Many interesting/helpful electrons already spilled on this. I'll only add....
1. I have a very hard time myself characterizing frame-related ride characteristics. That said, here I'm having trouble contrasting "lumbering feeling on a hilly ride" with "gets smoother with more weight." Also, "not faster, but easier." Was the ride being hilly important, meaning the bike feels less lumbering on flatter rides? Did the bike climb faster with the iron bar addition? Or did you get more oomph on the downhills before the climbs to give you more momentum on the way up? Heavier weight made steering more controllable? Or something else? Not trying to pick nits here, just trying to understand better, while happily admitting I particularly stink trying to describe this stuff myself.
2. But TIRES TIRES TIRES TIRES TIRES. Oh, and TIRES. Dead tires = dead ride. I think especially with tires this wide, and with wheelbases this long.
3. Weight savings going to a smaller frame will only be ounces, which are immaterial in the overall rider/bike weight calculation. If it was just frame weight that mattered, you could A/B compare by riding with/without a half-full water bottle. It's not the weight so much as the flex. What would be more important to ride quality would be if the smaller frame had thinner-diameter tubes, or thinner-wall tubes, which would flex more. I suppose shorter-length frame tubes and longer seatposts/stems would also factor in, though, regardless of tube width/thickness.
Paul Brodek
Hillsdale, NJ USA
On Saturday, January 9, 2021 at 6:37:33 PM UTC-5 Jim Whorton wrote: