emily

    Newer Older

    photo by jonathan maus, cropped and annotated by me to make some ergonomic notes.

    Mark Stosberg, KYouell, russteaches, and 1 other people added this photo to their favorites.

    1. cleverchimp 33 months ago | reply

      specifically: bikeportland.org/2012/06/28/with-six-kids-and-no-car-this...

      A commenter opined "Regarding the photos of her seat to bar drop, however, I would say that new bike-fit may allow her to bring the Watts without having to be out of the saddle as much, and avoid related fatigue.
      Dutch geometry is fine for a few miles, but inherently limiting."

      To which I replied (edited): Haha, I'd say sportier bike fit is fine for small loads, but inherently limiting. Lowering or getting the bars further forward much would result in said bars banging the heads of the passengers, making the rider less upright and able to see over the tops of cars. It would also provide less long a lever to prevent the fully loaded bike from tipping while stopped or walking.

      She's able to get decent power even with the high bars because the seat angle is so relaxed, about 59 degrees (versus 73-74 for a typical road/mountain/hybrid type bike): almost recumbent. This lets her get good leg extension and reasonable gluteus muscle deployment without raising her so far off the ground that she'd need to lean the bike to get a stabilizing foot down at stops.

      The red triangle is that formed by feet, butt, hands. The green triangle is geometrically and biomechanically (modulo gravity) identical, normalized around a 73-degree seat tube angle. The green triangle would help some with acceleration and climbing seated or standing, by enlisting more of gravity's help in applying body weight to the pedals, but again it would raise her too far off the ground for comfort, and compromise the passenger space. If this were fit like a road bike, the handlebars would be pretty much in the chest cavity of the rearmost passengers, with much of the "benefit" being ... aerodynamic, which I submit is irrelevant to the safe speeds of this bike fully loaded.

      We see these fit notions applied in lighter, sportier, lower-capacity long-john designs (a few of which we sell; horses for courses), none of which compare well to this bike in ease of handling with big wiggly loads like this.

    2. henry in a'dam 32 months ago | reply

      Her saddle is very far back though since this bike has a micro-adjust type with about an inch of rearward extension instead of the seat post we now spec on these bikes with the same forward extension. The Brooks saddle is then also pushed back along its rails.

      This is one of the very first Cargobike 2.0's we sold so it the post on there is probably the original. I'd recommend replacing it as most of our customers are happier with the new setup. The seat tube angle will still only be a couple degrees steeper of course, probably about 65 degrees at this height.

    3. cleverchimp 32 months ago | reply

      but henry, any further forward is going either to raise her or limit leg extension. she wears heels so she can more easily get stabilizing feet down, so i don't see how steepening ST is going to help anything.

    4. henry in a'dam 32 months ago | reply

      It's all a matter if compromises of course. Moving the saddle forward will help her get a little more power to the pedals. But yes, if that is a good saddle height for her she'll be less able to put a foot on the ground when stopped.

    keyboard shortcuts: previous photo next photo L view in light box F favorite < scroll film strip left > scroll film strip right ? show all shortcuts