Comfort and stability of modern road bikes?

"Michael Warner" wrote in message
.. .
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.

Yes, a larger sidepull brake is needed. As to your point about tire
size---they used to come with fatter tires AND fender clearance. This "fair
weather" bike phenomenon is fairly recent. It makes absolutely NO sense for
a bike to be rideable only in fair weather, unless it's merely a toy.

"Michael Warner" wrote:
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?

Not true. Standard 13/19mm rims can accomodate up to at least 28mm tires.
For wider tires, a slightly wider rim would be a good idea. The brake
caliper would accomodate the wider rim as long as the frame design provided
enough clearance and appropriate brake bridge position. The OPs older frame
and sidepull brakes would almost certainly handle wider tires without a
problem. Modern "racing" bikes might not.

ISTM that if you want a tyre fatter than
25mm, a road bike isn't suitable for you anyway.

Not true. A touring or "sport touring" bike is a road bike. My first road
bike had 27" x 1-1/4" tires.

Art Harris

On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 16:01:42 GMT, Gooserider wrote:

Yes, a larger sidepull brake is needed. As to your point about tire
size---they used to come with fatter tires AND fender clearance. This "fair
weather" bike phenomenon is fairly recent. It makes absolutely NO sense for
a bike to be rideable only in fair weather, unless it's merely a toy.

I'm not sure where you get this "fair weather" notion - I have no trouble
riding my road bikes in the rain, although still (surprise) only on paved
roads, and with a bit of care for the brakes. Maybe you mean "fair
surface".

I think that since MTBs and hybrids took over the mainstream bike market,
road bikes are regarded as more specialized, both by riders and
manufacturers, and aren't expected to handle the range of surfaces that
the old ten-speeds once were. This seems pretty reasonable to me, since if
you want to ride on something other than decent paved roads, there are
plenty of better options now available.

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

"Michael Warner" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 16:01:42 GMT, Gooserider wrote:

Yes, a larger sidepull brake is needed. As to your point about tire
size---they used to come with fatter tires AND fender clearance. This
"fair
weather" bike phenomenon is fairly recent. It makes absolutely NO sense
for
a bike to be rideable only in fair weather, unless it's merely a toy.

I'm not sure where you get this "fair weather" notion - I have no trouble
riding my road bikes in the rain, although still (surprise) only on paved
roads, and with a bit of care for the brakes. Maybe you mean "fair
surface".

I guess you enjoy seeing your drivetrain become encrusted with road grime,
and you must love the black stripe up and down yourself. Bikes without
fenders suck to ride in the rain. Fenders solve both problems I've
mentioned.

I think that since MTBs and hybrids took over the mainstream bike market,
road bikes are regarded as more specialized, both by riders and
manufacturers, and aren't expected to handle the range of surfaces that
the old ten-speeds once were. This seems pretty reasonable to me, since if
you want to ride on something other than decent paved roads, there are
plenty of better options now available.


Most MTBs cannot accomodate fenders either, unless you mount the useless
downhill bike type fenders. This is not about surfaces---it's about
protecting the bike and the rider.

I guess you enjoy seeing your drivetrain become encrusted with road
grime, and you must love the black stripe up and down yourself. Bikes
without fenders suck to ride in the rain. Fenders solve both problems
I've mentioned.


I used a plastic fender that clipped to the seat post back in the day. I
still see them in bike shops around here. Also a plastic panel that zip-
ties to the down tube. Seemed to work pretty well.

Joseph

In Gooserider wrote:
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. :-)

I have plenty of room to raise it, but then I feel like I'm on a 3-speed.
The stem itself is a super-long (140 mm c-c) Cinelli, so it fits well
with the Italian theme...

Joseph

David L. Johnson wrote:

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.


Why?

On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 13:49:20 -0500, catzz66
wrote:

David L. Johnson wrote:

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.


Why?

As an intermediate level recreational rider you will soon find yourself
with only about 1/3 of your weight on the saddle. The rest will be on your
legs with a light touch on your handlebars. Think 'light on the bike'.
Saddle trouble tends to fade away at this point, barring a pathologically
bad fit of the bike.

Gel in the saddle allows your body to sink down into the saddle over time
occluding the blood vessels and nerves that you really do not want to
compress. Though there might be an initial impression of 'softness' it will
often lead to more problems with numbness. ymmv.

jj

On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 13:49:20 -0500, catzz66 wrote:

David L. Johnson wrote:

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.


Why?

Which, the saddle? Gel saddles squish up into areas of your body you do
not want pressure applied. It may seem counter-intuitive, but a softer
saddle is not more comfortable than a harder one, in the long term.

If you are talking about the carbon; carbon is basically just as rigid as
steel or aluminum. As for aluminum, in order to design a frame that is
durable enough, they are going to be stiffer than any other, to lessen
metal fatigue problems. Not significant, compared to tire pressure, but
certainly it won't give you a _more_ comfortable ride than other materials.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | A mathematician is a machine for turning coffee into theorems.
_`\(,_ | -- Paul Erdos
(_)/ (_) |

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

Any suggestions on rough
pavement solutions?

An older bike like that should easily take a 28mm 90psi tire (I'm assuming
it's a clincher wheel) which really smooths the ride out.

You might want to get some bar end shifters to avoid having to reach down,
even the newer ones are usable w/ friction.

Cork bar tape, and raise the bars to around saddle height. Think about
getting some of the newer "ergonomic" bars--old school bends are really
uncomfortable for me--the drops are too deep and the part before the hoods
is too tilted, so you end up getting cramps from gripping too hard.

Or just get a new bike... LOL

I ride an old steelie and rides very smooth on rough pavement. Now the
newer carbon forks are more resiliant than my old chrome tange, but when I
encounter rough stuff, I ride with my hands very lightly grabbing the
tops, which mitigates that.

I think after riding a FS mtb, you get used to just smooshing over
everything and need to relearn some body english.