Road Bike Geometry: Traditional vs. Comfort (eg. Trek 1000 vs. Trek Pilot 1.0)

I'm in the market for a road bike. Given my limited funds, I'll
probably buy something off ebay. To keep from being overwhelmed with
too many options, I've limited my bargain-hunting so far to Treks,
which has led to the surprising discovery that Trek makes:

1. traditional road bikes (eg. (the 1000, 1500, etc.) marked by a
level/horizontal top tube, among other things, and

2. "comfort" road bikes (eg. Pilot 1.0, 1.2, etc.) with a supposedly
"more natural riding position," marked by a top tube sloped up from
seat post to headset, thus raising the handlebars relative to the seat
position.

Since my budget will limit me to either a Trek 1000 (traditional) or
Trek Pilot 1.0 (comfort), I wonder which way to go. In the last 3
months, I've put about 500 miles on a borrowed vintage (1983) Trek 620
touring bike, which obviously has a very traditional geometry. In all
that time, I've never experienced any discomfort or body pain while or
riding (despite not owning any padded bike shorts and the 620 being
equiped with its original seat).

Q. -- If I'm comfortable on the vintage 620, should I stick to a
traditional road bike (e.g. Trek 100)?

Q. -- Am I being short-sighted passing up a "comfort" road bike?
Especially considering that I don't see myself ever racing or trying to
ride for time.

BONUS Q. -- What brand other than Trek should I seek out to buy a new
or late model road bike? It's not that I am a Trek snob. I just have
found them more plentiful and easier to research.

THANKS IN ADVANCE.

Gray Strickland
Tulsa, OK

Gray wrote:
I'm in the market for a road bike. Given my limited funds, I'll
probably buy something off ebay. To keep from being overwhelmed with
too many options, I've limited my bargain-hunting so far to Treks,
which has led to the surprising discovery that Trek makes:

1. traditional road bikes (eg. (the 1000, 1500, etc.) marked by a
level/horizontal top tube, among other things, and

2. "comfort" road bikes (eg. Pilot 1.0, 1.2, etc.) with a supposedly
"more natural riding position," marked by a top tube sloped up from
seat post to headset, thus raising the handlebars relative to the seat
position.

Since my budget will limit me to either a Trek 1000 (traditional) or
Trek Pilot 1.0 (comfort), I wonder which way to go. In the last 3
months, I've put about 500 miles on a borrowed vintage (1983) Trek 620
touring bike, which obviously has a very traditional geometry. In all
that time, I've never experienced any discomfort or body pain while or
riding (despite not owning any padded bike shorts and the 620 being
equiped with its original seat).

Q. -- If I'm comfortable on the vintage 620, should I stick to a
traditional road bike (e.g. Trek 100)?

Q. -- Am I being short-sighted passing up a "comfort" road bike?
Especially considering that I don't see myself ever racing or trying to
ride for time.

BONUS Q. -- What brand other than Trek should I seek out to buy a new
or late model road bike? It's not that I am a Trek snob. I just have
found them more plentiful and easier to research.

THANKS IN ADVANCE.

Gray Strickland
Tulsa, OK

Comfort is one issue, but any bike can be comfortable if you get your
position correct. Another key difference may be the handling. The more
race inspired bikes might feel very twitchy and be difficult to keep in
a straight line. Perhaps the comfort series has angles more like the
touring bike you have been using which I assume has very stable
handling. I do race and ride for time, but not ever in races that
require quick handling (ie criteriums) so my preferences lean toward
straight line stability. I'd go for the Pilot.

I have no direct experience with them but Bianchi has a new series
called "C-2-C" (coast to coast) which is supposed to be a comfort type
of road bike:

http://www.bianchi.it/en/products200...oRoad_C2C.aspx

have fun!

Joseph

wrote in message
ups.com...
snip
Comfort is one issue, but any bike can be comfortable if you get your
position correct. Another key difference may be the handling. The more
race inspired bikes might feel very twitchy and be difficult to keep
in
a straight line. Perhaps the comfort series has angles more like the
touring bike you have been using which I assume has very stable
handling. I do race and ride for time, but not ever in races that
require quick handling (ie criteriums) so my preferences lean toward
straight line stability. I'd go for the Pilot.
snip
Joseph


Some bikes will never be comfortable. Early Cinellis (pre mid 1970's)
had a reputation for being "nice" riding bikes. Around 1976 someone
traded in a 56cm Cinelli frame. I'd lusted for a Cinelli for years so I
grabbed it. The frame had relaxed 72° or 73° seat and head tube angles
with about 42cm chainstays. I built it up with a Campy NR gruppo,
Cinelli bars and stem, a Unicanitor seat and sewups.

At almost 23 lbs. it was rather heavy for a 56cm bike. I soon realized
that the frame was made of Columbus SP heavy gage "pipe" tubing which
made for a super stiff frame. After a few days of bone jarring, teeth
rattling riding I pulled off my components and hung it back up for sale.

Most steel frame Treks of that era were made with fairly light gage
tubing. Smaller frames 54cm frames or less are going to be stiffer
riding especially for riders weighing under 150 lbs. Heavy gage tubing
is also going to make for a stiffer riding bike.

I remember a fellow who won our UCSF state championship road race on
year was riding a new Gios Torino. He claimed he won because the bike
was so stiff that he kept saying to himself "I got to get off this bike,
I got to get off this bike.....".

Chas.

"* * Chas" wrote:

Most steel frame Treks of that era were made with fairly light gage
tubing. Smaller frames 54cm frames or less are going to be stiffer
riding especially for riders weighing under 150 lbs. Heavy gage tubing
is also going to make for a stiffer riding bike.

Common wisdom, perhaps, but I have to point out that when Bicycle
Guide magazine did a blind test 15 years ago (give or take), and had
otherwise identical bikes built from every set of tubing in the line
(from Columbus, IIRC), suddenly all the "common wisdom" disappeared...
the reviewers who'd previously waxed eloquent on the relative and
obvious changes that resulted from changing one tube in a frame were
suddenly unable to distinguish any of the frames from each other. In
fact, when they summarized the overall impressions, the lowest-grade
(heaviest) tubing got more votes for the best riding frame.

The position (that frame material, especially subtle variations in the
same kind of material - make a big difference in ride quality) is one
that many on r.b.t. have challenged. Many have disagreed with these
challenges, but none has been able to come up with a plausible
mechanism that supports the contention that somehow a vertically
inflexible structure like the rear end of a bicycle can deflect enough
to make a significant difference when masked by the much, much larger
vertical compliance of the tires, rims, saddle, bars, stem and bar
tape.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

"Mark Hickey" wrote in message
...
"* * Chas" wrote:

Most steel frame Treks of that era were made with fairly light gage
tubing. Smaller frames 54cm frames or less are going to be stiffer
riding especially for riders weighing under 150 lbs. Heavy gage
tubing
is also going to make for a stiffer riding bike.

Common wisdom, perhaps, but I have to point out that when Bicycle
Guide magazine did a blind test 15 years ago (give or take), and had
otherwise identical bikes built from every set of tubing in the line
(from Columbus, IIRC), suddenly all the "common wisdom" disappeared...
the reviewers who'd previously waxed eloquent on the relative and
obvious changes that resulted from changing one tube in a frame were
suddenly unable to distinguish any of the frames from each other. In
fact, when they summarized the overall impressions, the lowest-grade
(heaviest) tubing got more votes for the best riding frame.

The position (that frame material, especially subtle variations in the
same kind of material - make a big difference in ride quality) is one
that many on r.b.t. have challenged. Many have disagreed with these
challenges, but none has been able to come up with a plausible
mechanism that supports the contention that somehow a vertically
inflexible structure like the rear end of a bicycle can deflect enough
to make a significant difference when masked by the much, much larger
vertical compliance of the tires, rims, saddle, bars, stem and bar
tape.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

Mark,

I agree with you on the effects of all the components on bicycle
flexibility but a modern bike frame is a essentially a space frame type
construction. ALL bike frames can flex in every plane if enough force is
applied. Any vertical flexing is a function of frame size, geometry,
material, tubing diameter, wall thickness and rider weight. A 100 lb.
rider may never flex a "stiff" frame but a 200 lb. rider can experience
vertical frame flexing on a light weight frame made from thin wall
tubing.

Your comment all along has been "prove that frames can flex vertically".
I throw it back to you, prove that they can't! Many people would never
get on an airplane if they knew how much airframes flex in flight or
even while taxiing. Almost all lightweight structures are designed to do
that.

Have you ever ridden a curly stay Hetchins or Bates frame with "pencil"
stays in the rear triangle. You should follow one and watch it as it
goes over bumps. You can see the rear triangle flexing up and down. I
had a 1954 Hetchins with a 44" wheelbase and 46cm chainstays. I could
ride over a speed bump and hardly feel it. Surprisingly the bottom
bracket had very little lateral flex.

Carbon fiber can be up to 12 times stronger than steel and 4 times
stronger than aluminum for the same weight. The rule of thumb in
engineering products is that aluminum has 1/3 the weight, strength and
rigidity of steel. Some aluminum alloys such as heat treated 7075 T6 can
be stronger than annealed low carbon steel: 7075 T6 = 73200 PSI tensile
strength vs. 39900 PI for tempered 1018 steel. Titanium has 2/3 the
weight and rigidity of steel; strength differences depend on the alloys.

A properly designed carbon fiber frame is probably going to be the least
flexible per pound followed by alloy steel then titanium and aluminum.
Rigidity can be controlled by frame geometry and tubing diameter.

Chas.

"* * Chas" wrote:

I agree with you on the effects of all the components on bicycle
flexibility but a modern bike frame is a essentially a space frame type
construction. ALL bike frames can flex in every plane if enough force is
applied. Any vertical flexing is a function of frame size, geometry,
material, tubing diameter, wall thickness and rider weight. A 100 lb.
rider may never flex a "stiff" frame but a 200 lb. rider can experience
vertical frame flexing on a light weight frame made from thin wall
tubing.

Thin walls and tubing diameter do make a difference, but it's all
relative to other non-flexible structures. It would be akin to
changing the wheels on your car from steel to alloy - yes, there's a
difference in their flexibility, but there are so many other "squishy
bits" above and below them that the difference would be entirely
indistinguishable (note - this assumes the wheels weigh the same - I'm
well aware of the other differences in changing the unsprung weight in
a wheel).

Your comment all along has been "prove that frames can flex vertically".
I throw it back to you, prove that they can't!

It's been measured many times - you can do it easily yourself. Start
loading weight on the saddle of a bike and compare the vertical
movement of the various points. The tires and the saddle will compress
many, many more times than any "normal" rear triangle.

Try to compress the rear structure of a conventional frame by a mere
1mm. You'll be astonished at how difficult that is.

Many people would never
get on an airplane if they knew how much airframes flex in flight or
even while taxiing. Almost all lightweight structures are designed to do
that.

Long, cantilevered structures flex or the break. But a bike frame is
essentially a bridge truss - a tetrahedron is essentially the least
flexible structure you could find.

Have you ever ridden a curly stay Hetchins or Bates frame with "pencil"
stays in the rear triangle. You should follow one and watch it as it
goes over bumps. You can see the rear triangle flexing up and down. I
had a 1954 Hetchins with a 44" wheelbase and 46cm chainstays. I could
ride over a speed bump and hardly feel it. Surprisingly the bottom
bracket had very little lateral flex.

But that is entirely tangential to our discussion, as are softtail
frames and suspension bikes.

Carbon fiber can be up to 12 times stronger than steel and 4 times
stronger than aluminum for the same weight. The rule of thumb in
engineering products is that aluminum has 1/3 the weight, strength and
rigidity of steel. Some aluminum alloys such as heat treated 7075 T6 can
be stronger than annealed low carbon steel: 7075 T6 = 73200 PSI tensile
strength vs. 39900 PI for tempered 1018 steel. Titanium has 2/3 the
weight and rigidity of steel; strength differences depend on the alloys.

"Strength" and flex aren't related.

A properly designed carbon fiber frame is probably going to be the least
flexible per pound followed by alloy steel then titanium and aluminum.
Rigidity can be controlled by frame geometry and tubing diameter.

You're chasing a myth. Lateral flex IS important, though the relative
stiffness has more to do with tubing diameter limitations than
material per se.

But this has been discussed here ad nauseum. You can take my word for
it, or you can continue to believe that there's really a lot of
compression going on in those seat stays, contrary to every known
materials principle. It's trivial to test this to see that I'm right.

Essentially, you end up believing the engineers or the ad writers.
It's your call.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

* * Chas wrote:
I
had a 1954 Hetchins with a 44" wheelbase and 46cm chainstays. I could
ride over a speed bump and hardly feel it.

This is not because the rear triangle flexed, but because the
chainstays were a super-long 46cm and the overall wheelbase a
super-long 44". The extra-long chainstays move the contact patch back
away from under the arse, resulting in a much smoother ride, regardless
of flexibility. This well-known effect is geometric, not elastic.
Overall wheelbase, bottom bracket height, and wheel size are similarly
involved:

http://www.classicrendezvous.com/British/cycling_old_articles.htm
¿

* * Chas wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
snip
Comfort is one issue, but any bike can be comfortable if you get your
position correct. Another key difference may be the handling. The more
race inspired bikes might feel very twitchy and be difficult to keep
in
a straight line. Perhaps the comfort series has angles more like the
touring bike you have been using which I assume has very stable
handling. I do race and ride for time, but not ever in races that
require quick handling (ie criteriums) so my preferences lean toward
straight line stability. I'd go for the Pilot.
snip
Joseph


Some bikes will never be comfortable. Early Cinellis (pre mid 1970's)
had a reputation for being "nice" riding bikes. Around 1976 someone
traded in a 56cm Cinelli frame. I'd lusted for a Cinelli for years so I
grabbed it. The frame had relaxed 72° or 73° seat and head tube angles
with about 42cm chainstays. I built it up with a Campy NR gruppo,
Cinelli bars and stem, a Unicanitor seat and sewups.

At almost 23 lbs. it was rather heavy for a 56cm bike. I soon realized
that the frame was made of Columbus SP heavy gage "pipe" tubing which
made for a super stiff frame. After a few days of bone jarring, teeth
rattling riding I pulled off my components and hung it back up for sale.

Most steel frame Treks of that era were made with fairly light gage
tubing. Smaller frames 54cm frames or less are going to be stiffer
riding especially for riders weighing under 150 lbs. Heavy gage tubing
is also going to make for a stiffer riding bike.

I remember a fellow who won our UCSF state championship road race on
year was riding a new Gios Torino. He claimed he won because the bike
was so stiff that he kept saying to himself "I got to get off this bike,
I got to get off this bike.....".

It may be true that some bikes can never be truly comfortable. When I
said any bike could be comfortable, I was more thinking of a
comfortable position. The frame, tires, saddle, etc may conspire to
make some bikes very harsh, but that is a different matter.

I used to ride an SPX frame, and I always wanted a Gios Torino...

Joseph

wrote in message
oups.com...

* * Chas wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
snip
Comfort is one issue, but any bike can be comfortable if you get
your
position correct. Another key difference may be the handling. The
more
race inspired bikes might feel very twitchy and be difficult to keep
in
a straight line. Perhaps the comfort series has angles more like the
touring bike you have been using which I assume has very stable
handling. I do race and ride for time, but not ever in races that
require quick handling (ie criteriums) so my preferences lean toward
straight line stability. I'd go for the Pilot.
snip
Joseph


Some bikes will never be comfortable. Early Cinellis (pre mid 1970's)
had a reputation for being "nice" riding bikes. Around 1976 someone
traded in a 56cm Cinelli frame. I'd lusted for a Cinelli for years so
I
grabbed it. The frame had relaxed 72° or 73° seat and head tube angles
with about 42cm chainstays. I built it up with a Campy NR gruppo,
Cinelli bars and stem, a Unicanitor seat and sewups.

At almost 23 lbs. it was rather heavy for a 56cm bike. I soon realized
that the frame was made of Columbus SP heavy gage "pipe" tubing which
made for a super stiff frame. After a few days of bone jarring, teeth
rattling riding I pulled off my components and hung it back up for
sale.

Most steel frame Treks of that era were made with fairly light gage
tubing. Smaller frames 54cm frames or less are going to be stiffer
riding especially for riders weighing under 150 lbs. Heavy gage tubing
is also going to make for a stiffer riding bike.

I remember a fellow who won our UCSF state championship road race on
year was riding a new Gios Torino. He claimed he won because the bike
was so stiff that he kept saying to himself "I got to get off this
bike,
I got to get off this bike.....".

It may be true that some bikes can never be truly comfortable. When I
said any bike could be comfortable, I was more thinking of a
comfortable position. The frame, tires, saddle, etc may conspire to
make some bikes very harsh, but that is a different matter.

I used to ride an SPX frame, and I always wanted a Gios Torino...

Joseph

I always liked the color... Colnago blue. We sold a number of them
during the mid 70's. They had some of the best workmanship of any
Italian bike of the period, especially with the gold medallions in the
crown. They came packed in a great shipping container. We never got one
in my size that wasn't presold so I wasn't too tempted.

On the other hand, I always lusted for an early 70's Colnago Super....

Chas.

Gray wrote in message
oups.com...
I'm in the market for a road bike. Given my limited funds, I'll
probably buy something off ebay. To keep from being overwhelmed with
too many options, I've limited my bargain-hunting so far to Treks,
which has led to the surprising discovery that Trek makes:

1. traditional road bikes (eg. (the 1000, 1500, etc.) marked by a
level/horizontal top tube, among other things, and

2. "comfort" road bikes (eg. Pilot 1.0, 1.2, etc.) with a supposedly
"more natural riding position," marked by a top tube sloped up from
seat post to headset, thus raising the handlebars relative to the seat
position.

Since my budget will limit me to either a Trek 1000 (traditional) or
Trek Pilot 1.0 (comfort), I wonder which way to go. In the last 3
months, I've put about 500 miles on a borrowed vintage (1983) Trek 620
touring bike, which obviously has a very traditional geometry. In all
that time, I've never experienced any discomfort or body pain while or
riding (despite not owning any padded bike shorts and the 620 being
equiped with its original seat).

Q. -- If I'm comfortable on the vintage 620, should I stick to a
traditional road bike (e.g. Trek 100)?

Q. -- Am I being short-sighted passing up a "comfort" road bike?
Especially considering that I don't see myself ever racing or trying to
ride for time.

BONUS Q. -- What brand other than Trek should I seek out to buy a new
or late model road bike? It's not that I am a Trek snob. I just have
found them more plentiful and easier to research.

THANKS IN ADVANCE.

Gray Strickland
Tulsa, OK


Hi Gary,

I ride a 1985-89 peugeot roadbike, described, fairly so perhaps, by the road
expert at my LBS as a farm gate with wheels. But personally, i find the
traditional style roadbikes more comfortable, despite the slightly more bent
over riding position. I find the extra pressure on my spine from sitting
more upright is more uncomfortable on both my back and tackle so i guess
whether or not the "comfort" range of bikes are actually more comfortable is
personal, not very helpful i know, but sitting on them is the only decent
way to tell.
In addition, for speed and endurance i seem to perform better on
traditional styles. I also never race but prefer the race style, they're
much nippier when needed.
Also, despite the higher gear ratios i find traditional style kinder to my
knees, this may be unique to me tho.
Perhaps consider a race bike with a compact geometry? They're meant to be a
little more comfortable than standard roadbike style, lighter by virtue of
less frame material and the geometry stiffer. I guess this is a speed
machine. Despite the similarities in frame apperance between this and the
'comfort' range the ride will be very different.

It really depends on needs; if you like to look around, wave at people and
generally 'amble' for A to B then get a tourer/hybrid. Just be careful that
you don't all of a sudden you don't get excited by out and out speed (if
only for leisure or fitness as opposed to competition). Also take typical
road surface in to account, anything but tarmac for my bike a the wheels
would no doubt 'taco'.

Go to LSB and sit on as many as you can, then put the ebay bids in.
cheers