My CF Adventure

On 03/12/2013 02:26 PM, Jay Beattie wrote:
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.

I think that the analogy doesn't quite work with a bike though. A good
fit on the bike has a lot more to do with the steering, suspension and
power than a good fit in a car seat.

On 03/12/2013 02:36 PM, Duane Hébert wrote:
On 03/12/2013 02:26 PM, Jay Beattie wrote:
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.

I think that the analogy doesn't quite work with a bike though. A good
fit on the bike has a lot more to do with the steering, suspension and
power than a good fit in a car seat.

Meh... I've had a lot of cars that I ought to have liked if not ruined,
at least knocked down a few notches due to inability to fit properly
behind the wheel.

An odd thing that I've noticed in my current car is that if I am wearing
street shoes, I can adjust the controls for a good fit, but if I'm
wearing work boots with thick soles, I can actually tell the difference.
I want to pull the seat back just a hair and extend the steering
column to compensate, but it runs out of adjustment. So at least for
me, 3/8" or so makes a noticeable difference.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

On Mar 12, 6:06*pm, Nate Nagel wrote:
On 03/12/2013 02:36 PM, Duane H bert wrote:

I think that the analogy doesn't quite work with a bike though. *A good
fit on the bike has a lot more to do with the steering, suspension and
power than a good fit in a car seat.

Meh... *I've had a lot of cars that I ought to have liked if not ruined,
at least knocked down a few notches due to inability to fit properly
behind the wheel.

Well, you're a ****wit who thinks he's arbiter of "proper" everything
he knows less than nothing about because everything he thinks he knows
is wrong.

An odd thing that I've noticed in my current car is that if I am wearing
street shoes, I can adjust the controls for a good fit, but if I'm
wearing work boots with thick soles, I can actually tell the difference.

What's odd about that?

You're like the 8 year old that over-complicates simple things to
create the delusion of greater knowledge and/or skill and/or
accomplishment.
-----

- gpsman

the auto example is meant to grease your brains understanding of the bike's performance as stated by JB

aswith the read the geometry specs for camparison so your brain picks up on what the makers intended.

JB mentioned turn in capacity.Hius cars have primo turn in capacity.

JB 's a lawyer and I qualify as a pro se legal worker, listed research scientists.What we do is examine qualify categorize and communicate the lot all day.

Which is a lot like righting road tests.

really Frank, steel is monlithic,composites are tailor made sandwiches of varying qualities

On 03/12/2013 07:32 PM, gpsman wrote:
On Mar 12, 6:06 pm, Nate Nagel wrote:
On 03/12/2013 02:36 PM, Duane H bert wrote:

I think that the analogy doesn't quite work with a bike though. A good
fit on the bike has a lot more to do with the steering, suspension and
power than a good fit in a car seat.

Meh... I've had a lot of cars that I ought to have liked if not ruined,
at least knocked down a few notches due to inability to fit properly
behind the wheel.

Well, you're a ****wit who thinks he's arbiter of "proper" everything
he knows less than nothing about because everything he thinks he knows
is wrong.

An odd thing that I've noticed in my current car is that if I am wearing
street shoes, I can adjust the controls for a good fit, but if I'm
wearing work boots with thick soles, I can actually tell the difference.

What's odd about that?

You're like the 8 year old that over-complicates simple things to
create the delusion of greater knowledge and/or skill and/or
accomplishment.
-----

- gpsman


No, you're an idiot stalker with an inflated sense of ego and
accomplishment who knows nothing about nothing and compensates for his
complete failure at life by trying to tear down his betters.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

On Mar 12, 11:36*am, Duane Hébert wrote:
On 03/12/2013 02:26 PM, Jay Beattie wrote:









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.

I think that the analogy doesn't quite work with a bike though. *A good
fit on the bike has a lot more to do with the steering, suspension and
power than a good fit in a car seat.

It's not an exact analogy, but in either case you can get a good sense
of performance by stepping on the gas. Out of the saddle efforts on
the Roubaix showed that it had an exceptionally rigid BB and front
end. Solid traction indicated that it had adequately long stays.
There was also no heel strike, which I can get on the short stays of
my CAAD 9 with my big feet. It tracked well, and descending was
precise, steering was good (although it required more input than my
CAAD 9 -- which may be a good thing), and shock absorption seemed good
-- but this is where bad fit limited my ability to really judge how
good. I also could not get into a groove climbing in the saddle
because of the slipping seat post and saddle position. I would like to
go out and do some of the longer local climbs (most closed by snow now
anyway) just to see how it feels after ten or twelve miles of
climbing. I think it would be pretty good, but my sense is that it
would only be better than the CAAD 9 because of lower weight since the
Cannondale is pretty stiff through the BB. Then again, I could be
surprised by the more upright riding position (if I stuck with that)
and the stiffer front end. Climbing with a death grip can cause the
front end to caster a little on the Cannondale, which usually means I
have to gear down or get out of the saddle for a while anyway. That's
just exhaustion.

What I don't get from those reviews you posted is the amazing shock-
absorbing effect. Bumps were bumps on 100 PSI 23mm tires. The
Roubaix didn't get rid of the bumps or significant discontinuities in
the road surface. It was more like letting 10-20psi out of my tires
without the performance loss -- which seems worthwhile, but all the
gushing about being "plush" etc. sort of escaped me. My cross bike
with 35s is plush. Maybe after trying some other CF frames, I'll get
the picture. There is an on-sale Cervelo R3 that I'm going to look at
next weekend.

-- Jay Beattie.

On 03/12/2013 08:20 PM, Jay Beattie wrote:
On Mar 12, 11:36 am, Duane Hébert wrote:
On 03/12/2013 02:26 PM, Jay Beattie wrote:









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.

I think that the analogy doesn't quite work with a bike though. A good
fit on the bike has a lot more to do with the steering, suspension and
power than a good fit in a car seat.

It's not an exact analogy, but in either case you can get a good sense
of performance by stepping on the gas. Out of the saddle efforts on


I just meant that on a bike, you positioning is more critical to the
power you put into your wheels, the stability that you maintain etc.
In a car, the engine is doing the work that your legs are doing on a bike.

the Roubaix showed that it had an exceptionally rigid BB and front
end. Solid traction indicated that it had adequately long stays.
There was also no heel strike, which I can get on the short stays of
my CAAD 9 with my big feet. It tracked well, and descending was
precise, steering was good (although it required more input than my
CAAD 9 -- which may be a good thing), and shock absorption seemed good
-- but this is where bad fit limited my ability to really judge how
good. I also could not get into a groove climbing in the saddle
because of the slipping seat post and saddle position. I would like to
go out and do some of the longer local climbs (most closed by snow now
anyway) just to see how it feels after ten or twelve miles of
climbing. I think it would be pretty good, but my sense is that it
would only be better than the CAAD 9 because of lower weight since the
Cannondale is pretty stiff through the BB. Then again, I could be
surprised by the more upright riding position (if I stuck with that)
and the stiffer front end. Climbing with a death grip can cause the

My friends that ride Roubaixs mostly like the way they feel after
longish rides, as far as comfort goes. For climbing with the compact
gearing they find it easier but it's not necessarily due to the frame
geometry. For me, I find the gearing on the gearing on the Tarmac
(53/39 and 12-27) to be more to my liking but then again, I normally
don't do excessive climbing. Though I am signing up for the Defi Velo
Mag in September and I may rethink that g

front end to caster a little on the Cannondale, which usually means I
have to gear down or get out of the saddle for a while anyway. That's
just exhaustion.


What I don't get from those reviews you posted is the amazing shock-
absorbing effect. Bumps were bumps on 100 PSI 23mm tires. The
Roubaix didn't get rid of the bumps or significant discontinuities in
the road surface. It was more like letting 10-20psi out of my tires
without the performance loss -- which seems worthwhile, but all the
gushing about being "plush" etc. sort of escaped me. My cross bike
with 35s is plush. Maybe after trying some other CF frames, I'll get
the picture. There is an on-sale Cervelo R3 that I'm going to look at
next weekend.

Yeah, I don't know that I've ever ridden a bicycle that I would consider
plush. I think bumps are bumps. The Roubaix seems to get rid of more of
the basic road hum than the Tarmac did, though probably not as much as
my cro-moly Bianchi. Though both the Roubaix and the Tarmac are much
stiffer. The Roubaix was supposedly designed with the cobbles in
Roubaix in mind. I don't think I've ridden on cobbles (Quebec roads can
be pretty damn close though) so I can't comment. T

Letting 10-20 psi out of the tires with no performance loss would be a
good thing. Your running at 100 psi so I assume you have wider rims.
One of the better things that I've seen to add to a comfortable ride for
me was switching to the HED Ardennes. I run the 23mm tires at 90 psi
and they perform better than my stock Mavics with 23mm tires at 120 psi.

Have not ridden CF or only 1 ! AL surprisedmewith the loightness and brittleness prob due to the LBS wheels mas torqued than mine
The auto idea is basic unconsciously learned then unconsciously transfered symbolic language bins in your brain...

I figured...waaay before JB appeared, one significant performance advantage CF offered was turnin on a rough surface...minor rough that bis lmost all surfaces.
and continuous. Not 'plush' but physically effective.

Somewhere in CF roadtests there's a writer laying down CF/AL comparison categories for the wanna be spring sapped rider.

On 03/13/2013 08:59 AM, datakoll wrote:
Have not ridden CF or only 1 ! AL surprisedmewith the loightness and brittleness prob due to the LBS wheels mas torqued than mine
The auto idea is basic unconsciously learned then unconsciously transfered symbolic language bins in your brain...

I figured...waaay before JB appeared, one significant performance advantage CF offered was turnin on a rough surface...minor rough that bis lmost all surfaces.
and continuous. Not 'plush' but physically effective.


I think that's probably right.

Somewhere in CF roadtests there's a writer laying down CF/AL comparison categories for the wanna be spring sapped rider.