RE: [CR] Ride Quality

Example: Framebuilders

In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 07:59:40 -0700
To: "Don Ferris" <>, <>
From: Brandon Ives <>
Subject: RE: [CR] Ride Quality

At 11:52 PM -0600 5/21/02, Don Ferris wrote:
>At the risk of getting myself in trouble, I'll share my ideas on why frames
>do make a difference in ride quality. Be advised that the last time I wrote
>on this subject it seemed to cause a little horror amongst the tech wizards.
>I'd imagine that anybody who follows cycling tech talk these days has read
>or heard about how little vertical compliance can be found in ANY double
>diamond configuration frame, regardless of material, and I believe that to
>be true. But, and it's a big BUT, I don't think it's a frame's vertical
>compliance that is the issue.

Don you're letting the cat out of the bag. . . . . .

This is a subject that has been discussed ad nauseam on both the Framebuilders and Bicycle Science list if anyone wants some REALLY detailed info check their archives. Anyway I'll add a couple of things that haven't been discussed yet on this list. People have talked a lot about wheels and Don touched on the ride qualities being transmitted through the contact points. The most underrated parts that affect ride quality are bars, stem and seat (I think pedals and cranks should be included but I haven't heard anything in regards to them). I'm sure most, not all, of you will agree that the seats of today are much stiffer and harsher riding than the suspended leather saddles of yesteryear. Newer stems and bars have been designed for stiffness as a primary aspect of them. The only stems and bars near as stiff as modern ones were steel track setups. Also they are more "ergonomic" thus have fuller contact with your hands. Both of these allow more shock to be transmitted to the rider. Add these, and others comments on wheels and Don's comments, to modern ideas of positioning and you have what is believed to be smoother and less harsh riding bikes of the past. enjoy, Brandon"monkeyman"Ives