In article <[email hidden]>,
Membrane <[email hidden]> writes:
|>
|> For my "sport" rides I currently use a rigid hybrid with 700/37 tyres
|> (75 PSI front, 85 PSI rear) and a comfort saddle. I replaced the poor
|> quality stock steel sprung seatpost with a rigid alu one. So
|> considerably more comfortable than a real road/race bike.
Right. And you are even using the narrow end of roadster tyres :-)
|> During low speed ascends a poor road surface is unlikely to cause me
|> trouble, the same road in the other direction when I reach ~40mph can
|> feel like trying to hang onto a jackhammer.
That well be true - I couldn't do that without coming off, which is
not good news at that speed! But, in a case like that, you need a
good grip on the handlebars to avoid coming off.
The reason that a traditional roadster helps is because the longer
wheelbase, shallower angles and higher handlebars mean that you
DON'T need to hold your weight up even downhill. However, the
wheelbase needs to be pro rata to your height, which is a problem
for anyone of over 5'9".
|> >But traditional
|> >roadsters were designed for the roads of the 1920s and 1930s.
|>
|> I'm not sure what you mean by "traditional roadster". I have a tank of a
|> bike that I use for the city that I refer to as a "classic roadster"
|> (IIRC that is how Sheldon Brown typifies it). It is a steel frame bike
|> with mudguards, fully enclosed chainguard, stainless steel rims, luggage
|> rack, Nexus 7 hub, roller brakes, 700/38 tyres etc.
Sheldon Brown's idea of a classic roadster isn't accurate, though
it is not totally off-beam (as that clot Richards' is).
That sounds fairly close, but it is the geometry that is critical
for your weight distribution. Also 700/38 tyres are rather narrow
for a true classic roadster - 42+ were more normal - in my experience,
hard-pumped wide ones give the best speed over mediocre roads.
|> Not the sort of bike that can realistically be used in the Wicklow
|> mountains, its 23KG weight and the generally heavy going nature ensures
|> that you won't get far (I tried).
Why does the weight matter? The energy you need to climb hills is
pro rata to your ALL-UP weight, and the difference between a 12 Kg
and 23 Kg bicycle for a fairly normal man is only c. 10%. The gear
range is the primary problem with the bicycle - my lack of puff is
a more serious problem with the rider :-(
As another thread indicated, the difference between energy output
is a factor of 3 between a tolerably fit unathletic person and an
undistinguished athletic one. That dwarfs the 10%!
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.