"Comfortable" road bikes

In aus.bicycle on Sun, 29 Oct 2006 22:36:02 +1100

rdk said:

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.

Zebee

In article <[email hidden]>,

Zebee Johnstone said:

In aus.bicycle on Sun, 29 Oct 2006 22:36:02 +1100

rdk said:

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.
--

rdk said:

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?

The reason I'm asking is that I'm an older guy upgrading from a
flat-bar road bike, doing weekend rides of 70 - 120 km, ATB this year
and in the future, but not looking for the ultimate in speed. When in
bike shops I want to be looking at the right sort of thing.

Cheers

Slightly. THe TCR is also less stable. (more resposive 🙂
Dunno about the specialised

rdk said:

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?

Generally, it's a combination of the seat tube angle and the handlebar
height. The
steeper the seat tube, the more aggressive the bike feels, and the
further forward your weight is. This is generally more for racing
cyclists than touring roadies, especially as you get a bit older and
lose flexibility and upper body strength.

The other factor is headstem height (handlebar height generally). If
you have a look a the different heights of the handebars you'll see
that the more relaxed seat tube bikes also tend to have higher
handlebars. It's generally about your rotation around the bottom
bracket.

I don't know the Giant or Specialised raneges, but Trek, for example,
do a more relaxed line of roadies called the "pilot". If you compare
this :

http://www2.trekbikes.com.au/catalogue.cgi?rm=product&product_id=107&category_id=3&subcategory_id=27

which has a racing geometry, to this :

http://www2.trekbikes.com.au/catalogue.cgi?rm=product&product_id=157&category_id=3&subcategory_id=30

You'll see a difference quite quickly, I hope 🙂

It is usually possible to set up racing geometries for more relaxed
riding, it involves short stems, setback seatposts, steerer tube
extensions and so on, but generally, you're better off with the right
bike in the first place.

Hope that helps ....

In article <[email hidden]>,

Bleve said:

I don't know the Giant or Specialised raneges, but Trek, for example,
do a more relaxed line of roadies called the "pilot". If you compare
this :

http://www2.trekbikes.com.au/catalogue.cgi?rm=product&product_id=107&category_
id=3&subcategory_id=27

which has a racing geometry, to this :

http://www2.trekbikes.com.au/catalogue.cgi?rm=product&product_id=157&category_
id=3&subcategory_id=30

You'll see a difference quite quickly, I hope 🙂

It is usually possible to set up racing geometries for more relaxed
riding, it involves short stems, setback seatposts, steerer tube
extensions and so on, but generally, you're better off with the right
bike in the first place.

I find the comparison a bit arbitary. If one uses different stem/steerer
tube extension/seat adjustment to move all the body contact points to be
identical on the two bikes, then how does the geometry of the frame
affect the ride?
--

Artoi said:

I find the comparison a bit arbitary. If one uses different stem/steerer
tube extension/seat adjustment to move all the body contact points to be
identical on the two bikes, then how does the geometry of the frame
affect the ride?

wheelbase.

Artoi said:

I find the comparison a bit arbitary. If one uses different stem/steerer
tube extension/seat adjustment to move all the body contact points to be
identical on the two bikes, then how does the geometry of the frame
affect the ride?
--

Chainstay length & Front centre length (BB to front axle).

Artoi said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Bleve said:

I don't know the Giant or Specialised raneges, but Trek, for example,
do a more relaxed line of roadies called the "pilot". If you compare
this :

http://www2.trekbikes.com.au/catalogue.cgi?rm=product&product_id=107&category_
id=3&subcategory_id=27

which has a racing geometry, to this :

http://www2.trekbikes.com.au/catalogue.cgi?rm=product&product_id=157&category_
id=3&subcategory_id=30

You'll see a difference quite quickly, I hope 🙂

It is usually possible to set up racing geometries for more relaxed
riding, it involves short stems, setback seatposts, steerer tube
extensions and so on, but generally, you're better off with the right
bike in the first place.

I find the comparison a bit arbitary. If one uses different stem/steerer
tube extension/seat adjustment to move all the body contact points to be
identical on the two bikes, then how does the geometry of the frame
affect the ride?

As a few others have mentioned, wheelbase is a major factor, as is fork
rake, trail, stiffness of various parts etc, which combine to alter the
handling, stability and 'feel' of the bicycle. Get yourself a copy of
"bicycling science, 3rd ed" if you want the gory details.

There's also the all too often case that sometimes you simply cannot
get a rider far enough up and back even with risers and very short
stems, if the bike is too long for them. I face this problem sometimes
when fitting people who bring a bike in that isn't the right geometry
for their body. Risers, very short stems and very laid back seatposts
are generally hacks to get around someone having a bike that doesn't
fit them. This is particularly an issue with a lot of women and older
men, who lack the upper body strength or who have shorter arms and
torsos, less flexibility and so on.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Bleve said:

Artoi said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Bleve said:

I don't know the Giant or Specialised raneges, but Trek, for example,
do a more relaxed line of roadies called the "pilot". If you compare
this :

http://www2.trekbikes.com.au/catalogue.cgi?rm=product&product_id=107&categ
ory_
id=3&subcategory_id=27

which has a racing geometry, to this :

http://www2.trekbikes.com.au/catalogue.cgi?rm=product&product_id=157&categ
ory_
id=3&subcategory_id=30

You'll see a difference quite quickly, I hope 🙂

It is usually possible to set up racing geometries for more relaxed
riding, it involves short stems, setback seatposts, steerer tube
extensions and so on, but generally, you're better off with the right
bike in the first place.

I find the comparison a bit arbitary. If one uses different stem/steerer
tube extension/seat adjustment to move all the body contact points to be
identical on the two bikes, then how does the geometry of the frame
affect the ride?

As a few others have mentioned, wheelbase is a major factor, as is fork
rake, trail, stiffness of various parts etc, which combine to alter the
handling, stability and 'feel' of the bicycle. Get yourself a copy of
"bicycling science, 3rd ed" if you want the gory details.

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?
--

So now we're getting to a full list... contributed piecemeal.

- Tyre width (bigger means lower inflation pressure, which in general is
more comfortable).
- Frame geometry (longer means that the frame can absorb more vertical
shock without transmitting it all up your bum).
- Fork geometry (ditto, but this time the jarring goes up your arms to
your neck).
- Frame material (ceteri paribus carbon fibre is more comfortable than
steel alloy which is more comfortable than aluminium).
- Handlebar material and shape (drop bars are more comfortable than flat
bars.
- Body position (none of the above matters unless the bike "fits" you
and you can find comfortable riding positions).

Most of these factors relate to compliance. That is the degree to which
some part of the bike flexes to absorb road shock. Of course there is
some tradeoff between stiffness and compliance. The trick is to find a
bike that is stiff enough and compliant enough for your personal taste.

I have a cronic neck injury, so vertical jarring is very tiring because
my head s so big ;-) That's why (for me) the Giant TCR Composite and OCR
are the most comfortable of the Giant road bike range. The TCR ALUXXX is
stiff and strong, but I find the vibration through my hands tiring. My
TCR Composite is the most comfortable bike I have ever owned (about 12
in total).

In aus.bicycle on Mon, 30 Oct 2006 18:57:53 +1100

Patrick Keogh said:

I have a cronic neck injury, so vertical jarring is very tiring because
my head s so big ;-) That's why (for me) the Giant TCR Composite and OCR
are the most comfortable of the Giant road bike range. The TCR ALUXXX is
stiff and strong, but I find the vibration through my hands tiring. My
TCR Composite is the most comfortable bike I have ever owned (about 12
in total).

I suppose I should speak up here.....

For those with neck and back problems, I think the best bike to do the
miles on is a recumbent.

There is a huge variety of bents, from low trikes and flat-on-your-back
two wheeled lowracers to the high-performance short wheelbase high
racer bikes like the big brothers of my Giro, to the small wheeled long
wheelbase tourers like the easyracer.

Biggest hassle is trying one... If you aren't in Canberra then it's
hard to try even one let alone enough to determine which format you
like.

Being a sufferer of Duck's Disease[1] I only found two I could fit on,
both SWB highracers, and the Bacchetta Giro was love at first ride.
Fast enough to win races (bod in the UK is regularly fastest unfaired
bent in major races on a Giro 20) and easy enough for an old grampus
like me to ride without falling over or blowing up. While tugging a
fair chunk of luggage.

The price of entry is high alas, but if you are someone with neck, back,
or wrist trouble, you don't want to enter races, and you are happy to
tell other people their bike looks funny too, then it is worth a try.

I'm happy to give anyone in Sydney a go on mine, although being the
small frame it won't fit you if you are more than about 5'10"

Zebee

[1] the curse of the Seagoons!

Strong in you the force is.
To the dark side go I shall not.
(Cuts cockroach in half with light sabre).

Artoi said:

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.

Artoi said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Zebee Johnstone said:

In aus.bicycle on Sun, 29 Oct 2006 22:36:02 +1100

rdk said:

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.
--

Yes, I have always wondered how relatively ordinary folk like myself are
expected to notice the subtle differences in a bicycle during a test ride.
As you say, there are so many things which can change a bike's immediate
feel. For example, one bike may have a saddle that makes the bike feel
great, at least temporarily, but it may not seem as good when you use it a
lot for touring or commuting.

Cheers,

Vince

Thanks for all the advice, especially Bleve.

RDK

In article <[email hidden]>,

Bleve said:

Artoi said:

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?
--

Artoi said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Bleve said:

Artoi said:

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?
--

Theoretically correct, but as Bleve says there'd be few riders who would
notice this specific tradeoff. If comfort is important, I suggest you go
ride a couple of bikes and find what fits, keeping in mind the advice
that has been offered. Sure you can change the fit on most bikes by
swapping bars, stems, seat posts, saddle position etc., but by the time
you've done that you're up for a couple of hundred extra bucks, which
would have been better spent on a bike that fits in the first place.

Artoi said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Bleve said:

Artoi said:

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?

I'm not sure. Once standing, the seatpost is mostly irrelevant (except
it's heavy 🙂 ), but even while "power riding" seated (someone can
levitate? not for very long ....) the stiffness of the overall system
comes into play. As to how much difference it really makes? We'd need
jigs etc and some fairly rigorous testing protocols to know for sure.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Patrick Keogh said:

Theoretically correct, but as Bleve says there'd be few riders who would
notice this specific tradeoff. If comfort is important, I suggest you go
ride a couple of bikes and find what fits, keeping in mind the advice
that has been offered. Sure you can change the fit on most bikes by
swapping bars, stems, seat posts, saddle position etc., but by the time
you've done that you're up for a couple of hundred extra bucks, which
would have been better spent on a bike that fits in the first place.

I am not in the market for a new bike. But I am interested in the
technology.

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. Then there's the problem with those package bike
deals. Since getting my new bike some 2 1/2 months ago, I am starting to
find out how companies would hide cheap parts in a bike that looks
decent in overall appearance. The brake pad could be cheap, and so could
the cassette and chains. And then there's the wheel and so the list goes
on. There really is a case for people who are truly interested to build
their bike up from a frame and choose your own components. And here in
Oz, if you are comfortable with eBay and o/s mail-ordering, you can
really match up a really nice bike for the price of a LBS package deal.
--