I have to agree with charles - however, i can understand how it is difficult to understand a thing until it is actually tested. For example, to appreciate the handling capabilities of a car, would opne test drive it on a straight road; stop, take a nice slow turn, and return? no -- same with bicycles-- you cnanot appreciate the handling characteristics of a bike until yuou have taken a 90-degree downhill turn on it at 40 mph; or tried to respond instantly to some fred up in front in the pace line who just crossed wheels with the guy in front, or tried to maneuver a full loaded tourer down some hairpin turns; or ridden a few miles of rough stuff... having said that - unless you use (just as charles has noted) the exact same wheels and tires, and set the bike up to fit your specific needs, then it is a challenge to identify the intrinsic frame design factors that are impacting the ride. re - "assuming some reasonably precise descriptive language." -- this hits the nail on the head. there is simply no standard nomenclature, or vocabulary, not to mention scale of reference, to guide any individual in their assessment of a bike's ride quality. Bottom line: being aware the different bikes have a different road feel - and knowing that the builders had a specific quality in mind - this makes for a far more fascinating experience when pedaling old steel!
damien roohr
canton, ct
n
Andrew wrote:
"Attempts to place a value or description on bike handling can be like trying to compare art work. We do it all the time but it doesn't really mean much."
********
I have to differ with Andrew on this. Assuming control for a few variables, like wheels, tires and stem-length, and assuming these variables are more-or-less standard for the kind of bike involved--that is, light racing wheels, 25-25mm tubular tires, and stem-length typical for a given frame size for a late-70s professional-level racing bike--I think you can easily make meaningful comparisons of how frames ride, assuming some reasonably precise descriptive language. Short, steep, high bikes (short stays and top-tube, steep angles, high bb shells) all have a pretty strong family resemblance in the way they ride, just as long, slack, low frames do. And this regardless of the wheels, tires, or stem-length you prefer. One might be able to mitigate some of the more annoying qualities of the former frames with fatter tires and softer rims, for instance...but in general, I've found various riders all describe frames like these in the same ways, and describe the differences in the same ways.
Also, if you prefer a slightly bigger frame for your body-type, or a slightly smaller one, the differences in road-feel between those two situations can be described fairly precisely as well.
So, in short, you can make meaningful comparisons in this area, as long as you define the circumstances a bit. And those descriptions can be very useful, as a couple here have already been to me.
Comparing how people *feel* about these differences, or what might be *better*, now, that gets into *chacon a son gout* territory.
Charles Andrews Los Angeles
Q: "Why do people spoil everything for themselves?
A: "In big ways, and little ways too, people do that all the time to themselves. We can't stand prosperity. We have to tinker with the machinery."
--John D. MacDonald