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?
"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.
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.
Joseph Santaniello 3 April 2005 12:06:33 [ permanent link ]
In <zgF3e.25518$Pc.11064@tornado.tampabay.rr.com> 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 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 $20-25. Or you can do it yourself:
Or you can just stick a 130mm hub in there. That won't hurt anything, but it will make installing the wheel a little more difficult everytime you get a flat.
"Joseph Santaniello" <someone@remove.this.text.arbitrary.org> wrote in message news:20050403100625864+0200@news.online.no...> In <zgF3e.25518$Pc.11064@tornado.tampabay.rr.com> 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 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.
David L. Johnson 3 April 2005 19:34:48 [ permanent link ]
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! (_)/ (_) |
"Michael Warner" <see@homepage.com> wrote in message news:12b5gls1nyrvp$.1colfwh8uzedm.dlg@40tude.net...> 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.
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.
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.
"Michael Warner" <see@homepage.com> wrote in message news:1n5srvb8ri6aq$.ae63qk1n7qtt$.dlg@40tude.net...> On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 16:01:42 GMT, Gooserider wrote:>
Yes, a larger sidepull brake is needed. As to your point about tire> > size---they used to come with fatter tires AND fender clearance. This
"fair> > weather" bike phenomenon is fairly recent. It makes absolutely NO sense
a bike to be rideable only in fair weather, unless it's merely a toy.>
I'm not sure where you get this "fair weather" notion - I have no trouble> riding my road bikes in the rain, although still (surprise) only on paved> roads, and with a bit of care for the brakes. Maybe you mean "fair> surface".
I guess you enjoy seeing your drivetrain become encrusted with road grime, and you must love the black stripe up and down yourself. Bikes without fenders suck to ride in the rain. Fenders solve both problems I've mentioned.
I think that since MTBs and hybrids took over the mainstream bike market,> road bikes are regarded as more specialized, both by riders and> manufacturers, and aren't expected to handle the range of surfaces that> the old ten-speeds once were. This seems pretty reasonable to me, since if> you want to ride on something other than decent paved roads, there are> plenty of better options now available.>
Most MTBs cannot accomodate fenders either, unless you mount the useless downhill bike type fenders. This is not about surfaces---it's about protecting the bike and the rider.
Joseph Santaniello 3 April 2005 22:44:37 [ permanent link ]
I guess you enjoy seeing your drivetrain become encrusted with road > grime, and you must love the black stripe up and down yourself. Bikes > without fenders suck to ride in the rain. Fenders solve both problems > I've mentioned.>
I used a plastic fender that clipped to the seat post back in the day. I still see them in bike shops around here. Also a plastic panel that zip- ties to the down tube. Seemed to work pretty well.
Joseph Santaniello 3 April 2005 22:47:37 [ permanent link ]
In <oXQ3e.14740$vd.7611@tornado.tampabay.rr.com> 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...
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.>
On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 13:49:20 -0500, catzz66 <catzz66@threeletterservice.com> 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.
David L. Johnson 3 April 2005 23:05:55 [ permanent link ]
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 Sun, 03 Apr 2005 08:06:33 +0000, Joseph Santaniello wrote:
Nashbar has some old Vitus bonded aluminum frames in stock in big sizes> that I might give a try.
Those look so cool! I wanted one so bad when I was in high school. Shame the dropout spacing's gonna be incompatible with modern wheels--I don't think you can spread a Vitus.
Will a modern 8 or 9 speed cassette setup fit into the dropout spacing of> an old 6 speed style frame?
You can spread the drops and it will fit fine, but there's always a risk involved. I've done it with a 2x4 and a chair ala Sheldon Brown, and it worked great. I've used an ancient derailleur with a new Sram cassette and chain in friction mode--the shifting is brilliant! Perhaps, since you're a savvy Nashbar shopper, you might want to get a set of their discount wheels, a fresh cassette & chain and give it a try.
On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 16:01:42 +0000, Gooserider wrote:
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 gazing lovingly upon my old 600 calipers right now. 28mm rubber and fenders. Could easily handle 35mm tires w/o the fenders.
"Joseph Santaniello" <someone@remove.this.text.arbitrary.org> wrote in message news:20050403204424283+0200@news.online.no...>
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
Yes, in a pinch. Nothing works like full fenders with mudflaps, though.
"Joseph Santaniello" <someone@remove.this.text.arbitrary.org> wrote in message news:20050403204727562+0200@news.online.no...> In <oXQ3e.14740$vd.7611@tornado.tampabay.rr.com> 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
Well, Joseph,you have three option, then
1) Raise the bars and be more comfortable. 2) Ride the way you are and have numb hands. 3) Buy a recumbent.
I had the same numb hands problem forever, until I gave up aesthetics and put a Nitto on my road bike. Now that the bars are even with the saddle my discomfort is gone. I had a Nitto Dirt drop on for a while, but the rise was too severe, so I switched to a Nitto Technomic. It looks fine, and I spend more time in the drops.
Gooserider wrote:> "catzz66" <catzz66@threeletterservice.com> wrote in message> ... Do not get the gel saddle. Terrible idea.>>>
Why?>
Well, they get super hot in the summertime. Nothing like sitting on a black> gel saddle that's been sitting in the sun for a couple of hours. Sizzling!>
Thanks for all the answers. I can always change back if I want to, I guess, and what I got is pretty hard. I'll see how it goes.
"Joseph Santaniello" <someone@remove.this.text.arbitrary.org> wrote in message news:20050402212451713+0200@news.online.no...>
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 ...>
Today was my first time out with a local club on a training
ride with my> old-school road bike. .... 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. ... 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.
You may not feel this way after you ride the road bike a couple more times. In winter / bad weather I switch over to a hybrid, and if I'm off the road bike for a couple of months it feels strange to get back on it. For me, this goes away pretty quickly, especially now that I expect this to be the case.
This would be less likely to be the case for those who don't ride at all during the winter, because when they get back on the bike there's no expectation of a different position.
