[CR]re: rensho faster than colnago


Example: Events
Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 21:38:17 -0700 (PDT)
From: <chasds@mindspring.com>
To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
Subject: [CR]re: rensho faster than colnago

Just so's we are not at cross-purposes:

Jan, before you condescend to me about the placebo effect, be aware that I'm quite familiar with it, and I would have mentioned it had I thought it relevent to what I had to say.

I posted what I did because I experienced a distinct improvement in sprinting and climbing on the Rensho, over the typical early 70s Colnago Super, which tends to have thinner seat-stays, and slacker angles than the Rensho. This with nearly identical wheels, tires and gear-ratios! This Rensho strikes me as quite stiff, with a shorter wheelbase, and distinctly more upright than an early 70s Colnago. Those qualities alone could result in an objective increase in performance while sprinting and climbing...the placebo effect has nothing to do with it.

I'm quite aware that there is a difference between "different" and "better." Many years evaluating exotic audio gear of all kinds taught me that lesson with a vengeance.

All my bikes do not "fly" the same way. Every different top road bike I ride does not "fly." They all perform a little differently. Angles and materials being the same, it's rare to find much difference... but riding an early 60s Masi Special is a quite different experience from riding a 1982 3Rensho, as I think we'd all agree. That is not a purely subjective difference.

As for which is better..it's an irrelevant question. Not that anyone posed it.. ;>

I did not say the Rensho was better than the Colnago. I said that it seemed to allow me to go faster, and climb faster, with less subjective effort, than an early 70s Colnago.

Charles "all things being equal, bikes aren't fast, riders are"
Andrews
SoCal