Opinions on REI brand bikes (Novara)?

[[email protected]]

Mike Reed wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > Flexible
> > structures like seats, supporting large masses like riders' butts,
> > can't transmit high frequency vibrations very effectively.
>
> It's amplitude, not frequency that you'll feel through a seat. Think
> about a high frequency (100Hz?) jackhammer. Think you might feel that
> through a seat?

First, show me a 100 Hz jackhammer. AFAIK, they don't exist.

100 Hz is a deep bass tone. For reference, a G3 note (196 Hz) is at
the bottom of my singing range, and I'm no bass singer. There are guys
who can get close to 100 Hz out of their vocal chords, and there are
certainly musical instruments that do the same.

IOW, you're talking about musical frequencies. I've spent time running
a jackhammer, and it certainly didn't sound musical.

The important point is this: while a suitable mechanism may be able to
shake a bike frame at large amplitudes at 100 Hz, it would take lots of
power to do so. That sort of power isn't available. Any 100 Hz
vibrations of a bike frame would be tiny amplitudes that would be
attenuated by the seat, if they could make it through the tires in the
first place.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[SMS]

Zix wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Here is in the USA we have a co-op outdoor store chain
> called Recreational Equipment Inc (REI) which has its own
> brand of bikes called Novara.

REI currently has 20% off (almost) any non-sale item for members. Novara
bikes are included, though often they exclude other brands of bicycles
since bicycles are a low margin (35-40%) item. You can join and
immediately get the discount. I don't know what membership costs these
days, I think it's $20.

 

[RonSonic]

On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 11:06:34 -0600, Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> RonSonic <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I am just astonished at this rigorous adherence to dogma. Listen and
>> feel. Use your freeking senses. Your lack of a theory to explain it
>> does NOT invalidate observation.
>
>Problem is, Ron, that this has been discussed for like 100 years. The
>double-diamond bicycle frame is a vertically rigid structure
>geometrically, and frame material has little if anything to do with the
>road vibrations you feel while riding.

I am not insisting that frame materials are significant. I am insisting that
design and construction as applied to the material selected are significant and
that there are meaningful differences between frames.

> The possible exception to this,
>as far as I can tell, is composites such as carbon fiber and wood,
>because those have a very different structure than metals and thus might
>conceivably transmit high frequency vibrations differently. Whether
>that would be sufficient to make a measurable difference in the useful
>range, I don't know.
>
>The comfort issue in road bicycles is high amplitude low frequency
>vibration, such as from cobblestones, coarse chip seal and pavement
>seams. Low amplitude high frequency vibration- the kind most likely to
>be damped by a frame material- is not important in terms of comfort.
>It's just a buzzy feeling in the bars and saddle.

"A buzzy feeling in the bars and saddle" is not important in terms of comfort?
You have apparently defined "comfort" so narrowly as to make the rest of your
theorizing necessarily true.

Unfortunately, it isn't that simple. Buzzing sensations in the bars and saddle
are very uncomfortable and the rest of us do not feel obliged to pretend that we
aren't annoyed by them to preserve our theories intact.

Where is the line either in frequency or amplitude between benign buzzing and
uncomfortable chattering or whatever you'd like to call it?

>Your subjective impressions are not data ("data" not being the plural of
>"anecdote"). There is no lack of a theory to explain- the theory is
>that your subjective impressions are in error. There are so many
>confounds that would have to be eliminated in order to prove your
>observations accurate. Some of those confounds are psychological
>(expectation, bias, etc) and some are mechanical.

I find buzzing uncomfortable. Perhaps you are prepared to suffer it silently so
you won't have to admit that some frames are more comfortable than others.

Ron

 

[RonSonic]

On 24 Mar 2006 10:33:03 -0800, "SYJ" <[email protected]> wrote:

>[email protected] wrote:
>> Avoid aluminum road bikes if you desire comfort. For all day rides find
>> a steel frame. Novars bike have a good reputation. I'd advise to find
>> a ike that is comfortable first.
>
>That's a pretty broad statement - Have you ridden every aluminum bike
>on the market? Done blind studies comparing dissimilar materials? Or
>perhaps you are extrapolating personal experience gained from a small
>sample of bikes to every other bike with similar characteristics.
>
>I've had tig'd steel, lugged steel, oversized aluminum (traditional),
>oversized aluminum (sloping), and lugged carbon. Most of the
>components have carried over from one bike to the next. Biggest
>differences in perceived ride quality came from changes of, in order:
>
>1) Tires
>2) Saddle
>3) Fork (only noticable on the Trek carbon w/the scary flexy Icon
>fork)
>tie Cantilevered seatpost (only noticable on compact aluminum frame)
>5) Thickness of bar tape
>6) Frame Material

I'd put design of frame somewhere well above frame material and below fork.

Ron

 

[Tim McNamara]

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

> On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 11:06:34 -0600, Tim McNamara
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >In article <[email protected]>,
> > RonSonic <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> I am just astonished at this rigorous adherence to dogma. Listen
> >> and feel. Use your freeking senses. Your lack of a theory to
> >> explain it does NOT invalidate observation.
> >
> >Problem is, Ron, that this has been discussed for like 100 years.
> >The double-diamond bicycle frame is a vertically rigid structure
> >geometrically, and frame material has little if anything to do with
> >the road vibrations you feel while riding.
>
> I am not insisting that frame materials are significant. I am
> insisting that design and construction as applied to the material
> selected are significant and that there are meaningful differences
> between frames.

Erm, Ron, yes there are some differences between frames, as I have
already said. Front and rear center make a difference, for example. A
bike with 44 cm chainstays will feel very different than a bike with 38
cm chainstays. Other than that, the contribution by materials etc is
minimal if anything.

There are more flexible elements in the system, and the effects of those
elements will predominate. Tires, saddles, bars and stems are some
examples.

> >The possible exception to this, as far as I can tell, is composites
> >such as carbon fiber and wood, because those have a very different
> >structure than metals and thus might conceivably transmit high
> >frequency vibrations differently. Whether that would be sufficient
> >to make a measurable difference in the useful range, I don't know.
> >
> >The comfort issue in road bicycles is high amplitude low frequency
> >vibration, such as from cobblestones, coarse chip seal and pavement
> >seams. Low amplitude high frequency vibration- the kind most likely
> >to be damped by a frame material- is not important in terms of
> >comfort. It's just a buzzy feeling in the bars and saddle.
>
> "A buzzy feeling in the bars and saddle" is not important in terms of
> comfort? You have apparently defined "comfort" so narrowly as to make
> the rest of your theorizing necessarily true.

Road buzz is just road buzz. Why make a big deal out of it?

> Unfortunately, it isn't that simple. Buzzing sensations in the bars
> and saddle are very uncomfortable and the rest of us do not feel
> obliged to pretend that we aren't annoyed by them to preserve our
> theories intact.

"The rest of us?" Whozzat then?

> Where is the line either in frequency or amplitude between benign
> buzzing and uncomfortable chattering or whatever you'd like to call
> it?

When it's annoying, naturally. Lots of the roads around here are chip
sealed and I don't find it bothersome despite resulting in a buzzy feel
in the bars and saddle. Of course, I choose bikes with long chainstays
and fairly long front centers, and with 28 to 35 mm wide tires.

I can only presume that you do no off-road riding whatsoever or do it on
a full suspension bike.

> >Your subjective impressions are not data ("data" not being the
> >plural of "anecdote"). There is no lack of a theory to explain- the
> >theory is that your subjective impressions are in error. There are
> >so many confounds that would have to be eliminated in order to prove
> >your observations accurate. Some of those confounds are
> >psychological (expectation, bias, etc) and some are mechanical.
>
> I find buzzing uncomfortable. Perhaps you are prepared to suffer it
> silently so you won't have to admit that some frames are more
> comfortable than others.

No, I don't suffer from road buzz. It's a normal part of riding and
doesn't bug me. If it did I'd consider a Moulton NS.

 

[Tim McNamara]

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

> On 24 Mar 2006 10:33:03 -0800, "SYJ" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >[email protected] wrote:
> >> Avoid aluminum road bikes if you desire comfort. For all day rides
> >> find a steel frame. Novars bike have a good reputation. I'd
> >> advise to find a ike that is comfortable first.
> >
> >That's a pretty broad statement - Have you ridden every aluminum
> >bike on the market? Done blind studies comparing dissimilar
> >materials? Or perhaps you are extrapolating personal experience
> >gained from a small sample of bikes to every other bike with similar
> >characteristics.
> >
> >I've had tig'd steel, lugged steel, oversized aluminum
> >(traditional), oversized aluminum (sloping), and lugged carbon.
> >Most of the components have carried over from one bike to the next.
> >Biggest differences in perceived ride quality came from changes of,
> >in order:
> >
> >1) Tires 2) Saddle 3) Fork (only noticable on the Trek carbon
> >w/the scary flexy Icon fork) tie Cantilevered seatpost (only
> >noticable on compact aluminum frame) 5) Thickness of bar tape 6)
> >Frame Material
>
> I'd put design of frame somewhere well above frame material and below
> fork.

Yes, perhaps you would. The point is that SYJ *did not*. Now you're
the one sticking to your theory in the face of contrary anecdote.

 

[dvt]

Tim McNamara wrote:
> RonSonic <[email protected]> wrote:
>>On 24 Mar 2006 10:33:03 -0800, "SYJ" <[email protected]> wrote:

>>>Biggest differences in perceived ride quality came from changes of,
>>>in order:
>>>
>>>1) Tires
>>>2) Saddle
>>>3) Fork (only noticable on the Trek carbon
>>>w/the scary flexy Icon fork)
>>>tie Cantilevered seatpost (only noticable on compact aluminum frame)
>>>5) Thickness of bar tape
>>>6) Frame Material

>>I'd put design of frame somewhere well above frame material and below
>>fork.

> Yes, perhaps you would. The point is that SYJ *did not*. Now you're
> the one sticking to your theory in the face of contrary anecdote.

OK, I'm lost here. I think that RonSonic's order agrees with what you
were arguing, Tim. You *both* think that frame design is more important
to ride quality than frame material. Where's the disagreement?

--
Dave
dvt at psu dot edu

 

[RonSonic]

On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 22:22:24 -0600, Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote:

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

>> The difference between theory and practice is that in theory there is
>> no difference.
>
>Jeez, Ron, perhaps you haven't noticed that the other people in this
>thread just seem to have a different experience of this than you do.
>Save your dudgeon.

I would be very happy to accept that. Usually, I'm the one reminding people of
the blind men and the elephant. But, I'm the one being told what it is I feel
and whether or not it is a comfort issue.

Ron

 

[RonSonic]

On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 22:16:14 -0600, Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> RonSonic <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 11:06:34 -0600, Tim McNamara
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <[email protected]>,
>> > RonSonic <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> I am just astonished at this rigorous adherence to dogma. Listen
>> >> and feel. Use your freeking senses. Your lack of a theory to
>> >> explain it does NOT invalidate observation.
>> >
>> >Problem is, Ron, that this has been discussed for like 100 years.
>> >The double-diamond bicycle frame is a vertically rigid structure
>> >geometrically, and frame material has little if anything to do with
>> >the road vibrations you feel while riding.
>>
>> I am not insisting that frame materials are significant. I am
>> insisting that design and construction as applied to the material
>> selected are significant and that there are meaningful differences
>> between frames.
>
>Erm, Ron, yes there are some differences between frames, as I have
>already said. Front and rear center make a difference, for example. A
>bike with 44 cm chainstays will feel very different than a bike with 38
>cm chainstays. Other than that, the contribution by materials etc is
>minimal if anything.

That, I won't argue with, but there are a number of superficially similar frames
that clearly feel different. Compare an old Klein to an a contemporary
Cannondale. It ain't just the material.

>There are more flexible elements in the system, and the effects of those
>elements will predominate. Tires, saddles, bars and stems are some
>examples.
>
>> >The possible exception to this, as far as I can tell, is composites
>> >such as carbon fiber and wood, because those have a very different
>> >structure than metals and thus might conceivably transmit high
>> >frequency vibrations differently. Whether that would be sufficient
>> >to make a measurable difference in the useful range, I don't know.
>> >
>> >The comfort issue in road bicycles is high amplitude low frequency
>> >vibration, such as from cobblestones, coarse chip seal and pavement
>> >seams. Low amplitude high frequency vibration- the kind most likely
>> >to be damped by a frame material- is not important in terms of
>> >comfort. It's just a buzzy feeling in the bars and saddle.
>>
>> "A buzzy feeling in the bars and saddle" is not important in terms of
>> comfort? You have apparently defined "comfort" so narrowly as to make
>> the rest of your theorizing necessarily true.
>
>Road buzz is just road buzz. Why make a big deal out of it?

Because it's annoying and it IS something that can be damped.

>> Unfortunately, it isn't that simple. Buzzing sensations in the bars
>> and saddle are very uncomfortable and the rest of us do not feel
>> obliged to pretend that we aren't annoyed by them to preserve our
>> theories intact.
>
>"The rest of us?" Whozzat then?
>
>> Where is the line either in frequency or amplitude between benign
>> buzzing and uncomfortable chattering or whatever you'd like to call
>> it?
>
>When it's annoying, naturally. Lots of the roads around here are chip
>sealed and I don't find it bothersome despite resulting in a buzzy feel
>in the bars and saddle. Of course, I choose bikes with long chainstays
>and fairly long front centers, and with 28 to 35 mm wide tires.
>
>I can only presume that you do no off-road riding whatsoever or do it on
>a full suspension bike.

Nope, except for training when cyclocross season approaches almost all my riding
is off-road on a hardtail on Florida's root-covered, pig-damaged, cypress-knee-
surrounded single-track. Oh, with a Girvin fork on a GT frame. Rigidity's a good
thing, right? I only get in about 6-7 hours of riding a week most of the
year, but it is fun.

Maybe there is a relationship between my prefering trails to roads and my
dislike of road buzz. But it sure doesn't seem to relate to what you're
thinking. As far as I'm concerned the jarring of taking a HT through palmetto
root is a part of the game. The road buzz on the other hand is avoidable through
proper design and construction. My GT is not a good example of this, but has
other attributes and is not called on to do more than a mile of pavement at a
time.

>> >Your subjective impressions are not data ("data" not being the
>> >plural of "anecdote"). There is no lack of a theory to explain- the
>> >theory is that your subjective impressions are in error. There are
>> >so many confounds that would have to be eliminated in order to prove
>> >your observations accurate. Some of those confounds are
>> >psychological (expectation, bias, etc) and some are mechanical.
>>
>> I find buzzing uncomfortable. Perhaps you are prepared to suffer it
>> silently so you won't have to admit that some frames are more
>> comfortable than others.
>
>No, I don't suffer from road buzz. It's a normal part of riding and
>doesn't bug me. If it did I'd consider a Moulton NS.

It doesn't take anything that extreme to minimize it.

Ron

 

[RonSonic]

On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 22:28:11 -0600, Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> RonSonic <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 24 Mar 2006 10:33:03 -0800, "SYJ" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >[email protected] wrote:
>> >> Avoid aluminum road bikes if you desire comfort. For all day rides
>> >> find a steel frame. Novars bike have a good reputation. I'd
>> >> advise to find a ike that is comfortable first.
>> >
>> >That's a pretty broad statement - Have you ridden every aluminum
>> >bike on the market? Done blind studies comparing dissimilar
>> >materials? Or perhaps you are extrapolating personal experience
>> >gained from a small sample of bikes to every other bike with similar
>> >characteristics.
>> >
>> >I've had tig'd steel, lugged steel, oversized aluminum
>> >(traditional), oversized aluminum (sloping), and lugged carbon.
>> >Most of the components have carried over from one bike to the next.
>> >Biggest differences in perceived ride quality came from changes of,
>> >in order:
>> >
>> >1) Tires 2) Saddle 3) Fork (only noticable on the Trek carbon
>> >w/the scary flexy Icon fork) tie Cantilevered seatpost (only
>> >noticable on compact aluminum frame) 5) Thickness of bar tape 6)
>> >Frame Material
>>
>> I'd put design of frame somewhere well above frame material and below
>> fork.
>
>Yes, perhaps you would. The point is that SYJ *did not*. Now you're
>the one sticking to your theory in the face of contrary anecdote.

Nope, not contradicting him at all, just ADDING a factor that he omitted, that I
felt should be mentioned. Part of the conversation.

Design is more important than material in this issue I think. You'd probably
agree.

Ron

 

[RonSonic]

On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 07:45:09 -0500, dvt <[email protected]> wrote:

>Tim McNamara wrote:
>> RonSonic <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>On 24 Mar 2006 10:33:03 -0800, "SYJ" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>>Biggest differences in perceived ride quality came from changes of,
>>>>in order:
>>>>
>>>>1) Tires
>>>>2) Saddle
>>>>3) Fork (only noticable on the Trek carbon
>>>>w/the scary flexy Icon fork)
>>>>tie Cantilevered seatpost (only noticable on compact aluminum frame)
>>>>5) Thickness of bar tape
>>>>6) Frame Material
>
>>>I'd put design of frame somewhere well above frame material and below
>>>fork.
>
>> Yes, perhaps you would. The point is that SYJ *did not*. Now you're
>> the one sticking to your theory in the face of contrary anecdote.
>
>OK, I'm lost here. I think that RonSonic's order agrees with what you
>were arguing, Tim. You *both* think that frame design is more important
>to ride quality than frame material. Where's the disagreement?

Let me know, wouldya.

Ron

 

[Claire Petersky]

"Dukes909" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]

> All I can add to this crazy long thread is

That's why things shouldn't be cross-posted to rec.bicycles.tech.

--
Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky
http://www.bicyclemeditations.org/
See the books I've set free at: http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky

 

[Tim McNamara]

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

> Tim McNamara wrote:
> > RonSonic <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>On 24 Mar 2006 10:33:03 -0800, "SYJ" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>>Biggest differences in perceived ride quality came from changes of,
> >>>in order:
> >>>
> >>>1) Tires
> >>>2) Saddle
> >>>3) Fork (only noticable on the Trek carbon
> >>>w/the scary flexy Icon fork)
> >>>tie Cantilevered seatpost (only noticable on compact aluminum frame)
> >>>5) Thickness of bar tape
> >>>6) Frame Material
>
> >>I'd put design of frame somewhere well above frame material and below
> >>fork.
>
> > Yes, perhaps you would. The point is that SYJ *did not*. Now you're
> > the one sticking to your theory in the face of contrary anecdote.
>
> OK, I'm lost here. I think that RonSonic's order agrees with what you
> were arguing, Tim. You *both* think that frame design is more important
> to ride quality than frame material. Where's the disagreement?

Ah. Didn't read closely enough. Thanks, Dave; sorry Ron. I really
should do this when I have more time.

 

[Tim McNamara]

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

> On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 22:28:11 -0600, Tim McNamara
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >In article <[email protected]>,
> > RonSonic <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> On 24 Mar 2006 10:33:03 -0800, "SYJ" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >[email protected] wrote:
> >> >> Avoid aluminum road bikes if you desire comfort. For all day
> >> >> rides find a steel frame. Novars bike have a good reputation.
> >> >> I'd advise to find a ike that is comfortable first.
> >> >
> >> >That's a pretty broad statement - Have you ridden every aluminum
> >> >bike on the market? Done blind studies comparing dissimilar
> >> >materials? Or perhaps you are extrapolating personal experience
> >> >gained from a small sample of bikes to every other bike with
> >> >similar characteristics.
> >> >
> >> >I've had tig'd steel, lugged steel, oversized aluminum
> >> >(traditional), oversized aluminum (sloping), and lugged carbon.
> >> >Most of the components have carried over from one bike to the
> >> >next. Biggest differences in perceived ride quality came from
> >> >changes of, in order:
> >> >
> >> >1) Tires 2) Saddle 3) Fork (only noticable on the Trek carbon
> >> >w/the scary flexy Icon fork) tie Cantilevered seatpost (only
> >> >noticable on compact aluminum frame) 5) Thickness of bar tape 6)
> >> > Frame Material
> >>
> >> I'd put design of frame somewhere well above frame material and
> >> below fork.
> >
> >Yes, perhaps you would. The point is that SYJ *did not*. Now
> >you're the one sticking to your theory in the face of contrary
> >anecdote.
>
> Nope, not contradicting him at all, just ADDING a factor that he
> omitted, that I felt should be mentioned. Part of the conversation.
>
> Design is more important than material in this issue I think. You'd
> probably agree.


Yes. I didn't read closely enough. Sorry!

 

[SMS]

[email protected] wrote:
> Avoid aluminum road bikes if you desire comfort. For all day rides find
> a steel frame. Novars bike have a good reputation. I'd advise to find
> a ike that is comfortable first.

True, but steel road bikes have become a higher end, and expensive,
niche product for the most part. Aluminum frames, while less desirable,
are a lot less expensive to manufacture. Other than something like the
Bianchi Brava, which is 520 chromolloy, you're looking at brands like
Lemond, Rivendell, Waterford, which cost more than a lot of people are
willing to spend etc.

 

[RonSonic]

On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 09:21:06 -0600, Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> RonSonic <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 22:28:11 -0600, Tim McNamara
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <[email protected]>,
>> > RonSonic <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 24 Mar 2006 10:33:03 -0800, "SYJ" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >[email protected] wrote:
>> >> >> Avoid aluminum road bikes if you desire comfort. For all day
>> >> >> rides find a steel frame. Novars bike have a good reputation.
>> >> >> I'd advise to find a ike that is comfortable first.
>> >> >
>> >> >That's a pretty broad statement - Have you ridden every aluminum
>> >> >bike on the market? Done blind studies comparing dissimilar
>> >> >materials? Or perhaps you are extrapolating personal experience
>> >> >gained from a small sample of bikes to every other bike with
>> >> >similar characteristics.
>> >> >
>> >> >I've had tig'd steel, lugged steel, oversized aluminum
>> >> >(traditional), oversized aluminum (sloping), and lugged carbon.
>> >> >Most of the components have carried over from one bike to the
>> >> >next. Biggest differences in perceived ride quality came from
>> >> >changes of, in order:
>> >> >
>> >> >1) Tires 2) Saddle 3) Fork (only noticable on the Trek carbon
>> >> >w/the scary flexy Icon fork) tie Cantilevered seatpost (only
>> >> >noticable on compact aluminum frame) 5) Thickness of bar tape 6)
>> >> > Frame Material
>> >>
>> >> I'd put design of frame somewhere well above frame material and
>> >> below fork.
>> >
>> >Yes, perhaps you would. The point is that SYJ *did not*. Now
>> >you're the one sticking to your theory in the face of contrary
>> >anecdote.
>>
>> Nope, not contradicting him at all, just ADDING a factor that he
>> omitted, that I felt should be mentioned. Part of the conversation.
>>
>> Design is more important than material in this issue I think. You'd
>> probably agree.
>
>
>Yes. I didn't read closely enough. Sorry!

No sweat. No real heat here.

Ron