I'm tall - 6'4". That's 193 cm for those of you that don't know the length
of an inch. And at about 200 lbs (90 kg) I'm about average weight for my
size.
I came back to riding around 1985 or so and started getting serious about it
by 1987. At first I was just exercising and buying inadequate bikes that
were cheap. Then I bought a Schwinn Voyageur and thought that I had the
ultimate bicycle despite the fact that without a touring load on it, you
could tingle your hands just riding up the street on rough asphalt.
Then mountain biking took over and a group of us from where I was working
essentially raced each other every MTB ride. One of the guys with us had
been on the Schwinn road team so it isn't as if we were slow. That company
broke up and we went our ways and most of the group moved out of the area.
No more MTB rides and the California departments of parks and all that
started closing down access to MTB's since we were actually using the trails
and facilities and they actually wanted unused as hiking areas.
Back to road riding for me and eventually in with a club. I was lucky that
one of the guys in the club would put on rides that I could keep up with.
The fast guys would complain but he was a popular guy so they'd slow down
too. Besides, when he turned it up he could drop all of them.
Anyway, I went through a lot of bikes. I dumped a lot of them because I
didn't like them and now I have a dozen or so and thought that you might
want to know what I think about some of them and why I keep them.
My first "good" bike was a Colnago Super. This was a size 61 cm and while it
rode nicely it had some bad manners coming down hills. It could get a speed
wobble that would scare the devil out of the devil. Eventually I replaced
the fork with a carbon fork and it transformed a nice light bike with some
bad manners into a lighter bike with impeccable manners. If you can pick up
an older Super (mine's a 1982) in the larger sizes just be sure to put a
good new fork on it since the stock fork was far too stiff for the strength
of the frame.
Eddy Merckx bikes are very good in the larger sizes. I have a Corsa 0.1 and
it is absolute dynamite though you have to be sure of the fit. It is a
heavier bike for this day and age though and you'd probably not ride one of
a hilly road course.
I have a Look KG 241 and it is a fine example of a nice riding bike though I
wouldn't want to race it. This model in the larger sizes handles very well
and is my everyday rider but it is flexible and I think it loses some power
in that flexing. No matter for a training bike but as a racer you want the
pedals attached more directly to the rear wheel. My brother is much shorter
than me and rides a Look 555 and his seems to be both stiff and super light.
But I couldn't attest to the handling in the larger size though I'm
reasonably sure that Look has bicycles down pat.
I have a Time VX Edge. This is a spectacularly great bike and is what I
think of as the ultimate bike. It rides so smoothly that I just love it. And
yet it is so stiff that you can feel each push on the pedals. I can
understand why they price it so dearly.
Here's something a bit off kilter - I have a Basso Loto - this is a 1996
version made with Columbus EL tubes. It and the Time weigh only a lb
different and they ride almost completely identical! When I'm coming down a
rough very fast and complicated descent on the Time I always have a little
doubt in the back of my mind about whether those carbon tubes are going to
hold up. But I never have those ideas when I'm on the Basso. If I were to
have only one bike it would be the Basso hands down. Steel fork and all. Too
bad these aren't made in steel any more. I guess you'd have to buy a
Waterford which is almost identical though the construction standards on the
Waterford are probably the finest in the business whereas the Basso brothers
had pretty bad finishing standards on their bikes.
I also have a Colnago C40. It took me awhile to warm up to this bike.
Previously I had what was claimed to be Axel Merckx's Colnago Master from
his junior days. That ride was so stiff that I couldn't stand to ride it. It
would beat me to death at least three times on a 40 mile ride. Finally I
sold it and the guy who bought it seemed pleased. I suppose there's no
accounting for tastes.
Anyway, the C40 is stiff as well but it doesn't ride rough like the Master
did. On a club ride the C40 isn't a very nice ride. But as soon as you start
pushing hard it comes into its own. There's no doubt that Colnago
understands racing geometry and the C40 really demonstrates it. Coming down
the hardest, nastiest, steepest descent it makes the turns feel like you're
going about 10 mph slower than you are. And there's never a doubt in your
mind where you are heading. Most other bikes have a tiny bit of wander -
nothing you can feel but you're always alert and correcting your course the
tiniest bit. On the C40 there's nothing to correct. It goes where its
pointed.
If you're going to race and you can choose which bike to race on, the Time,
Basso (Waterford) or Colnago C40 (now you'd have to get a C50) are perfectly
suited to the highest standards of handling and I could recommend them
without reservation. There isn't any question in my mind that in the larger
sizes these are some of the best equipment available.
But also remember - the differences between the top of the line and the
middle class bikes are pretty small. I'd expect that you'd have to be at
least a Cat 3 before you could even tell the difference in bike handling and
your own mishandling.