My CF Adventure

On 3/11/2013 9:43 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Monday, March 11, 2013 4:56:59 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Mar 11, 4:09 pm, Jay wrote:

So, my friend is trying to sell his Specialized Roubaix, and he set me

up on the bike for a ride last Saturday. ... I have come

to believe that all the hyperbole in the press reduces to minor

differences, at least among similarly priced and purposed bikes.



That's the heart of the issue, I think. Makers of expensive bikes

certainly test each others' wares, and it's unlikely that any one

manufacturer is going to be miles ahead of the competition. In a

sense, I think it's like competition between makers of high-end

acoustic guitars. They all play very well. They may look, sound or

feel slightly different, and people will have preferences. But buying

a new guitar won't change a hacker into a master.



It must have been much more interesting around 1890. Back then,

different bikes were truly different. About the only thing really

settled was the optimum number of wheels!



- Frank Krygowski

I remember reading a comparison report about identical steel frames with identical groupsets tested by professional racers. The only way to tell the Columbus SL frame from the Tange Infinity frame was to weigh them. The racers didn't notice any differences in ride quality or handling.


Right. But on the other hand, try a Roubaix and then a Tarmac and tell
me if you don't see a difference. Same manufacturer and different feel.

On Tuesday, March 12, 2013 10:01:09 AM UTC-4, Duane wrote:
On 3/11/2013 9:43 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:

On Monday, March 11, 2013 4:56:59 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Mar 11, 4:09 pm, Jay wrote:



So, my friend is trying to sell his Specialized Roubaix, and he set me



up on the bike for a ride last Saturday. ... I have come



to believe that all the hyperbole in the press reduces to minor



differences, at least among similarly priced and purposed bikes.







That's the heart of the issue, I think. Makers of expensive bikes



certainly test each others' wares, and it's unlikely that any one



manufacturer is going to be miles ahead of the competition. In a



sense, I think it's like competition between makers of high-end



acoustic guitars. They all play very well. They may look, sound or



feel slightly different, and people will have preferences. But buying



a new guitar won't change a hacker into a master.







It must have been much more interesting around 1890. Back then,



different bikes were truly different. About the only thing really



settled was the optimum number of wheels!







- Frank Krygowski



I remember reading a comparison report about identical steel frames with identical groupsets tested by professional racers. The only way to tell the Columbus SL frame from the Tange Infinity frame was to weigh them. The racers didn't notice any differences in ride quality or handling.





Right. But on the other hand, try a Roubaix and then a Tarmac and tell

me if you don't see a difference. Same manufacturer and different feel.

It was a Blind test of the two different materials *BUT THE FRAMES WERE IDENTICAL = SAME GEOMETRY etc + IDENTICAL GROUPSETS*. The racers couldn't tell ny difference between the Columbus SL and the Tange Infinity framesets.

On 03/12/2013 11:27 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Tuesday, March 12, 2013 10:01:09 AM UTC-4, Duane wrote:
On 3/11/2013 9:43 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:

On Monday, March 11, 2013 4:56:59 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Mar 11, 4:09 pm, Jay wrote:



So, my friend is trying to sell his Specialized Roubaix, and he set me



up on the bike for a ride last Saturday. ... I have come



to believe that all the hyperbole in the press reduces to minor



differences, at least among similarly priced and purposed bikes.







That's the heart of the issue, I think. Makers of expensive bikes



certainly test each others' wares, and it's unlikely that any one



manufacturer is going to be miles ahead of the competition. In a



sense, I think it's like competition between makers of high-end



acoustic guitars. They all play very well. They may look, sound or



feel slightly different, and people will have preferences. But buying



a new guitar won't change a hacker into a master.







It must have been much more interesting around 1890. Back then,



different bikes were truly different. About the only thing really



settled was the optimum number of wheels!







- Frank Krygowski



I remember reading a comparison report about identical steel frames with identical groupsets tested by professional racers. The only way to tell the Columbus SL frame from the Tange Infinity frame was to weigh them. The racers didn't notice any differences in ride quality or handling.





Right. But on the other hand, try a Roubaix and then a Tarmac and tell

me if you don't see a difference. Same manufacturer and different feel.

It was a Blind test of the two different materials *BUT THE FRAMES WERE IDENTICAL = SAME GEOMETRY etc + IDENTICAL GROUPSETS*. The racers couldn't tell ny difference between the Columbus SL and the Tange Infinity framesets.

Yes, that's why I said, "but on the other hand..." I was commenting
mostly about the idea that someone up thread floated about all things
being pretty much the same. Jay's experience between the Cannondale and
the Roubaix pointed out some of these differences. Not all having to do
with the CF.

front load geometry specs from the onoline form, ride on same tires similar rims, same posture...same breakfast...same weather...then compare.

prob if manufacturer sez this bike suits rider Z and ura Z then....


itsnot like their ****ing in the wind on it.

YET maybe YOU made an error in specifing...I wanna Z when fact is a Z is the last frame you want.

On Mar 12, 6:57*am, Duane wrote:
On 3/11/2013 4:09 PM, Jay Beattie wrote:









So, my friend is trying to sell his Specialized Roubaix, and he set me
up on the bike for a ride last Saturday. Not withstanding my status as
former Cat 3 and Masters pack-filler and renowned commuter, I had
never ridden a CF bike *more than a few hundred yards. This was going
to be something new and exciting for me.

After not enough fussing getting the seat height and tilt right, we
took off for a hilly ride of 50-60 miles -- wow, the frame was stiff
through the BB and, most noticeably, through the front end --
substantially stiffer than my Cannondale warranty-replacement CAAD 9.
The magical dampening of CF was also evident, sort of. *It clipped the
low amplitude, high frequency vibration that I associate with a dry
chain or slightly rough pavement -- the sort of thing you might pick
up through your shoes. Significant pavement discontinuities were
probably more pronounced on the Roubaix than on my CAAD 9, and the the
sound of a popped rock hitting the DT made me think I broke the
frame. *It was an acoustically new adventure. *But, the minor
dampening plus the longish chain stays and stiff front end gave the
bike the bike a very smooth, step on the gas feel on good pavement.

Getting me to fit on this frame meant extending the CF seat post
probably a foot -- and it didn't want to stay there. *It kept
slipping, and my friend was freaking out at the thought that I might
over-torque the binder bolt and break the post. *His pocket tool,
however, was some weird piece of garbage (a tiny T-wrench) that
wouldn't let me over-torque -- or even adequately torque -- anything.
I probably stopped five or six times, and the post wouldn't stop
slipping -- probably because it did not have enough magical CF paste
on it. *This sucked -- and small changes in seat post height worsened
the saddle tilt problems. *The post had a one-bolt saddle carriage
mechanism -- so you loosen one bolt, and the whole tilt/fore-aft
adjustment goes flaccid. *F*** that! *This is why I buy Thompson Elite
posts with a two bolt system. *You can Princess and the Pea them to
your heart's content.

We head to the first hill -- about a four mile climb with the first
mile maxing out at 10-12 percent, and the bike was very responsive and
fast-feeling, except the reach was too short, and climbing out of the
saddle, I was sometimes hitting the bars with my knees -- and the
position was odd to me because of the tall front end and relatively
short TT. *I'm used to being more over my front wheel.

The steep parts felt fast, but when I sat down, I felt like I was
riding a BMX bike because of the slipping post. *That sucked, and so
did the mis-positioned BG saddle. *But I did get the sense that the
bike was light(er) and faster than my Cannondale -- and more solid,
which is a big deal since I am a large rider. *It tracked
exceptionally well descending.

My friend was worried that I would over-torque the post, and I was
getting a sore back, so we only rode that climb and one other for a
total of 30-40 miles. *Alas, on my way home, River City was running
its annual sale, and I tried the same bike in a 64cm, which was nice
-- post stayed up, more room in the cockpit, still too high in the
front end, but flipping the stem would fix that. *I almost impulsed
purchased. *I really do like the stiff feeling of the front end and
BB. *I decided to wait and do some more shopping, if any.

Epilog -- I went out the next day on my CAAD 9. *Ahhh, nothing like a
bike that fits. The bike is less stiff -- not like an old Alan, but it
does not have the same riding on a slightly padded rail feel as the
Roubaix. This is not a huge difference, but noticeable. *I have come
to believe that all the hyperbole in the press reduces to minor
differences, at least among similarly priced and purposed bikes. *I
did a lot of climbing on Sunday, and the Cannonodale's front end
definitely felt less stiff. *It also has a slight caster feel to it,
which some might characterize as twitchiness -- but it tracks very
well on fast descents. *I just liked sitting and climbing on the
Cannondale, which is something I didn't have a chance to do on the
Roubaix, and I didn't feel like I was getting sapped of energy while
sitting. *It has a stiff BB. *It's the out of the saddle efforts where
it lacks somewhat. *I might invest in a nice, stiff CF frame, but its
not like I have to.

Which Roubaix? *I tested a Roubaix comp when I bought my Tarmac. *I
liked the Roubaix on climbs. *The frame was more similar to my old
Bianchi Volpe sports tour but I ended up opting for the tarmac. *Just
preferred the ride and handling. *Sometime when climbing I kick myself
but I'm mostly good with the choice.

But as you know, you need a bike that fits or you can't really judge
whether it's worth it.

As for the other posters comments about fragility of CF, I would guess
that my bike club of 400 people is 85% on CF and the only frame damage
that I've heard of is due to a couple of crashes that would have
probably broken aluminum frames.

The points about the lifetime warranty being non-transferable are true
though and would probably prevent me from buying a used CF frame.

It was the SL3 Expert Ultegra level bicycle, probably two years old.
The frame seems mechanically solid -- certainly as solid as my Al
frame. It was stiffer than my Al frame, particularly in the front end
-- which, now that I think about it, might have been due in part to
the fact that I was on stiff CF wheels that had been snagged off a
Venge owned by my friend's wife, who is a strong regional racer. My
own wheel is a 14/15g 32 spoke Aeorhead on an Ultegra hub. I get the
sense that the OEM fork on the CAAD 9 is not that stiff.

As for climbing, I had trouble keeping the front end down when I was
sitting, although the rear end stayed planted out of the saddle,
probably due to the longer chain stays. I was clearly too far back on
the bike, which could have been caused by the (slipping) post
extension without moving the saddle forward. A slacker seat tube
angle also means the bike needs less stem to get a pretty long reach,
but then the TT feels "short" riding out of the saddle with weight
centered over the BB -- my knees could whack the bar, and I felt too
far back. If I owned the bike, I would either get it in the next
larger size (64cm (61 actual), which according to the chart is
supposedly reserved for riders 6'6" and larger -- which doesn't make
sense to me, and which yields a really tall front end), or I would
raise the post, move the saddle forward and get a longer stem.

So what is the climbing difference between the Roubaix and the
Tarmac? I would assume you could more easily skip the rear wheel
climbing out of the saddle on the Tarmac, but for seated climbing, I
would think it would be the better bike just based on weight.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Mar 11, 11:10*pm, Dan O wrote:
On Mar 11, 6:43 pm, Sir Ridesalot wrote:

I remember reading a comparison report about identical steel frames with identical groupsets tested by professional racers. The only way to tell the Columbus SL frame from the Tange Infinity frame was to weigh them. The racers didn't notice any differences in ride quality or handling.

Ride any bike for a year and you'll tell the difference from any other
bike.

When discussing the effect of frame material (which is what the "CF
adventure" seems to refer to), the question is whether you'd tell the
difference if the bikes were identical except for the frame material
and obviously related changes. By "obviously related changes" I mean
things like tubing cross section. (A titanium bike with old-style
steel tube diameters would be noticeably more flexible.)

So if components, frame fit and geometry (wheelbase, cockpit length,
rake, trail etc.) were identical, would you notice the difference?
Perhaps so, perhaps not. And we've seen data showing that any
performance difference in climbing is entirely attributable to weight.

(BTW, my wife claims her Bike Friday rides just the same as her
Cannondale touring bike, although I don't feel the same. Also BTW, I
can hear the difference in sound between my Alvarez Yairi guitar and a
similar Taylor or Martin. Hard to say which sound I prefer, though.)

- Frank Krygowski

On Mar 12, 10:01*am, Duane wrote:
... try a Roubaix and then a Tarmac and tell
me if you don't see a difference. *Same manufacturer and different feel..

Of course! The geometries of the two bikes are different, so you'd
expect a different feel. Incidentally, the Specialized Globe would
also feel different. "Same manufacturer and different feel."

- Frank Krygowski

On 03/12/2013 12:44 PM, Jay Beattie wrote:
On Mar 12, 6:57 am, Duane wrote:
On 3/11/2013 4:09 PM, Jay Beattie wrote:









So, my friend is trying to sell his Specialized Roubaix, and he set me
up on the bike for a ride last Saturday. Not withstanding my status as
former Cat 3 and Masters pack-filler and renowned commuter, I had
never ridden a CF bike more than a few hundred yards. This was going
to be something new and exciting for me.

After not enough fussing getting the seat height and tilt right, we
took off for a hilly ride of 50-60 miles -- wow, the frame was stiff
through the BB and, most noticeably, through the front end --
substantially stiffer than my Cannondale warranty-replacement CAAD 9.
The magical dampening of CF was also evident, sort of. It clipped the
low amplitude, high frequency vibration that I associate with a dry
chain or slightly rough pavement -- the sort of thing you might pick
up through your shoes. Significant pavement discontinuities were
probably more pronounced on the Roubaix than on my CAAD 9, and the the
sound of a popped rock hitting the DT made me think I broke the
frame. It was an acoustically new adventure. But, the minor
dampening plus the longish chain stays and stiff front end gave the
bike the bike a very smooth, step on the gas feel on good pavement.

Getting me to fit on this frame meant extending the CF seat post
probably a foot -- and it didn't want to stay there. It kept
slipping, and my friend was freaking out at the thought that I might
over-torque the binder bolt and break the post. His pocket tool,
however, was some weird piece of garbage (a tiny T-wrench) that
wouldn't let me over-torque -- or even adequately torque -- anything.
I probably stopped five or six times, and the post wouldn't stop
slipping -- probably because it did not have enough magical CF paste
on it. This sucked -- and small changes in seat post height worsened
the saddle tilt problems. The post had a one-bolt saddle carriage
mechanism -- so you loosen one bolt, and the whole tilt/fore-aft
adjustment goes flaccid. F*** that! This is why I buy Thompson Elite
posts with a two bolt system. You can Princess and the Pea them to
your heart's content.

We head to the first hill -- about a four mile climb with the first
mile maxing out at 10-12 percent, and the bike was very responsive and
fast-feeling, except the reach was too short, and climbing out of the
saddle, I was sometimes hitting the bars with my knees -- and the
position was odd to me because of the tall front end and relatively
short TT. I'm used to being more over my front wheel.

The steep parts felt fast, but when I sat down, I felt like I was
riding a BMX bike because of the slipping post. That sucked, and so
did the mis-positioned BG saddle. But I did get the sense that the
bike was light(er) and faster than my Cannondale -- and more solid,
which is a big deal since I am a large rider. It tracked
exceptionally well descending.

My friend was worried that I would over-torque the post, and I was
getting a sore back, so we only rode that climb and one other for a
total of 30-40 miles. Alas, on my way home, River City was running
its annual sale, and I tried the same bike in a 64cm, which was nice
-- post stayed up, more room in the cockpit, still too high in the
front end, but flipping the stem would fix that. I almost impulsed
purchased. I really do like the stiff feeling of the front end and
BB. I decided to wait and do some more shopping, if any.

Epilog -- I went out the next day on my CAAD 9. Ahhh, nothing like a
bike that fits. The bike is less stiff -- not like an old Alan, but it
does not have the same riding on a slightly padded rail feel as the
Roubaix. This is not a huge difference, but noticeable. I have come
to believe that all the hyperbole in the press reduces to minor
differences, at least among similarly priced and purposed bikes. I
did a lot of climbing on Sunday, and the Cannonodale's front end
definitely felt less stiff. It also has a slight caster feel to it,
which some might characterize as twitchiness -- but it tracks very
well on fast descents. I just liked sitting and climbing on the
Cannondale, which is something I didn't have a chance to do on the
Roubaix, and I didn't feel like I was getting sapped of energy while
sitting. It has a stiff BB. It's the out of the saddle efforts where
it lacks somewhat. I might invest in a nice, stiff CF frame, but its
not like I have to.

Which Roubaix? I tested a Roubaix comp when I bought my Tarmac. I
liked the Roubaix on climbs. The frame was more similar to my old
Bianchi Volpe sports tour but I ended up opting for the tarmac. Just
preferred the ride and handling. Sometime when climbing I kick myself
but I'm mostly good with the choice.

But as you know, you need a bike that fits or you can't really judge
whether it's worth it.

As for the other posters comments about fragility of CF, I would guess
that my bike club of 400 people is 85% on CF and the only frame damage
that I've heard of is due to a couple of crashes that would have
probably broken aluminum frames.

The points about the lifetime warranty being non-transferable are true
though and would probably prevent me from buying a used CF frame.

It was the SL3 Expert Ultegra level bicycle, probably two years old.
The frame seems mechanically solid -- certainly as solid as my Al
frame. It was stiffer than my Al frame, particularly in the front end
-- which, now that I think about it, might have been due in part to
the fact that I was on stiff CF wheels that had been snagged off a
Venge owned by my friend's wife, who is a strong regional racer. My
own wheel is a 14/15g 32 spoke Aeorhead on an Ultegra hub. I get the
sense that the OEM fork on the CAAD 9 is not that stiff.

As for climbing, I had trouble keeping the front end down when I was
sitting, although the rear end stayed planted out of the saddle,
probably due to the longer chain stays. I was clearly too far back on
the bike, which could have been caused by the (slipping) post
extension without moving the saddle forward. A slacker seat tube
angle also means the bike needs less stem to get a pretty long reach,
but then the TT feels "short" riding out of the saddle with weight
centered over the BB -- my knees could whack the bar, and I felt too
far back. If I owned the bike, I would either get it in the next
larger size (64cm (61 actual), which according to the chart is
supposedly reserved for riders 6'6" and larger -- which doesn't make
sense to me, and which yields a really tall front end), or I would
raise the post, move the saddle forward and get a longer stem.


So what is the climbing difference between the Roubaix and the
Tarmac? I would assume you could more easily skip the rear wheel
climbing out of the saddle on the Tarmac, but for seated climbing, I
would think it would be the better bike just based on weight.

The Tarmac has a shorter frame that lets me ride over the hoods more
easily. I have lower back issues so it works better for me to not be
too far over. I'm comfortable on it even when tucked. The Roubaix is
typically a compact and not a standard double so the gearing is made
more for climbing. Though the Tarmac rocks on quick descents. And of
course you can put what ever gearing you want on either.

I don't think there is much weight difference between the two with
stock parts. The Tarmac may be a bit lighter.

This guy is comparing them based mostly on climbing:
http://redkiteprayer.com/2009/12/the...ac-vs-roubaix/

And this mostly compares the specs:
http://redkiteprayer.com/2009/12/the...lized-roubaix/

On 2013-03-11 20:09:19 +0000, Jay Beattie said:

So, my friend is trying to sell his Specialized Roubaix, and he set me
up on the bike for a ride last Saturday. Not withstanding my status as
former Cat 3 and Masters pack-filler and renowned commuter, I had
never ridden a CF bike more than a few hundred yards. This was going
to be something new and exciting for me.

After not enough fussing getting the seat height and tilt right, we
took off for a hilly ride of 50-60 miles -- wow, the frame was stiff
through the BB and, most noticeably, through the front end --
substantially stiffer than my Cannondale warranty-replacement CAAD 9.
The magical dampening of CF was also evident, sort of. It clipped the
low amplitude, high frequency vibration that I associate with a dry
chain or slightly rough pavement -- the sort of thing you might pick
up through your shoes. Significant pavement discontinuities were
probably more pronounced on the Roubaix than on my CAAD 9, and the the
sound of a popped rock hitting the DT made me think I broke the
frame. It was an acoustically new adventure. But, the minor
dampening plus the longish chain stays and stiff front end gave the
bike the bike a very smooth, step on the gas feel on good pavement.

Getting me to fit on this frame meant extending the CF seat post
probably a foot -- and it didn't want to stay there. It kept
slipping, and my friend was freaking out at the thought that I might
over-torque the binder bolt and break the post. His pocket tool,
however, was some weird piece of garbage (a tiny T-wrench) that
wouldn't let me over-torque -- or even adequately torque -- anything.
I probably stopped five or six times, and the post wouldn't stop
slipping -- probably because it did not have enough magical CF paste
on it. This sucked -- and small changes in seat post height worsened
the saddle tilt problems. The post had a one-bolt saddle carriage
mechanism -- so you loosen one bolt, and the whole tilt/fore-aft
adjustment goes flaccid. F*** that! This is why I buy Thompson Elite
posts with a two bolt system. You can Princess and the Pea them to
your heart's content.

We head to the first hill -- about a four mile climb with the first
mile maxing out at 10-12 percent, and the bike was very responsive and
fast-feeling, except the reach was too short, and climbing out of the
saddle, I was sometimes hitting the bars with my knees -- and the
position was odd to me because of the tall front end and relatively
short TT. I'm used to being more over my front wheel.

The steep parts felt fast, but when I sat down, I felt like I was
riding a BMX bike because of the slipping post. That sucked, and so
did the mis-positioned BG saddle. But I did get the sense that the
bike was light(er) and faster than my Cannondale -- and more solid,
which is a big deal since I am a large rider. It tracked
exceptionally well descending.

My friend was worried that I would over-torque the post, and I was
getting a sore back, so we only rode that climb and one other for a
total of 30-40 miles. Alas, on my way home, River City was running
its annual sale, and I tried the same bike in a 64cm, which was nice
-- post stayed up, more room in the cockpit, still too high in the
front end, but flipping the stem would fix that. I almost impulsed
purchased. I really do like the stiff feeling of the front end and
BB. I decided to wait and do some more shopping, if any.

Epilog -- I went out the next day on my CAAD 9. Ahhh, nothing like a
bike that fits. The bike is less stiff -- not like an old Alan, but it
does not have the same riding on a slightly padded rail feel as the
Roubaix. This is not a huge difference, but noticeable. I have come
to believe that all the hyperbole in the press reduces to minor
differences, at least among similarly priced and purposed bikes. I
did a lot of climbing on Sunday, and the Cannonodale's front end
definitely felt less stiff. It also has a slight caster feel to it,
which some might characterize as twitchiness -- but it tracks very
well on fast descents. I just liked sitting and climbing on the
Cannondale, which is something I didn't have a chance to do on the
Roubaix, and I didn't feel like I was getting sapped of energy while
sitting. It has a stiff BB. It's the out of the saddle efforts where
it lacks somewhat. I might invest in a nice, stiff CF frame, but its
not like I have to.

-- Jay Beattie.

Pretty useless to testride a bike that doesn't fit.

Lou
--

Lou

On Mar 12, 10:54*am, Lou Holtman wrote:
On 2013-03-11 20:09:19 +0000, Jay Beattie said:









So, my friend is trying to sell his Specialized Roubaix, and he set me
up on the bike for a ride last Saturday. Not withstanding my status as
former Cat 3 and Masters pack-filler and renowned commuter, I had
never ridden a CF bike *more than a few hundred yards. This was going
to be something new and exciting for me.

After not enough fussing getting the seat height and tilt right, we
took off for a hilly ride of 50-60 miles -- wow, the frame was stiff
through the BB and, most noticeably, through the front end --
substantially stiffer than my Cannondale warranty-replacement CAAD 9.
The magical dampening of CF was also evident, sort of. *It clipped the
low amplitude, high frequency vibration that I associate with a dry
chain or slightly rough pavement -- the sort of thing you might pick
up through your shoes. Significant pavement discontinuities were
probably more pronounced on the Roubaix than on my CAAD 9, and the the
sound of a popped rock hitting the DT made me think I broke the
frame. *It was an acoustically new adventure. *But, the minor
dampening plus the longish chain stays and stiff front end gave the
bike the bike a very smooth, step on the gas feel on good pavement.

Getting me to fit on this frame meant extending the CF seat post
probably a foot -- and it didn't want to stay there. *It kept
slipping, and my friend was freaking out at the thought that I might
over-torque the binder bolt and break the post. *His pocket tool,
however, was some weird piece of garbage (a tiny T-wrench) that
wouldn't let me over-torque -- or even adequately torque -- anything.
I probably stopped five or six times, and the post wouldn't stop
slipping -- probably because it did not have enough magical CF paste
on it. *This sucked -- and small changes in seat post height worsened
the saddle tilt problems. *The post had a one-bolt saddle carriage
mechanism -- so you loosen one bolt, and the whole tilt/fore-aft
adjustment goes flaccid. *F*** that! *This is why I buy Thompson Elite
posts with a two bolt system. *You can Princess and the Pea them to
your heart's content.

We head to the first hill -- about a four mile climb with the first
mile maxing out at 10-12 percent, and the bike was very responsive and
fast-feeling, except the reach was too short, and climbing out of the
saddle, I was sometimes hitting the bars with my knees -- and the
position was odd to me because of the tall front end and relatively
short TT. *I'm used to being more over my front wheel.

The steep parts felt fast, but when I sat down, I felt like I was
riding a BMX bike because of the slipping post. *That sucked, and so
did the mis-positioned BG saddle. *But I did get the sense that the
bike was light(er) and faster than my Cannondale -- and more solid,
which is a big deal since I am a large rider. *It tracked
exceptionally well descending.

My friend was worried that I would over-torque the post, and I was
getting a sore back, so we only rode that climb and one other for a
total of 30-40 miles. *Alas, on my way home, River City was running
its annual sale, and I tried the same bike in a 64cm, which was nice
-- post stayed up, more room in the cockpit, still too high in the
front end, but flipping the stem would fix that. *I almost impulsed
purchased. *I really do like the stiff feeling of the front end and
BB. *I decided to wait and do some more shopping, if any.

Epilog -- I went out the next day on my CAAD 9. *Ahhh, nothing like a
bike that fits. The bike is less stiff -- not like an old Alan, but it
does not have the same riding on a slightly padded rail feel as the
Roubaix. This is not a huge difference, but noticeable. *I have come
to believe that all the hyperbole in the press reduces to minor
differences, at least among similarly priced and purposed bikes. *I
did a lot of climbing on Sunday, and the Cannonodale's front end
definitely felt less stiff. *It also has a slight caster feel to it,
which some might characterize as twitchiness -- but it tracks very
well on fast descents. *I just liked sitting and climbing on the
Cannondale, which is something I didn't have a chance to do on the
Roubaix, and I didn't feel like I was getting sapped of energy while
sitting. *It has a stiff BB. *It's the out of the saddle efforts where
it lacks somewhat. *I might invest in a nice, stiff CF frame, but its
not like I have to.

-- Jay Beattie.

Pretty useless to testride a bike that doesn't fit.

It fit until the post slipped -- so I would get moments of fitting,
although I could have spent more time on seat tilt and fore-aft. I
did ride the same bike later that day in the 64cm size that did not
have a slipping seat post, and my impressions were the same, although
the larger bike had considerable rise to the stem, so the front end
felt too high. The basic ride qualities, however, were the same.
It's like driving a car with an uncomfortable seat. You still get a
sense of the suspension, power, steering, etc.

-- Jay Beattie.