A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » General
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Orbea vs. Six13



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old March 13th 05, 05:03 PM
Mario
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Orbea vs. Six13

Has anyone ridden the Orbea Lobular 100, Orbea Onix, or Cannondale Six13?
I'd like to know these compare to the other carbon and aluminium frames.
--Mario


Ads
  #2  
Old March 15th 05, 03:06 AM
Ryan Cousineau
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
"Mario" wrote:

Has anyone ridden the Orbea Lobular 100, Orbea Onix, or Cannondale Six13?
I'd like to know these compare to the other carbon and aluminium frames.
--Mario


I had a reasonably long test ride on a Cannondale Six13 last Summer. It
rode substantially like my late-80s steel Pinarello, except for being
about 7 pounds lighter. That made a difference.

Of course, my Pinarello has a carbon fork,
--
Ryan Cousineau, http://www.wiredcola.com
Verus de parvis; verus de magnis.
  #3  
Old March 15th 05, 04:46 AM
Mario
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Thanks Ryan. New tech replicates old tech, minus some weight. In this case 7
lb is substantial!
--Mario

"Ryan Cousineau" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Mario" wrote:

Has anyone ridden the Orbea Lobular 100, Orbea Onix, or Cannondale Six13?
I'd like to know these compare to the other carbon and aluminium frames.
--Mario


I had a reasonably long test ride on a Cannondale Six13 last Summer. It
rode substantially like my late-80s steel Pinarello, except for being
about 7 pounds lighter. That made a difference.

Of course, my Pinarello has a carbon fork,
--
Ryan Cousineau, http://www.wiredcola.com
Verus de parvis; verus de magnis.



  #4  
Old March 15th 05, 05:06 AM
RonSonic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 18:06:43 -0800, Ryan Cousineau wrote:

In article ,
"Mario" wrote:

Has anyone ridden the Orbea Lobular 100, Orbea Onix, or Cannondale Six13?
I'd like to know these compare to the other carbon and aluminium frames.
--Mario


I had a reasonably long test ride on a Cannondale Six13 last Summer. It
rode substantially like my late-80s steel Pinarello, except for being
about 7 pounds lighter.


Unless I'm mistaken, that'd be about as high as praise could get for a frame.

Ron

  #5  
Old March 16th 05, 04:30 AM
Ryan Cousineau
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
"Mario" wrote:

Thanks Ryan. New tech replicates old tech, minus some weight. In this case 7
lb is substantial!
--Mario

"Ryan Cousineau" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Mario" wrote:

Has anyone ridden the Orbea Lobular 100, Orbea Onix, or Cannondale Six13?
I'd like to know these compare to the other carbon and aluminium frames.
--Mario


I had a reasonably long test ride on a Cannondale Six13 last Summer. It
rode substantially like my late-80s steel Pinarello, except for being
about 7 pounds lighter. That made a difference.

Of course, my Pinarello has a carbon fork,


I should say that I am almost doctrinally agnostic about frame
materials. In my opinion, what is light and does not break is good, and
tire pressure, the seat, and fit make much more difference than the
frame composition. Also, you know, worth twice as much as my car.

The visceral impression I had from the Six13 that I rode was that the
weight difference overwhelmed any more subtle differences between that
bike and my Pinarello. Also, the FSA K-Wing bar on the team-spec bike
has shaped tops which are comfortable to grab without needing bar tape,
and I liked the Campy shifters just fine.

If one needs an audiophile analogy, tire pressures are like the volume
level: it is so much more important to the experience at hand (ride,
sound) that it easily masks any possible effects unless it is carefully
controlled for.

Honest and serious audiophiles do A-B-X tests,
--
Ryan Cousineau, http://www.wiredcola.com
Verus de parvis; verus de magnis.
  #6  
Old March 16th 05, 05:39 AM
Tom Sherman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ryan Cousineau wrote:

...
Honest and serious audiophiles do A-B-X tests,


The problem with A-B-X tests are well documented, as the stress of
trying to make the correct identification can influence the test to the
point it is meaningless.

Ideally, "black box" testing is what is needed, where only an alias of
the component is known, eliminating bias. Logistically, this is rather
difficult.

--
Tom Sherman - Earth (Illinois)

  #7  
Old March 16th 05, 05:39 AM
Jeff Starr
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 19:30:13 -0800, Ryan Cousineau
wrote:


Honest and serious audiophiles do A-B-X tests,


No they don't,real audiophiles trust their ears.


Life is Good!
Jeff

  #8  
Old March 16th 05, 03:40 PM
RonSonic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 22:39:09 -0600, Tom Sherman wrote:

Ryan Cousineau wrote:

...
Honest and serious audiophiles do A-B-X tests,


The problem with A-B-X tests are well documented, as the stress of
trying to make the correct identification can influence the test to the
point it is meaningless.

Ideally, "black box" testing is what is needed, where only an alias of
the component is known, eliminating bias. Logistically, this is rather
difficult.


I thought by hanging over here with the bikes I'd never have to read another ABX
thread. Finding that here is sorta like going to Audio Asylum and seeing some
orifice trying to argue about helmets.

Ron

  #9  
Old March 16th 05, 05:37 PM
Alan Hoyle
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 22:39:09 -0600, Tom Sherman wrote:
Ryan Cousineau wrote:


...
Honest and serious audiophiles do A-B-X tests,


The problem with A-B-X tests are well documented, as the stress of
trying to make the correct identification can influence the test to the
point it is meaningless.


They're well by people unfamiliar with the science or unwilling to
accept it. ABX testing of audio approaches the theoretical limits of
what we expect from anatomy and physiology, and gives similar results
to what other double-blind protocols give.

Ideally, "black box" testing is what is needed, where only an alias of
the component is known, eliminating bias. Logistically, this is rather
difficult.


Agreed... Blind testing of bicycles would be problematic, to say the
least. Especially since we all know that red bicycles go at least 5%
faster.

-alan

--
Alan Hoyle - - http://www.alanhoyle.com/
"I don't want the world, I just want your half." -TMBG
Get Horizontal, Play Ultimate.
  #10  
Old March 16th 05, 06:17 PM
bikeguy11968
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

ACtually it is a well documented fact that red bicycles are 20% faster
due to the decrease in Solar Friction. Everyone always forgets about
Solar Friction.

We also left out the most important peice of the discussion
Cdale 613- okay looking
Orbea lobular- Really really ugly.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
FS: Orbea Ultrafoco Carbon Compact, 60cm (58.5tt) Chip Atkins Marketplace 0 July 12th 04 04:06 PM
FS Orbea 60cm Loblular! TJ Marketplace 2 July 3rd 04 04:44 PM
Orbea Road Bikes Sasha Australia 13 June 17th 04 05:30 AM
Orbea bikes Sasha UK 3 June 8th 04 07:30 PM
Giant or Orbea Reenie General 7 December 15th 03 04:48 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:59 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.