Opinions on aluminum frames?

[B. Sanders]

"waxxer" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...

> This is due to the wonderful properties of titanium. These flexes known as cycles will go on
> forever without damage to the material.

Not quite forever; but a long, long time.

> So geometry and material makes a huge difference in my mind.

> If it were aluminum it would have broken by now.

Not true. Take a look at the 20- and 30-year-old passenger jets that make up a large portion of the
world's airlines. They're made almost entirely of aluminum, and yet they rarely fail even with
constant use, in some cases
24/7 for years on end. Can you imagine how many cycles those parts have experienced? Much more than
your bike ever will.

> Take an aluminum can and bend it back and forth. It fails quickly. Take a steel can and will
> survive 3 times the number of cycles.

When you bend a piece of metal, that is called "plastic deformation." Well-engineered bike frames
should never experience this type of deformation under normal use. Note that I said "normal use."

Ti and steel will fail with some warning. Aluminum is more likely to just snap; but if it's well
engineered, it won't fail from fatigue.

> The Colnago on the other hand is so tight and springy it feels unreal.

What is the frame material? Carbon?

> My Cannodale would literally pound my hands, shoulders and ass
relentlessly.
> It was simply brutal. When I came across road irregularities I would
grimace
> knowing it was going to HURT!

I have experienced the same thing on *all* of the Cannondales that I've ridden and owned. I felt
bruised after a ride - and could hardly make myself saddle up the next day. Ouch!

-Barry

 

[B. Sanders]

"Frank Krygowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> waxxer wrote:
> >
> > Good question. Since components are identical--including tires ( I run
the
> > highest pressure open corsa cx). Additionally both road frames are the
same
> > size. So what does make the difference? Is it possibly the Bars--nope
they
> > are both Easton ec90s. Are the geometry's different--you bet. 72 degrees
for
> > seat tube angle verses 74.5 degrees. You would think that the steeper
seat
> > tube angle would be more rigid. It is not because the chain stays and
seat
> > stays visibly flex. This is due to the wonderful properties of titanium. These flexes known as
> > cycles will go on forever without damage to the material. This is my Serotta. I love it for
> > century rides and all day in
the
> > saddle rides. It is smooth yet gives up very little in lateral flex. So geometry and material
> > makes a huge difference in my mind. If it were aluminum it would have broken by now. Take an
> > aluminum can and bend it
back
> > and forth. It fails quickly. Take a steel can and will survive 3 times
the
> > number of cycles.
> >
> > The Colnago on the other hand is so tight and springy it feels unreal.
If I
> > hit the worst of bumps, it rolls through and snaps back as if it were thinking. You can feel the
> > frame flex and respond without the kind of springy effect of the titanium. The Serotta is like
> > the Mercedes and the Colnago--do I need to say more?
> >
> > My Cannodale would literally pound my hands, shoulders and ass
relentlessly.
> > It was simply brutal. When I came across road irregularities I would
grimace
> > knowing it was going to HURT!

> I do most of my riding on a Cannondale, and in my experience, it's an _extremely_ comfortable
> bike. Personally, I think you're swallowing a load of advertising claptrap

I don't pay any attention to advertising, and rarely read cycling publications; yet I, like many
others, agree with waxxer's observations.

> and letting it convince you of what you feel.

Nope. Absolutely not.

> I think if you wrapped the bikes' frames in paper, you wouldn't be able to tell them apart.

And I guarantee you that I could.

> As Jon says, this stuff is quantifiable.

And yet, quantifying the wrong quantity is of little use. I didn't say "my bike flexes vertically",
I said "my Cannondale beats me up." It is rather presumptuous to assume that you know why this is,
especially, as waxxer has pointed out, when components, tire pressure and road conditions are
essentially identical. Just because Jon Isaacs can't explain it doesn't mean it's not happening.

> It can be calculated and measured. It's silly to pretend the 0.003" difference in vertical frame
> flex (if that) can be detected when your tires are deflecting perhaps 50 times more... not to
> mention your saddle, fork, handlebar, seatpost, spokes, and so on.

Whatever. You're barking up the wrong tree.

> We had a guy who was a cat.2 racer graduate from the materials engineering program at our school.
> He went to work for one of the biggest titanium producers in the country, and his job was
> essentially to promote applications for titanium. But he said he completely disagreed with using
> titanium in a bike frame. Its attributes are not what you need in a bike frame, and not worth the
> detriments.

Well, he and I disagree. I'll admit that my Ti bikes were flexy as hell; but that's also what I
liked about them (except while sprinting).

> Of course, Buycycling magazine has a different opinion. But those are the guys that can detect the
> difference in ride between a red bike and an identical blue one! Almost makes you think their
> opinions are governed more by ad revenue than by engineering. ;-)

I wouldn't know: I don't read that ****. I buy, build and experiment with bikes. I ride them
often, and form my own opinions. My observations lead me to the obvious conclusion that frame
material *does* matter, quite a lot; but so does engineering. Those factors, in tandem, determine
ride quality.

-Barry

 

[B. Sanders]

"archer" <ns_archer1960@ns_hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> I'm looking at a Specialized Sequoiah Expert or equivalent, and there seems to be a lot to choose
> from in that range.

Have you looked at bikes from Fuji or Giant? They are value leaders, with some clever and versatile
designs at amazing prices.

Last October I bought a Fuji Finest on Ebay, brand new, for $375 from a seller named
[email protected]. It was equipped with Shimano Sora, beautiful Cyclone/CRP components, Alex rims,
and Fuji's own brand of seatpost, hubs and other parts. I couldn't believe the quality of this bike.
It was every bit as good as $1000+ road bikes.

The frame and fork had rack and fender eyelets, and enough clearance for fenders with the stock 23c
tires. It has road racing geometry, and felt nimble, with very balanced handling. In short, it was a
fantastic bike with excellent versatility.

It is my belief (borne out in practice) that lower-end components (Sora, Tiagra) are every bit as
functional, and nearly as durable as the jewel-like Ultegra and Dura Ace. The difference in weight
is a couple of pounds. If the lower-end parts break, replace them. The frame will last forever.

Aluminum is trendy; but I find that steel is the value leader now, as it has always been. My Fuji
Finest didn't hold me back from going fast; and the rack/fender braze-ons added a whole other
dimension of versatility that 98% of road bikes lack.

-Barry

 

[David L. Johnso]

On Thu, 13 Mar 2003 21:09:48 -0500, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:

I have to admit some ambiguity on this issue. I know that there is no measurable difference between
vertical flex between frames, or forks. And, it is true that the vertical flex would be what would
matter in terms of comfort.

I only got a new frame (Habanero) when the old one (cheapo aluminum) broke. I expected it to be
just a prettier place to hang all my components -- and they were all literally the same, stripped
off the old bike.

But there was a difference in the way the new bike felt. Sure, some of it is justifying the expense
of the new frame -- new-bike magic and all. Some of it might well be the differences in geometry.
But something about it made it feel different to me. Springier is the word I would use. Not flexier
sideways, and I really can't believe it was flexier vertically.

I can't measure any difference, but it sure seemed apparent -- and that actually frustrated me,
since I didn't want to believe in magical properties of titanium -- or any other material. Let's
just lay the difference as that between a well-designed and built frame versus one which was not.

OTOH, my three bikes: ti road bike, steel track bike, and aluminum mountain bike they all ride well
and are enjoyable -- which is what matters. I don't think the frame material makes all that much
difference, but then I am not going to ride a bike made out of gas pipe, either.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not _`\(,_ | certain, and as
far as they are certain, they do not refer to (_)/ (_) | reality. -- Albert Einstein

 

[Mike Jacoubowsk]

> Best bet: ride steel, ride AL, ride Ti, and ride carbon. Then tell me
that
> there's no difference in frame feel... Someone out there has to have
enough
> friends with one of each to be able to transfer wheels and saddles around
to
> be able to make the test as neutral as possible.

It's a tough comparison unless you can control *all* of the variables, which means not just wheels &
saddle, but also geometry. Fortunately we do have that capability with carbon vs aluminum in the
TREK family, but cannot make such a direct comparison with steel or ti (LeMonds have different frame
geometry).

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles http://www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

 

[Buck]

"Mike S." <mikeshaw2@coxDOTnet> wrote in message news:%[email protected]...
> Are you sure it is the compression that is determining the ride?? Could
it
> perhaps be something else? Like lateral flex, or the properties of the materials themselves:
> vibration damping, etc.?
>
> If there weren't a difference SOMEWHERE, we'd all still be riding SL/SP.

Sure there is a difference "somewhere." Lateral flex is a problem in some bikes, but how much is due
to frame materials and how much is due to geometry? Even though some bikes are laterally flexible,
all are designed to be vertically inflexible. So lateral flex has little to do with vertical
compliance - and this is the route which bumps travel from the road to your butt and hands.

As has been discussed around here many, many times, there is much greater vertical compliance in the
seat and tires than any part of the frame. I think the most noticable difference in frame materials
is the sounds they make. Other than this, the material is really irrelevant.

By the way, you should know that I still ride three steel bikes (one road, one mountain, one
cruiser) and two aluminum (one road and one mountain) on a regular basis. I have found that in each
category, the biggest differences can be found in the geometry, the seats and the tires. Granted, I
haven't performed a blind comparison, but I'm willing to give it a shot. If we can get two frames
built with identical geometry but different materials and two identical gruppos, I'd be happy to
cover the frames, build up the bikes, then challenge the local cyclists to identify the frame
materials after a short ride. Anyone willing to donate the parts so we can settle this debate once
and for all?



-Buck

 

[Bluto]

Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> wrote:

> I do most of my riding on a Cannondale, and in my experience, it's an _extremely_ comfortable
> bike. Personally, I think you're swallowing a load of advertising claptrap, and letting it
> convince you of what you feel. I think if you wrapped the bikes' frames in paper, you wouldn't be
> able to tell them apart.

Funny, isn't it, that Cannondales have maintained uninterrupted their reputation for brutal
stiffness for a production span during which their construction and overall mass have changed
dramatically?

I mean, the new road frames weigh, what, two pounds less than those first straight-gauge,
straight-tube models? And the seatstays! Marketing-driven design would have you believe that these
tubes are the most influential in determining rider comfort. Yet those original 22mm
straight-gauge oval seatstays have, on some models, dwindled to barely half their original mass
and less than that stiffness-wise, all without perturbing the "harsh, punishing" ride we all know
Cannondales to possess.

Likewise the down tubes went from like 1.625", to 2", to a taper only
1.5" in diameter at the small end. The chainstays developed a taper and a curvature and became
distinctly slenderer than in the old days. Of course such changes had no effect on the frequent
determination that they are, um, harsh. Hmm....

I bet it's the brand name sticker that gives these frames their uncompromisingly harsh ride
qualities. How else would big-tubed aluminum Klein frames and the recent big-tubed aluminum
offerings from Italy manage to escape the same judgement?

Chalo Colina

 

[Frank Krygowski]

"Mike S." wrote:
>
> Are you sure it is the compression that is determining the ride?? Could it perhaps be something
> else? Like lateral flex, or the properties of the materials themselves: vibration damping, etc.?
>
> If there weren't a difference SOMEWHERE, we'd all still be riding SL/SP.

Here's the big difference:

You're starting up a bike company. You recognize there are dozens of other bike companies out there.
If you produce exactly what they're producing, you'll get less than "one dozenth" of the customers.
So you need to distinguish your product, so it gets attention.

So you go with a different material. And you tweak the geometry. And you give it some
technical-sounding name (6061-T6!!!! OCLV!!!! Unobtanium!!!) And you advertize the "benefits." And
you get some editor to say "We immediately noticed the strong, yet smooth piquant resonance of the
multi-layer corrugated surface structure" And you get them to delete the phrase "... but then we
realized it was just the packing cardboard." ;-)

And you got yourself a reputation, and you got customers. And they're customers who _used_ to ride
SL/SP, but now say "That's so yesterday."

Not that there's _no_ difference between bikes. But there are so many dimensions to play with, you
can get pretty much what you like with pretty much any material, within reason. And we really
wouldn't be any more/less tired, sore, nimble, relaxed, quick, rattled, etc. if our bikes were all
steel of slightly varying dimensions.

--
Frank Krygowski [email protected]

 

[Frank Krygowski]

waxxer wrote:

> As aresearcher you reasoning is not what I would expect. Think of it in application and why does
> Cannondale now limit their warranties and warn about stress fractures.

The researchers understand the difference between comfort and fatigue strength.

Shall we point you to stories about steel and titanium and carbon fiber frame failures?

--
Frank Krygowski [email protected]

 

[Frank Krygowski]

"B. Sanders" wrote:
>
> "Frank Krygowski" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> > I do most of my riding on a Cannondale, and in my experience, it's an _extremely_ comfortable
> > bike. Personally, I think you're swallowing a load of advertising claptrap
>
> I don't pay any attention to advertising, and rarely read cycling publications; yet I, like many
> others, agree with waxxer's observations.
>
> > and letting it convince you of what you feel.
>
> Nope. Absolutely not.
>
> > I think if you wrapped the bikes' frames in paper, you wouldn't be able to tell them apart.
>
> And I guarantee you that I could.
>
> > As Jon says, this stuff is quantifiable.
>
> And yet, quantifying the wrong quantity is of little use. I didn't say "my bike flexes
> vertically", I said "my Cannondale beats me up." It is rather presumptuous to assume that you know
> why this is, especially, as waxxer has pointed out, when components, tire pressure and road
> conditions are essentially identical. Just because Jon Isaacs can't explain it doesn't mean it's
> not happening.

OK, if you say your Cannondale beats you up, but you think it's not related to vertical stiffness,
what exactly do you propose makes the difference??

When you're answering, please take into account Chalo's observations - that Cannondale has radically
changed almost every dimension of their frames over the years. They've changed enough stuff that
there should be no measurable ride parameter that's what it used to be.

Do you think, as he hinted, that it's that massive, 10-letter decal that's actually responsible
for you feeling beaten up? Or is there really a chance that you've fallen prey to your
preconceived notions?

--
Frank Krygowski [email protected]

 

[Mike S.]

"Frank Krygowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> "Mike S." wrote:
> >
> > Are you sure it is the compression that is determining the ride?? Could
it
> > perhaps be something else? Like lateral flex, or the properties of the materials themselves:
> > vibration damping, etc.?
> >
> > If there weren't a difference SOMEWHERE, we'd all still be riding SL/SP.
>
> Here's the big difference:
>
> You're starting up a bike company. You recognize there are dozens of other bike companies out
> there. If you produce exactly what they're producing, you'll get less than "one dozenth" of the
> customers. So you need to distinguish your product, so it gets attention.
>
> So you go with a different material. And you tweak the geometry. And you give it some
> technical-sounding name (6061-T6!!!! OCLV!!!! Unobtanium!!!) And you advertize the "benefits." And
> you get some editor to say "We immediately noticed the strong, yet smooth piquant resonance of the
> multi-layer corrugated surface structure" And you get them to delete the phrase "... but then we
> realized it was just the packing cardboard." ;-)
>
> And you got yourself a reputation, and you got customers. And they're customers who _used_ to ride
> SL/SP, but now say "That's so yesterday."
>
> Not that there's _no_ difference between bikes. But there are so many dimensions to play with, you
> can get pretty much what you like with pretty much any material, within reason. And we really
> wouldn't be any more/less tired, sore, nimble, relaxed, quick, rattled, etc. if our bikes were all
> steel of slightly varying dimensions.
>
> --
> Frank Krygowski [email protected]

I agree that you can make almost all of the materials we currently ride as bikes behave the same way
by manipulation of the sizes/shapes of the tubes. That's exactly what makes things react differently
to the inputs from the road. The people that build bikes manipulate the sizes/shapes of the tubing
to get a specific response to that input. Some want absolutely no flex unless it is a big force
acting on the frame, some want a little flex before the force is transferred, and some want a lot of
flex transferred, and with carbon, you can lay up the weave to be stiff in one direction, not in
another, and vary the plies to make the "perfect" ride (according to that manufacturer). There are
even differences between the way one diameter of tubing reacts to bending forces when compared to
another. It may not be big, but it is still there.

Is there a lot of hot air being floated around by the marketing guys? Sure. Happens all the time. Is
one material the "be all end all" of bike materials? Nope. Have I bought into some of it? Sure, who
hasn't. Do I like to try different bikes to see how they ride? Yup, ridden a bunch over the years.
Can I tell the difference? Yup. Is it something I can quantify? Who knows.

I agree that the wheels/tires/saddle make more difference in the ride of a bike than frame
materials, given the same dimensions in tubing. I've ridden MA40 wheels that made my C-dale frame
(88 vintage Criterium model) bearable by softening the ride, and I've ridden Cosmics that did the
opposite with my M4 S-works.

I just put a new Flite Gel on my M4. Will it improve the ride? Nope, but it'll sure make my ass less
sore. That worn out old Flite I had was killing
me. All things being equal, the frame is going to still ride like the frame, the wheels are going
to do their thing, and the saddle is going to make my ass less sore. Is the new saddle going to
mean that the material/geometry of the frame are magically going to ride like Ti? Probably not
different materials, slightly different ride.

The blind test may be the way to go. Maybe someone like Trek can build a few bikes of the same
geometry with different frame materials for a panel of testers?? That way, individual perceptions
can be averaged to get a consensus. Please invite me, I'd love to give my two cents worth!

Mike

 

[B A R R Y B U R]

"B. Sanders" wrote:
>
>
> I've heard all of the eggheads weigh-in on this. My butt, hands and ankles tell me that they're
> wrong. That's all I need to know.
>
> -Barry

When I bought my last road bike, I rode 12 different high end bikes. Many of them on the same
wheelset that I built by hand, and the same saddle and seatpost. Many of them also had the same OCLV
fork. I agree with the other Barry. I felt significant differences between steel, ti, aluminum,
carbon, and hybrid frames. Oddly enough, I could feel little difference between a high end Lemond
steel frame and a Litespeed titanium frame, even though they had different geometry and materials. I
rode a Trek 5500 and Giant's carbon road frame, and several aluminum frames. All of the similar
materials felt similar to each other, but different from the other materials. I ended up with a
carbon Trek.

Barry

 

[Peter Cole]

"B. Sanders" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> No, actually it's in my butt and my hands. There *is* a difference. I don't have to prove it, or
> explain it, I only have to observe it; and observe I have.
>
> I've heard all of the eggheads weigh-in on this. My butt, hands and ankles tell me that they're
> wrong. That's all I need to know.

Name calling aside, the science is trivial, it says it's all in your head, believe what you want.

 

[Peter Cole]

"Mike S." <mikeshaw2@coxDOTnet> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>>
> Now I'm no engineer, so someone else's gonna have to figure out if I'm talking out my ass on
> this one,

I am, you are.

 

[Peter Cole]

"Mike S." <mikeshaw2@coxDOTnet> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> >
> I read a quote the other day that I'm going to have to paraphrase because I didn't write it down:
> in theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is.
>
> Could be that the engineers are looking at the wrong things. Could be a lot of things, from
> faulty assumptions, to bad test criteria, I don't know. I do know that there are differences
> between bikes, no matter what anyone tries to tell me. They may be subtle, hard to quantify, but
> they're there.

It's not that complicated, bicycles are simple devices, the science/engineering is well understood.
A poster claimed his *wheels* were more comfortable. The simplest test will show there's no
compliance in wheels. You guys just have over-active imaginations and/or are vulnerable to the
powers of suggestion, AKA gullible.

 

[Archer]

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> "archer" <ns_archer1960@ns_hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > I'm looking at a Specialized Sequoiah Expert or equivalent, and there seems to be a lot to
> > choose from in that range.
>
> Have you looked at bikes from Fuji or Giant? They are value leaders, with some clever and
> versatile designs at amazing prices.

I haven't looked at Giant, but my wife has a Fuji, which I really like (except that it's too small
for me). The major problem is that we don't seem to have a Fuji dealer around where I live;
they're mostly Trek, Specialized, Schwinn and Merlin. At least I haven't located one yet. I'll dig
a little more...

...

> It is my belief (borne out in practice) that lower-end components (Sora, Tiagra) are every bit as
> functional, and nearly as durable as the jewel-like Ultegra and Dura Ace. The difference in weight
> is a couple of pounds. If the lower-end parts break, replace them. The frame will last forever.

Where does 105 fit into this continuum?

> Aluminum is trendy; but I find that steel is the value leader now, as it has always been. My Fuji
> Finest didn't hold me back from going fast; and the rack/fender braze-ons added a whole other
> dimension of versatility that 98% of road bikes lack.

Basically I don't give a rats a** what the frame's made of, as long as I like it and it fits (and
fits my budget, which largely rules out Ti and all-carbon frames). I originally posted the question
because the ones I've seen which seem to fit my riding style are mostly aluminum, and I was curious
about how aluminum has matured over the years since I bought my last bike.

--
David Kerber An optimist says "Good morning, Lord." While a pessimist says "Good Lord,
it's morning".

Remove the ns_ from the address before e-mailing.

 

[Archer]

In article <[email protected]>, "Buck" <j u n k m a i l @ g a l a x y c o r
p . c o m> says...

...

> Even if we do a blind comparison with two bikes identical except for frame material and prove the
> point, there will still be pundits who claim they can "feel" the difference. No manufacturer will
> be willing to do these tests. Prove that materials make no difference and they have no reason to
> sell expensive carbon fiber bikes! If we are to prove the point, we need a

Sure they will: weight! There are always cyclists are who willing to pay extra for the lightest
possible bike.

--
David Kerber An optimist says "Good morning, Lord." While a pessimist says "Good Lord,
it's morning".

Remove the ns_ from the address before e-mailing.

 

[Mark Hickey]

[email protected] (Jon Isaacs) wrote:

>Hey, this has been hashed out before. It does not take a great deal of analysis to show that the
>seat and tires are far more compliant than the frame.

It's not hard to intellectually accept that a bike frame is a pretty stiff device (it's basically a
bridge truss).

You can get an idea how much more tires contribute to the vertical compliance of the bike next time
you're riding your bike with the sun setting low, and you're casting a long shadow to the side, look
down at the shadow from the bottom of the front tire. It's easy to see the cross section of the tire
expanding and contracting over road irregularities, as evidenced by the shadow.

Obviously those deflections are much, MUCH greater than those that of the frame.

That's why I don't put much stock in those who gush about the immediate feedback they get from one
frame material or another. I do think there is some difference in the high frequency, low amplitude
vibrations that reach the rider, and believe that certain frame materials might result in less
fatigue at the end of a long ride.

Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $695 ti frame

 

[Frank Krygowski]

"Mike S." wrote:
>
> I agree that you can make almost all of the materials we currently ride as bikes behave the same
> way by manipulation of the sizes/shapes of the tubes.

Good! However, we still have lots of people thinking "It's aluminum. It's harsh. Buycycling says
so." And apparently they've never thought about the differences between a mid-70s Alan aluminum
noodle, an early 80s straight-gage Cannondale with 1/8" wall thickness, and a 2000 aluminum bike
with butted tubes, specially shaped tubes, thinner walls, smaller stays, etc etc. All they think is
"Buycycling says aluminum is harsh." Hell, they don't even think about what "harsh" might mean.

> Is there a lot of hot air being floated around by the marketing guys? Sure. Happens all the time.
> Is one material the "be all end all" of bike materials? Nope. Have I bought into some of it? Sure,
> who hasn't.

Um - if you read the posts, you'll find many people who haven't.

> I agree that the wheels/tires/saddle make more difference in the ride of a bike than frame
> materials, given the same dimensions in tubing. I've ridden MA40 wheels that made my C-dale frame
> (88 vintage Criterium model) bearable by softening the ride, and I've ridden Cosmics that did the
> opposite with my M4 S-works.

Hmmm... so here's how I'd test that. I'd put full fenders on your frame, I'd put identical tires at
identical pressures on the two sets of wheels, I'd have you close your eyes until you were standing
over the bike so you couldn't see what set of wheels you were riding. And I'd see if you could
_really_ tell that the MA40s were on that bike.

You guys need to recall the road bike magazine (a short lived one) that, about five years ago, did a
blind comparison of five steel bikes - identical but for tubing gages. Turned out the "expert road
testers" that had been determining all sorts of subtleties in various frames couldn't tell, with any
consistency, the super-light tubesets from the clunkier ones.

> Is the new saddle going to mean that the material/geometry of the frame are magically going to
> ride like Ti?

Magically ride like Ti?

<sigh>

--
Frank Krygowski [email protected]

 

[Dick Durbin]

Benjamin Lewis <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
> > Of course, Buycycling magazine has a different opinion. But those are the guys that can detect
> > the difference in ride between a red bike and an identical blue one!
>
> Now wait just a gol-danged minute there, Frank. Everyone knows that a red bike is faster, all
> other things being equal. The same is true with sports cars. What are you trying to pull
> here, anyway?

Yeah, next thing he'll do is try to tell us that TV rasslin' is fake and that Johnny Paycheck wasn't
his real name.