Ozark Bicycle said:Quoted message said:The problem with the cheap new aluminum frames is that they are _not_
flexy and will not have the comfort of the Vitus, and my steel frames-
a Colnago and a PX10- are neither as comfortable or as light as the
Vitus.The flex of the Vitus 979, especially in the larger sizes, was an
*unwanted byproduct* of the choice of materials, tube dimensions, etc.
Vitus worked to eliminate the flex in later frame models.
You may be right about that, but another "unwanted byproduct" is the
fact that it is a better shock absorber than most steel frames, either
before or since. Personally, I think it's not so clear that the flex
actually causes all the problems attributed to it, but if people are
told it has flex they will complain about it and blame their own
deficiencies (including maintenance) on it, regardless of whether it
has any real effect on their cycling. It's not even clear to me from
discussions on this ng whether flex has been proven to be a negative-
there is an argument that it stores energy (not that I'm saying that
it does- I have no idea).
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:I think that you would not be disappointed in the Vitus for the
type of riding you are planning to do. I think that the tendency for
phantom shifting has been exaggerated. I have maybe had that happen a
very few times sprinting on it, but I think it is attributable to
derailleur adjustment primarily and frame flex second. In other words,
if the derailleur had been adjusted right it would not have shifted.
IT IS POSSIBLE that the frame flex might make it more sensitive to
derailleur adjustment."Frame flex might make [the frame] more sensitive to derailleur
adjustment." That is certainly a novel way of looking at the issue!
Novel and correct. Frame flex would, as I said in an earlier post,
cause a bike to be more sensitive to narrower cog spacing, or as I
said above, derailleur adjustment. If adjustment is not exactly right
it would be more likely to shift from an extraneous force. That is
true of any bicycle, and if the bike flexes more than average it would
be more of a problem than average. Based on my experience, I don't
think it is a significant issue; I would say that it is almost
unnoticeable. I'm pretty bad about bike maintenance, and I am
reasonably strong for my age, and I think it's not a problem. If I
were still racing, I'd maybe look at it differently, but it's also my
opinion that for a lot of racing the fatigue caused by road surface is
probably more important, perhaps much more important, than the
stiffness of the bottom bracket.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:I wouldn't buy a Vitus for the weight savings alone, though. I bought
mine because my paved bike trail riding was more jarring than I liked,
and I wanted to try a cost effective solution that still retained the
essential characteristics of the racing bikes I have been riding for
the past 35 years.So the Vitus came so cheap that it cost less than lowering your tire
pressure and/or fitting slightly larger tires? ;-)
When I first wrote the above I actually had a parenthetical comment
that I deleted on edit, "so don't suggest that I should get fat tires"
but then I figured that by saying "essential characteristics of the
racing bikes" it would be obvious that I wasn't interested in a
tourist's solution to the problem. But there's always gotta be
one. . .
And, btw, since I already ride tubulars, I use relatively low tire
pressure. It doesn't matter; all other things being equal, the Vitus
is a more comfortable ride than steel racing frames, at least the ones
I've ridden.