stock vs. custom frames

Mark Heiple said:

The Gunner (steel) wasn't as stiff, was more compliant over the bumps,
seemed to climb almost as well as the Klein (I think it is 42 x 25 in
its middle ring), but didn't like the position as much. It seemed like
my center of gravity was higher.

Many variables effect "ride quality." Tires, saddle, bars, and overall
geometry all come into play. Also, slight differences in setup (stem height,
reach, etc.) will make a bike feel different. As a minimum, you should make
sure tire pressure and saddle position are identical on the various bikes
you test ride. Ideally, the bar position would be tweaked also, but that's
not as easy.

Quoted message said:

So now I guess I will start test riding bikes, looking for a stiff yet
compliant ride.

Uh-oh, where's the smiley face?

Quoted message said:

I asked about carbon bikes, but was told if I didn't
like the harsh aluminium ride, I probably wouldn't like carbon either.

Be careful that your expectations (e.g., "aluminum is harsh"😉 don't affect
your actual perceptions.

Art Harris

In article <[email hidden]>,

Arthur Harris said:

Mark Heiple said:

The Gunner (steel) wasn't as stiff, was more compliant over the bumps,
seemed to climb almost as well as the Klein (I think it is 42 x 25 in
its middle ring), but didn't like the position as much. It seemed like
my center of gravity was higher.

Many variables effect "ride quality." Tires, saddle, bars, and overall
geometry all come into play. Also, slight differences in setup (stem height,
reach, etc.) will make a bike feel different. As a minimum, you should make
sure tire pressure and saddle position are identical on the various bikes
you test ride. Ideally, the bar position would be tweaked also, but that's
not as easy.

The saddle height was the same on both the Klein and the Gunner, and
they put air in the tires (23c on both) before each ride, so those
variables should be the same. The handlebars couldn't be adjusted, but
it didn't seem like they were too different.

I was ready to assume that the Gunner would be the more comfortable,
better riding bike. To my surprise, I actually liked the Klein better,
even with its harsher ride.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So now I guess I will start test riding bikes, looking for a stiff yet
compliant ride.

Uh-oh, where's the smiley face?

Dang! Forgot it. Ok here's one 🙂

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I asked about carbon bikes, but was told if I didn't
like the harsh aluminium ride, I probably wouldn't like carbon either.

Be careful that your expectations (e.g., "aluminum is harsh"😉 don't affect
your actual perceptions.

Art Harris

I'm trying not to let my prejudices cloud reality. My "aluminum is
harsh" sentiments come mostly from riding a compact frame Giant (huh?)
and a borrowed 10 or 12 year old Cannondale that wasn't even close to
fitting me. That Klein was good evidence that it's possible to make a
nice riding aluminum bike. I also plan to test a carbon and Ti bike if
I can find them.

On a different topic: I just ran over my first squirrel. I just caught
it darting across the road out of the corner of my eye, then bump-bump,
then I heard it scurrying off in the brush on the other side.

Me: 1. Squirrels: 0

Thanks.

Matt O'Toole said:

What's really stupid is the same, super-short chainstays being used
on all frame sizes. There's no good reason to put a 6'5" rider on a
bike with a sub-40" wheelbase.

I'm an inch shorter than that, and I find that ultra-short chainstays
lead to popping wheelies when climbing seated. And since most bikes
now have longer top tubes and longer front centers, the front wheel
is underweighted and the rear wheel is overweighted. In addition to
popping wheelies, the front end of the bike feels vague and wants to
wash out in high speed turns. When you're tired from being beaten up
by the bumps all day, you also have to fight the bike to keep it
going in a straight line, making the last 30 miles of a 150 miler
unpleasant.

Combine that with heavily dished 8/9/10 speed rear wheels and the end
result is a bike that handles badly, wears out the rear tire and is
harder to keep the rear wheel true- and usually has almost no
clearance for the tires, so the bike is unrideable if a spoke
breaks. I see nothing to redeem the ultra-short chainstay designs.

Mark Heiple said:

I went to the bike shop and got measured, and they also measured my
bike (57 cm Lemond). They then put my bike on a trainer, I rode it
for a while they watched.

We decided that my frame is definitely small for me. My bike
actually measures 58 cm c-c, 60 cm c-t. They suggested that I
should start by looking at 60 to 62 cm c-c frames.

Many if not most people are sold bikes that are too small for them.
Racers may find this a benefit as it allows the bars to be lower
(although I am skeptical about the real-world benefits of this).

Quoted message said:

They also noticed that with the long seatpost and stem, my bike was
flexing really badly, to the point that they said if I keep riding
it stuff will start breaking.

Like what? I think this is malarkey.

Quoted message said:

I asked if that meant I should avoid a steel frame, they said no, a
correctly sized steel frame should be much stiffer than my current
bike.

The issue is comfort not stiffness.

Quoted message said:

The Klein was MUCH stiffer (fat tubed aluminum), and I did like how
responsive it felt. The bike shop said the stiffness would make it
easier to climb hills. I did feel little easier, but it is also
lighter and has different gearing than my Lemond (39 x 25 low gear
vs 42 x 25 in my lemond's middle ring). Does extra stiffness really
help climb hills? I did notice it was harsher over the bumps.

The Gunner (steel) wasn't as stiff, was more compliant over the
bumps, seemed to climb almost as well as the Klein (I think it is 42
x 25 in its middle ring), but didn't like the position as much. It
seemed like my center of gravity was higher.

You might want to do a little more reading about the effects of frame
material on how a bike rides. The short answer is that it has little
to no difference. The main difference is from frame design,
specifically the relation of the axle centers to your butt. The more
the wheel is underneath you, the more the bike will feel harsh; the
more the wheel is away from you, the more it will feel "compliant"
Tire size and inflation pessure has an even bigger affect on ride
quality. If you want to try a great ride, slap some Avocet 25's on
any bike they'll fit, inflated to 100 to 110 psi (actually, any 25 mm
tires will do but the Avocets are one of the best).

As far as stiffness, this is another triumph of marketing over
reality. Any quality modern nike is going to be stiff enough. Worry
more about the ride quality than the stiffness.

Quoted message said:

So now I guess I will start test riding bikes, looking for a stiff
yet compliant ride. I asked about carbon bikes, but was told if I
didn't like the harsh aluminium ride, I probably wouldn't like
carbon either.

More marketing codswallop. A different sales person will tell you
that carbon finger frames can have the fibers oriented to provide the
ultimate in stiff but compliant bike frames. It's all [censored]. Buy
a frame that fits you so that you are comfortable all day long on it,
and one that you like the handling characteristics.

Quoted message said:

The bike shop also does Waterford custom bikes, so if I can't find
something I like I can always go that route.

The Gunnars are made by Waterford and are an excellent deal. I have a
CrossHairs that is very well made and a nice bike to ride- I raced
'cross on it, took it to the Alps and rode last year's brevets and PBP
on it. I'd also point you to Kogswell (www.kogswell.com) who are
turning out very classy lugged steel frames at excellent prices- this
year's version is particularly well done. And also Herons are
excellent bikes: www.heronbicycles.com. And finally, the titanium
option from Habanero (www.habcycles.com I think). All four of these
options (Gunnar, Heron, Kogswell and Habanero) are excellent values.

Quoted message said:

The bike shop guy said that Ultegra 10 speed will be out this
december, which makes me even more inclined to go Campagnolo. I
don't want to buy a bike with a soon to be orphaned drivetrain.

Campagnolo is generally more durable and more serviceable, rendering
it less expensive in the long run.

Mark Heiple said:

I'm trying not to let my prejudices cloud reality. My "aluminum is
harsh" sentiments come mostly from riding a compact frame Giant (huh?)
and a borrowed 10 or 12 year old Cannondale that wasn't even close to
fitting me. That Klein was good evidence that it's possible to make a
nice riding aluminum bike. I also plan to test a carbon and Ti bike
if I can find them.

Geometry is the answer here, not frame material. "Harsh" frames usually have
short wheelbases, steep angles, and tall BBs. Look carefully at the Klein --
it's a little more stretched out than a Cannondale or Bianchi. This is why it
rides smoother. Older Kleins were very smooth -- because they had long
chainstays, moderate angles, and long wheelbases.

Also, oversized, thin-walled tubes resonate like a drum, giving the impression
of harshness. But it's only noise you're hearing, not vibration you're feeling.

Far too much is made of the frame material issue. Stiffness can be an issue. A
stiff bike isn't faster, but it's nice to have a bike that doesn't ghost shift,
or chain rub under power. Really flexy bikes can be scary on descents, but I'm
not aware of any on the market these days -- like the old Vitus and Alan frames,
with thin aluminum tubes.

Fit is everything. Stiffness is nice. Aesthetics matter when you're spending
this much money -- a bike should last you a long time, and you should be happy
with it.

Finally, there's a great advantage to having something dead mainstream, and
widely available, should you ever need a replacement. For example, I have a
Coppi frame, made in Italy, perhaps not even officially available in the US.
The frame was (probably) totaled in a crash the other day. Getting a
replacement is going to be a real chore, perhaps taking weeks. If I had a
Trek/Klein/Lemond or a Cannondale or something, I could be back on the road
already. Word is that Trek has the best warranty service in the biz. This
means their non-warranty service is probably good too. Some smaller companies
may have great warranties and earnest service, but they may not have warehouses
full of frames, wheels, etc., ready to be Fedexed to you in a day or two.
Consider this.

Quoted message said:

On a different topic: I just ran over my first squirrel. I just
caught it darting across the road out of the corner of my eye, then
bump-bump, then I heard it scurrying off in the brush on the other
side.

Me: 1. Squirrels: 0

Just be glad it wasn't a dog, like I hit the other day. Me: 0, bike: 0, dog: 0
(probably dead).

Matt O.

Tim McNamara said:

Many if not most people are sold bikes that are too small for them.
Racers may find this a benefit as it allows the bars to be lower
(although I am skeptical about the real-world benefits of this).

This is true. Besides looking at seat tube and top tube lengths, look at head
tube lengths too. The top of a head tube can vary by a couple of cm, a big
difference in adjusting stem heights. Some bikes with tall head tubes include
Lemond and Pinarello, as well as the extended head tube options from Waterford,
Gunnar, etc.

Note that Lance Armstrong rides a 58cm Trek, which is pretty standard for a
5'10" guy. And his bars don't look particularly low.

Matt O.

"Matt O'Toole" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Tim McNamara wrote:

Note that Lance Armstrong rides a 58cm Trek, which is pretty standard for

a

Quoted message said:

5'10" guy. And his bars don't look particularly low.

Actually, on a recent "Road to the Tour" (OLN, 9 or 9:30pm Thurs, pst),
Lance stated that his stem has been getting HIGHER the older he gets....

mark-<< We decided that my frame is definitely small for me. My bike actually
measures 58 cm c-c, 60 cm c-t. They suggested that I should start by
looking at 60 to 62 cm c-c frames. >><BR><BR>

No mention of serat tube angle or top tube length?
Any '60-62cm' frameset at the shop for you to ride?
Sounds like BS to me.

mark<< They also noticed that with the long seatpost and stem, my bike was
flexing really badly, to the point that they said if I keep riding it
stuff will start breaking. >><BR><BR>

Crappola-

Mark-
<< The Klein was MUCH stiffer (fat tubed aluminum), and I did like how
responsive it felt. The bike shop said the stiffness would make it
easier to climb hills >><BR><BR>

Crappola times 2-

Mark<< So now I guess I will start test riding bikes, looking for a stiff yet
compliant ride. >><BR><BR>

No such thing. Big yet small, black yet white.
Lokk for a frameset that fits you, number one. Sounds like they were trying to
sell ya something that they had rather than do a fit and recommend things that
fit you.

Mark-
<< I asked about carbon bikes, but was told if I didn't
like the harsh aluminium ride, I probably wouldn't like carbon either.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

<BR><BR>

Sounds like they don't sell carbon frames. These guys are the reason the bike
biz is in trouble.

Mark-
<< The bike shop guy said that Ultegra 10 speed will be out this december,
which makes me even more inclined to go Campagnolo. I don't want to buy
a bike with a soon to be orphaned drivetrain. >><BR><BR>

Good choice altho most of the Lemonds/Treks/Klowns will be oemed with
shimano-Get Campagnolo, go to a bike shop that starts with a frameset/sizing
and goes from there. Stay away from bikes on the floor. Waterford is a
wonderful choice.

Peter Chisholm
Vecchio's Bicicletteria
1833 Pearl St.
Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535
http://www.vecchios.com
"Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

In article <[email hidden]>,

(Qui si parla Campagnolo ) said:

mark-<< We decided that my frame is definitely small for me. My bike
actually
measures 58 cm c-c, 60 cm c-t. They suggested that I should start by
looking at 60 to 62 cm c-c frames. >><BR><BR>

No mention of serat tube angle or top tube length?
Any '60-62cm' frameset at the shop for you to ride?
Sounds like BS to me.

I think the Gunnar and Klein I tried were 60 cm. I got a printout of
the fitting results, but top tube length didn't print for some reason. I
think they said 60 cm top tube also. Anyway, here are the results:

foot length: 27.0 cm
Inseam: 92.0 cm
thigh length: 44.0 cm
torso length: 58.9 cm
arm length: 69.0 cm
shoulder width: 44.0 cm
hand size: large

The computer spit out the following numbers (all c-c):
seat tube: 62 cm
seat tube angle: 72.5 degrees
exposed seat post: 12.7 cm
stem angle: 10 deg
steerer stack: 5.0 cm
handlebar width: 40-42 cm
handlebar drop: 5.0 cm
saddle girth: 6.9 cm (not sure what that means, or how they came up with
it)
saddle to stem drop: .5 cm (I thought I had more on my current bike, but
maybe not)
Saddle to pedal distance: 99.1 cm
stand over height: 82.5 cm
crank arm: 175 mm

They didn't have a suggested head tube angle.

Quoted message said:

mark<< They also noticed that with the long seatpost and stem, my bike was
flexing really badly, to the point that they said if I keep riding it
stuff will start breaking. >><BR><BR>

Crappola-

They weren't talking specifically about my frame breaking, I think they
were referring to my extra long handlebar stem (which sticks up about 5
inches) and my saddle rails. I have the saddle shoved all the way to
the rear, and when I was on the trainer they said that much unsupported
rail was bad and was flexing a lot.

When the bike shop said this, I asked if the seat post bolt that broke
on me a couple weeks ago might be related, but they didn't know.

Quoted message said:

Mark-
<< The Klein was MUCH stiffer (fat tubed aluminum), and I did like how
responsive it felt. The bike shop said the stiffness would make it
easier to climb hills >><BR><BR>

Crappola times 2-

I question that also, although the stiff feel was very different and I
can see the benefit. I've been on hills steep enough that I can really
feel my Lemond bending and hear it groaning. Stuff like that makes me
think I should consider a different frame.

My frame is Reynolds 525. Any idea how different a 853 frame would be,
if at all?

It feels perfectly solid and stable blasting down the hills, which is
good.

Quoted message said:

Mark<< So now I guess I will start test riding bikes, looking for a stiff yet
compliant ride. >><BR><BR>

No such thing. Big yet small, black yet white.
Lokk for a frameset that fits you, number one. Sounds like they were trying
to
sell ya something that they had rather than do a fit and recommend things
that
fit you.

I don't think they were trying to push anything on me. I told them
pretty early on in the process that I wasn't going to get a floor model,
I was going to build up one from scratch.

Quoted message said:

Mark-
<< I asked about carbon bikes, but was told if I didn't
like the harsh aluminium ride, I probably wouldn't like carbon either.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

<BR><BR>

Sounds like they don't sell carbon frames. These guys are the reason the bike
biz is in trouble.

I didn't see any carbon frames on their floor. I also question that
statement. I thought the reason sales people were pushing carbon forks
so hard was the claim that they ride so much smoother and dampen road
shock. At least that was the reason a different bike shop a couple
years go was giving me when trying to convince me to replace the steel
fork on my Lemond.

Quoted message said:

Mark-
<< The bike shop guy said that Ultegra 10 speed will be out this december,
which makes me even more inclined to go Campagnolo. I don't want to buy
a bike with a soon to be orphaned drivetrain. >><BR><BR>

Good choice altho most of the Lemonds/Treks/Klowns will be oemed with
shimano-Get Campagnolo, go to a bike shop that starts with a frameset/sizing
and goes from there. Stay away from bikes on the floor. Waterford is a
wonderful choice.

I guess you don't like Klein? The internal cable routing looks like it
could make it harder to work on.

Once I figure out which frame to get, I plan to have a bike built up
with the stuff I want instead of taking one off the floor. I'm leaning
toward Campagnolo Centaur, with maybe a couple Chorus parts (I've read
its worth upgrading to the Chorus BB), with my choice of pedals, saddle,
wheels, etc. I definitely am not going to repeat the experience I had
with the "not enough spokes" wheels everything comes with now.

Thanks.

Quoted message said:

Peter Chisholm
Vecchio's Bicicletteria
1833 Pearl St.
Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535
http://www.vecchios.com
"Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

In article <[email hidden]>,

Tim McNamara said:

Quoted message said:

They also noticed that with the long seatpost and stem, my bike was
flexing really badly, to the point that they said if I keep riding
it stuff will start breaking.

Like what? I think this is malarkey.

I think they were looking at my long handlebar stem and saddle rails.
My stem sticks up about 5" and my seat is shoved all the way back,
leaving a lot of unsupported rail.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I asked if that meant I should avoid a steel frame, they said no, a
correctly sized steel frame should be much stiffer than my current
bike.

The issue is comfort not stiffness.

Comfort is definitely my first priority. High on my list of bikes to
try is a 2003 Zurich, since it is the same geometry as my current bike.

I'll also try a 2004, just for comparison, but I've already ruled it out
since they shortened the wheelbase and it looks like it is limited to
23mm tires.

Quoted message said:

You might want to do a little more reading about the effects of frame
material on how a bike rides. The short answer is that it has little
to no difference. The main difference is from frame design,
specifically the relation of the axle centers to your butt. The more
the wheel is underneath you, the more the bike will feel harsh; the
more the wheel is away from you, the more it will feel "compliant"
Tire size and inflation pessure has an even bigger affect on ride
quality. If you want to try a great ride, slap some Avocet 25's on
any bike they'll fit, inflated to 100 to 110 psi (actually, any 25 mm
tires will do but the Avocets are one of the best).

As far as stiffness, this is another triumph of marketing over
reality. Any quality modern nike is going to be stiff enough. Worry
more about the ride quality than the stiffness.

I've read that the materials don't matter here a lot. I do agree that
design/geometry is a lot more significant, but I'm not ready to agree
that materials is irrelevant.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So now I guess I will start test riding bikes, looking for a stiff
yet compliant ride. I asked about carbon bikes, but was told if I
didn't like the harsh aluminium ride, I probably wouldn't like
carbon either.

More marketing codswallop. A different sales person will tell you
that carbon finger frames can have the fibers oriented to provide the
ultimate in stiff but compliant bike frames. It's all [censored]. Buy
a frame that fits you so that you are comfortable all day long on it,
and one that you like the handling characteristics.

I will certainly test ride a carbon bike and decide for myself if I like
it or not.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The bike shop also does Waterford custom bikes, so if I can't find
something I like I can always go that route.

The Gunnars are made by Waterford and are an excellent deal. I have a
CrossHairs that is very well made and a nice bike to ride- I raced
'cross on it, took it to the Alps and rode last year's brevets and PBP
on it. I'd also point you to Kogswell (www.kogswell.com) who are
turning out very classy lugged steel frames at excellent prices- this
year's version is particularly well done. And also Herons are
excellent bikes: www.heronbicycles.com. And finally, the titanium
option from Habanero (www.habcycles.com I think). All four of these
options (Gunnar, Heron, Kogswell and Habanero) are excellent values.

My first choice would be a stock frame, since it seems like a big gamble
to build a bike you've never ridden. How do you know a custom bike is
going to be better than one of the many you've tested? Thanks for those
suggestions, if I decided to go custom I'll look into those also.

Thanks.

"Mark Heiple" wrote

Quoted message said:

foot length: 27.0 cm
Inseam: 92.0 cm
thigh length: 44.0 cm
torso length: 58.9 cm
arm length: 69.0 cm
shoulder width: 44.0 cm
hand size: large

The computer spit out the following numbers (all c-c):
seat tube: 62 cm
seat tube angle: 72.5 degrees
exposed seat post: 12.7 cm
stem angle: 10 deg
steerer stack: 5.0 cm
handlebar width: 40-42 cm
handlebar drop: 5.0 cm
saddle girth: 6.9 cm (not sure what that means, or how they came up with
it)
saddle to stem drop: .5 cm (I thought I had more on my current bike, but
maybe not)
Saddle to pedal distance: 99.1 cm
stand over height: 82.5 cm
crank arm: 175 mm

Are those computer "spit outs" based only on the measurements above, or were
there allowances made for your personal preferences, flexibility, and riding
syle?

In other words, would a 25 year old racer and a 55 year old recreational
rider with the same measurements get the same bike?

Art Harris

Mark Heiple said:

I guess you don't like Klein? The internal cable routing looks like it
could make it harder to work on.

I have internal cable routing through my top tube, and it's not a big deal
to work on. You just have to remember not to pull out the cable and
housing at the same time, or it's a pain to get them in again. For
example, to replace both cable and housing:

- pull cable out of housing
- run new cable through old housing
- pull out old housing, leaving new cable in place
- new housing "threaded onto" new cable, which guides housing through
internal routing

If you *do* forget and pull out both, an old spoke makes a decent tool to
fish the cable end out of the tube. Some patience may also be required.
You probably won't forget a second time, speaking from experience 🙂

--
Benjamin Lewis

Although the moon is smaller than the earth, it is farther away.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Arthur Harris said:

"Mark Heiple" wrote

Quoted message said:

foot length: 27.0 cm
Inseam: 92.0 cm
thigh length: 44.0 cm
torso length: 58.9 cm
arm length: 69.0 cm
shoulder width: 44.0 cm
hand size: large

The computer spit out the following numbers (all c-c):
seat tube: 62 cm
seat tube angle: 72.5 degrees
exposed seat post: 12.7 cm
stem angle: 10 deg
steerer stack: 5.0 cm
handlebar width: 40-42 cm
handlebar drop: 5.0 cm
saddle girth: 6.9 cm (not sure what that means, or how they came up with
it)
saddle to stem drop: .5 cm (I thought I had more on my current bike, but
maybe not)
Saddle to pedal distance: 99.1 cm
stand over height: 82.5 cm
crank arm: 175 mm

Are those computer "spit outs" based only on the measurements above, or were
there allowances made for your personal preferences, flexibility, and riding
syle?

In other words, would a 25 year old racer and a 55 year old recreational
rider with the same measurements get the same bike?

Art Harris

My riding style/preferences were factored in. They put me in as under
40, prefers comfort, good flexibility, no physical conditions. I told
them I don't race, so I don't want a full race bike with compact
geometry, but I do like to ride fast so I want a good performance bike
(not a tourer).

Quoted message said:

If you want to try a great ride, slap some Avocet 25's on

Quoted message said:

any bike they'll fit, inflated to 100 to 110 psi

For a better ride, try the 28s.
B

(remove clothes to reply)

"Matt O'Toole" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Tim McNamara said:

I've never understood the attraction for short chainstays. The bike
handles badly in turns, the rear tire wears out more quickly, the ride
is less comfortable, chainline problems are worse, and there's no
benefit whatsoever. A peculiar trend altogether.

Indeed.

I think it started as a track trend, the idea being it allowed teammates to
draft closer. But then some knucklehead decided it was applicable to road
racing too. Since then, short chainstays have been symbolic of "racy," the
shorter the racier. Cannondale even made bikes with cantilevered dropouts for
awhile, so the seatstays would look steeper and the chainstays shorter, for the
ultimate racy appearance.

I believe the "Flying Gate" dates from 1936. Designed to allow
ultra-short chainstays...

http://members.aol.com/polldoug/flyinggate/gallery2.htm

LGF

On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 12:29:09 -0400, Mark Heiple <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

[frame stiffness...]
My frame is Reynolds 525. Any idea how different a 853 frame would be,
if at all?

If the tubing has the same OD (likely), and if the 853 tubes have
thinner walls (very likely), then the 853 frame will be slightly more
flexible.

mark-<< My frame is Reynolds 525. Any idea how different a 853 frame would be,

if at all? >><BR><BR>

If well made, just lighter. All the creaking and groaning is not the frameset
'flexing'.

mark-<< I thought the reason sales people were pushing carbon forks
so hard was the claim that they ride so much smoother and dampen road
shock. >><BR><BR>

Mostly marketing. A well made steel fork will work well also. Carbon is the
'thrill of the moment' right now.

mark<< I guess you don't like Klein? The internal cable routing looks like it
could make it harder to work on. >><BR><BR>

That and I think it was a wonderful aluminum frameset until they put a carbon
rear end on it, which is just marketing.

Peter Chisholm
Vecchio's Bicicletteria
1833 Pearl St.
Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535
http://www.vecchios.com
"Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

dianne-<< If the tubing has the same OD (likely), and if the 853 tubes have
thinner walls (very likely), then the 853 frame will be slightly more
flexible. >><BR><BR>

Not a metalurgist or a frame builder but 'stiffness' depends on outside
diameter, not wall thickness.

Peter Chisholm
Vecchio's Bicicletteria
1833 Pearl St.
Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535
http://www.vecchios.com
"Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

mark-<< My frame is Reynolds 525. Any idea how different a 853 frame
would be,

if at all? >><BR><BR>

If well made, just lighter. All the creaking and groaning is not the
frameset 'flexing'.

mark-<< I thought the reason sales people were pushing carbon forks
so hard was the claim that they ride so much smoother and dampen road
shock. >><BR><BR>

Mostly marketing. A well made steel fork will work well also.

This is true. Plus, it's easier to tell if it's damaged, should you ever crash.
A carbon fork could be fatally damaged without showing it.

Quoted message said:

Carbon
is the 'thrill of the moment' right now.

It's more that that. I think it will be around awhile, becoming even more
common and cheaper. Carbon forks are made in such volume now that it might
actually be more expensive to offer a steel fork. Carbon forks are the state of
the cookie-cutter art.

Quoted message said:

mark<< I guess you don't like Klein? The internal cable routing looks
like it could make it harder to work on. >><BR><BR>

That and I think it was a wonderful aluminum frameset until they put
a carbon rear end on it, which is just marketing.

Again, I bet this is the cheap way to make a bike these days, w/ carbon rear
ends being stamped out like Oreos.

Matt O.

Quoted message said:

Mostly marketing. A well made steel fork will work well also. Carbon is
the
'thrill of the moment' right now.

Amen. I once made a steel fork for a friend whose carbon fork was beating him
up. go figure.
Phil Brown