, cameras, clothes, GPS's, passports.  With the help of the US Embassy and local government, they were able to finally make their way back to Colorado.

The Crowne Plaza Hotel, luckily is one of the most well built structures in Christchurch, and it didn't sustain major damage in the quake.  However, buildings immediately surrounding it sustained serious structural damage and, like many buildings in the area had either collapsed or were threatening to, so nobody was even allowed in the area in the weeks following.

Without much information, aside from checking Google Earth images to check which buildings were still standing, they had no idea when or if they could expect to get their things back, but being the compassionate, pragmatic people that they are they always reinforced that they felt very lucky that the only thing they may have lost were things, while many others their lost much more.

Finally......

Nearly three months later, I received an email that they thought the bikes were on the way -- something had been sent from the hotel -- and they might be somewhere between Hong Kong and Cincinnati (?!??).

Well, they did show up:

 

It was clear that someone had opened up the hardcases on their way back into the US, and let's just say that they were not closed and re-packed with the utmost of care.

Both bikes were brought into the Studio, and aside from having to true all four wheels, replace some cables and housing and generally clean them up, they were in surprisingly good shape.

 

Besides a few scrapes and chips in the paint, the frames were perfect, but that wasn't too surprising:  titanium frames, properly built can last about 200 years or so (steel is about 50 years, aluminum about 15 or so, and carbon is around 10 years).

So, things turned out okay, and the bikes live to travel on.  I'm glad these rolling works of art and their owners, are able to roll around the world together for many years to come.

Clipless versus platform pedals

I have had a few clients asking about whether platform pedals will make them faster on their mountain bike.  I think it's important to carefully consider equipment choice when it comes to your bike, since that can severely affect how enjoyable the sport is.

I'm not here to tell you that flats or platform pedals are bad, and clipless pedals are good.  In fact, I think there are situations that warrant either.

Normally, I wouldn't mention anything, but some of the advice and "facts" I have read of late have convinced me that the "No Harm, No Foul" rule has been violated.  If someone who coaches cyclists is telling them, "You know, you might ride better and more confidently on flats"  I don't take issue.  It very well may be true, and in the best interest of that client.

But when I read about claims that clipless pedals cause injury, "mask dysfunction", "feed into dysfunction", "artificially strengthening the weak link of the feet", they can "increase your risk of overuse injury"  with no explanation of what dysfunction they're feeding into, I think some balance regarding the science is needed.

I do a lot of bike fits.  As a practicing physical therapist for 14+ years, I have seen and assessed thousands of riders using some of the most sophisticated infrared motion capture equipment on the planet.  I assess clients who ride with flats and with clipless pedals, and each group has consistent numbers of knee pain.  There never has been any research that proves the claim that clipless pedals cause more injuries because of their inherent "dysfunctional movement".  There is no research whatever that shows platforms to be better that clipless.

So let's get to the research cited.  I have seen two main articles cited as evidence that platforms are superior to clipless.

KORFF, T., L. M. ROMER, I. MAYHEW, and J. C. MARTIN. Effect of Pedaling Technique on Mechanical Effectiveness and Efficiency in Cyclists. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc., Vol. 39, No. 6, pp. 991–995, 2007.

The Korff et al article in a nutshell took 8 cyclists (with a minimum 2 years experience experience cycling)and had them perform 4 different pedaling trials at 90 rpm and at 200 watts.  The four trials of different pedaling where referred to as:

1. Preferred: they used their preferred pedaling technique
2. Circling:  pedal in circles and to concentrate on the transition phases through top dead center
   and bottom dead center of the crank cycle
3. Pulling:  emphasize an active pull during the upstroke of the crank cycle
4. Pushing:  emphasize the pushing action during the downstroke of the crank cycle

Each pedaling test was 6 minutes long followed by 6 minutes of passive rest.

The long and short of the results is that the cyclists had the lowest metabolic cost (or the highest metabolic efficiency = least energy expended) during the "Preferred" and the "Pushing" tests.  But the "Pulling" and the "Circling" had significantly higher mechanical effectiveness (you might say it was the most even or balanced distribution of power throughout the entire pedal stroke).

Some issues to consider:

Just because the cyclists "Preferred" pedaling style and the "Pushing" closely mirrored each other is not proof that "we already know how to pedal", and instructions to change this (cueing riders to pull up to even their distribution of force) just screws up our stronger natural instinct on how to pedal.  The authors of the study even think that this lends support to the idea that other pedaling styles (other than just "Pushing") may be better in the long run because:

"...multiple physiological systems are likely to adapt in response to training with a specific pedaling technique. Our data support this speculation by demonstrating that in all participants, the preferred pedaling style was accompanied by the greatest gross efficiency."

Another thing to consider is that these cyclists were tested on an ergometer (power meter) at a low wattage of 200 watts -- really just easy spinning for most riders, especially the male cyclists employed in this study.  No significant effort was required so it's not surprising that the "pushing down" was emphasized during their "preferred" pedaling style.  If you are trying to determine efficiency (metabolic) and effectiveness (mechanical), a range of wattages would provide for better data -- a more difficult study, for sure, but it would shed more light on the differences and benefits of the pedaling styles.

Pedaling in a circle decreased torque?  It did, but only "peak Torque", or the very high of the high end, and, again, at a very sub-maximal 200 watts -- severely limiting what conclusion you can draw about torque and force profiles.  I.E. drawing "Peak" or "Maximal" torque conclusions from sub-maximal testing  (actually not even close to their threshold level) is not very effective.

Metabolic efficiency was highest for the "pushing down only" pedaling style?  True, again, but only at 200 watts, but "mechanical effectiveness" increased significantly.

One thing to reiterate is that this study only tested eight (yes 8) cyclists.  In research, that's referred to as a study with N = 8.  Not very in depth, and certainly in need of more subjects of varying abilities to draw better conclusions from.

Another problem:  We don't know a lot of things -- like if these cyclists were ever trained in circular or a balanced pedaling style.  They were just prompted into this technique briefly before the study began.  We don't know how much they actually ride  -- only how many years they have participated in the sport.

Mornieux G, Stapelfeldt B, Gollhofer A, Belli A. Effects of pedal type and pull-up action during cycling.Int J Sports Med. 2008 Oct;29(10):817-22. Epub 2008 Apr 17.

On the other study, Mornieux et al., 8 elite cyclists and 7 non-cyclists were tested at 60% of their maximal aerobic power (MAP) in three different pedaling situations:

1. With platform pedals
2. With clipless pedals
3. With clipless pedals and instruction to pull up on the upstroke

Despite claims I have read online to the contrary, the pedaling forces of the trained versus the untrained cyclists are different through the pedaling styles.  The untrained cyclists have much greater negative pedaling forces no matter how they were pedaling, than the trained cyclists.  This actually lends support to the idea that more practice with a balanced pedaling technique (some pulling up on the back-stroke with clipless pedals) may lead to better effectiveness in your pedal stroke. 

Of course, you see I'll say it MAY lead to better effectiveness.  This, again, is a very small study with barely over a dozen of participants, so we have to be careful of the conclusions we draw.  It was also conducted with low power output -- 60% of MAP is a very steady, easy pace (it's not 60% of their "maximum" but of their aerobic max -- much different).  But all  the same, it actually makes it worthwhile to consider testing a "pulling" pedal stroke further to see what benefits can or should be gleaned from this.

In fact the authors of this study in a more recent article called Muscle coordination while pulling up during cycling from 2010 concluded:

" training the pull up action could be of interest to optimize this muscle coordination associated with better pedalling effectiveness by additionally relieving hip or knee extensors during the downstroke."

Scientific research is great, but at least three rules should be adhered to:

1. Read the whole article
2. Learn how to dissect a research study to find it's strengths and weaknesses.
3. Be careful with the conclusions you draw -- the good research authors usually are.  they understand that research can almost never pronounce anything with 100% certainty.  For example, in the full text of the Korff et al article the authors say in the Discussion:

"Although our results suggest that actively pulling on the pedal reduces gross efficiency during steady-state cycling, there may be situations during which an active pull is beneficial in terms of adding power to the crank.....A limitation of our study...is that it does not rule out the possibility that there may be a more efficient
pedaling style if participants are given enough time to adapt to it. Longitudinal studies are needed to explore this possibility."

Again, my purpose is not to do a flame-job on anyone, or tell you that clipless pedals are better for everyone in all situations, but reading these articles and drawing conclusions like,

"...clipless pedals literally offer no help....and will decrease pedaling force and screw up their (riders) pedaling patterns."

is not prudent or helpful for readers looking for good advice.

You can't take one idea about movement and apply it to all things -- this is why the study of human movement is difficult and takes years of schooling and clinical work to best understand.  

Can you generate a lot of peak power with platforms?  Yes, definitely.  Nathan Rennie is a super strong pro mountain biker.  He tested at 1800 watts on platforms.  But, there are also a few dozen track cyclists that test between 2300-2400 watts all with clipless pedals (and some with pedals that are molded into their shoes -- you don't unclip at all, you have to take the shoes off to get off your bike).

Again, I'm not hear to tell anyone they have to do anything one way or the other.  But the discussion went from "Flats are good on technical terrain, and for gravity racers" to "Clipless pedals are bad for you and don't help anyway, so no matter how you ride you should use flats".

Many cyclists on the dirt find clipless pedals more useful because of the fact that they do allow you to smooth out the peaks and valleys of power generation, and decrease the likelihood of spinning your rear wheel on a steep, loose climb.  Some of us still ride on hardtails, which makes this even more important, but even on the best full-suspension machine, there are times when smooth, not maximal, power generation will get you up a climb.

I can see flats being better when you're on terrain you're really not comfortable tackling yet, if you are more into the gravity end of the sport, or if you're riding very leisurely.  But road riding/racing on flats? -- sorry nope, and I think you'd be hard-pressed to convince any roadies to give up their clips.  If you mountain bike, and you sometimes ride easy, you sometimes ride harder racing your buddies, sometimes you go downhill fast, sometimes you flat-track fast, sometimes you climb, sometimes you single speed, sometimes you ride the White Rim liesurely, then like many of us, you may ride better with clipless pedals.  Maybe not.

So try them both,and decide for yourself.  Research doesn't prove anything one way or the other (as is usually the case).  I'm here to tell you that just because you ride with clipless or platforms you don't have a "dysfunction".

That's all for now.

John

SRAM Red? Shimano Di2? Campagnolo Super Record? What's the difference?

I've got some good info brewing, just trying to finish it up:  aesthetics aside, where do you get the mostr bang for your buck?

A little teaser:  Did you know that SRAM Rival (3rd tier) costs less than Shimano 105 (also 3rd tier) but weighs less than Shimano Ultegra (2nd tier)?

More later

J

What goes into designing a bike?

At my Studio, we, of course do a a lot of bike fits.  We also build a lot of custom bikes.  But not everyone that needs one has the dough for a full custom rig.  There are ways around having to go the full custom route, at least for some clients, but there are always compromises that take place.

This post is about how we go about finding the right fit for each client regardless of whether they are spending $15,000 on a custom carbon road bike or $1800 on a stock-sized steel hardtail mountain bike.

In the picture above is an size XS Wilier Izoard XP -- a $2500 carbon road bike.  Behind it is a Size Cycle; which is an adjustable bike we use to mock up various positions to see what the best fit is.  We can then take these raw contact points -- where the seat is relative to the bottom bracket, where the bars are then placed as far as reach and height, as well as the proper crank length.  If a client is interested in a particular bike, like this Wilier, I will mock up that bike's contact points on the Size Cycle and test from there.

Why not just get them on the Wilier to start?  Sometimes I do, but the Size Cycle allows for quicker adjustments, and makes it more likely we're going to settle on the best fit for that client, not just the best fit that's possible on that bike.  There are times, like with a client that came in last week, where the bike they were interested in would not provide the best fit, even with drastic alterations to it's components.  On the size cycle, we aren't limited by the bike, because all it's dimensions are adjustable.  To make the reach longer or shorter, I can change:

• the effective top tube length
• the seat angle
• the saddle fore-aft
• the stem length
• the bar reach
• and even the head angle (which changes how much reach the stem has).  

On an actual bicycle I can only change:

• the saddle fore-aft
• and the stem length

If I don't think we can make the bike work well  for them, I will talk to them about other options.  And, no, I don't just tell everyone they need to get a custom bike.  In this case, this client will spend less money on the bike I have proposed, than they would on the Wilier bike they were initially looking at.

So the first thing we get out of the way using the Retul infrared motion capture system is the saddle height and it's set-back from the bottom bracket.  While the set-back is important because it relies on the seat angle of the bike -- something that is not changeable once we have an actual bike under the client -- the saddle height is not of huge consequence because it is by far the most adjustable aspect of the bike via seatpost adjustment.  (we do still need to consider things like what shoes and cleats the client will use since the overall seat height plays directly with the overall saddle to bar height differential -- how much the bars are above or below the saddle).

After we determine the saddle height we begin on the reach and height of the bar.  Using the Retul, we can again make adjustments to find the optimal bar position.  We have to take into account the client's riding history (do they get numb hands, neck pain, low back discomfort?) as well as their medical history (have they had any orthopedic surgeries?  leg length issues?)

Once we have them comfortable and efficient, then I start with the 7th grade math and trigonometry.

What is my aim?  Basically to take this bar position (it's height from the ground and it's reach from the seat) and find out the easiest way we can achieve this position and STILL have room to move the bars up or down or further away or closer to the rider.  We establish this as a sort of middle point for the bar.

The reach to the bar is relatively simple -- there are only a couple variables.  We need to know how much set back the seatpost gives us, which we can use some simple trigonometry from the seat height measurement to get.  We factor in the effective top tube length, but using a measurement call the frame reach is more effective (this is the horizontal distance from the center of the bottom bracket to the middle point of the top of the headtube).  And then the length of the stem (with a bit more trig to take into account the rise of the stem and the head tube angle), is the final piece to give us the overall reach of the bike.

The bar height has more variables to consider:

A simplified list of the parts that determine bar height are (from the ground up):

• radius of the wheel and tire
• fork axle to crown measurement
• lower headset cup stack height
• head tube length
• upper headset cup stack height
• spacers under the stem
• and stem rise or height

There are a lot of limitations in these parts:

• radius of the wheel and tire -- this doesn't change much unless you get a huge tire on there
• fork axle to crown measurement -- while there are variations in fork height, we often are stuck with what a given manufacturer provides
• lower headset cup stack height -- sometimes this is zero with inset headsets (as in the Wilier above)
• head tube length -- again, can't manipulate this after the fact
• upper headset cup stack height -- varies anywhere from 5mm up to 25mm
• spacers under the stem -- most modern forks, we're limited to 35 mm of spacers
• and stem rise or height -- while we can alter the stem rise, if we need more height, 35-40 degrees, depending on the length of the stem, is usually all we can get, and this isn't necessarily optimal for handling and aesthetics

So I can do all the math and run the variables for the bar height by hand, but I have created a couple of customized excel files to make estimating the bar reach and height a little simpler. 

I can plug in certain parameters, like for instance that I want to keep the stem to only 12 degrees of rise and no more, and this will tell me what bar height I'll end up with.

I can use this to determine if the frame and bike the client is interested in will work -- if the head tube is the right length, but also is the headset integrated into the head tube or does it have external cups?  Just this small variable change can make a big difference in whether a bike will work for someone.

Building a custom bike takes more knowledge about bike fit, handling and weight distribution, but it is much easier to get the bar position where we need it because I can manipulate the head tube to almost any length I want.  This will ensure that I don't need to use an excessive amount of spacers under the stem, or a high rise stem, etc.

When dealing with a stock sized bike, we're essentially stuck with the size of bike that the manufacturer has created.  Why not just get a frame the next size up to get a longer head tube if I need it?  The problem with that is as the head tube gets longer, so does the effective top tube -- so the reach of the bike may then be too big.

It's a lot to keep track of, but we have to (yes, have to - at least in my shop) do our due diligence to get the best possible fit for our client.  Anyone can build and sell a bike, but only the most particular professional can make sure that each and every client is as comfortable and efficient as possible on their bike.

There's more money in just selling bikes and getting them out the door, but we want to make sure that the bike will feel good in the shop, and 6 months down the road.

Check back later this week, and we'll have gone through all these variables and in the process of building a client's bike.  We'll post details of the build as we go, including why we chose certain parts and accessories

Stay tuned

--J

Trail musing

The above picture is of Andy's Loop out at the Tabeguache. It has been the ugly step-child of the trails out there. Just rode down it today - figured I'd check it off the list for the year -- still no flow to it. It's really not fun to ride up or down. It's a shame because it has so much potential. It could be a killer descent, and one of the longest out in this area.

As many of you know, I live on the western slope of the Rockies in Grand Junction, CO. It's a great place -- the redneck issue is becoming less of one each year, we have great weather (we are where the mountains meet the desert), and fantastic trail systems for running, biking, hiking etc.

This time of year, we get a lot of tourists coming to mountain bike here. There was once a time when they only frequented the Loma (Kokopelli) and Fruita (18 Road) trails. Now the local's favorite of the Lunch Loop -- not called the Lunch Loops despite what the signs say -- is seeing it's parking lot full nearly every evening and all weekend long.

We're happy to play the cordial host, but please, if you come to visit adhere to a few rules:

1. DON'T ride off trail. Even when you are crossing paths in opposite directions with other riders. Just barely pull your tires to one edge of the single-track, place one foot off the trail, preferably on a rock if you can, and lean your bike away from the trail. When you ride off the trails and create a new "scar" off the side of the trail, you'll be able to come back and visit it in 2 or 3 years -- it'll still be there; the desert heals very slowly.

2. Try to ride in smaller groups. Every weekend this spring I have seen huge groups -- 15, 20, 25, even 35 (!!) riders. This can't be fun for anyone in the groups -- the fast riders are always going to have to wait and the slow ones will feel guilty for slowing everyone down, but you also create a juggernaut on the trail that can take a lot of time to get through if you're a lone rider heading in the wrong direction. If you come over in a big group, try to break up into group of maybe 6-8 at the most -- you'll be a lot more nimble, everyone will get to ride more, and you won't irritate the locals. BTW this goes for riding anywhere -- we break up into boys and girls rides when we head to Crested Butte in the summers to ride.

3. Know the yielding rules. On a mountain bike you basically are supposed to yield to everyone -- hikers, runners, horses, and other mountain bikers going uphill. If a runner/hiker sees you and steps off the trail to let you by, it's because it's expedient to do so sometimes. Thank them.......and don't get used to it.

That's all for now. I want to reinforce that we love it that we're a popular destination, but you'll have a lot more fun if you're not stepping on everyone else's toes.