Comfort and stability of modern road bikes?

Hi Everyone,

Last year I got back in the saddle again after many years of only taking
one or two rides per year. I lost a bunch of weight, improved my
condition drastically, and in general feel pretty good.

I have an "old-school" bike I've had since I bought it new in '87. It's
a Columbus SPX steel Tommasini with mostly Campy C-Record, friction down-
tube shifters, tubulars, the whole 80's thing. This bike is in fine
condition and works well, and I've always enjoyed riding it.

In October once it got too dangerous (ice) to ride on the road, I bought
a nice new mountain bike. Full air suspension, the whole nine-yards. I
rode it all winter long on the trails and dirt roads around here, and
with studded tires used it on ice too when the XC skiing was crappy. I
love it. Super performance and great comfort.

Today was my first time out with a local club on a training ride with my
old-school road bike. I took it for a little spin (20 km, 12 miles)
yesterday to make sure it was ready to go. Today I rode it for about 65
km (40 miles) with the club. Condition wise I felt pretty good, but
otherwise I was miserable. The bike felt very unstable and wobbly
particularly when I had to reach down to shift at speed, the rough
pavement vibrated my crotch and palms numb, and in general was not a lot
of fun to ride. I weigh 103 kg (227 lb) and my butt hurts even though
I've spent as recently as last week twice as long on my mountain bike on
much rougher terrain without problems. The seat-crank-bars relation on
the two bikes is virtually identical.

So I've been spoiled by the comfort and convenience of my mountain bike.
I've been thinking out getting a new road bike for a while. Mostly
because I wanted more than 12 speeds and to ditch the down-tube shifters.
But now I'm hoping a modern bike with a carbon fiber rear triangle,
carbon fork, a good gel seat and maybe carbon handle bars, and a frame
with relaxed angles would also make difference in the comfort department.
We have REALLY rough pavement around here, so dampening vibration is the
key to comfort for me.

So what do people think? How much of my discomfort (due to being spoiled
by a modern full-suspension mountain bike) on my old-school bike could
be avoided with an equally modern road bike? Any suggestions on rough
pavement solutions?

Thanks!

Joseph

Joseph Santaniello wrote:


So what do people think? How much of my discomfort (due to being spoiled
by a modern full-suspension mountain bike) on my old-school bike could
be avoided with an equally modern road bike? Any suggestions on rough
pavement solutions?



Started out on an entry level Trek mtn bike with front suspension. My
road bike, a used 5 yr old aluminum frame GT Strike, rides a lot rougher
but advantages are easy braking and shifting on the bars, faster
acceleration, better brakes, slightly lighter frame, etc. I replaced
the stock seat with a gel seat and have learned to take weight off the
seat when riding over rough pavement. Having integrated brake/shifters
on the drop bars made a lot of difference in my comfort level when
adjusting to my first good road bike.

"Joseph Santaniello" wrote:
Last year I got back in the saddle again after many years of only taking
one or two rides per year. I lost a bunch of weight, improved my
condition drastically, and in general feel pretty good.

I have an "old-school" bike I've had since I bought it new in '87. It's
a Columbus SPX steel Tommasini with mostly Campy C-Record, friction down-
tube shifters, tubulars, the whole 80's thing. This bike is in fine
condition and works well, and I've always enjoyed riding it.

That's a great bike!

Today was my first time out with a local club on a training ride with my
old-school road bike. I took it for a little spin (20 km, 12 miles)
yesterday to make sure it was ready to go. Today I rode it for about 65
km (40 miles) with the club. Condition wise I felt pretty good, but
otherwise I was miserable. The bike felt very unstable and wobbly
particularly when I had to reach down to shift at speed, the rough
pavement vibrated my crotch and palms numb, and in general was not a lot
of fun to ride. I weigh 103 kg (227 lb) and my butt hurts even though
I've spent as recently as last week twice as long on my mountain bike on
much rougher terrain without problems. The seat-crank-bars relation on
the two bikes is virtually identical.

Hmm. Something sounds wrong there. I would think the road bike would be set
up much differently. In any case, it's not unusual to feel uncomfortable on
the first couple of rides of the year.

As far as comfort, the key thing on the road bike will be the tires. They're
your shock absorbers. How much pressure do run in the tubulars? If I were
you, I'd switch to clinchers and either 700x25 or 700x28 tires at about 100
psi. As for the saddle, give it a little more time.

I wanted more than 12 speeds and to ditch the down-tube shifters.
But now I'm hoping a modern bike with a carbon fiber rear triangle,
carbon fork, a good gel seat and maybe carbon handle bars, and a frame
with relaxed angles would also make difference in the comfort department.

Be careful what you wish for. ;- For one thing, most "modern" road bikes
have tight clearances, ultra-short chainstays, 23mm tires, longish top
tubes, and low handlebars. Not what I'd call comfortable.

I have a Columbus SL frame from 1984. I had originally built it up with
Campy Nouvo Record 6-speed stuff (DT friction shifters, etc). A few years
ago, I upgraded the entire drivetrain to 9-speed with STI shifters.
Personally, I think that's the best of both world's. The shifting is now
much smoother and positive (and smaller gaps), but I've still got a classic
frame with a reasonable wheelbase and enough clearance for wider tires.

We have REALLY rough pavement around here, so dampening vibration is the
key to comfort for me.

Tires, saddle and handlebar tape are what provide comfort. The double
triangle road frame is extremely stiff in the vertical plane regardless of
what material it's made of.

So what do people think? How much of my discomfort (due to being spoiled
by a modern full-suspension mountain bike) on my old-school bike could
be avoided with an equally modern road bike? Any suggestions on rough
pavement solutions?

Wider tires at lower pressure, maybe a new saddle, maybe visit a shop for a
good fit session. (Do you feel too stretched out, or that the bars are too
low?) Gradually build up your mileage base and speed by riding regularly.
You may find that the discomfort will disappear as you toughen up your butt,
and improve your flexibility. If you've always enjoyed riding the Tommasini
in the past, it probably hasn't changed, but you may have!

Sure a fat tire MTB with suspension is going to give a more cushy ride than
a road bike. But a road bike is much more efficient for long rides.

Art Harris

"Joseph Santaniello" wrote

....
Hi Everyone,

Last year I got back in the saddle again after many years of only taking
one or two rides per year. I lost a bunch of weight, improved my
condition drastically, and in general feel pretty good.

Congratulations! Don't forget to add some strength training to your routine.
It improves your general fitness, but, more importantly, it improves your
bone density. Cyclists have been show to be deficient in that area.

I have an "old-school" bike I've had since I bought it new in '87. It's
a Columbus SPX steel Tommasini with mostly Campy C-Record, friction down-
tube shifters, tubulars, the whole 80's thing. This bike is in fine
condition and works well, and I've always enjoyed riding it.

Nice bike. If you choose not to hold on to it, you'll get a nice price for
it on eBay.

In October once it got too dangerous (ice) to ride on the road, I bought
a nice new mountain bike. Full air suspension, the whole nine-yards. I
rode it all winter long on the trails and dirt roads around here, and
with studded tires used it on ice too when the XC skiing was crappy. I
love it. Super performance and great comfort.

Any bike you're comfortable with is a good bike, sounds like you made a good
selection. I think full suspension is unnecessary for 90% of the riding
people do, but that's just me. :-)

Today was my first time out with a local club on a training ride with my
old-school road bike. I took it for a little spin (20 km, 12 miles)
yesterday to make sure it was ready to go. Today I rode it for about 65
km (40 miles) with the club. Condition wise I felt pretty good, but
otherwise I was miserable. The bike felt very unstable and wobbly
particularly when I had to reach down to shift at speed, the rough
pavement vibrated my crotch and palms numb, and in general was not a lot
of fun to ride. I weigh 103 kg (227 lb) and my butt hurts even though
I've spent as recently as last week twice as long on my mountain bike on
much rougher terrain without problems. The seat-crank-bars relation on
the two bikes is virtually identical.

Well, you're riding a racing bike. High pressure narrow tires, and I'd wager
the bars are 2-3 inches lower than the saddle. You're not a lightweight, and
you are putting a lot of weight on your hands. As far as the stability, I
would chalk that up to a lack of saddle time on the bike, but it IS a racing
bike, and they tend to be twitchy and geared toward flyweight racers who
have excellent bike control. But that's just my opinion.

So I've been spoiled by the comfort and convenience of my mountain bike.
I've been thinking out getting a new road bike for a while. Mostly
because I wanted more than 12 speeds and to ditch the down-tube shifters.
But now I'm hoping a modern bike with a carbon fiber rear triangle,
carbon fork, a good gel seat and maybe carbon handle bars, and a frame
with relaxed angles would also make difference in the comfort department.
We have REALLY rough pavement around here, so dampening vibration is the
key to comfort for me.

I think you're heading in the wrong direction. Any modern "racing" style
bike is going to give you the same problems, no matter how much carbon you
hang on it. At your weight, you need a bike with bigger tires. Look at
touring bikes. The Trek 520 is the old reliable standby, but you might need
to switch out the tires it comes with (700x28) for a 700x32 or so. The
bigger the tire, the lower air pressure you can run, which gives you more
shock absorbing. Cannondale makes nice touring bikes, and there are
Cannondale dealers all over the place. I would point you toward steel, but
the choice is yours. If you're not racing, why ride a racing bike? The more
comfortable you are, the more you will ride. :-)

In Gooserider wrote:

"Joseph Santaniello" wrote

....
Hi Everyone,

Last year I got back in the saddle again after many years of only
taking one or two rides per year. I lost a bunch of weight, improved
my condition drastically, and in general feel pretty good.

Congratulations! Don't forget to add some strength training to your
routine. It improves your general fitness, but, more importantly, it
improves your bone density. Cyclists have been show to be deficient in
that area.


In the old days when I was racing I avoided weight training to keep my
weight down, but now that I don't really care about getting dropped on
hills, I've started hitting the weights pretty hard. My overall weight
has gone down, but I traded a lot of fat for muscle too.



I have an "old-school" bike I've had since I bought it new in '87.
It's a Columbus SPX steel Tommasini with mostly Campy C-Record,
friction down- tube shifters, tubulars, the whole 80's thing. This
bike is in fine condition and works well, and I've always enjoyed
riding it.

Nice bike. If you choose not to hold on to it, you'll get a nice price
for it on eBay.


It's got a cool 80's style fake marble paintjob too. I've thought of
changing some components, but I just can't bring myself to do it.
Ruining the whole vintage flavor would be a shame.


In October once it got too dangerous (ice) to ride on the road, I
bought a nice new mountain bike. Full air suspension, the whole nine-
yards. I rode it all winter long on the trails and dirt roads around
here, and with studded tires used it on ice too when the XC skiing
was crappy. I love it. Super performance and great comfort.

Any bike you're comfortable with is a good bike, sounds like you made
a good selection. I think full suspension is unnecessary for 90% of
the riding people do, but that's just me. :-)


I was a little skeptical of full suspension too, but I figured I'd go
all the way. Most of my riding is on lousy dirt roads with big potholes,
and trails with roots and fallen trees. During the winter I rode quite a
bit at night with a helmet mounted light and sometimes it was hard to
see rocks/holes/whatever and the rear suspension saved me lot of hard
knocks from barreling over things without knowing they were there.


Today was my first time out with a local club on a training ride with
my old-school road bike. I took it for a little spin (20 km, 12 miles)
yesterday to make sure it was ready to go. Today I rode it for about
65 km (40 miles) with the club. Condition wise I felt pretty good,
but otherwise I was miserable. The bike felt very unstable and wobbly
particularly when I had to reach down to shift at speed, the rough
pavement vibrated my crotch and palms numb, and in general was not a
lot of fun to ride. I weigh 103 kg (227 lb) and my butt hurts even
though I've spent as recently as last week twice as long on my
mountain bike on much rougher terrain without problems. The seat-
crank-bars relation on the two bikes is virtually identical.

Well, you're riding a racing bike. High pressure narrow tires, and I'd
wager the bars are 2-3 inches lower than the saddle. You're not a
lightweight, and you are putting a lot of weight on your hands. As far
as the stability, I would chalk that up to a lack of saddle time on
the bike, but it IS a racing bike, and they tend to be twitchy and
geared toward flyweight racers who have excellent bike control. But
that's just my opinion.


The bars are almost 4 inches lower (both bikes) but I'm 6'3" (193cm)
with long arms (how do you spell gorilla?) so it's actually pretty
moderate. In the old days I rode a Zeus track-bike around in NYC that
was so tight that even with 165 cranks it had at least 2 inches of toe
overlap. I remember how maneuverable that bike was. Great fun timing
zigging and zagging around cars with the pedal strokes to avoid scraping
the road. Ah, those were the days. I thought about the stability issue,
and I think my steel Campy headset may have died. It won't let me ride
no hands. Not to brag (ok a little), but I have ridden this bike 125
miles almost exclusively riding no hands once when I rode from NYC to
Montauk with my arm in a cast. (Anybody stupid enough to ride a track
bike around in NYC without brakes would be stupid enough to do something
like that too, right? Guess how I got the cast?). Anyway, if the headset
is sticking, and all the tracking and stability of the bike is coming
from manually moving the bars, combined with not being used to the bike,
that would explain the stability issues.



So I've been spoiled by the comfort and convenience of my mountain
bike. I've been thinking out getting a new road bike for a while.
Mostly because I wanted more than 12 speeds and to ditch the down-
tube shifters. But now I'm hoping a modern bike with a carbon fiber
rear triangle, carbon fork, a good gel seat and maybe carbon handle
bars, and a frame with relaxed angles would also make difference in
the comfort department. We have REALLY rough pavement around here, so
dampening vibration is the key to comfort for me.

I think you're heading in the wrong direction. Any modern "racing"
style bike is going to give you the same problems, no matter how much
carbon you hang on it. At your weight, you need a bike with bigger
tires. Look at touring bikes. The Trek 520 is the old reliable standby,
but you might need to switch out the tires it comes with (700x28) for
a 700x32 or so. The bigger the tire, the lower air pressure you can
run, which gives you more shock absorbing. Cannondale makes nice
touring bikes, and there are Cannondale dealers all over the place. I
would point you toward steel, but the choice is yours. If you're not
racing, why ride a racing bike? The more comfortable you are, the more
you will ride. :-)


Lower air pressure for a given cross section is one of the reasons I
like tubulars. I guess your right about most modern bikes with steep
angles, short stays, etc. A full custom would probably be able to
address those issues, but that is more of a commitment than I can give
right now.

Nashbar has some old Vitus bonded aluminum frames in stock in big sizes
that I might give a try. Rigidity isn't an issue for me, just
absorption of road vibrations from rough pavement, so maybe one of these
with a modern STI setup would do the trick. When I say rough I don't
mean bumpy. The roads here have lots of gravel and stones mixed into the
asphalt so it won't wear away so quickly from all the studded tires in
the winter. The studs end up wearing away the soft asphalt leaving
exposed rough stones and gravel. Visible cables on bikes end up looking
like plucked guitar strings from the resulting vibrations.

Will a modern 8 or 9 speed cassette setup fit into the dropout spacing
of an old 6 speed style frame?

joseph

"Joseph Santaniello" wrote:
Nashbar has some old Vitus bonded aluminum frames in stock in big sizes
that I might give a try. Rigidity isn't an issue for me, just
absorption of road vibrations from rough pavement, so maybe one of these
with a modern STI setup would do the trick.

I've seen those in recent Nashbar catalogs and remember them from the '80s.
The problem is they have 126mm dropouts, and 8/9/10 speed cassettes need
130mm. You can easily spread a steel frame, but I'd be very leary of doing
that to bonded aluminum.

Will a modern 8 or 9 speed cassette setup fit into the dropout spacing
of an old 6 speed style frame?

As above, you need to spread them from 126mm to 130mm. A good shop can "cold
set" a steel frame and check the alignment for $20-25. Or you can do it
yourself:

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/frame-spacing.html

Or you can just stick a 130mm hub in there. That won't hurt anything, but it
will make installing the wheel a little more difficult everytime you get a
flat.

Art Harris

"Joseph Santaniello" wrote in
message ...
In Gooserider

In the old days when I was racing I avoided weight training to keep my
weight down, but now that I don't really care about getting dropped on
hills, I've started hitting the weights pretty hard. My overall weight
has gone down, but I traded a lot of fat for muscle too.

Good man. I lift because I want to be completely fit, but mainly because I'm
short and if I only bicycled I would weigh 140 pounds, and who wants that?

The bars are almost 4 inches lower (both bikes) but I'm 6'3" (193cm)
with long arms (how do you spell gorilla?) so it's actually pretty
moderate.

Do you have room on your stem to raise it a bit? Getting weight off your
hands will definitely help the numbness. I'd point you toward a longer Nitto
stem, but I'd hate to add something not period correct to your rolling
Italian masterpiece. :-)

Lower air pressure for a given cross section is one of the reasons I
like tubulars. I guess your right about most modern bikes with steep
angles, short stays, etc. A full custom would probably be able to
address those issues, but that is more of a commitment than I can give
right now.

You're going to find that the new bikes you look at will be able to fit a
700x25 tire, at best. You're still going to have to run those at pretty high
pressures at your weight to protect the rim. That's one of my big complaints
with bike makers today. What would it hurt to design the bikes with more
clearance for bigger tires and fenders? Surely most people wouldn't be
affected by the miniscule weight cost of the eyelets, and allowing for
bigger tires wouldn't add weight at all.

On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 19:25:03 GMT, Joseph Santaniello wrote:

So what do people think? How much of my discomfort (due to being spoiled
by a modern full-suspension mountain bike) on my old-school bike could
be avoided with an equally modern road bike? Any suggestions on rough
pavement solutions?

Carbon will help somewhat, but road bikes really aren't designed to give a
smooth ride to very heavy people on rough surfaces. The best you could do
is to fit the widest tyres you can - at least 25mm - and run them at a
fairly low pressure, say 90psi, although you increase the risk of punctures
(pinch flats) by doing so.

It's also partly a matter of technique and good fit - your legs should be
bearing most of your weight, rather than your arse, and you shouldn't
be falling forwards to place much weight on your arms. Keep your elbows
slightly bent and hold the bars as lightly as possible while maintaining
control. When you hit really rough stuff, lift your arse right off the
saddle - with a bit of practice, you can keep pedalling strongly while
doing this (it's called standing).

As for reaching down for your gears, not having to do this on a more
modern bike certainly helps you stay in control. I'd suggest getting your
fit on your current bike checked out by a friendly shop, and losing
some more weight before investing in anything else, though.


--
bpo gallery at http://www4.tpgi.com.au/users/mvw1/bpo

On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 12:02:28 GMT, Gooserider wrote:

Surely most people wouldn't be
affected by the miniscule weight cost of the eyelets, and allowing for
bigger tires wouldn't add weight at all.

Wouldn't larger, heavier brakes with wider jaws be needed? And a
longer wheelbase, in some cases? ISTM that if you want a tyre fatter than
25mm, a road bike isn't suitable for you anyway.

--
bpo gallery at http://www4.tpgi.com.au/users/mvw1/bpo

On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 19:25:03 +0000, Joseph Santaniello wrote:

I have an "old-school" bike I've had since I bought it new in '87. It's
a Columbus SPX steel Tommasini with mostly Campy C-Record, friction down-
tube shifters, tubulars, the whole 80's thing. This bike is in fine
condition and works well, and I've always enjoyed riding it.

In October once it got too dangerous (ice) to ride on the road, I bought
a nice new mountain bike. Full air suspension, the whole nine-yards. I
rode it all winter long on the trails and dirt roads around here, and
with studded tires used it on ice too when the XC skiing was crappy. I
love it. Super performance and great comfort.

Today was my first time out with a local club on a training ride with my
old-school road bike. I took it for a little spin (20 km, 12 miles)
yesterday to make sure it was ready to go. Today I rode it for about 65
km (40 miles) with the club. Condition wise I felt pretty good, but
otherwise I was miserable.

You won't get a noticeable difference in comfort from a new frame that you
can't get from this one. If you like the bike, stick with it, and you
will get over your addiction to the double-boingy. If you still want to
improve your comfort, get wider tires. Used to be, you could get nice
wide tubulars, but that is a faint hope these days. Consider converting
to clinchers, or get a clincher set to ease you off the
suspension habit. Your old-school frame should have enough clearance for
wider tires.

Getting an aluminum frame will definitely not feel more comfortable. The
comfort of carbon is IMO overrated. What you got is basically as good as
it gets. Do not get the gel saddle. Terrible idea.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | Arguing with an engineer is like mud wrestling with a pig... You
_`\(,_ | soon find out the pig likes it!
(_)/ (_) |