Why do some bikes just feel consistently faster?

[Patrick Moore]

This is hardly a new question for me or for others, but it is a question that strikes me anew when I ride the 1999 Joe Starck and find, once again as always in getting on for 25 years of ownership that it's just easier to maintain speed and cadence in given conditions in given gears, this both on the flats and on hills. I remember being struck by this, again at the start of each ride on it, in the first years of ownership.

Tires make a difference, tho' it felt this way with 571 X 23 mm Conti Grands Prix and Michelin Pro Races and with 559 X 23 mm Specialized Turbos; with the slightly wider (27.19 mm rear at 60 psi and 27.49 mm front at 55 psi on my 19 mm OW rims) and even lighter and more supple Elk Passes it feels even faster and smoother. 

BTW, I wholly discountenance the opinion that harshness or vibration makes riders think they're going fast. At least, perhaps some people do that, but I've always associated harshness with slowness and smoothness with speed. But again, the '99 has always felt smooth and fast.

What provoked this perennial question was my very pleasant mid-afternoon ride today. My route included about 1 mile of steep hill starting at Broadway and, feeling tired and sluggish and being old I considered swapping the Phil 17/19Dingle wheel (76" and 68") with the SA TF wheel (76" and 57" underdrive), but didn't want the bother and decided I'd just walk if necessary.

I did plan to move the chain to the 19 t/68" gear once I got downtown, but didn't do this, either. Winds variable up to about 7-8 mph.

I took it easy but found myself following some youngster on a thin-tire 700C derailleur hybrid for about 8 miles; I finally caught up to him at the first light on Coal and followed him up the climb. I think he was a UNM student and at least 45 years younger than I, and he put a few yards on me up the hill spinning in a low gear but I was surprised once again (this is the point, don't mind my meandering) at how well and easily the bike climbs.

???

Planing? The frame is not as over-beefy as the 2003 Goodrich custom but it's not as light and certainly has fatter tubes than the wonderful thinwall 531 normal gauge 2020 Matthews replacement of the 2003.

Weight? With the Phil it's right at 18 lb without bottle or bag versus ~28 for the Matthews road with F+R racks, fenders, lights, and SA 3 speed hub, and versus the 30-31 lb of the Matthews road-bike-for-dirt with 2X10 derailleur drivetrain, 50 mm tires, 2X gauge fenders, dynamo lighting, and rear rack. But it feels fast on the flats at steady-state cruising. I daresay that the weight makes a difference on hills, but I don't think that weight is the only reason.

I know that some bikes just fit and feel "perfect," and this is one of them (tho' the 2 Matthewses fit just about the same since I built them up to do so). That old Herse was a tank that 2 earlier owners sold for cheap but for me it rode "fast" if not as fast as the 1999 Joe Starck.

To end this meandering: since so much of my riding is either errands requiring bags or dirt requiring fat tires the 1999 gets ridden less than it otherwise would, but if I had to get ride of all bikes but one, I'd happily keep this and build 1 or 2 alternative wheelsets (geared/skinny, geared/fattish) and buy a bit selection of strap-on saddlebags from repair kit only to Sackville Medium.

I've owned 5 Rivendells including 3 customs and this one is the last (tho' the 2020 Matthews is a copy of the 2003).

Sorry, can't resist posting again:

--

Patrick Moore

Alburquerque, Nuevo Mexico, Etats Unis d'Amerique, Orbis Terrarum

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Executive resumes, LinkedIn profiles, bios, letters, and other writing services

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When thou didst not, savage, know thine own meaning,

But wouldst gabble like a thing most brutish,

I endowed thy purposes with words that made them known.

[Patrick Moore]

Just looked at Cyclemeter: 15.17 mph just lollygagging and with clock running over multiple stops; and a little boy messing around with a scooter on the bike path stopped to yell, "You're going fast!" Well, not very, but my usual clock running/many stops time is more like 12 mph.

[John Dewey]

That's just a very fine looking bicycle, Patrick.

Jock

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/CALuTfgviETZYYJi7rVhTuzU576Wp-U%3DnG1shrd0048b36Xt6Fg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Patrick Moore]

Why, thank you!

Really, I wax sentimental over this bike but once again, consistently for almost 25 years it's a mini-revelation every time I get on it, how well it fits, feels, and rides. My other bikes are set up and fit much the same, but even though both (the 2 Matthewses*) feel delightful, they don't feel quite as fast or easy to pedal, this despite very-top-quality (and cost) tires on all of them.

* The 2 Matthews fit and feel and ride better than the other 4 Rivendells I've owned: 2 custom roads, Sam, and Ram (which is why I sold the Rivs and had the Matthews built); but the '99 Riv was the general fit and handling model for the 2 Matthews, even the 622X60 mm tire one, and Chauncey did a good job of replicating the fit and handling.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/CA%2BkTrE77SHx-HZqKFPJ-Fbh0LNs1pm%2BRjQ3JSnPyZLu-wX-2oA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Bill Lindsay]

In my opinion, you love your Ford Blue Rivendell Custom.  I think it's a very good thing to love one's bicycle.  I think it is a very fortunate and somewhat rare thing to be able to maintain that type of affection for a machine over the 20-something years.  I do not know of, nor would speculate to offer, some objective, measurable attribute of your FRBC that makes it mysteriously one-tooth-faster than some other undefined hypothetical machine.  Like a functioning marriage, I think this 20-something year love affair has something to do with the bike, and something to do with the rider of the bike.  To the extent that the bike is not sentient, then I would speculate that the enduring love has somewhat more to do with the rider.  I think it's fine Winter chat fodder to ask "why do I like this bike so much?"   I can't offer a reason why, but I congratulate the OP for liking that FBRC so much, for so long.  

Bill Lindsay

El Cerrito, CA

[John Dewey]

Patrick, I feel the very same way each time I hop on my 39 yr-old Schwinn Paramount. Still in daily rotation and just may be more enjoyable and lively and fast than it has ever been. Remarkable!

Such a gift for which I am grateful at least once a day. 

Jock

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/CALuTfguvR%2BSGFKsgnuSMSsg2LmTo-J%3DKULZzvgh33KC%3DWHrt%3Dg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ron Mc]

Hi Patrick, 

Riding position is a big factor in speed and spin power.  

Getting your weight off the bar, and leaning into core muscles will find an immediate burst of spin power that should take you up any grade.  

Can only think of one tire size that made a difference.  Gee, I've never ridden a 23, and haven't ridden a 25 since I was 40 years younger and, um, 20 lbs lighter.  

But this bike, Viner Pro CX built as upright, is the only bike where I noticed a tire/speed difference.  

(this is also the bike that gets the new Berthoud decaleur, replacing the red straps)

Photographed here in Laguna Atascosa NWR.  

I first built this bike with 38-mm Barlow Pass and it felt lumbering.  Noted in our regular Sunday morning crack-of-dawn ride (kina like bike-church), where the lead group always turns the first 7 miles into a sprint to the Alamodome.  When I made the swap to 35-mm Bon Jon, found a rolling efficiency difference, especially on the pavement, and these tires do the job anywhere I want to take the bike.  After the tire swap, the young guys on carbon bikes ask me if I have a motor in this bike.  

And your Matthews is a beaut.  Your Paramount also, John.  

Regards

[Patrick Moore]

Thanks, Ron. + 1 for John's Paramount. Also, interesting "North Road-type" bar setup with the aero extensions.

Fit and position certainly makes (part of fit)  a huge difference and I'd guess it's the principal reason, or at least one of them, why some bikes just feel easier to pedal. That '58 Herse was like that: I just had to adjust saddle and bar height and angle slightly to make it fit and feel like one of my custom Rivendells. The Herse was 60 cm X 56 cm c-c (sure about the st, think the tt was 56) compared to the 57 c-c X 56.5 or 57 cm of the 1999 and 58 for the Matthews Riv clone, but those have sloping tts and extended steerers and heads and shorter stems so the fit is the same.

I've moved the (original Flite) saddles forward by =/< 1 cm (on 73* sta) since the days when I used a rubber mallet on the nose to get them all the way back on the DA 7410 sps but I still like sitting back and leaning foward and pushing the cranks forward for momentary torque on climbs.

Tires: The 2020 Matthews feels slightly slower with 42 mm Naches Passes (ELs) than with 28 mm Elk Passes (slightly; it hardly interferes with the pleasure of riding but I do notice a tiny bit more effort when accelerating and even while  maintaining cruising speed; and certainly the bike handles less nimbly). OTOH, those 622X60 Big Ones .... Certainly not nimble but felt as fast at steady state as the Elk Passes.

[Ron Mc]

I used a Nitto double lamp bracket and mountain bar ends to add more grip positions - Ahearne bar, same angles as Northwoods (and Jones-H), longer ends.  

Adds comfort options in a long ride, and makes a big difference with a headwind.  

     

My favorite recent mod was finding the Nitto Erlen saddle bag support, which stacks on the seat rails - the Ostrich S-2 bag bottom sleeve literally fits it like a glove.  

    

[Andrew Turner]

There's a BlueLug video on YouTube where they visit Mike Varley at his bike shop, and a similar question was asked about his frames and why they ride so well. This is a question I've had ever since riding a BMC Monstercross as it's an exceptionally fun and zippy ride for pretty unexceptional tubing and geometry, so I was keen to hear the secret come out..."I don't know why." LOL. He did suspect bottom bracket height being a contributing factor in the way a bike feels though. 

From my experience, a faster feeling bicycle comes from 3 objective requirements: a bike designed with the intention of being ridden quickly ; 2: the desire from the rider to ride said bike quickly. and 3: the rider being comfortable riding it. However, the key word in all of this is "feeling." I think the answer you're looking for lives somewhere in the deep, dark forests of subjectiveness, don't overthink it, just enjoy the kinship you found with your bike! 

- Andrew

[RichS]

My two cents in this discussion and worth no more than that, is tires, tires, tires. Not long ago I swapped out 38mm Soma B-lines for 32mm Grand Bois Cypress on my Hillborne. Faster feeling? Yes. Realistically? No. But I do like the way they "feel" for my 100% road riding. Another anecdote: My Mercian Audax is an entirely different bike running the same GB Cypress tires and Continental 5000 28s as opposed to the 38mm Gravel King slicks I had on it for awhile. 

Best,

Rich in ATL

[P W]

The bikes you like the most ride the fastest.

That’s just science!

P. W.

~

(917) 514-2207

~

On Dec 28, 2023, at 2:35 PM, Patrick Moore <bert...@gmail.com> wrote:



This is hardly a new question for me or for others, but it is a question that strikes me anew when I ride the 1999 Joe Starck and find, once again as always in getting on for 25 years of ownership that it's just easier to maintain speed and cadence in given conditions in given gears, this both on the flats and on hills. I remember being struck by this, again at the start of each ride on it, in the first years of ownership.

Tires make a difference, tho' it felt this way with 571 X 23 mm Conti Grands Prix and Michelin Pro Races and with 559 X 23 mm Specialized Turbos; with the slightly wider (27.19 mm rear at 60 psi and 27.49 mm front at 55 psi on my 19 mm OW rims) and even lighter and more supple Elk Passes it feels even faster and smoother. 

BTW, I wholly discountenance the opinion that harshness or vibration makes riders think they're going fast. At least, perhaps some people do that, but I've always associated harshness with slowness and smoothness with speed. But again, the '99 has always felt smooth and fast.

What provoked this perennial question was my very pleasant mid-afternoon ride today. My route included about 1 mile of steep hill starting at Broadway and, feeling tired and sluggish and being old I considered swapping the Phil 17/19Dingle wheel (76" and 68") with the SA TF wheel (76" and 57" underdrive), but didn't want the bother and decided I'd just walk if necessary.

I did plan to move the chain to the 19 t/68" gear once I got downtown, but didn't do this, either. Winds variable up to about 7-8 mph.

I took it easy but found myself following some youngster on a thin-tire 700C derailleur hybrid for about 8 miles; I finally caught up to him at the first light on Coal and followed him up the climb. I think he was a UNM student and at least 45 years younger than I, and he put a few yards on me up the hill spinning in a low gear but I was surprised once again (this is the point, don't mind my meandering) at how well and easily the bike climbs.

???

Planing? The frame is not as over-beefy as the 2003 Goodrich custom but it's not as light and certainly has fatter tubes than the wonderful thinwall 531 normal gauge 2020 Matthews replacement of the 2003.

Weight? With the Phil it's right at 18 lb without bottle or bag versus ~28 for the Matthews road with F+R racks, fenders, lights, and SA 3 speed hub, and versus the 30-31 lb of the Matthews road-bike-for-dirt with 2X10 derailleur drivetrain, 50 mm tires, 2X gauge fenders, dynamo lighting, and rear rack. But it feels fast on the flats at steady-state cruising. I daresay that the weight makes a difference on hills, but I don't think that weight is the only reason.

I know that some bikes just fit and feel "perfect," and this is one of them (tho' the 2 Matthewses fit just about the same since I built them up to do so). That old Herse was a tank that 2 earlier owners sold for cheap but for me it rode "fast" if not as fast as the 1999 Joe Starck.

To end this meandering: since so much of my riding is either errands requiring bags or dirt requiring fat tires the 1999 gets ridden less than it otherwise would, but if I had to get ride of all bikes but one, I'd happily keep this and build 1 or 2 alternative wheelsets (geared/skinny, geared/fattish) and buy a bit selection of strap-on saddlebags from repair kit only to Sackville Medium.

I've owned 5 Rivendells including 3 customs and this one is the last (tho' the 2020 Matthews is a copy of the 2003).

Sorry, can't resist posting again:

<image.png>

--

Patrick Moore

Alburquerque, Nuevo Mexico, Etats Unis d'Amerique, Orbis Terrarum

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Executive resumes, LinkedIn profiles, bios, letters, and other writing services

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When thou didst not, savage, know thine own meaning,

But wouldst gabble like a thing most brutish,

I endowed thy purposes with words that made them known.

--

[Jason Fuller]

My two hypotheses are 1) the frame stiffness is perfectly matched to your power output at optimal cadence, so you do get that energy return known as planing and/or 2) the fit is perfectly matched to your biomechanics, which I believe can be sensitive enough that even a bike with similar numbers might be ever-so-slightly off and it actually has a pretty adverse effect on your output.  But these are just hypotheses, in reality I have no idea!  It does seem that there is a certain 'magic' that cannot be explained by bike weight or aerodynamics.  

[Steve]

Jason, I find your hypothesis to be the most plausible one yet. I think most of us will concede that the perception of a bike being fast is a subjective thing. It comes down to a bit of magic occurring between the rider and the bike and I'd say you have put your finger on what that magic is.

Steve in Asheville

[Ron Mc]

To me, cadence is an aluminum word - a word that didn't exist in cycling before the requirement for redundant structure and excess rigidity in aluminum frames.  

Without cadence, finding the natural frequency that planes you bike on a grade is, well, natural.  

[Patrick Moore]

I think Jason is right, while agreeing that there is a very large subjective factor, which is why I phrased the question as "feel faster." Still, I think there are things "beyond your head" that make certain bikes feel this way, and feel this way consistently over decades of riding; otherwise, why would you ever choose this bike rather than that bike as the one that consistently "feels fast"?

I question whether the concern with cadence started only with the popularity of aluminum bikes. In the Centennial History of the Tour de France there is an engaging vignette from one of the 1930s Tours de France shortly after derailleurs were admitted of directors sportifs leaning out car windows and yelling at their champion riders, "14! 16! 15!" to tell the derailleur-neophytes on what cogs to use for changing terrains and conditions; obviously cadence was involved in their undoubtedly seat-of-pants calculations.

Funny: I rode the 1999 gofast again this afternoon and, again, it just felt fast and easy to pedal. I got back home, looked at Cyclemeter, and, well, I averaged in the mid-13s, tho' this was clock running thru minutes-long waits at no-light busy 4-lane / residential cul-de-sac intersections and stops to drink water and peer at my iPhone. Fun, though.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/6a0cfd24-2f80-44a0-8222-96c3b7e81c30n%40googlegroups.com.

[Patrick Moore]

On Sat, Jan 6, 2024 at 6:16 PM Patrick Moore <bert...@gmail.com> wrote:

... Still, I think there are things "beyond your head" that make certain bikes feel this way

http://www.matthewbcrawford.com/new-page-1-1 

[Ron Mc]

I have to take exception with you Patrick - the people I know who are concerned with cadence came from aluminum bikes, never change their cadence, can tell you what is their cadence, and are always shifting.  

On a good steel frame, you spin and mash and, yes, you still change gears, possibly not as often.  All of us on friction shifting anticipate and shift early, and our "cadence" is all over the place.  

Dailing into the sweet spot is never a constant rpm.  

[Bill Schairer]

Never ever have I heard this before.  All my bikes have been and are steel going back 50+ years.  I love a 3x9 half step with granny where I can dial in my cadence to that magic spot where things seem almost effortless.  It is almost like having a CVT.  I ride friction and shift more often than most, near as I can tell, even those riding indexed.  I'm not positive but I don't think I have ever been on an aluminum bike.  Not saying my way is right or wrong for anyone but me but it has absolutely nothing to do with the frame material.

Bill S

San Diego

[Sarah Carlson]

If you paint your bike a fast color, your bike goes faster.

On Thursday, December 28, 2023 at 2:35:08 PM UTC-8 Patrick Moore wrote:

[Ron Mc]

And I use 3x6 half-step triple with form, core muscles, spin, mash and planing.  

My only x9 is a compact double with a road ring and an off-road ring.  

[John Hawrylak, Woodstown NJ]

+1 on Bill L's thoughts on Ford Blue.   I would suggest planning as the frame is large (25"??) and if a normal wall tubing was used, the large frame might plane without being too flexible.   Do you know what wall thickness was used???   Maybe it's better not to know, following Bill's line of thought.

PS, the darker blue bars contrast nicely.   Would Ford use a white??

John Hawrylak

Woodstown NJ

[Ron Mc]

Grand would understand what I'm saying, about finding form in yourself, and finding the dynamics in your frame.  

I can't quote the exact copy, but once I read Grant copy to the effect, try not shifting as often, so you don't ride in cadence.  

[Patrick Moore]

Actually, the frame is 78 cm c-c; those are 16" wheels.

No, it's 57 c-c, but I've had others tell me of similar bikes (1995 26" wheel Riv Road custom), "Man, that's a big frame!" thanks to the 559 mm bsd wheels (24" when shod with 13 mm tires, 24 3/4" with the 28 mm Elk Passes shown.

I don't know what the tubing is; it's OS and, when Chauncey Matthews hefted the bare frame+fork+headset he muttered, "Huh! Not light!" -- The near-geometrical clone he built for me in 2020 for an IGH drivetrain (his 2020 geom-cloned the 2003 which was a geom clone of this 1999) is standard gauge and probably thinner wall, or at at least some of the main tubes are .8 .4 .8, and compared to the excessively stout 2003 this Matthews also seemed to "plane" when shod with the Elk Pass tires -- I thought, "this one is even faster than the 1999!" -- but not as much with the (extra light) Naches Passes.

Yes, I think Ford Blue is the fastest color; certainly faster than red, as the scientists have shown. But OTOH it seemed as fast when coated with the mere Joe Bell navy metallic paint with cream accents, tho' really, I like the Ford Blue powdercoat better.

Yes, the bar tape is too light. This Lizard Skin sky blue replaced a darker LS tape; I asked the LBS to order the same but they came up with this one. I agree that a darker color would work better. White? Hell, no! I scored 6 boxes of VO tape on sale including 2 boxes of orangey-red (for the sage green Matthews) and 2 of darker blue (for the 1999 once the LS wears out, which it does too quickly). 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/369e08d7-0f88-47e3-a097-5b6670a2f99cn%40googlegroups.com.

[Patrick Moore]

I don't think we are disagreeing; I would not be surprised if the modern fixation on cadence (you gotta keep the revs in the efficient band) started up about the same time that uber-stiff aluminum frames*, AND as the number of cogs in back grew past 7. But  from the vast and disorganized reading about cycling I've done over the decades I really do think that riders were thinking about cadence long before the 1980s. 

Sure, if you have few gear ratios, even more if you ride fixed or ss, you necessarily become used to riding a large range of cadences and torque levels -- and, for me, that is one of the great pleasure of riding fixed. And the limited gear range provided by old SA IGHs, fw or fixed, still allows and requires this flexibility in cadence. But even single speed riders choose ratios that suit their riding style: Sheldon of sainted memory preferred to gear about 10 gear inches higher than I like -- my ideal single fixed gear is ~75" for light gofast and ~70" for utility/errand/load bearing riding.

* I recall riding my brother's Klein mtb: girder!!! -- but not entirely to be deprecated all the same; it did give a "feel" of instant acceleration.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/69e3b55d-bd6b-4a24-b5c6-aa0f35980a63n%40googlegroups.com.

[Patrick Moore]

Huh! I wonder if there was a "burst" of cadence-fixation when ultra-stiff aluminum frames hit the market. Guessing: They were too stiff for many riders, these riders felt that they bogged down riding these frames, thus they wanted very small gear gaps to compensate. OTOH, more flexible and accommodating frames allowed or "encouraged" riders to use a single gear over a wider range of conditions.

Sounds smart to me!

On Sun, Jan 7, 2024 at 12:34 PM Patrick Moore <bert...@gmail.com> wrote:

...I would not be surprised if the modern fixation on cadence (you gotta keep the revs in the efficient band) started up about the same time that uber-stiff aluminum frame ...

[John Hawrylak, Woodstown NJ]

Patrick

Maybe this was asked/answered, but is the STA or saddle setback the same on Ford Blue as the others??   Are you in a different position??

John Hawrylak
Woodstown NJ

On Thursday, December 28, 2023 at 5:35:08 PM UTC-5 Patrick Moore wrote:

This is hardly a new question for me or for others, but it is a question that strikes me anew when I ride the 1999 Joe Starck and find, once again as always in getting on for 25 years of ownership that it's just easier to maintain speed and cadence in given conditions in given gears, this both on the flats and on hills. I remember being struck by this, again at the start of each ride on it, in the first years of ownership.

Tires make a difference, tho' it felt this way with 571 X 23 mm Conti Grands Prix and Michelin Pro Races and with 559 X 23 mm Specialized Turbos; with the slightly wider (27.19 mm rear at 60 psi and 27.49 mm front at 55 psi on my 19 mm OW rims) and even lighter and more supple Elk Passes it feels even faster and smoother. 

BTW, I wholly discountenance the opinion that harshness or vibration makes riders think they're going fast. At least, perhaps some people do that, but I've always associated harshness with slowness and smoothness with speed. But again, the '99 has always felt smooth and fast.

What provoked this perennial question was my very pleasant mid-afternoon ride today. My route included about 1 mile of steep hill starting at Broadway and, feeling tired and sluggish and being old I considered swapping the Phil 17/19Dingle wheel (76" and 68") with the SA TF wheel (76" and 57" underdrive), but didn't want the bother and decided I'd just walk if necessary.

I did plan to move the chain to the 19 t/68" gear once I got downtown, but didn't do this, either. Winds variable up to about 7-8 mph.

I took it easy but found myself following some youngster on a thin-tire 700C derailleur hybrid for about 8 miles; I finally caught up to him at the first light on Coal and followed him up the climb. I think he was a UNM student and at least 45 years younger than I, and he put a few yards on me up the hill spinning in a low gear but I was surprised once again (this is the point, don't mind my meandering) at how well and easily the bike climbs.

???

Planing? The frame is not as over-beefy as the 2003 Goodrich custom but it's not as light and certainly has fatter tubes than the wonderful thinwall 531 normal gauge 2020 Matthews replacement of the 2003.

Weight? With the Phil it's right at 18 lb without bottle or bag versus ~28 for the Matthews road with F+R racks, fenders, lights, and SA 3 speed hub, and versus the 30-31 lb of the Matthews road-bike-for-dirt with 2X10 derailleur drivetrain, 50 mm tires, 2X gauge fenders, dynamo lighting, and rear rack. But it feels fast on the flats at steady-state cruising. I daresay that the weight makes a difference on hills, but I don't think that weight is the only reason.

I know that some bikes just fit and feel "perfect," and this is one of them (tho' the 2 Matthewses fit just about the same since I built them up to do so). That old Herse was a tank that 2 earlier owners sold for cheap but for me it rode "fast" if not as fast as the 1999 Joe Starck.

To end this meandering: since so much of my riding is either errands requiring bags or dirt requiring fat tires the 1999 gets ridden less than it otherwise would, but if I had to get ride of all bikes but one, I'd happily keep this and build 1 or 2 alternative wheelsets (geared/skinny, geared/fattish) and buy a bit selection of strap-on saddlebags from repair kit only to Sackville Medium.

I've owned 5 Rivendells including 3 customs and this one is the last (tho' the 2020 Matthews is a copy of the 2003).

Sorry, can't resist posting again:

[Ted Durant]

Not to be overly contrarian, but ...

Planing is a terrible word for the phenomenon in question, which is when the flex characteristics of the bike are such that the energy stored in deformation (of the frame and all the attached parts) is efficiently returned to power the rear wheel during the lower power part of the pedaling cycle. When a boat planes, it rises out of the water, resulting in a large reduction in coefficient of drag. The equivalent on a bicycle would be the development of a vacuum around the bike and rider at a certain speed. That would be fun, but it's certainly not what's happening on earth. Ironically, there is a well-known and used term in Jan's back yard, for the exact phenomenon he is trying to describe. Rowers have long used the word "swing" to describe a shell and oars whose flex characteristics synchronize well with their strokes, allowing them to go faster for a given power output. Jan claims that bikes that "plane" magically increase a rider's power output, but the reality is that bikes that swing well waste less of the rider's  power. A better way to put it might be that such a bike puts more of the rider's power to the back wheel. 

The flex characteristics of the frame are important, of course, but the entire bicycle (and its rider) is a system of springs and in such a system the softer springs affect flex first, with the stiffer springs becoming more relevant as the forces increase. For most of us on this list, we don't spend a lot of time putting enough power into the pedals to get to the point where frame flexibility is significantly tested. At 57kg, I can tell you that I rarely put out that kind of power. I have a brevet bike made of .7/.4/.7 standard diameter tubing, and I can make that frame flex, but not for very long. That bike rides on 42mm tires at about 33 psi, and the tires are definitely the soft springs in that system.

I don't attribute aluminum, or stiffer frames in general, to an increased focus on cadence. Track cyclists have always been obsessed with cadence. With the introduction of multiple gear systems for road biking came the opportunity to develop notions of "ideal" cadence. Note that when Jan talks about frames "planing" for him, he almost always talks about it working for his preferred cadence. Stiff frames, in fact, reduce the importance of cadence, as they reduce the contribution of the frame to swing (for a given power input). For me, cadence is only important when going uphill or into a headwind. It is important because I need enough momentum in my feet to keep a steady speed. Without that momentum, I am repeatedly accelerating during the power phase and decelerating during the non-power phase. That is terribly inefficient. And that is why, as discussed in the recent thread on gearing, it is so important to have low gears in steep hills. Long before aluminum frames were a twinkle in Gary Klein's eyes, cyclists talked about "staying on top of a gear" when climbing. It meant to maintain a fast enough cadence that you were pedaling smoothly, maintaining a constant speed. Cyclists have also long talked about using smaller gears and a higher cadence to "work your heart, not your legs." 

So, I also don't have _the_ answer to why some bikes seem/feel/are faster than others. Many of my best Strava times on climbing segments and my best 100km time are on my Heron prototype, which is a road frame but has the heavy rear stays from the touring frame. You can feel the weight of the stays (and the weight of the old SunTour freewheel) when you pick up the bike. Maybe it's just that I have so much invested in that bike that it inspires me to push a little harder. I tend to believe Jan's hypothesis that stiffness in the downtube and chainstays and flex in the top tube, relative to each other, help a bike swing in a way that returns energy to the rear wheel. Interestingly, old Reynolds tube sets were always spec'd that way, with thinner walls in the top tube than in the down tube. Somewhere along the way they switched to the Columbus standard, where top tube and down tube walls are the same. The Heron Road bikes have .1mm thinner top tube walls than down tube, and my prototype has extra heavy stays, so there you go.

Ted Durant

Milwaukee WI USA

[Ron Mc]

Terrible word or not, it's easier to use the word than to describe the natural frequency that occurs in the rear triangles, to take excess mash energy and push the frame forward, making the bike feel lighter.  It's a true phenomenon of steel, designed into good-climbing bikes, and it's always a joy to feel yourself accelerating on grades.  

[Ted Durant]

On Monday, January 8, 2024 at 10:15:31 AM UTC-5 I wrote:

The Heron Road bikes have .1mm thinner top tube walls than down tube, and my prototype has extra heavy stays, so there you go.

A bit more on this, just for fun. I had Waterford build an ST-22 that is in many ways a duplicate of the Heron Road. However, it has a lighter top tube (.7/.4/.7 vs .8/.5/.8), a  lighter down tube (.65/.45/.65 vs .9/.6/.9), and lighter chain stays (30x17 oval tapering to 12.5mm, 0.8 wall, vs 22.2 round tapering to 12, probably 1.0 wall). I find the Heron to be a nicer ride. BUT, there are a couple of other critical differences. Both bikes use the Heron round blade fork crown, but the ST22 has slightly longer (bit more rake, bit more clearance) but stiffer (1.2mm vs 1.0mm wall at the tips) blades. In addition, the ST22 fork has beefy fork ends for the SON SL connectors, and a Schmidt SON hub. Also, the ST22 rides on DT TK540 rims, compared to Mavic MA2 on the Heron. Someday I'll put the Heron's wheels on the ST22 and see how that changes things; I expect it will change a lot.

Don't underestimate the importance of the fork to the feel and handling of a bike.

[Patrick Moore]

All bikes have the same effective sta: the 1999 and the Matthews #2 clone both have 73* stas, and the Matthews #1 has the saddle forward on the rails to compensate for the 72* sta. I start setup with saddle height and setback wrt the bb centerline -- pretty close to identical for all my bikes -- and use the saddle to gauge bar and brake lever position.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/1d8e24a9-0448-4830-8a0e-806fbfc45371n%40googlegroups.com.

[Bill Schairer]

Ted,

I love your explanation!  My niece is a college crew coach and she also cycles.  I will have to ask her about "swing."

Bill S

San Diego

[Keith Paugh]

Really interesting points Ted.

Thanks for writing them up!

k.

On Jan 9, 2024, at 6:12 AM, Bill Schairer <comm...@gmail.com> wrote:

Ted,

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/42724a9c-8994-42b1-922a-774b953d1f71n%40googlegroups.com.

[Ron Mc]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxxhoKVVCvg

I don't know how to embed this, or whether good will embed it, but the youtube link is the mode shape that produces planing from the rear triangles.  

[Bill Lindsay]

OK, thought experiment time!  

You have to build four bikes. All four bikes must fit you identically.  All the contact points of all four bikes will be identical.  All four bikes will have geometry/handling that are similar enough to each other that you'll concede they ride/handle the same.

Bike A is for sand and has 3.0" wide tires and weighs 30 pounds

Bike B is for grocery runs, pavement and firm dirt.  It's got front and rear derailleurs and weighs 30 pounds unloaded and 75 pounds with groceries

Bike C has an IGH and is used for pavement and grocery runs.  It weighs 28 pounds unloaded and 73 pounds with groceries

Bike D is a stripped down fixie for unloaded pavement rides only.  It weighs 17 pounds

You mostly ride bikes A, B and C.  Every once in a while you ride bike D and every time you do, it feels amazingly fast and easy to pedal.  

Question:  Why does Bike D feel fast and easy to pedal?  

Bill Lindsay

El Cerrito, CA

[Chris Halasz]

The video depicts "simulated displacement of the bicycle frame when excited at a natural frequency of 446.54Hz. The motion is magnified five times."

Requesting some help with my simple mind on this. 446.54Hz? And magnified five times. I can't help be reminded of the wreck.bikes.tech Jobst days, when data showed no measurable deflection with large mass placed on steel vs. aluminum frames. 

Still wondering whether 'planing' (just resonance?) isn't all in the head, like fancy labels on wine bottles actually affecting 'taste'. If it's in the head, the dopamine release will find its way to the pedals, and cranks. It's still real. Next thing you know, you're traveling at ... 4446.54Hz. 

I'm reminded of Sam Maloof's take on chair design: the better chair invites (compels?) you to sit.  

Also reminded of the Richard Sachs axiom: 'The bike is not the frame, the bike is the bike.' Or something like that. It's a system of frame, wheels, spoke tension, tires, seat post and stem protrusion and length. How that all feels, and looks, affects the brain and body. 

And Patrick, that is one fine system of a bike.

[John Hawrylak]

Because the other 3 are stiffer and harder to pedal, unless operated at their design conditions, e.g B & C need a 73 to 75 lbm additional load.

John Hawrylak

Woodstown NJ

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/rbw-owners-bunch/e1zJO1Hhl-U/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/0c4d736c-482e-4e69-a0fc-f0eb5d0cc403n%40googlegroups.com

.

[Ted Durant]

On Jan 9, 2024, at 12:40 PM, Ron Mc <bulld...@gmail.com> wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxxhoKVVCvg

I don't know how to embed this, or whether good will embed it, but the youtube link is the mode shape that produces planing from the rear triangles.  

That appears to be two dimensional in the plane of the frame, which wouldn’t represent what Jan Heine has described as his planing hypothesis.

[Bill Lindsay]

John played along and gave an interesting answer.  Interesting for two reasons:

1. Patrick Moore's Bike C is objectively more flexible than Bike D.  

2. John H doesn't think a 12 pound lighter bike will feel faster or easier to pedal

BL in EC

[John Hawrylak, Woodstown NJ]

Bill L questioned the 12# weight difference.

I sort of missed the 12#, mainly since Bike D was stated to 'feel fast' and I assumed B & C would use heavier tubing due to the 73 to 75# load requirement and A must be thick gauge tubing given the 30# weight (Schwinns in the 1980"s used 1010 18 gauge tubing in lugged frames and quoted 30 to 32# weights).

I admit D should be about 1 mph faster than the A, B C due to the 11 to 13# weight difference (basis R Schwinn stated Schwinn tests showed 12# change in frame resulted in a 1 mph change with same effort).   I focused on the 'feel fast' vs 'tested and shown faster'.

I did ride a Trek 5500 (Rolf paired spoke wheels) for 5 years between riding a 1975 Schwinn Approved Voyaguer II and a 1988 Schwinn Voyaguer (touring) and both with 36 spoke wheels.  I did not find it to 'feel a significant degree faster' than the Voyageur II even though it weighed less.  I may have been faster, but did not feel it.

However, my Norther-Lyon (36 spoke Velocity Atlas wheels) does 'feel faster" than either of the 2 Schwinns and is definitely easier to pedal than the other 3.   So my answer is probably biased to my experiences & assumptions discussed above.

Note:  The 4 frames are all essentially the same sizes: 21" )C-T), 54cm and 52cm, both C-C.  So tube rigidity may be more important in the smaller frame since a small frame is more rigid than a large one.

This was enjoyable and thought provoking.  Thanks Bill   

John Hawrylak

Woodstown NJ

[Mike Godwin]

I recall "reynoldslugs" (Max Beach) on the ibob list positing thin/slim seat stays add to the effect of a bike feeling fast, or least adding to the swing effect when pedaling. I tend to agree with him on that when comparing my Lemond Zurich and mid-70s Bob Jackson to say a Roadeo.  But, the larger diameter stays on my no-longer-in-quiver BMC Road bike had nearly the same feel as the Zurich and BJ.  

Yup, its the whole system, let's ride it!

Mike SLO CA 

[Patrick Moore]

I'm sure weight makes a difference; I'm not convinced it makes all the difference since I've had at least a couple of bikes that consistently felt "faster" despite weighing 10 or 12+ lbs more than the 1999. I expect as others have said that it is a happy coincidence of weight, flex, tires, fit, and position.

The 2 Matthews -- fat tire road bike for dirt, 26" wheel road bike for errands -- actually have, I think, thinner tubing and lighter frames, proportions preserved, than the 1999. The 2020 Matthews errand bike frame was deliberately built with lighter, more flexible tubes than the 2003 Riv Goodrich custom which cloned the 1999, and indeed, with Elk Passes, I began to think that it might even be faster than the 1999 despite it's 8 or 10 lb greater weight. It feels fast with the el NPs but no longer a competitor to the 1999. The 622 fat tire Matthews felt almost as fast with the Big Ones (and only slightly slower again with the Somas, preferred for their pavement handling) and despite a 12 or 13 lb weight difference, but part of that may have been the "feel" of longer 175 mm cranks, tho this too had thinwall (OS) tubing.

But again: the 1958 Herse felt (consistently over 18 or 24 months) 1 cog faster than "usual" despite thick-wall tubes that caused 2 other owners to pass it on cheap, heavy weight (forget, but it must have been at least 28 lb if not more with racks), and ho-hum 32 mm Paselas. Tho' the thick-wall tubing was normal gauge.

Again, all of these and my other bikes have been set up for largely the same riding position.

Too look at the question from the reverse -- What made a bike feel so slow and awkward? -- the Monocog is a good instance, tho' it's current and improved "feel" is merely "nice" and not superlative. When I got it, with stiff, heavily knobbed and IIRC wire bead tires, OEM wide (2012) bar, and 172 mm Q crank, it just felt penitential to ride, on dirt and certainly on pavement. Supple (relatively) WTB Rangers, 156 mm Q crank, close-in 44 cm (hoods) drop bar with no ramps, tiny-reach upjutter stem (7 cm along extension, 30 or 35* rise), now it's actually fun to ride. What hasn't changed is the girder-stiff tubing.

[Patrick Moore]

Oh, one more tangentially related remark: The best bikers I've owned for rear load carrying have had light and flexy frames; most notably the 1973 Motobecane Grand Record whose frame felt so light compared to that 2003 Riv Curt custom and was noticeably more flexible. The flexy-flyer early -ed Raleigh Technium sports tourer also carried rear loads very well, better than the current 2020 Matthews; and the current .8 .4 .8 normal gauge 531 2020 Matthews, if not the best load carrier, does as well as the over-stiff 2003 Curt and the 2nd gen Rambouillet; Tubus Flys, tho' the 2003 later had a Matthews custom rack and the 2020's Fly was modified in by Bilenky to, among other things, to sit lower over the shorter, 26" wheel.

[Ron Mc]

Hi Patrick, on the rear load thing - that stability is in the main triangle.  

People sought out old Raleigh Grand Prix to build touring bikes because of the straight-gauge 10-20 tubes and rigid main triangle.  

In comparison, my International frame has too much flex in the main triangle to carry a rear load, but it's a wonderful ride and climber.  

Regards

[Patrick Moore]

And yet that very light 531 normal gauge 1973 Motobecane frame handled heavy rear loads (all comparisons on Tubus Fly racks) better than much stouter frames. Why should that have been?

To turn that into another question: what besides tubing stiffness might make a main triangle stiff or stable?

It was rather remarkable: That presumably thinnish-wall, and certainly lighter, normal gauge 531 Motobecane handled rear loads better (for me -- this is all judged by seat-of-pants feel -- than that (for me) overbuilt 2003 Curt frameset, and better than with the Ram.

Fond memory: grunting 45 lb on the rear Fly in a 67" fixed gear on that Motobecane up an uber-steep 4/10 mile hill at 4 mph by the bike computer -- yep, 20 rpm. 

[Patrick Moore]

The stiffness of the main triangle might be a big part of rear load stability, but I'd guess that the stiffness of the rear rack is equally a cause; I recall carrying a 2 feet tall (literally) stack of mostly hardback library books in a pannier on the left side of a Fly on the very flexy (normal gauge aluminum tubing) Raleigh Technium, and finding the bike still perfectly rideable, if not perfectly balanced.

On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 6:13 AM Ron Mc <bulld...@gmail.com> wrote:

[John Hawrylak]

P Moore asked:   "what besides tubing stiffness might make a main triangle stiff or stable?"

Frame size:  small frames are stiffer than large frames.

John Hawrylak

Woodstown NJ

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/rbw-owners-bunch/e1zJO1Hhl-U/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/CALuTfgsJVMMdPHP-CiqvJBhbEQzTE0DOUpsAUOuv4oEa9RhTOQ%40mail.gmail.com

.

[Ron Mc]

'73 catalog, Grand Touring was straight-gauge 1020

[John Hawrylak]

A 1010 steel frame would typically be a thicker tube gauge than a 531 frame, since it has a lower tensile strength.   Since the majority of frames of this period used 1" diameter TT and 1-1/8" diameter DT, the thicker tube gauge results in a stiffer frame of the same frame size.   It would be interesting to see the 73 Moto frame weights.

John Hawrylak  

Woodstown NJ

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/f074a7a6-6f64-4652-a9de-3018a9d294dcn%40googlegroups.com

.

[Bill Lindsay]

I only got one taker on my last thought experiment.  Here's another one:

Cyclist A has a 17-pound fixie.  They take a guess at a gear for the fixie, install a 49x18 and ride it around.  They decide "This seems a little under geared." and they switch the 18 tooth cog for a 17.  They ride that and decide "this is just right" and ride the bike happily

Cyclist B has a 17-pound fixie.  They take a guess at a gear for the fixie, install a 49x18 and declare this is "usual". They ride it around and find the bicycle encourages them to ride one tooth smaller.  They obey the bicycle's encouragement and switch the 18 tooth cog for a 17.  They ride that happily, and ask everyone around them "What makes this bike encourage me to ride one tooth smaller than usual, consistently?"  

Is Cyclist A's bike fast?  Is the magical encouragement claimed by Cyclist B all in their head?  Is "a slightly under geared bike" and "encourages me to ride one cog smaller" the exact same thing?

Bill Lindsay

El Cerrito, CA

[John Hawrylak]

Responding to Bill L's 2nd thought experiment, here's my quick $0.02 (can't find the cent key)

Is Cyclist A's bike fast?  

It's as fast they like it to be.  They report 'happy' not necessarily fast

Is the magical encouragement claimed by Cyclist B all in their head?

No, with the initial gearing, they felt a higher gear would be ok and it worked out to be so.   Good for them

Is "a slightly under geared bike" and "encourages me to ride one cog smaller" the exact same thing?

Good point, in this case it seems to be.

Assumptions

1  both bikes have same tubing since weight is given as 17# for both with no qualifications for other components

2  A and B weigh about the same, within 20#

Observation

The gearing change was about 6% higher in both cases or about 4.4gi if using 700x32 tires (74.4gi to 78.8gi).  This is pretty much my upper cruising range, so we are not talking hills.

John Hawrylak

Woodstown NJ

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/rbw-owners-bunch/e1zJO1Hhl-U/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/044289e9-acc9-48fc-b50a-695014d5faf7n%40googlegroups.com

.

[Patrick Moore]

On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 2:40 PM 'John Hawrylak' via RBW Owners Bunch <rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Responding to Bill L's 2nd thought experiment, here's my quick $0.02 (can't find the cent key)

Is Cyclist A's bike fast?  

It's as fast they like it to be.  They report 'happy' not necessarily fast

Is the magical encouragement claimed by Cyclist B all in their head?

No, with the initial gearing, they felt a higher gear would be ok and it worked out to be so.   Good for them

Is "a slightly under geared bike" and "encourages me to ride one cog smaller" the exact same thing?

Good point, in this case it seems to be.

For what it's worth, my "one gear higher" is based on a years' long comfortable cruising gear, or very small range, basically 70-72" for a heavier bike that carries loads. When I say that a bike encourages a gear 1 tooth smaller, that means about 75" instead of about 70". For the Herse and the Matthews #1, for example, that meant I'd feel like riding a ~74-75" gear in the same conditions that for the 2003 Curt I'd feel most comfortable in a ~70" gear. 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/2121384520.1006167.1705095598858%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Bill Lindsay]

In this year's revisiting of this topic, have you picked up anything new?

Bill Lindsay

El Cerrito, CA

[John Dewey]

Well, I think I’ve made several of mine faster by mounting TPU tubes. Real or imagined is anybody’s guess. For sure, my active imagination tells me these bikes feel more lively and sound faster…meaning what I don’t know. But I like the sound of my 5000s as they vibrate with these tubes. And what is for certain, there is reduction in rotational weight. 

Of course, I could also wear fine silk socks, maybe achieve same result. YMMV. 

Jock

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/CALuTfgviETZYYJi7rVhTuzU576Wp-U%3DnG1shrd0048b36Xt6Fg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ron Mc]

I've made the switch to urethane tubes, too - used to run latex, but the stem glue started giving up on them.  

One problem with Scwalbe version, the plastic stems give up at the valve core, which is a terrible reason for an expensive tube to flat.  

So far, Tufo are my favorites, with brass stems - haven't flatted one yet.  

Amaing ride with linen-casing tires.  

[Patrick Moore]

I recall reading in one of the first bike lore books I found at the local library circa 1970 how pro track racers would wear only thin silk socks to ensure as close a shoe fit as possibible. IIRC, this book also recommended ankling and analyzed the reasons for frames becoming soft with use. I've no silk socks but I do have a PI pair marked Right and Left, and perhaps that helps too.

On Sat, Jan 13, 2024 at 8:59 AM John Dewey <john...@gmail.com> wrote:

... Of course, I could also wear fine silk socks, maybe achieve same result. YMMV. 

Jock

[Patrick Moore]

Not really, but it's fun rehashing old stories.

[Patrick Moore]

Actually, "not really" is not true. Others have raised old issues in new ways that clarified them to some extent; for example, enumerating all the factors that might play a part in such a feeling, and the elaborations on the phenomenon rightly or wrongly called "planing"

[John Hawrylak]

The discussion made me think about the various factors., especially Bill L's undergearing comments

In my case, I went from a touring style frame with 7 speeds wide range gearing (13-34) to a thin wall frame with 9 speeds wide range gearing (12-36).   While the 2 extra gears dont seem like much, they do you give you a gear where you did not have one, and if the new gear is just a little bit higher and you can use it, the 9 speed bike might 'seem' faster.  

Maybe I was undergeared on the 7 speed, because the next gear up was too high, while the 9 speed had a gear just a little bit higher than the 7 speed and I was comfortable in that gear.  So I seem faster.

Here is the gearing (gear inches) for the top 4 cogs in each.  Both used a 46T chainring

7sp    13T    15T    17T    20T    24T 

         97        84      74     63       52

9sp    12T    14T    16T    18T    21T

         101      86      76      68      58

My cruising range is 55 to 77, and the riding was predominately flat with small hills.  The 9 speed does have slightly higher gears in the cruising range and since the rides were predominately cruising, then being able to use the slightly higher gears could feel like the 9 speed 'seemed' faster..

 

Did do one (1) 10M time trail in the 9 speed thin wall and was not faster than in the 7 speed.  Fitness could be a big variable, but I was a little disappointed the thin wall did not go much faster.   It sure seems like it wants 'to go" much better than the tourer.

So maybe Bill has something with 'undergearing' as a cause.  I think I'll say that, and just enjoy riding the thin wall 9 speed

John Hawrylak

Woodstown NJ

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/rbw-owners-bunch/e1zJO1Hhl-U/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/CALuTfgtKy%3DTnCR8Hr8hm_i2%2BAf2ZKCVFXPugq%3DMnNZ5_6%2BbzFg%40mail.gmail.com

.