Bike Forums - View Single Post - Brooks saddle angle

03-08-21, 10:40 PM

#40

Het Volk

Full Member

Join Date: Dec 2013

Posts: 334

Mentioned: 3 Post(s)

Tagged: 0 Thread(s)

Quoted: 192 Post(s)

Likes: 40

Liked 145 Times in 78 Posts

Quote:

Originally Posted by pcb

We're drifting pretty far from a discussion about saddle angles now, fwiw.

But this is why we come here. I find these threads to be like a sports bar conversation, but for bikes. I learn a lot from this site, which is better than I can say for most places on the inter-webs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pcb

We're drifting pretty far from a discussion about saddle angles now, fwiw.

I don't know if I'd say misfit, but the America is/was an intriguing bike. Issue #1 was it wasn't a touring frame, it was a road-sport frame, but Fuji either didn't see it that way, or didn't care and called it a touring bike because it was the closest thing they had and people wanted touring bikes. That's mostly a corporate/marketing issue. Issue #2, the trail, does strike me as a little strange. But there were other contemporary non-touring, road-sport bikes in Fuji's line with low trail, and like I said, a bunch of Treks, too. I wonder why they spec'd low trail, but didn't follow through with recommending front loads. If anything, low trail designs are worse with heavy rear loads,especially loaded high.

Why I am growing more fascinated by this bike. Under no circumstances would this frame, clearance and geometry likely be built today. I am guessing even a custom frame builder would steer a client away from this proposed design, tube size and mount options. However, that is what makes this so great. It is the Platypus of bike design (sorry Grant Petersen). It has one foot in road racing (think diameter tubing, shorter chainstays, few mounts for racks, and tight clearance), and yet, has a geometry up front as if it were a French Constructeur design. I suppose, the nearest current design is the Surly Pack Rack, except the tubing seem a little wider, and the mounts are more numerous allowing for a more dedicated touring bike from Surly, which always has commuting vs. racing in mind.

However; and this is going to contradict my assertion above on this being an odd duck; there is a case to be made that this actually a great Randonneuring bike for brevets and randos. Randonneuring is kind of a lost discipline as bike packing has kind of taken up all of the long-distance cycling oxygen. The only issue again, is the lack of clearance for larger tires and fenders, which is so often a wanted

Quote:

Originally Posted by pcb

The other thing is a 650c wheel, especially with a fairly narrow tire, will lower your bike/bb substantially, to the point where you might have issues with pedal strike on corners. I'm seeing a tensioning device under your bags, so I'm assuming you're running a single freewheel and not a fixed gear? Because tensioners are dangerous on fixed gears. You're going from 622>571, so you're lowering the bb almost 26mm, and you're not gaining back some height using significantly wider tires, because there aren't significantly wider tires in 650c.

You might want to check out your tire options and bb height issues before you dive too deep into 650c.

Oh, and check brake reach, too. You'll need mighty long calipers to reach those 650c rims.

650b conversions on Americas seem to work out nicely. You can get nice 32-584 tires from Grand Bois, and Hutchinson still makes the Confriere d'650b, also 32mm. I'm not sure an America would fit a 38mm, but 32s would get you lots of fender clearance. Google around, here's one thread without final answers, but pointing in the right direction, from right here:
https://www.bikeforums.net/classic-v...clearance.html

650B - While I hear 650B conversion could work, looking at the clearance, and wanting fenders, my tire size under even a 650B was going to be limited, You are only reducing the wheel diameter size so much with 650B.
650C Tire Size - I understand there are limited options, and Panaracer 28 was the plan all along. As you noted, this bike is not really meant to be gravel or fully loaded long-distance touring bike. If it was targeted towards those types, as you noted, it was a mistake by Fuji either our of folly (error), or by design (i.e. - could be given existing inventory of materials and costs, this was a way to get into the Touring market without the additional costs of design and manufacturing). To me, 28MM tires are fine for a commuting, long-distance daily rides, or randonneuring bikes, and the smaller size of 650C vs. 650B will then allow for fender clearance.
Brake Reach - I already purchased some extra long-reach, single-pivot brakes to handle the need for fenders and the additional reach.
Chain Tensioner - It is basically an Alex free-hub, with 7 speed cassette using Surly Singulator to tension the chain. I am not sure about the current 42 x 18 set-up, and if I am going to use this for more long-distance riding, either will replace entire front crankset and chain ring to get to a 38T or 40T chainring ( approx. 62 gear inches), or move it to a 42 x 20 to help a little bit on the hills. But thinking more and more, I add some DT shifters (I just do not like the idea of bar end....talk me out of it).
Pedal Strike - I thought about this. A couple thoughts that got me past this. (A) I am not going to be racing crits, or using this to barrel down mountain passes. It really is not going to be taking sharp corners. (B) with 28MM tires, the overall drop in BB height relative to the road is not going to be as severe compared with 700C and 25MM tires. (C) Plus, the cranks are 170MM, so there is less of an issue than the 175 I run on my Gios Compact Pro.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pcb

I don't know if I'd say misfit, but the America is/was an intriguing bike. Issue #1 was it wasn't a touring frame, it was a road-sport frame, but Fuji either didn't see it that way, or didn't care and called it a touring bike because it was the closest thing they had and people wanted touring bikes. That's mostly a corporate/marketing issue. Issue #2, the trail, does strike me as a little strange. But there were other contemporary non-touring, road-sport bikes in Fuji's line with low trail, and like I said, a bunch of Treks, too. I wonder why they spec'd low trail, but didn't follow through with recommending front loads. If anything, low trail designs are worse with heavy rear loads,especially loaded high.

As they say, "you don't know what you don't know", and while riding with heavy loads is obviously different than riding my racing or cross bike without loads (out of the saddle you have to be careful not to sway as much for sure), but I cannot say I notice it being bad. However, I want to get a front handlebar bag for the front and try that out. With the Brooks B17, I could also run a fairly robust saddle bag in the rear and may ditch using panniers outside of when needing to go get a large number of groceries.

Why they spec'd low trail. Completely spit balling here, but it could be that while the French Constructeur design is now common knowledge amongst bike geeks (thanks to Jan Heine at Renee Herse), back in the pate 70's and early 1980's, who knows, those elements of those bikes could have been somewhat baked into the backs of the minds of bike designers at the time, and when one thinks Touring, one things Low-Trail.

Secondly, the thinking when carrying a load is "stability" as opposed to "lively". Are you going to be racing a office park crit with this bike, or carrying food for a picnic on an all day ride? Where is being nimble going to benefit the rider? This bike handles really well when going slow, and that is a benefit even more so when carrying heavy loads

Last edited by Het Volk; 03-08-21 at 10:43 PM.