Re: Carbon Fiber Seat Stays = Better Ride?

Don't think that carbon seatstays matter that much.

Re "backside" comfort only, my 853 steel bike is seemingly more
comfortable than my Litespeed Siena with carbon seat stays. But the
Litespeed tracks better, so more comfortable going downhills. This
probably has nothing to do with the carbon seatstays, but just pointing
out numerous measures of comfort on a bike.

My wife has a alumnium Klein with carbon seatstays, and she says it is
both more comfortable and tracks better than her old Trek 5000-all
carbon frame.

At the other end I didn't get the Litespeed Real Design fork that came
with the bike, as it has a harsh reputation and I ride with two
Litespeed owners who replaced it. I replaced it with Reynolds Ozou and
very happy with it--same of less amount of road noise comes through the
front end (top of bars double tape) as on 853 w Kestral fork.

Good luck
j

Over 200 posts and nobody got it right.

First of all, the empirical evidence is right under your nose. There should
be no disputing the fact that the carbon fork is a major advancement in
bicycling comfort. The reduction in high frequency road buzz when comparing
CF forks to metal forks is significant. Anyone who disputes that is just a
steel or titanium or aluminum romanticist.

Lots of bad physics and bad mech engineering in this thread. You don't need
member compression or flexure to get vibration damping. See above. How much
do you think your CF fork compresses or flexes to give you that buttery
ride? Very, very little. The high-end vibrations are damped by the resin
and cloth itself because the molecular structure is completely different
than that of metal. Posters who insist on flex or compression are confusing
vibration damping with shock absorption. Two different things.

Empirical evidence #2: tap a steel tube or a Ti tube or an Al tube with a
wrench. Ding! Rings like a bell. Repeat with a carbon tube. Thunk.
Convinced yet?

Therefore, there is no doubt carbon seat stays will absorb high frequency
vibrations much more than metal seat stays.

What is open to discussion is whether or not there is enough road buzz in
your seat stays to make damping noticeable. I suspect you can achieve the
same result by using a carbon seat post instead. Just isolate the body from
the vibrating metal stuff.

PanFan said:

Over 200 posts and nobody got it right.

What is open to discussion is whether or not there is enough road

buzz in

Quoted message said:

your seat stays to make damping noticeable.

Well, Duh.

PanFan said:

Over 200 posts and nobody got it right.

In your humble opinion?

Quoted message said:

First of all, the empirical evidence is right under your nose. There

should

Quoted message said:

be no disputing the fact that the carbon fork is a major advancement

in

Quoted message said:

bicycling comfort.

In your humble opinion?

Also, why not stick to the subject? We're talking about seat stays.
Forks belong in a different thread, if only because the geometry of a
fork is so different.

Quoted message said:

Lots of bad physics and bad mech engineering in this thread. You

don't need

Quoted message said:

member compression or flexure to get vibration damping. See above.

I'd be very interested in your physics and engineering credentials.
I'd also be very interested in your explanation of the conservation of
energy principle and how it relates to damping vibration without using
deflection. As an engineer, I tend to believe that the mechanical
energy of vibration can't be destroyed, but only converted into heat;
and that to do so, forces of internal friction must do negative work;
and that to do work, force must be applied through a displacement. But
that's just me and those stubborn laws of physics!

Posters who insist on flex or compression are confusing

Quoted message said:

vibration damping with shock absorption. Two different things.

Can you give me a practical industrial application where vibration is
absorbed without deflection? Obviously, we know tires absorb road
vibration, and they do it by flexing. We know old-style saddles with
coil springs absorb vibration, and they do it when the springs deflect.
We know resilient machinery mounts absorb vibration by being resilient
- by flexing. We know your car's engine mounts isolate a large portion
of the engine's vibrations - by being made of flexible rubber, and
flexing.

Examples are legion. Give us some practical examples where people use
rigid objects to significantly absorb vibration - if you can find any.

Quoted message said:

Empirical evidence #2: tap a steel tube or a Ti tube or an Al tube

with a

Quoted message said:

wrench. Ding! Rings like a bell. Repeat with a carbon tube. Thunk.
Convinced yet?

Hardly. As explained in one of the 200 posts, the "rings like a bell"
you refer to is a sound in the audible range of frequencies - like the
standard musical note "A" at 440 cycles per second. I'd agree that
carbon fiber seat stays have a natural frequency of vibration that
could be used to attenuate similar frequencies. The problem for you
is, tires suspending a bike and rider have such a low natural frequency
that they can't transmit those audible tones to any meaningful degree.
The seat stay never receives a frequency it's capable of damping.

In other words, when you can tap a tire and hear a seat stay "ring like
a bell" you'll have an argument. Until then, you're throwing us a red
herring.

Quoted message said:

What is open to discussion is whether or not there is enough road

buzz in

Quoted message said:

your seat stays to make damping noticeable.

That's not open to discussion if you're a person who understands the
physics. Again, the frequencies carbon fiber seat stays could damp
never make it to the seatstays.

I suspect you can achieve the

Quoted message said:

same result by using a carbon seat post instead. Just isolate the

body from

Quoted message said:

the vibrating metal stuff.

Good idea, in that a carbon fiber seat post might make much more sense.
But I must point out that it might make sense largely because the
natural frequency of the seat post supporting the rider's mass is quite
low, probably similar to that of the tire supporting the bike.

- Frank Krygowski

Quoted message said:

PanFan said:

Posters who insist on flex or compression are confusing
vibration damping with shock absorption. Two different things.

Can you give me a practical industrial application where vibration is
absorbed without deflection? Obviously, we know tires absorb road
vibration, and they do it by flexing. We know old-style saddles with
coil springs absorb vibration, and they do it when the springs deflect.
We know resilient machinery mounts absorb vibration by being resilient
- by flexing. We know your car's engine mounts isolate a large portion
of the engine's vibrations - by being made of flexible rubber, and
flexing.

Examples are legion. Give us some practical examples where people use
rigid objects to significantly absorb vibration - if you can find any.

This *almost* qualifies, but this is such a special case there is no
way this can be argued to be occuring in bike seats. K2 designed some
skis that use piezoelectric generation to damp vibration.

http://illumin.usc.edu/article.php?articleID=56&page=3

I suppose one could engineer some bike rails like this, but I think
I'd rather save my cash and buy a 1mm large tire.

--
Dane Jackson - z u v e m b i @ u n i x b i g o t s . o r g
"In America sex is an obsession, in other parts of the world it
is a fact." -Marlene Dietrich

PanFan said:

Over 200 posts and nobody got it right.

<snip hand-waving suppositions>

Quoted message said:

Therefore, there is no doubt carbon seat stays will absorb high frequency
vibrations much more than metal seat stays.

Well, here's your chance... all you have to do is tell us how a carbon
fiber seat stay "aborbs" high-frequency vibrations". What "molecular
level" process goes on, and how much of what frequency range is
absorbed in a foot of very, very stiff carbon fiber stay.

If you thump an aluminum tube, it's "deader" than steel, but the
voodoo reality claims that it's still "harsher".

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

jim beam said:

but peter, you seem to assume no m = no k. in the presence of k,

force

Quoted message said:

is transmitted, yes?

As I said, with no M, 100% of force is transmitted, K doesn't matter.

There can be no real-world situation with 0 mass. Even without a rider,
the back of the bike would be at least 10 lb or so. That would raise
the resonance of a riderless system by 3x, or perhaps from 10 Hz to 30
Hz. What this means is that your butt will feel pressures at
frequencies rolling off at 30 Hz, the bulk of your body at 10 Hz. How
frequencies of 200-600 Hz could get coupled to your butt, never mind
your bulk, remains a mystery to me. If you're "fatigued" by 30 Hz butt
jiggles, then get one of those cheesy Walmart gel seat covers and
you'll be golden.

To paraphrase Jobst, this is [censored] of the second kind.

PanFan said:

Over 200 posts and nobody got it right.

You offer no proof that any of your assertions have any relevance to
the topic you further assert is central.

First, you must prove that the CF tube damps vibrations that are
ordinarily present in a bicycle frame, by providing measurements of
some typical actual results. Not hyperbole, measurement.

Then prove that those same vibrations both (a) exist in significant
quantity in the seat/rider and shoe/foot interfaces of a non-CF bike
system, (b) are reduced in a CF-tube-stay-bike system, and (c) are a
measurable factor in rider discomfort, stress or organic damage. (Any
one of the latter three will be adequate, but two would be more
convincing.)

I will openly wager one US dollar (and the ability to completely
eliminate all but CF bikes from serious consideration by the majority
of high-mileage riders) as the prize for meeting the above challenge.

Metal-frame bikes remain plentiful on the market for two reasons.
Price is only one of them. A good many serious riders who have no
pressing need for light weight rides and whose choices are driven by
experience rather than marketing and handwaving have found that the
extra expense of CF brings no benefit. If the effect of CF's usage
were so significant, I submit that aluminum, titanium and steel would
be vanishing from the enthusiast market, and the benefit of CF would
be both readily recognized and widely demonstrated by actual test
results. I am *quite* sure that those tests have already been done,
by the way...and that the reason the numbers aren't a matter of public
record is that they demonstrate that CF's vibration-damping qualities
have no effect on rider comfort or health. If they demonstrated the
reverse, the data would be in full-page ads in every cycling magazine
on the planet. When was the last time a marketing division of a
for-profit entity let such a golden opportunity slip by? The fact
that there are no numbers tells me that the numbers say such claims
are false.

--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

Dans le message de news:[email hidden],
Werehatrack <[email hidden]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :

Quoted message said:

PanFan said:

Over 200 posts and nobody got it right.

You offer no proof that any of your assertions have any relevance to
the topic you further assert is central.

First, you must prove that the CF tube damps vibrations that are
ordinarily present in a bicycle frame, by providing measurements of
some typical actual results. Not hyperbole, measurement.

Back again ...

From what I have read, Engineers have stated (I think I am summarizing
fairly), that the seat stay, or other component tube of the main bicycle
frame does not transmit shock or vibration to a greater or lesser extent
when substituting CF for metal, because it is a brige truss structure.

I offer my experience on metal. I owned, for a bunch of years, a Cannondale
SR400, and after that (not immediately) a Vitus 992. Both aluminum. My
memories are of two radically different frames, (using both the same
wheelset and, for the most part, tires), that were worlds apart in terms of
ride quality, comfort, and vibration and road buzz attenuation. Why is that
? Am I just getting too old, and my memory is no longer valid ?
Seriously...
--
Bonne route,

Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

"Sandy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

I offer my experience on metal. I owned, for a bunch of years, a

Cannondale

Quoted message said:

SR400, and after that (not immediately) a Vitus 992. Both aluminum. My
memories are of two radically different frames, (using both the same
wheelset and, for the most part, tires), that were worlds apart in terms

of

Quoted message said:

ride quality, comfort, and vibration and road buzz attenuation. Why is

that

Quoted message said:

? Am I just getting too old, and my memory is no longer valid ?
Seriously...

My experience is that I have 3 road bikes, one a Cannondale with very big
tubes, the other 2 are Fuji's, one 20 years old, lugged steel, the other
modern welded steel. They all have pretty much the same wheels and tires.
The harshest ride is the old Fuji, the new Fuji the softest, and the
Cannondale in the middle. The reason is that the old Fuji has the hardest
saddle, the Cannondale a slightly softer one, and the new Fuji softer yet.
I doubt I could tell the difference if they all had the same saddles.
Subjective impressions aren't trustworthy, that's why double blind
experiments are the standard.

Peter Cole said:

"Sandy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

I offer my experience on metal. I owned, for a bunch of years, a

Cannondale

Quoted message said:

SR400, and after that (not immediately) a Vitus 992. Both aluminum. My
memories are of two radically different frames, (using both the same
wheelset and, for the most part, tires), that were worlds apart in terms

of

Quoted message said:

ride quality, comfort, and vibration and road buzz attenuation. Why is

that

Quoted message said:

? Am I just getting too old, and my memory is no longer valid ?
Seriously...

My experience is that I have 3 road bikes, one a Cannondale with very big
tubes, the other 2 are Fuji's, one 20 years old, lugged steel, the other
modern welded steel. They all have pretty much the same wheels and tires.
The harshest ride is the old Fuji, the new Fuji the softest, and the
Cannondale in the middle. The reason is that the old Fuji has the hardest
saddle, the Cannondale a slightly softer one, and the new Fuji softer yet.
I doubt I could tell the difference if they all had the same saddles.
Subjective impressions aren't trustworthy, that's why double blind
experiments are the standard.

Yes, the seat has a lot to do with it, and so do a myriad of other
factors. The most persuasive (to me) argument that I have seen
*against* there being any difference of the type claimed in this
thread and the other is that the types of vibrations that might be
damped by CF material would all be high-frequency ones well up into
the audible range, none of which would have any significant amplitude,
none of which would be transmissible through the tire from the road
without huge losses, and none of which would be of anything
approaching the amplitude of the normal nonharmonic road buzz that is
generated by surface irregularities in the paving. As such, what they
might damp wouldn't matter and probably isn't present, and what they
can't damp is what's present.

When comparing two bikes, one must take into account *all* variations
between them, not just the frame material, when attempting to quantify
differences in the results. (I believe that's precisely what you were
getting at.)
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

Dans le message de news:[email hidden],
Peter Cole <[email hidden]> a réfléchi, et puis a
déclaré :

Quoted message said:

"Sandy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

I offer my experience on metal. I owned, for a bunch of years, a
Cannondale SR400, and after that (not immediately) a Vitus 992.
Both aluminum. My memories are of two radically different frames,
(using both the same wheelset and, for the most part, tires), that
were worlds apart in terms of ride quality, comfort, and vibration
and road buzz attenuation. Why is that ? Am I just getting too
old, and my memory is no longer valid ? Seriously...

My experience is that I have 3 road bikes, one a Cannondale with very
big tubes, the other 2 are Fuji's, one 20 years old, lugged steel,
the other modern welded steel. They all have pretty much the same
wheels and tires. The harshest ride is the old Fuji, the new Fuji the
softest, and the Cannondale in the middle. The reason is that the old
Fuji has the hardest saddle, the Cannondale a slightly softer one,
and the new Fuji softer yet. I doubt I could tell the difference if
they all had the same saddles. Subjective impressions aren't
trustworthy, that's why double blind experiments are the standard.

Sorry, Peter, the same saddle, the original Concor. I am loathe to part
with a saddle I like, and I had one for 8 years, and had another replace it
for another 5. You could be really helpful, if you could direct me to a new
one, not the light Concor, as I tried it, and t'aint the same animal.
--
Bonne route,

Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

Sandy said:

I offer my experience on metal. I owned, for a bunch of years, a

Cannondale

Quoted message said:

SR400, and after that (not immediately) a Vitus 992. Both aluminum.

My

Quoted message said:

memories are of two radically different frames, (using both the same
wheelset and, for the most part, tires), that were worlds apart in

terms of

Quoted message said:

ride quality, comfort, and vibration and road buzz attenuation. Why

is that

Quoted message said:

? Am I just getting too old, and my memory is no longer valid ?
Seriously...

Seriously, at least three factors are probably at work here. One may
be the details of equipment (were the tires _exactly_ the same?) and
frame geometry (was the wheelbase _exactly_ the same?) etc.

Another might be differences in what you expected. One poster noted
that when Cannondales first came out, Americans were told they would be
"harsh" while Eurpeans were told they would be "flexible" and by gosh,
that's exactly what the expert road testers reported - simultaneously!

A third factor really might be the accuracy of your memory - and I say
that only because the differences in ride quality, if any, are likely
to be quite subtle. When comparison tasting wines, one never tries one
glass on Tuesday, the next glass on the following Monday. The memory
of Tuesday's would not be accurate. When comparison rating bicycle
rides, it should be done simultaneously, and for best accuracy, with no
knowledge of which bike is which, to remove pre-conceived notions.

Perception of bike "ride quality" is affected by lots of things. As an
example, I have a folding bike I bought used, very inexpensively. I
bought it despite the bad ride quality and the squeaks and rattles.
But one day I painstakingly tracked down and fixed all the rattles and
squeaks, and darned if the "ride quality" didn't improve "noticeably."
By the same token, your rough-riding bike may have had a seat bag that
squeaked when you hit a bump. That would be quite enough to affect
your perceptions.

- Frank Krygowski

Dans le message de
news:[email hidden],
[email hidden] <[email hidden]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :

Quoted message said:

Sandy said:

I offer my experience on metal. I owned, for a bunch of years, a
Cannondale SR400, and after that (not immediately) a Vitus 992.
Both aluminum. My memories are of two radically different frames,
(using both the same wheelset and, for the most part, tires), that
were worlds apart in terms of ride quality, comfort, and vibration
and road buzz attenuation. Why is that ? Am I just getting too
old, and my memory is no longer valid ? Seriously...

Seriously, at least three factors are probably at work here. One may
be the details of equipment (were the tires _exactly_ the same?) and
frame geometry (was the wheelbase _exactly_ the same?) etc.

Seriously, you have gone beyond the realm of believable. But, just to pique
your interest, the tires were Michelin BiSynergic, and they were replaced
when worn. Did you really expect different ? The wheelbase wasn't the
same, but I really fail to see the relevance, since your comments indicate
that the sensation of vibration and shock are infinitessimally small, thus,
not perceptible. So, how could wheelbase and geometry affect vibration
transmission - teach me. The geometry of the Vitus was so awful, that I
decided within a couple of weeks that I would be replacing the frame.
Comfort, on that bike, was treacherous. As I recall, you, yourself, posted
about a Vitus, no ? And your "_exactly_" is the gasp of desperation.

Quoted message said:

Another might be differences in what you expected. One poster noted
that when Cannondales first came out, Americans were told they would
be "harsh" while Eurpeans were told they would be "flexible" and by
gosh, that's exactly what the expert road testers reported -
simultaneously!

Frank, you miscontrue just about everything. Mine was not a test - it was
long-term experience. After 6-7 years on a Cannondale, and less than 3 on
the Vitus, I think I had no "expectations". Rather, there were thousands of
kilometres of experience, all perceived by a single body. I have also
*never* heard a C'dale referred to, here, as flexible - never. I would ask
Mark Hickey to provide some reference to that reference. The newer ones are
reviewed as surprisingly comfortable in comparison to older models, which
were the real bouts de bois - a metaphor that would probably astound you.

Quoted message said:

A third factor really might be the accuracy of your memory - and I say
that only because the differences in ride quality, if any, are likely
to be quite subtle.

You don't ride, do you !? Subtle ?

Quoted message said:

When comparison tasting wines, one never tries
one glass on Tuesday, the next glass on the following Monday. The
memory of Tuesday's would not be accurate.

Walking on thin ice here, Franck...

Quoted message said:

When comparison rating
bicycle rides, it should be done simultaneously,

I would like to know how to do this "simultaneously". Or are you hampered
by reality ?

Quoted message said:

and for best
accuracy, with no knowledge of which bike is which, to remove
pre-conceived notions.

You don't ride at all ???!!!

Quoted message said:

Perception of bike "ride quality" is affected by lots of things. As
an example, I have a folding bike I bought used, very inexpensively.
I bought it despite the bad ride quality and the squeaks and rattles.
But one day I painstakingly tracked down and fixed all the rattles and
squeaks, and darned if the "ride quality" didn't improve "noticeably."
By the same token, your rough-riding bike may have had a seat bag that
squeaked when you hit a bump. That would be quite enough to affect
your perceptions.

Nonsense, Franck. Stick to Engineering, not psychology. Your choice of
bike and subjective ineptness is not a beacon for others to follow. While I
will not doubt whatever credentials you posted as an Engineer, your
credentials as a rider are in more than serious doubt.

--
Bonne route,

Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

Quoting Sandy <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Frank Krygowski:

Quoted message said:

Seriously, at least three factors are probably at work here. One may
be the details of equipment (were the tires _exactly_ the same?) and
frame geometry (was the wheelbase _exactly_ the same?) etc.

Seriously, you have gone beyond the realm of believable. But, just to pique
your interest, the tires were Michelin BiSynergic, and they were replaced
when worn. Did you really expect different ? The wheelbase wasn't the
same, but I really fail to see the relevance, since your comments indicate
that the sensation of vibration and shock are infinitessimally small,

Well, no, they don't. They indicate that vibration of the frequency that
might be damped by CF is extremely small, not all shock and buzz. If the
relative fore-aft position of the saddle and rear wheel was different that
explains a difference in ride quality right there, just as the ride on the
front seat of a steel tandem with an intentionally very rigid frame is
still very comfortable.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

When comparison rating
bicycle rides, it should be done simultaneously,

I would like to know how to do this "simultaneously".

It may well be impossible to carry out a good test. That does not mean you
can substitute a bad test and have the results be meaningful.
--
David Damerell <[email hidden]> flcl?
Today is Teleute, May.

Sandy said:

Back to the issue of ride quality - whether it can be perceived by riders,
when it does not appear feasible to model, mathematically. I am not writing
about golf putters, where each one is magical.

LOL! You're providing a very good imitation of doing so!

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

Sandy said:

Back to the issue of ride quality - whether it can be perceived by riders,
when it does not appear feasible to model, mathematically. I am not writing
about golf putters, where each one is magical.

But the same voodoo isn't when applied to axially loading a tube on a
bicycle?

Quoted message said:

The saddle should not be an
issue, as the Engineer has stated that vibration does not make it through
the frame, and I believe that the saddle is on the distant end of the frame
from the tires. So saddles are out of play. Frankly, I think saddles are
comfortable or not for an individual if the constant pressure of the body on
them causes pain or not. I don't think they add to road (shock and
vibration related) comfort, but can subtract from sitting comfort. Springs
or none.

WAIT a minute... you think sub-mm flex in an axially-loaded tube is so
significant that you denigrate those who say they can't feel it, and
THEN say that a saddle doesn't have any effect on ride quality, even
though it's suspended on long, thin flexible rods, built like a
virtual hammock, and covered with padding?

You're either trolling or operating in an entirely different physical
universe than the rest of us apparently. Seriously - read what you
wrote above and hopefully the nonsensical nature of your position will
become apparent.

If not, you can believe what you wanna believe. If you can logically
reach the conclusion you typed above I don't think it's likely that
we're going to be able to turn your opinion based on logic.
Seriously.

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

Dans le message de news:[email hidden],
Mark Hickey <[email hidden]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :

Quoted message said:

"Sandy" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The saddle should not be an
issue, as the Engineer has stated that vibration does not make it
through the frame, and I believe that the saddle is on the distant
end of the frame from the tires. So saddles are out of play.
Frankly, I think saddles are comfortable or not for an individual if
the constant pressure of the body on them causes pain or not. I
don't think they add to road (shock and vibration related) comfort,
but can subtract from sitting comfort. Springs or none.

WAIT a minute... you think sub-mm flex in an axially-loaded tube is so
significant that you denigrate those who say they can't feel it, and
THEN say that a saddle doesn't have any effect on ride quality, even
though it's suspended on long, thin flexible rods, built like a
virtual hammock, and covered with padding?

A sprung saddle is not necessarily more comfortable, even with shocks. Arms
and legs make up a good deal of shock management, leaving one in control,
especially, if it is not a purely vertical shock. Ride quality seems to
mean something very different to you than to me.

Quoted message said:

You're either trolling or operating in an entirely different physical
universe than the rest of us apparently. Seriously - read what you
wrote above and hopefully the nonsensical nature of your position will
become apparent.

No troll. I read it - I'm right.

Quoted message said:

If not, you can believe what you wanna believe. If you can logically
reach the conclusion you typed above I don't think it's likely that
we're going to be able to turn your opinion based on logic.
Seriously.

Seriously, do you mean that Seven is deceiving us when they write :

Vertical Compliance:

We've all heard generalizations like, "titanium is flexy" and,

"aluminum is stiff". But you may be surprised to hear that the

tube sizes - diameter and wall thickness - have more to do

with determining a frame's ride characteristics than the material

itself does. At Seven, we hand pick each tube in your frame,

so we can impart precisely the level of plushness or stiffness

you desire. Our Signature SizeT frames "as is" rate a comfy 3

on the Vertical Compliance scale, but if you prefer to feel more

of the road, we will choose your tube set accordingly.

Where's the rigid truss bridge in their scheme of things ? Are your
titanium frames uncomfortable ? Do they suffer from unpleasant ride quality
?
--
Bonne route,

Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

Sandy said:

Sorry, Peter, the same saddle, the original Concor. I am loathe to part
with a saddle I like, and I had one for 8 years, and had another replace it
for another 5. You could be really helpful, if you could direct me to a new
one, not the light Concor, as I tried it, and t'aint the same animal.

My S.O. has a theory that anything good gets discontinued before you
have a chance to wear out or use up the first one, be it saddles or
spices or socks or whatever. I had a favorite saddle on a bike that
got stolen last year, and it took me three months to track down
another one. Not that I'm recommending it to anyone; lots of people
can't stand that unit, and the guy I got it from was glad to be rid of
it. Saddles are probably the least predictable part of a bike when it
comes to comfort.
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.