New Look cranks

On Aug 7, 8:46*pm, jim beam wrote:
wrote:

There are a few people out there who say that
stiff bikes are better/required for anything, including
confident descending. *They are entitled to their
opinion, but even in that opinion, a 20 year old
fat tube Cannondale is stiff enough for any possible
descending application.

Go ahead and buy the Look, but it isn't going to
help you get down any technical descent faster.

disagree. *stability = confidence. *confidence = faster descent. *ask
any big guy riding a big frame. *fat tubes/stiff frames are where it's at.

I have a 63cm (25") 1988 Cannondale touring frame.
That's the one that's even stiff enough for Chalo.
It's fine, but I could never really tell the difference in
descending (I mean technical descending, like
West Alpine Road in the Bay Area) compared to
other bikes. I don't think it makes as much of a
difference as mental state. I could descend faster
than some people and slower than the guys
and gals who were really experienced to the point
of crazy, including offroad racers. I don't think
that fancy Look would make much difference
over the enormous-downtube Cannondale.

Elsewhere the OP seems to mean descending in
straight lines rather than turns. That's not descending
so much as coasting, in terms of skill, or differences
between riders. Turns slow you down, but for a
great descender (which I am not), they slow you
down as little as possible.

Ben

"jim beam" wrote:
yes there is - it's one-piece carbon. that's not been done before.

Tom Sherman:
Single crystal diamond crank?

Haha. Kind of like referring to reinforced concrete as /steel/, ain't it?

Guess that's what happens when you're stuck in the past being a
metallurgist while materials scientists march on ahead.

\\paul
--
Paul M. Hobson
..:change the f to ph to reply:.

wrote:
On Aug 7, 8:46�pm, jim beam wrote:
wrote:

There are a few people out there who say that
stiff bikes are better/required for anything, including
confident descending. �They are entitled to their
opinion, but even in that opinion, a 20 year old
fat tube Cannondale is stiff enough for any possible
descending application.
Go ahead and buy the Look, but it isn't going to
help you get down any technical descent faster.
disagree. �stability = confidence. �confidence = faster descent. �ask
any big guy riding a big frame. �fat tubes/stiff frames are where it's at.

I have a 63cm (25") 1988 Cannondale touring frame.
That's the one that's even stiff enough for Chalo.
It's fine, but I could never really tell the difference in
descending (I mean technical descending, like
West Alpine Road in the Bay Area) compared to
other bikes. I don't think it makes as much of a
difference as mental state. I could descend faster
than some people and slower than the guys
and gals who were really experienced to the point
of crazy, including offroad racers. I don't think
that fancy Look would make much difference
over the enormous-downtube Cannondale.

well that bit might be true, but a fat tube modern bike makes a
difference compared to that skinny tube italian stuff from back in the
old days. and today, those guys at merlin with their skinny tube
titanium, complete with laser etched fatigue initiators? they must live
on planet incomp etence.



Elsewhere the OP seems to mean descending in
straight lines rather than turns. That's not descending
so much as coasting, in terms of skill, or differences
between riders. Turns slow you down, but for a
great descender (which I am not), they slow you
down as little as possible.

pure speed downhill is shimmy territory - that's where the hardware most
definitely matters.