[CR] fit, Q, baseball bat donuts,expectations of daily use/performance

As someone who prefers to have ALL of his bikes fit as exactly/perfectly as my custom modern all-out-light-as-can-intelligently-be performance machine, I use the FitStik http://www.cyclemetrics.com/ and have really been able to successfully configure (fiddling with longer quill stems and seat post setbacks) every one of my sizes 50 to 56 to have an identical positioning as my modern steed has. I ride these classics-- with fenders to preserve the older frames with all that clearance, to the best of my abilities-- and have the same reach, leg extensions, etc. Sometimes this involves compromise as period-correct bars get replaced by Salsa Poco as I have this tremendously (for me at least) ergonomic bar on every bike that gets ridden on long, pushing rides. I also have never been able to get along with leather saddles-- I have some of course but not on bikes with which I spend a lot of comfortable hours-- so color-matched, same shaped Sella Italia saddles adorn the regular riders. Again same everything fit-wise, save for the weight distribution fore-aft which along with trail, etc affects the handling, etc. Sometimes, in a real world riding situation, with all the unexpected things which can occur necessitating emergency braking, etc, I feel that I have far more control and confidence with say a set of Tektro (polished-look) long arm dual pivots, shod with KoolStop salmon pads (the old Mathauser recipe) with their toe-in adjustability than Weinmann or MAFAC or even Modolo or Campy. So I go for it on a bike on which I again spend a lot of time. When I am riding a 100% period perfectly equipped bike like my Hi-E Cosmopolitan, the first few times I have to apply the binders, it really wakes me up, because I all of a sudden have to rethink the actions for the more inadequate componentry. And, yes, I think the baseball bat donut analogy works as when I lose the heavier 700x 32 wheels and fender-induced aerodynamic drag, and go to my modern steed, I truly do feel set free somewhat. Just my opinion of course, but that is what works for me.

Regarding Q factor: How can anyone reasonably say that narrow is good or wide is good when if we measure the rider's pelvis widths. I would bet the resulting anthropometric measurements would vary by more than the amount of difference between the most narrow and widest Q factors. Practically, I try to not vary it my too much bike to bike as I feel, like Hjertberg, Brandt, etc, that our legs can get used to a minimal/moderate range of change, but to go narrow to wide off and on is something to be avoided. So, and because I do my fair share of off-road stuff on my MTB, I have converted to doubles on everything and it is only a few mm from my narrowest Stronglight 99 double to the MTB double on the widest side. Oh, and same crank lengths too, of course!

Ken Wehrenberg, Hermann, MO --back to SB next week