The biking thread

[Eunos_Cosmo]

You know where to go.

That shop is incredible and the crew is surprisingly down to earth. That said, the dollars are nutttttyyyyy

 

[Shaun]

That shop is incredible and the crew is surprisingly down to earth. That said, the dollars are nutttttyyyyy

Yeah it sure is, they sell some incredible bikes.
I stumbled across it when getting my bike built, at the factory there is a few rows of boxes which have the parts in them for the next bikes to built for customers close to the end of the excruciating wait period. I was looking at them checking out the upcoming builds and noticed a few with AC on them instead of a name and I asked what it was.

AFAIK that's the only place in the US where Baum bikes can be ordered, Darren the owner of Baum is very fussy about who he partners with to sell his bikes.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

If anyone needs some lighthearted bike related enjoyment in life (who the **** doesn't right now?) check out the Kickstand Cyclery daily web comic, featuring perpetual retrogrouch Yehuda Moon, that ran for a few years in the mid aughts to teens. I've been thoroughly enjoying it. Really makes me miss the simpler era of the internet and also makes me want to ride my bike.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

If you follow me on Strava you may have already seen this, but I finally threw in the towel on the sunrise bars on the Soma. They were just too tall, too wide and too backswept for this bike - I've always felt kinda cramped and awkward with them. Went down to the bike recyclery and found this sorta narrow probably circa-2012 straight Specialized MTB bar and it seemed like about right and more than that I didn't want to think about it too much..and it was like twelve bucks. Installed and I'm very happy with it. I don't really use this thing as a true MTB so the narrower profile kind of suits it. The best thing this bike does is shuttle me to places that serve beer.

On the same trip, I also finally got a set of conventional drop bars for my Ribble gravel bike. The bike came with these weird riser bars that I never understood the point of - if you want the bars to be higher, just get a taller stem or stack some spacers under it? That can't look worse than riser bars. The flared riser bar basically just looks dumb, puts the hoods (and brakes!) in a narrow stance and then puts the drops way out wide and then arbitrarily and severely limits where you can mount stuff on the bars. I find that when I'm riding that bike on technical terrain, the last place I want my hands is in a position where I can't reach the brakes, so any kind of stability benefit of the flared drops is lost on me. So I got a pair of Ritchey 46cm road bars. It's roughly 4cm wider at the hoods than the original bars AND I actually have bar real-estate to mount stuff, instead of the paltry 1" on either side of the stem with the original bars. Did I mention it looks like six million times better? Haven't wrapped the new bars yet, but I'll take some pics when I get that sorted. These were $18. I love that shop. They have a literal full wall covered in old handlebars for basically no money.

 

[Greycap]

I don't really use this thing as a true MTB so the narrower profile kind of suits it.

That's very much of a YMMV thing though. And I mean it the other way round, all my MTBs have had ~700 mm bars which is extremely narrow by modern standards but I've never understood the point of the armpit ventilators that come stock on everything nowadays even though stems are getting ever shorter. If one needs that much leverage to turn the front wheel something is wrong with either the frame steering geometry or the riding style, I can manage even a fatbike with a sub-700 mm bar and a 60 mm stem just fine and my physical appearance isn't far off from the stereotypical pencilneck computer guy.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

That's very much of a YMMV thing though. And I mean it the other way round, all my MTBs have had ~700 mm bars which is extremely narrow by modern standards but I've never understood the point of the armpit ventilators that come stock on everything nowadays even though stems are getting ever shorter. If one needs that much leverage to turn the front wheel something is wrong with either the frame steering geometry or the riding style, I can manage even a fatbike with a sub-700 mm bar and a 60 mm stem just fine and my physical appearance isn't far off from the stereotypical pencilneck computer guy.

The sunrise bars were 820mm....just massive...felt like ape hangers. I haven't measured these but I think they are around 700

 

[Greycap]

The usual width nowadays seems to be somewhere between 750 and 780 mm even for XC-ish hardtails, and even more for heavy trail rigs. And it's not that only large frame sizes get them, it's right from the smallest one up. The idea is probably to provide everyone with enough width and they're meant to be cut to fit but I have a very strong feeling most people won't even think of it. The feeling comes purely by the fact that a very large percentage of riders I see out there haven't even figured out how to set up a saddle anywhere near properly, much less go cutting handlebars.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

The usual width nowadays seems to be somewhere between 750 and 780 mm even for XC-ish hardtails, and even more for heavy trail rigs. And it's not that only large frame sizes get them, it's right from the smallest one up. The idea is probably to provide everyone with enough width and they're meant to be cut to fit but I have a very strong feeling most people won't even think of it. The feeling comes purely by the fact that a very large percentage of riders I see out there haven't even figured out how to set up a saddle anywhere near properly, much less go cutting handlebars.

The way I understand it, the super wide bars are to counter the fact that modern bikes have very slack HT angles and very short stems...both of which would tend to reduce the leverage on the steering axis. My bike has a 100mm stem and fairly upright HT (68) angle, which is probably why the 700mm actually feels pretty good.

The disparity between my MTB and Gravel bike bar lengths went from 420mm to 240mm

 

[Greycap]

The way I understand it, the super wide bars are to counter the fact that modern bikes have very slack HT angles and very short stems...both of which would tend to reduce the leverage on the steering axis. My bike has a 100mm stem and fairly upright HT (68) angle, which is probably why the 700mm actually feels pretty good.

Both my current hardtails (model years 2021 and 2022, both frames still in production) have a 68 degree HTA, and came with 60 and 70 mm stems for size M. And 740 and 750 mm bars respectively.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Apparently Remco Evenepoel is in NorCal for some winter training. So far he seems to be riding mostly down south of San Jose but I will be really curious to see what kind of times he does on my local segments if he ventures up this way.

 

[Omnis]

[warning - boring technical stuff ahead]

While I was out riding a few nights ago it occurred to me, with not an insignificant amount of sadness, that the bike I've built over the last four years will be my last for a long time by the look of things. It's my third 29er hardtail, each successively better than the previous one, and the road ends here. It looks like there won't be any more of its kind.

Coming from a long family line of hardtail XC bikes descending from the Specialized Stumpjumper of 1981, the world's first mass produced mountain bike (I also have the last Stumpjumper HT generation) it's the last one of its breed as properly quick hardtails are going the way of dodos just about right now. Very few models are anymore available with thru axles, Boost hub spacing, lightweight frames - the stuff that is standard in every other genre, but not hardtails. In a few years most, if not all, that are left are entry level models with quick releases, 2x8 drivetrains and so on, ie. technology from nearly two decades ago. Anyone who wants a quick mountain bike has to buy a full suspension model that is heavier, more complex, more expensive and often wholly unnecessary, and those who want a quick off-road bike that doesn't have full suspension have little choice but gravel bikes with their fetal riding position that definitely isn't for everyone.

I guess that's how the market, or probably more like marketing, works. People are sold images and at the moment you're not a mountain biker unless you have at least 160 mm of travel, preferably in an e-bike with more power than the dirt bikes of old, and the gravel bike is the ultimate tool that does everything from downhill trails with rocks big as sheep to winning the Tour de France. Of course none of that holds true and for a lot of people the lightweight hardtail would be the best option but it has dropped completely off the radar.

The gravel bike in particular is a bit of an odd concept, especially as it's sold a lot to beginners. The chainrings are basically straight off a road bike which means that nobody without a lot of training already done has power to push the big ring on the higher half of the cassette, while the cassette itself is often a wide range model to give adequate climbing gears which then leads to large cadence jumps. Add to that the narrow road spec bar that is probably chosen for aerodynamics but is anything but confidence inspiring on rougher roads - and the advantage is lost anyway with the rolling resistance of gravel tyres (and the gravel itself) effectively preventing the speeds in which it would be beneficial. A lot of it just doesn't make sense and usability could be hugely improved by relatively small changes but again, people are sold images. If the image requires 50/34T chainrings (big rings = going fast) with a 11-36 cassette (big cogs = climbs well) and a 38 cm handlebar (narrow = fast), that's what is getting fitted even if a 38/24T combination (if you spin a 38-11 gear out you're going plenty fast already) with a 11-28 cassette for nice small cadence changes (and actually a much lower first gear than the 34-36) and a 46 cm bar for stability would make it a lot more functional.

I think these guys are watching our thread lol

 

[Omnis]

Who's that fat guy at 4:40?

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Judging by the girthy dudes that have destroyed me on the flats, it's not the aerodynamic penalty I might have guessed.

Please nobody take this out of context.

 

[AEKara38]

Judging by the girthy dudes that have destroyed me on the flats, it's not the aerodynamic penalty I might have guessed.

Please nobody take this out of context.

It Ain't The Meat, It's The Motion​

 

[Greycap]

Some new thoughts on the geometry thingamajics. Ever since I bought the fatbike I've had trouble with it getting the saddle far enough forward, a zero setback seatpost wasn't enough, so I went and bought another like the one I have on the old white trail rig and mounted it backwards again. Worked like a charm.

But it got me thinking. I like to solve everything by geometry or mathematics if possible, so I began digging more into the subject. The fatty has a 73° seat tube, normal for that era as it's an old frame and they were all like that back then, and my current XC hardtail has 74° - what's one degree in the grand scheme of things?

Quite a lot, actually. With my saddle height every degree is about half an inch in the seatpost "zero point" and everyone who has dialled in a bike knows that a saddle that is half an inch too far back is definitely a problem. Going to 76° which isn't unheard of nowadays would mean an inch and a half. Add to that the fact that the old ones usually came with a 20 mm setback post and the difference goes to over two inches. The reason for the steeper seat tubes of today is, at least according to marketing, that it puts the rider into a better position what comes to producing power. That is true, no doubt about it, it's much better but it raises a question...

THE HECK TOOK THEM TEN YEARS TO FIGURE IT OUT?

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Some new thoughts on the geometry thingamajics. Ever since I bought the fatbike I've had trouble with it getting the saddle far enough forward, a zero setback seatpost wasn't enough, so I went and bought another like the one I have on the old white trail rig and mounted it backwards again. Worked like a charm.

But it got me thinking. I like to solve everything by geometry or mathematics if possible, so I began digging more into the subject. The fatty has a 73° seat tube, normal for that era as it's an old frame and they were all like that back then, and my current XC hardtail has 74° - what's one degree in the grand scheme of things?

Quite a lot, actually. With my saddle height every degree is about half an inch in the seatpost "zero point" and everyone who has dialled in a bike knows that a saddle that is half an inch too far back is definitely a problem. Going to 76° which isn't unheard of nowadays would mean an inch and a half. Add to that the fact that the old ones usually came with a 20 mm setback post and the difference goes to over two inches. The reason for the steeper seat tubes of today is, at least according to marketing, that it puts the rider into a better position what comes to producing power. That is true, no doubt about it, it's much better but it raises a question...

THE HECK TOOK THEM TEN YEARS TO FIGURE IT OUT?

My 2023 Soma Riff has a 73° seat tube angle although strangely I've had the opposite problem because the top tube is a pretty short 590mm.

 

[Greycap]

The top tube length is probably the most useless measurement in the entire frame geometry as it tells nothing useful. In reality you position the saddle in relation to the pedals, no matter what the seat tube angle (as seen from my struggles), and the handlebar in relation to the saddle. The "zero point" is always the bottom bracket, you'll want the saddle X mm behind and Y mm above it, and in some cases it takes some unorthodox things to get there. The handlebar goes also X (a different X here) mm ahead of the saddle and Y mm above/below it.

If it's a short frame you'll use a longer stem, on a tall head tube you may need a negative angle stem, but eventually the triangle of bottom bracket, saddle and handlebar is formed almost regardless of the frame shape. Reach and stack give some idea if it's feasible to begin with, the top tube length tells nothing that you can't already figure out from reach and seat tube angle. My Fatboy has a 603 mm horizontal top tube but a 420 mm reach, while my Chisel has incidentally also a 603 mm top tube but a 430 mm reach. The latter has a much longer feeling frame and everything on it is "pushed forward" but according to the top tube they're equally long, that's the one degree in the seat tube angle in action as it throws the entire top tube 10 mm forward.

Looking at those figures, the Soma probably has an around 410 mm reach. With my preferred saddle position on it I'd probably need a 80 mm stem for it to feel comfortable, my bikes all have a 75 to 76 cm length from the stem clamp break to the back of the saddle. Which tells a lot of how ridiculously forward I want it, almost a TT style position on a mountain bike but otherwise it feels like I'm pedalling a go-kart instead of a bike.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

The top tube length is probably the most useless measurement in the entire frame geometry as it tells nothing useful. In reality you position the saddle in relation to the pedals, no matter what the seat tube angle (as seen from my struggles), and the handlebar in relation to the saddle. The "zero point" is always the bottom bracket, you'll want the saddle X mm behind and Y mm above it, and in some cases it takes some unorthodox things to get there. The handlebar goes also X (a different X here) mm ahead of the saddle and Y mm above/below it.

If it's a short frame you'll use a longer stem, on a tall head tube you may need a negative angle stem, but eventually the triangle of bottom bracket, saddle and handlebar is formed almost regardless of the frame shape. Reach and stack give some idea if it's feasible to begin with, the top tube length tells nothing that you can't already figure out from reach and seat tube angle. My Fatboy has a 603 mm horizontal top tube but a 420 mm reach, while my Chisel has incidentally also a 603 mm top tube but a 430 mm reach. The latter has a much longer feeling frame and everything on it is "pushed forward" but according to the top tube they're equally long, that's the one degree in the seat tube angle in action as it throws the entire top tube 10 mm forward.

Looking at those figures, the Soma probably has an around 410 mm reach. With my preferred saddle position on it I'd probably need a 80 mm stem for it to feel comfortable, my bikes all have a 75 to 76 cm length from the stem clamp break to the back of the saddle. Which tells a lot of how ridiculously forward I want it, almost a TT style position on a mountain bike but otherwise it feels like I'm pedalling a go-kart instead of a bike.

Close...403mm. That's why I put on a 110mm stem. I really should have got a L frame - the Soma has basically the same reach as my Gravel bike (397mm) but that bikes has a long stem and drop bars which put the controls much further forward.

 

[Greycap]

Holy moly, that's short. And it shows another problem with bike sizing for "normal" people, ie. those who don't know exactly what they want but just buy a bike, I'd need a L size from that frame too. But with my 5'8" (173 cm) height nobody would even consider selling me anything else than an M and I'd get a bike that's noticably too small. Some might even insist on an S because smaller is always better - another common view I've never understood.

There really is no standard for it, even inside the same category, in this case hardtail mountain bikes. The size is defined pretty much solely by the seat tube height and the reach can be anything, here we have the Soma at 403 mm and my Chisel at 430 mm, and it doesn't end there. Some time ago a friend built an Orbea for his father, size M, reach 375 mm. Meanwhile my mother has an S sized Rockhopper with 400 mm which I borrowed a couple of years ago when the doctor told me not to drive for a while and I hadn't got my own daily beater yet, and it's definitely too cramped to be comfortable.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Holy moly, that's short. And it shows another problem with bike sizing for "normal" people, ie. those who don't know exactly what they want but just buy a bike, I'd need a L size from that frame too. But with my 5'8" (173 cm) height nobody would even consider selling me anything else than an M and I'd get a bike that's noticably too small. Some might even insist on an S because smaller is always better - another common view I've never understood.

There really is no standard for it, even inside the same category, in this case hardtail mountain bikes. The size is defined pretty much solely by the seat tube height and the reach can be anything, here we have the Soma at 403 mm and my Chisel at 430 mm, and it doesn't end there. Some time ago a friend built an Orbea for his father, size M, reach 375 mm. Meanwhile my mother has an S sized Rockhopper with 400 mm which I borrowed a couple of years ago when the doctor told me not to drive for a while and I hadn't got my own daily beater yet, and it's definitely too cramped to be comfortable.

If I used the bike as a proper MTB I would be pretty upset honestly, especially since I even reached out to Soma to try to understand what was an appropriate frame size for me and never heard back. I actually wanted the belt drive version of the frame which was only available in Large at the time (closeout sale). Oh well...I'm fitting the bike out to be a kind of basketpacking rig (see below for prelim test fit of my new Big Agnes tent) and just building it up has taught me a lot so I'm not too bummed about the sizing...only thing I don't like is the 110mm stem for aesthetic reasons.