"Comfortable" road bikes

[Donga]

Artoi wrote:
> This advise of trying different bikes is good but at the same time
> doesn't really work. For an inexperienced rider, it's hard to pick up
> the subtle differences b/n the frames, especially with those around the
> block test rides.

Yes, but you do work out which bike has "coolth", balanced with your
perception of comfort. If the bike makes you smile every time you ride
it, it can be hard to say why - you just love it, and that's what
matters to most of us.

Donga

 

[Tamyka Bell]

Donga wrote:
>
> Artoi wrote:
> > This advise of trying different bikes is good but at the same time
> > doesn't really work. For an inexperienced rider, it's hard to pick up
> > the subtle differences b/n the frames, especially with those around the
> > block test rides.

The bike guy at Anaconda asked me if I wanted to take the
Kona duallie for a spin outside... I asked, "you mean
outside, down the road... never come back?" Mmmmm bikes...

> Yes, but you do work out which bike has "coolth", balanced with your
> perception of comfort. If the bike makes you smile every time you ride
> it, it can be hard to say why - you just love it, and that's what
> matters to most of us.

Usually, it has to be at least reasonably comfortable for
you to get that feeling. Passion is fleeting but true love
is forever. Aaaah, my bike, my bike. And some running.

Tam

 

[Artoi]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Donga" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Artoi wrote:
> > This advise of trying different bikes is good but at the same time
> > doesn't really work. For an inexperienced rider, it's hard to pick up
> > the subtle differences b/n the frames, especially with those around the
> > block test rides.
>
> Yes, but you do work out which bike has "coolth", balanced with your
> perception of comfort. If the bike makes you smile every time you ride
> it, it can be hard to say why - you just love it, and that's what
> matters to most of us.

Yes, mental perception is obviously very important for the early days.
But if the bike really hits your body hard in some way, that perception
will change very quickly.
--

 

[dave]

Bleve wrote:
> Artoi wrote:
>
>> Sorry for not being specific.
>>
>> I note a number road bike frames has the same dimensions in terms of
>> wheel base, chain stay length etc per above, but one having a
>> traditional road geometry while the other being a compact. Under this
>> kind of comparison with seat and bar adjusted, what differences would it
>> make to the ride?
>
> As a gross generalisation, a "compact" frame will be stiffer (all else
> being equal) but the subsequent longer seat tube will make up for it by
> being more flexible than a shorter post, so generally, not a lot of
> difference, all else being equal. The point generally is that in most
> cases the geometry is *not* equal and a relaxed bike typically has a
> different geometry to make it easier/possible to set up a higher and
> further back position. The ride itself all else being equal between a
> compact and a traditional frame bike with the same rake, trail, fork
> angles, seat tube angle etc will be very very similar, such that most
> people would struggle to feel a difference.
>

Do you think there would be a weight difference Bleve? The small stiff
triangle of a compact should be lighter. Lighter enough to outweigh a
long seat tube and stem? My gut feel is yes the difference will be
significant. But I dunno

Dave

 

[dave]

Artoi wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Bleve" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Artoi wrote:
>>
>>> Sorry for not being specific.
>>>
>>> I note a number road bike frames has the same dimensions in terms of
>>> wheel base, chain stay length etc per above, but one having a
>>> traditional road geometry while the other being a compact. Under this
>>> kind of comparison with seat and bar adjusted, what differences would it
>>> make to the ride?
>> As a gross generalisation, a "compact" frame will be stiffer (all else
>> being equal) but the subsequent longer seat tube will make up for it by
>> being more flexible than a shorter post, so generally, not a lot of
>> difference, all else being equal. The point generally is that in most
>> cases the geometry is *not* equal and a relaxed bike typically has a
>> different geometry to make it easier/possible to set up a higher and
>> further back position. The ride itself all else being equal between a
>> compact and a traditional frame bike with the same rake, trail, fork
>> angles, seat tube angle etc will be very very similar, such that most
>> people would struggle to feel a difference.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Just one final point. Does the longer seatpost in a compact frame have
> an effect on the stiffness performance of the bike? I understand that
> power riders pretty much don't leave much of their weight on the seat
> during the ride, so how does the stiffness in the seatpost affect the
> critical frame stiffness for power transfer? Given this scenario, isn't
> the stiffness of the frame more important? So in a way, it justifies the
> use of compact frames if one is going for stiffness alone. Is this
> correct?
> --
Compacts are good for climbere... yes

Dave

 

[Jan Stimple]

"Artoi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Zebee Johnstone <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > In aus.bicycle on Sun, 29 Oct 2006 22:36:02 +1100
> > rdk <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Can someone correct or explain my understanding of the following:
> > >
> > > Is the Giant TCR more racier, and the OCR more comfortable?
> > > In Specialized, is the Sequoia more comfortable than the Allez?
> > > What makes one bike more comfortable, and the other more agressive?
> > >
> >
> > It's about how they feel to you. And how you end up customising them
> > to you.
> >
> > Best bet is to ride one of each, trying the same things on each, and
> > make notes. What feels different? If they ahve difference crontrols,
> > which one do you like better.
> >
> > If it's a commuter, find some bumpy tarmac.
> >
> > I suspect that the main difference is going to be who you buy it
> > from. Who spends more time talking to you about fit on a bike, who
> > seems to have more clue about commuting kit.
>
> After getting a second set of wheels and tyre, I found the ride to be
> quite different. So if the two bikes have different wheels and tyres
> (and tyre pressure), then it may not be a fair test of the frame.
> --

One thing that I have found dramatically ( I have a number of bikes, as I
never sell anything) is the set up. I have a Giant TCR2 Aero (alloy compact
& carbon forks) and it felt stiff and light but somehow agravated me and I
had sore elbows!!! doing about 250k per week. The setup was supposed to be
correct.
I went to a mature top ex-state champion road racer and he set me up
properly (took about 40mins).
The bike now feels unbelievable. The only thing he actually replaced was the
steering head piece to get the bars in the right position, as well as
changing seat height and bar rotation angle. I had gone too high & too low
without getting the sweet spot for the seat. Now I know how good a bike can
feel.

 

[Bleve]

dave wrote:
> Bleve wrote:
> > Artoi wrote:
> >
> >> Sorry for not being specific.
> >>
> >> I note a number road bike frames has the same dimensions in terms of
> >> wheel base, chain stay length etc per above, but one having a
> >> traditional road geometry while the other being a compact. Under this
> >> kind of comparison with seat and bar adjusted, what differences would it
> >> make to the ride?
> >
> > As a gross generalisation, a "compact" frame will be stiffer (all else
> > being equal) but the subsequent longer seat tube will make up for it by
> > being more flexible than a shorter post, so generally, not a lot of
> > difference, all else being equal. The point generally is that in most
> > cases the geometry is *not* equal and a relaxed bike typically has a
> > different geometry to make it easier/possible to set up a higher and
> > further back position. The ride itself all else being equal between a
> > compact and a traditional frame bike with the same rake, trail, fork
> > angles, seat tube angle etc will be very very similar, such that most
> > people would struggle to feel a difference.
> >
>
> Do you think there would be a weight difference Bleve? The small stiff
> triangle of a compact should be lighter. Lighter enough to outweigh a
> long seat tube and stem? My gut feel is yes the difference will be
> significant. But I dunno

A strong enough seatpost has to be quite heavy and the frame weight
won't vary that much, but I don't know for sure what the real
differences might be. I think it's mostly irrelevant, the Trek's are
down to 900g for a conventional geometry frame, and a lot of the top
bikes these days, with the right componentry, are bumping into the UCI
limit.

>
> Dave

 

[Bleve]

dave wrote:
> Bleve wrote:
> > Artoi wrote:
> >
> >> Sorry for not being specific.
> >>
> >> I note a number road bike frames has the same dimensions in terms of
> >> wheel base, chain stay length etc per above, but one having a
> >> traditional road geometry while the other being a compact. Under this
> >> kind of comparison with seat and bar adjusted, what differences would it
> >> make to the ride?
> >
> > As a gross generalisation, a "compact" frame will be stiffer (all else
> > being equal) but the subsequent longer seat tube will make up for it by
> > being more flexible than a shorter post, so generally, not a lot of
> > difference, all else being equal. The point generally is that in most
> > cases the geometry is *not* equal and a relaxed bike typically has a
> > different geometry to make it easier/possible to set up a higher and
> > further back position. The ride itself all else being equal between a
> > compact and a traditional frame bike with the same rake, trail, fork
> > angles, seat tube angle etc will be very very similar, such that most
> > people would struggle to feel a difference.
> >
>
> Do you think there would be a weight difference Bleve? The small stiff
> triangle of a compact should be lighter. Lighter enough to outweigh a
> long seat tube and stem? My gut feel is yes the difference will be
> significant. But I dunno

A strong enough seatpost has to be quite heavy and the frame weight
won't vary that much, but I don't know for sure what the real
differences might be. I think it's mostly irrelevant, the Trek's are
down to 900g for a conventional geometry frame, and a lot of the top
bikes these days, with the right componentry, are bumping into the UCI
limit.

>
> Dave

 

[SMS]

Artoi wrote:

> I note a number road bike frames has the same dimensions in terms of
> wheel base, chain stay length etc per above, but one having a
> traditional road geometry while the other being a compact. Under this
> kind of comparison with seat and bar adjusted, what differences would it
> make to the ride?

Compact frames (frames with a sloping top tube) were introduced by
manufacturers seeking to reduce the number of different size frames that
they had to manufacture. With three or four sizes of compact frames, the
manufacturer can tailor the bicycle to fit most customers. They simply
use a longer seat post to fit taller riders. They can also use a longer
steerer tube and use spacers between the headset and the stem. The false
rationalizations for compact frames are that the smaller frame is
lighter, and "livelier." Of course the longer seat post negates the
benefit of the lower weight of the compact frame.

There was a very good article about compact geometry frames on the
Cannondale web site (now gone) which states: "there's a disturbing trend
among some bike companies to re-tool their road frames by shortening the
seat tube and slanting the top tube down from the head tube. This new
design "breakthrough," they argue, saves frame weight. And if you take
their claim literally, they're right - a shorter seat tube does make a
bare frame a little lighter. What they don't tell you is that their
complete bicycle actually weighs more than a bike with a conventional
geometry. Why? You have to use longer (and therefore heavier) seatposts
and stems on smaller frames to fit the rider properly, and their added
weight more than off-sets the few grams saved by their sloping top tube
frames.

Whatever you do, avoid compact frames on road bikes. Get a properly
sized, "traditional" geometry frame.

 

[Michael Warner]

On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 08:47:25 -0800, SMS wrote:

> Whatever you do, avoid compact frames on road bikes. Get a properly
> sized, "traditional" geometry frame.

You're probably right that compact geometry offers no advantages over
traditional geometry apart from a cheaper overall bike, thanks to the
rationalization of frame sizes.

But why is that a reason to /avoid/ it? Are you willing to pay more just
so the world (possibly) knows that you didn't fall for the marketing hype?

--
Home page: http://members.westnet.com.au/mvw

 

[Tamyka Bell]

Artoi wrote:
>
> In article <[email protected]>,
> SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Compact frames (frames with a sloping top tube) were introduced by
> > manufacturers seeking to reduce the number of different size frames that
> > they had to manufacture. With three or four sizes of compact frames, the
> > manufacturer can tailor the bicycle to fit most customers. They simply
> > use a longer seat post to fit taller riders. They can also use a longer
> > steerer tube and use spacers between the headset and the stem. The false
> > rationalizations for compact frames are that the smaller frame is
> > lighter, and "livelier." Of course the longer seat post negates the
> > benefit of the lower weight of the compact frame.
>
> I have to question the validity of this argument.
>
> How many people actually trim their seatpost just because it has
> redundancy?
>
> For the compact road frames I've seen, they still use the same length
> seatpost as those in traditional frames starting around 250mm in length.
> Until those traditional frame riders start to trim the length, the
> weight saving makes sense (although probably quite minor).

I have two roadies, a compact and a conventional. The
conventional frame came with a short seatpost because that's
all that would be needed. The compact came with a longer
seatpost (which I replaced to get rid of setback). I didn't
need to trim the seatpost in my conventional frame, it came
that way.

Tam

 

[Artoi]

In article <[email protected]>,
SMS <[email protected]> wrote:

> Compact frames (frames with a sloping top tube) were introduced by
> manufacturers seeking to reduce the number of different size frames that
> they had to manufacture. With three or four sizes of compact frames, the
> manufacturer can tailor the bicycle to fit most customers. They simply
> use a longer seat post to fit taller riders. They can also use a longer
> steerer tube and use spacers between the headset and the stem. The false
> rationalizations for compact frames are that the smaller frame is
> lighter, and "livelier." Of course the longer seat post negates the
> benefit of the lower weight of the compact frame.

I have to question the validity of this argument.

How many people actually trim their seatpost just because it has
redundancy?

For the compact road frames I've seen, they still use the same length
seatpost as those in traditional frames starting around 250mm in length.
Until those traditional frame riders start to trim the length, the
weight saving makes sense (although probably quite minor).
--

 

[Artoi]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Bleve" <[email protected]> wrote:

> A strong enough seatpost has to be quite heavy and the frame weight
> won't vary that much, but I don't know for sure what the real
> differences might be. I think it's mostly irrelevant, the Trek's are
> down to 900g for a conventional geometry frame, and a lot of the top
> bikes these days, with the right componentry, are bumping into the UCI
> limit.

This makes sense. So it's left to the frame stiffness and fitting more
bodies arguments.
--

 

[SMS]

Artoi wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Compact frames (frames with a sloping top tube) were introduced by
>> manufacturers seeking to reduce the number of different size frames that
>> they had to manufacture. With three or four sizes of compact frames, the
>> manufacturer can tailor the bicycle to fit most customers. They simply
>> use a longer seat post to fit taller riders. They can also use a longer
>> steerer tube and use spacers between the headset and the stem. The false
>> rationalizations for compact frames are that the smaller frame is
>> lighter, and "livelier." Of course the longer seat post negates the
>> benefit of the lower weight of the compact frame.
>
> I have to question the validity of this argument.
>
> How many people actually trim their seatpost just because it has
> redundancy?

The seat post on the compact frame bicycles are much longer to begin
with. The range of seat heights remains about the same, you just have a
lot more seat post. The seat post essentially is now part of the frame,
since it would rarely be used fully inserted into the seat tube.

 

[rooman]

Thanks for all the advice, especially Bleve.

RDK

this is where I put my hand up and say: Sir!, Sir!, Sir! (pick me) sir?

"hop along and seek a professional fitting - then go looking for a bike that might then suit you-be it mass produced which you tweak or a custom-in the long run you will save a lot of angst and serious holiday money"

(pulls down hand and asks to leave class for loo break)

 

[rdk]

hop along and seek a professional fitting - then go looking for a bike that might then suit you

That was my plan. I've been to Kennedy's and was told that I could be fitted properly to my current bike (not that there's really any issue) and that he would give me all the info, measurements etc needed to go out and purchase a bike that was as close as possible to exactly the right size.

Or he would make one, of course.

 

[Artoi]

In article <[email protected]>,
SMS <[email protected]> wrote:

> The seat post on the compact frame bicycles are much longer to begin
> with. The range of seat heights remains about the same, you just have a
> lot more seat post. The seat post essentially is now part of the frame,
> since it would rarely be used fully inserted into the seat tube.

Then there are different degrees of compactness. I note that Giant road
frames are pretty extreme while Italian compacts are less drastic. There
seemed to be a full spectrum.
--

 

[SMS]

Artoi wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> The seat post on the compact frame bicycles are much longer to begin
>> with. The range of seat heights remains about the same, you just have a
>> lot more seat post. The seat post essentially is now part of the frame,
>> since it would rarely be used fully inserted into the seat tube.
>
> Then there are different degrees of compactness. I note that Giant road
> frames are pretty extreme while Italian compacts are less drastic. There
> seemed to be a full spectrum.

Indeed.

What amuses me is the plethora of products that inevitable come out to
correct problems caused by the decontenting of bicycles. For example,
suddenly there are a bunch of new water bottle cages designed to solve
the problem of compact frames. Side entry cages
(http://store.airbomb.com/ItemDesc.asp?Link=Froogle&IC=WC9151), cages
that swivel (http://www.primelineintl.com/), etc. Ditto for the products
to solve the practical problems of threadless headsets--the Speedlifter
is the most elegant and expensive solution, but unfortunately it's not
available outside of Europe yet so we're stuck with funky extenders.
("http://www.speedlifter.com/en/information/faq_e.html").