Soma Grand Randonneur vs Gunnar Sport 650B-ized, w/S&S -- a mini-experiment

[Nick Bull]

I have a Soma Grand Randonneur that I use for "every day" randonneuring and a Gunnar Sport (S&S coupled, converted to 650B, with custom Waterford low-trail fork made to the Boulder Bikes Allroad specification) that I use for travel randonneuring. 

The Gunnar frame/fork is about triple the price of the Soma.  Does the extra money buy a more-responsive frame?  Is it worth considering at some stage buying e.g. a Boulder Bikes Allroad?  These are made by Waterford, who also manufacturer the Gunnar--though the tubing choice is undoubtedly different--I think the Gunnar has beefier top and down tube to accomodate the S&S couplers.

So I've ridden the Soma for all of the events this year, but since I'll be taking the Gunnar to PBP I decided I'd better ride it on the 600km.  The two bikes really do feel roughly comparable but the Gunnar seemed just a little more responsive over the long haul on the 600.  But I was also on Babyshoe regular tires instead of the Hetre's that are usually on the Soma.

I decided to do a little test.  I live near the top of a hill that the local club uses for hill repeats.  From my house, there is a 54 foot climb to the top that is initially moderately steep (10 percent), then a 133 foot descent averaging 5.5 percent that just twisty enough that at 40mph I am at the limit of comfort even with 650Bx42's.  At the bottom, there's a runout as the road rises over a freeway, then after a U-turn there's a bit of a descent off the overpass and an 80 foot, fairly steep climb back up to my house, gradually becoming more steep until the final 50 feet of climb is at 10 percent again. 

My plan was to lean both bikes up against my car, grab one, ride to the top of the hill, do a U-turn, ride down the hill then back up to my car and swap bikes.  Repeat until exhaustion (not too hard since it was 92 degrees out and humid) or until my wife called me in for dinner

To make the bikes comparable, I had to add just slightly more weight to the Soma, since the S&S couplers make the Gunnar weigh about 3/4 pound more--I added a water bottle with a bit of extra water.  The bikes are otherwise almost identical.  Both have 29mm of trail running on 650Bx42.  Both have the same VO fenders, front rack and decaleur.  The Gunnar had Babyshoe Pass regular tires on both wheels.  The Soma had a Babyshoe Pass EL on the front wheel and a Grand Bois Hetre on the rear.  The Gunnar has a brand-new Schmidt 28 dynamo hub and the Soma has a 2005 Schmidt 28 "Classic" (the latter may have slightly more rolling resistance even with no load).  Since I only have one handlebar bag and swapping it back and forth would take too long, all of the runs were done with no handlebar bag and no front-end load, so handling is not ideal.

On some of the test runs there was traffic at either the top of the hill or the bottom or both that delayed my turnaround by a few moments, and on one of the downhill runs there was traffic coming the other way that made me take a tighter line and have to touch the brakes.  Maximum speed was about 40.

The attached graph shows the moving average speed on each test leg.  I started with the Gunnar, then Soma, Gunnar, Soma, Gunnar, Soma, and a final run on the Gunnar.  There is noticeable deterioration in average speed over the trials.  Did I mention that it was 92 degrees out? :-)  The first run is perhaps not entirely representative because my legs were cold, but also not worn out.  The final run is also perhaps not entirely representative because I knew it was the final and was going all out.

What's interesting about the trials is despite the overall deterioration in speed, when I switch back to the Gunnar, my moving average speed picks up relative to the prior run on the Soma, regardless of how deep into the experiment I was.  Admittedly, this is a small sample, so I'd need another 23 trials to avoid small sample statistical problems, but it was time to go in for dinner!

I tentatively conclude that the Gunnar is the faster bike, at least in this test with these tires and wheels, and with the Soma handicapped by adding a little extra weight to equalize it with the Gunnar. 

Nick

[Evan Baird]

Soma is revaluating the GR design right now. Maybe a good time to crowd source some customer feedback.

1. Thicker tubing + threadless 45mm offset fork

2. Thinner tubing - rack braze one.

3. Lugged frame + multiple rake options a la carte

4. Preinstalled needle bearing headset + mini rack.

5. Disc brakes

6. Centerpull braze ons

7. Caliper brakes

Fight!

[Chris L]

I'm indifferent on headset. I prefer the easier installation of threadless but once it's installed it's something you never touch.

Indifferent to lugs. More interested in how it rides than how it looks hanging on the wall.

Thinner tubing would be nice though not if it drives up the price. Lighter fork blades would be a good place to start.

No disc brakes. I'm not anti-disc, just don't think they add enough value on a rando bike.

Center pull or cantilevers. Good options for both and both clear wide tires and fenders. Center pulls are nice now that Dia Compe is making an updated version of the TA mini rack.

Chris Lowe

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "650b" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to 650b+uns...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to 65...@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/650b.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Alex Wetmore]

Centerpulls probably won't clear the widest tires, where cantilevers would. I don't see a reason not to offer clearance for 50-55mm tires without fenders and ~42mm wide tires with fenders on this bike. It doesn't compromise anything and it makes the bike much nicer and more capable when used on unimproved roads.

More flexible tubing can be nice. It doesn't need to be expensive, 9/6/9 standard diameter tubing is cheaper than thinner (7/4/7) oversized tubing and as flexible.

I'd configure the rear triangle so that it fits a Tubus Fly, but not a cargo rack. That basically means that you get eyelets at the dropouts and a eyelet at the top of the seatstay bridge, but no seatstay rack mount brazeons.

I don't see any reason to make threaded steerer bikes anymore. A threadless steerer can be lighter and the overall design is better. I also don't see a reason for larger than 1" steerers on a rando bike, the 1-1/8" size is nice for offering more headset options, but the bigger steerer is quite heavy.

The top tube seems like it could be 2cm higher in all sizes and that would improve the bikes aesthetics. If good standover is a design goal then I'd use a sloping top tube.

I like the idea of you selling multiple forks, especially if you offer them aftermarket too.

alex

________________________________________
From: 65...@googlegroups.com <65...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Chris L <cyclocros...@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2015 10:53 AM
To: Evan Baird
Cc: 65...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [650B] Soma Grand Randonneur vs Gunnar Sport 650B-ized, w/S&S -- a mini-experiment

[Kieran Joyes]

Didn't Soma just redesign the GR recently?

KJ

[cyclotourist]

Echo-chamber:

• Regular size tubing (what Alex said)
• Tig is fine on a budget bike, but tight/clean. Current GR looks fine, so not a problem.
• Cantis (again, what Alex said)
  
• No discs (lead to overly rigid forks IMHO)
• Threadless 1-1/8 headset (It's the industry standard, if you go w 1" might as well have threaded as it's just as anachronistic, spec w/ thinner steerer?)
• A well-designed, integrated front rack would be nice.
• 52mm tire clearance. New Compass offering in the works will fit it, as well as Thunder Burts.
• Spacing... tough one. Probably 135 for a stronger wheel. But are 135 non-disc quality hubs being made (Shimano, not boutique)?
• Vertical dropouts! 

Cheers,
David

Member, Supreme Council of Cyberspace

"it isn't a contest. Just enjoy the ride." - Seth Vidal

[Rick Johnson]

On 6/23/2015 10:53 AM, Chris L wrote:
> No disc brakes. I'm not anti-disc, just don't think they add enough value on a rando bike.

It's ironic to me that among the type of riders that are often pushing
the limits of tire width, and probably the only ones that care to have
fenders, that so often disc bakes are poo-pooed.

Logically it's the one type of brake that takes rim diameter, rim width,
tire width and fender clearance considerations out of the equation
completely. Disc brakes give total freedom to change any element beyond
the hub at any time. No worries about where the braze-ons are located,
getting the tire to clear, pad adjustment, or even finding quality rims
with brake tracks these days. Forget about all that with disc brakes.
Then add in the benefits of predictable performance wet or dry, more
power for carrying a load in mountainous terrain and not wearing out
your rims. For riders that enjoy tires with light colored sidewalls disc
brakes don't generate rim grime either - keeping those sidewalls beautiful.

I understand if one doesn't care for the current ascetic of the calipers
or that they may interfere with luggage. And plenty of people take
comfort in the familiar, I get that. But to me the greatest benefits of
disc brakes apply primarily to just two types of bikes: MTB and rando.
Frankly it surprises me more rando riders aren't keen on discs.

Rick

Rick Johnson
Bend, Oregon

[cyclotourist]

I love discs, and find BB7 brakes to be perfect (some don't like them compared to hydros). I swap 700X40C and 650X50B wheels out on my Salsa La Cruz all the time and LOVE that option. 

But I've never met a rigid disc fork that wasn't really unpleasant to ride. IMHO, they are over-built and way too stiff, requiring a wide & supple tire just to make them comparable to a mid-size tire on a rim-brake fork. 

My $.02

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "650b" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to 650b+uns...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to 65...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/650b.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Steve Chan]

I'm kind of curious how much of a difference in stiffness a disc
fork makes on Taiwanese production rando fork? None of these SOMA,
Rawland, etc... canti forks are known for being supple. Many of the
forks that are reviewed as being too stiff on a various "gravel" bike
reviews typically come from manufacturers who's canti brake versions
would be considered stiff as well. It is even possible to spec a
supple steel fork from the usual production sources? Not trying to be
sarcastic, just curious - Sean Virnig claims his Ravn fork is supposed
to be quite nice, and I'm curious to see how it all works out in
production versions.

If Glen Copus weren't already so busy with NFE's, he could probably
have a strong business selling NFE forks...

On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 11:43 AM, Rick Johnson <rickcj...@gmail.com> wrote:

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "650b" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to 650b+uns...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to 65...@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/650b.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
"Sow a thought, reap an action. Sow an action, reap a habit. Sow a
habit, reap a character. Sow a character, reap a destiny." - Samuel
Smiles

[Jan Heine]

At 11:43 AM -0700 6/23/15, Rick Johnson wrote:

>It's ironic to me that among the type of riders that are often
>pushing the limits of tire width, and probably the only ones that
>care to have fenders, that so often disc bakes are poo-pooed.

Discs have two problems, one inherent, the other solvable.

The inherent problem is that you need a stiffer fork, which means you
lose comfort and performance (higher suspension losses). On a
production bike with the Grand Randonneur, that may not be a huge
deal, since the production fork probably already is stiff enough to
take discs. On a custom bike with thin, flexible fork blades, you'd
lose a lot if you went to discs.

The second issue is that disc brakes on bicycles simply aren't mature
technology yet. We've had enough test bikes at Bicycle Quarterly with
mysterious (or not-so-mysterious) failures of the disc brakes.
Whether it's pad/rotor incompatibility or the earlier mechanical
discs' lack of overall stopping power, in my experience, discs rarely
are as trouble-free (nor as easily repaired) as rim brakes.

If you care about good fender lines and good fender performance, then
you want your tire in the right place anyhow. The ability to swap
between wheel sizes may look good on paper, but in real life, one
wheel and tire size, will give you all you need on that particular
bike. Not once, during a test ride, have I thought "I wish I had a
set of narrower tires on this bike."

Disc brakes do offer advantages with very wide tires, where
centerpulls become impractical. Between cantilevers and a good disc,
I'd say it's a toss-up. If I have to brake very hard very often, I'd
pick the disc. This only happens on smooth roads. If I don't brake
that often, and care more about speed and comfort, then I'd pick
cantis and flexible fork blades. This is especially important on
rough roads and gravel. Bikes with separate suspension are a
different matter, and discs are an obvious choice there.

Disclosure: Bicycle Quarterly's sister company, Compass Bicycles
Ltd., manufactures centerpull brakes.

Jan Heine
Editor
Bicycle Quarterly
Seattle WA USA
http://www.bikequarterly.com

Follow our blog at http://janheine.wordpress.com/
--

[Alex Wetmore]

From: Steve Chan <sych...@gmail.com>

> I'm kind of curious how much of a difference in stiffness a disc
> fork makes on Taiwanese production rando fork? None of these SOMA,
> Rawland, etc... canti forks are known for being supple.

Kogswell proved that they can be supple by switching from a typical stiff Taiwanese fork to a much more flexible one between the prototype and first generation P/R frames. We measured the relative stiffness of both forks in a BQ test (probably in 2007 or 2008).

I'm happier with disk brakes now than I was 5 years ago, but I don't see how they help a bike like the Soma GR. These bikes appear to primarily be designed for long distance rides on rural roads, and in my experience I rarely touch my brakes on such rides.

alex

[Evan Baird]

That was actually done a year ago. Lead times...

[Evan Baird]

I find the stock fork on my Stag are exceptionally compliant, compared to the Tange forks I've ridden. I've never tested any of the super compliant fork blades people are using these days, but I expect they would not hold up to the kind of dirt riding I usually do.

[Nick Bull]

Thicker tubing just makes this more of a loaded-touring bike, not a rando bike.
45 mm offset fork is too high-trail to be ideal for a handlebar bag alone.  Would it handle well with both a handlebar bag and saddlebag?
Threadless fork would be an improvement--go with 1-1/8" since that provides a wide choice of headsets and stems.
Rack braze-on is essential to install the Nitto rack that Boulder Bikes recommends.  I was unable to install the VO cantilever-brake-stud-mounted rack.
Thinner tubing would probably be an improvement. 
A more compliant fork would be a bigger improvement.
Lugged frame is not essential and would raise your price point enough that people might start looking at "better" quality TIG frames..
Multiple rake options are not essential for a randonneur bike.  But if you want to make a porteur model then that might require different rake.
Pre-installed needle bearing is a good idea as long as it is good quality. 
Mini rack is an "it depends" -- the DiaCompe style mini rack seems useless.
Disc brakes -- it's possible that the current fork is beefy enough for these.  But if not, I certainly wouldn't want to ride on an even beefier fork.
Centerpull braze-ons -- if these had been available, I would have probably gotten them.  But to the extent that it makes the frame incompatible with what most people already know -- cantilevers -- I wonder if this would be a good approach.  Maybe the thing to do is to pre-install good-quality centerpulls if you're going this way.
Caliper brakes -- are there any that easily clear 42mm tires, have reach to 650B rims, and still provide good braking performance? 

Nick

On Tuesday, June 23, 2015 at 1:13:01 PM UTC-4, Evan Baird wrote:

[Nick Favicchio]

Didn't soma just do a v3? Are they really thinking v4 Already?

The fork on the new soma is prettier but the fork crown is narrower so it no longer fits a 2" tire up front.

Mellowing the seat extention and adding some stack was a good call. But I'll bet the new ones are still stiff feeling.

What's the Gunnar, ox platinum? 853? I think your graph looks exactly like the one my brain expected :).

It's a $500 stiff frame thats easy to build and ride. I've had some GREAT times on mine. Fitting Baby Shoes and fenders and being low trail goes a long way.

[Evan Baird]

I don't know what kind of time frame they're working around, but I would guess a new version wouldn't show up until late 2016 or early 2017. It takes a really long time to review changes, finalize drawings, order samples, test samples, update graphics ect.

[Nick Bull]

Because the Gunnar is S&S coupled, the top tube and down tube are not necessarily consistent with the rest of their standard build.  Their web page says they use OX platinum or 853.  Though this one is from 2007, so I don't know what they spec'd back then.

The differences between the Gunnar and Soma are small enough that I wouldn't want to make a big deal of them, particularly on such a small sample size.  FWIW, I rode the Soma to work yesterday, riding 10.6 miles as close to lactate threshold as I could the whole way, and setting my third fastest time (33m33s) in the six years I've been keeping track.  The fastest was in August 2012, on the Gunnar as it turns out (32m10s).  But the routes are slightly non-comparable because construction work has made it so that I have some stretches of sidewalk that I have to ride, which is slower than the previous roads, and with more traffic lights but a slightly shorter distance.

[satanas]

Hmmmmm.

Okay then. I've been riding a 55cm GR since March, including PBP qualifiers. The ride and handling are both IMO dreadful, and that's being kind. Have just done a frame building course and will be building a replacement later in the year.

Changes will include:

1. Much more supple fork as the GR fork *never* flexes visibly, unlike say ALAN or SL forks, both of which are vastly more comfortable with much smaller tyres and 2-3x the pressure
2. Much thinner and lighter gauge seatstays; they don't flex either
3. Longer chainstays so there's enough room for a triple front derailleur, better chain angles and weight distribution and a bit more flex
4. Lower BB by ~8mm
5. Significantly slacker seat angle; maybe 71°, not 73.5° (or whatever it is in reality)
6. Longer top tube (more reach) to fit me better, with more slope to give both a slightly taller head tube and more exposed seatpost, so that too can flex a bit
7. Lighter gauge down tube so the BB flexes more (planing)
8. Larger diameter top tube so the steerer tube doesn't twist so dramatically. This should improve low speed handling with panniers and combat shimmy too
9. No extra seat tube extension
10. More trail!!!!

I had a new Columbus SL fork almost finished yesterday but ran out of time until back in the UK in late July. This should flex more and increase trail to ~45mm. If I still hate the handling I will give up on low trail completely, and the new frame will have 55-60mm, as is normal

Also, I agree with the comments about providing for a Tubus Fly rear rack *only*.

Later,
Stephen

[Harald Kliems]

Very interesting. I happen to also own a 650B-converted Gunnar (it's a Roadie, though) and a SOMA GR. Maybe I'll follow your example and do some comparisons, too, at least once I've acquired comparable tires--the Gunnar currently sports lowly CdlVs.

 Harald.

[Guy Washburn]

I've had my v1.5 GR size 65 working for about two months now, after some fitting miss-starts, a run in with the horrid weymouth rims, and some shimmy (which was resolved quite nicely by adding a bit more tension to the ird roller drive headset).

I'd thought it would be somewhere between a proof of concept and a gateway drug to 650B. Occasional use, brevets with dirt roads etc. But it is not like that at all. It has taken over. I ride it all the time. It has smoothed out all of the crappy MA pavement. It handles like a dream on dirt. I can hang with my friends on their racing bikes for everything but hardcore sprints (hill gearing does have it's limitations...).

Now I have a really nice Merlin TI, a Soma San Marcos and a Bridgestone MB2 that should cover all of the bases. But the GR does almost all these others do -- but on the same ride and is just flat out more fun.

I was thinking about a custom when I started getting interested in 650B, sold a couple of bikes (to stay below S -1 limits), but I still haven't pulled the trigger. May still do it. But I'm in no hurry, I've been just having too much fun on my "unimproved" GR.

[Charlie Cho]

My 2 cents:

1. A seatstay mounted barrel adjuster for the rear brake
2. Thinner seatstays, though I could imagine Tange refusing, saying,
"When you spec cantis, these are the seatstays that we use."
3. Rear rack bosses on the inside of the seatstays
4. Centerpull braze-ons would be nice if Soma or someone else comes up
with their own brake.
5. As for disc brakes, the Wolverine ought to be 650b-centric instead.
6. Less fork rake; trail closer to 40mm would be well-suited for a
versatile platform supporting builds such as urban bike, gravel,
camping, or porteur.
7. Threadless steerer; it's time to move into the 21st century.

[Nick Bull]

How does the ride and handling compare with other classic rando-geometry frames you've ridden?  The fact that you're wanting higher trail and a rear rack suggests that you just don't like the low-trail, front-load handling.  I assume you're riding with a moderate load (e.g. 5 to 10 pounds) on a low front rack, as intended for this geometry?  Without the front load, handling on either of my low-trail bikes is considerably worse, but that's to be expected.

Meanwhile, what are you going to ride at PBP if you are building your replacement frame "later in the year"?

[Philip Kim]

1. Supple fork
2. Less beefy seat stays
3. A bit more chainstay length for stability and comfort on longer rides. 440-445 on smaller frames, maybe 460 on larger frames
4. Less rake, less trail. 40mm trail is pretty versatile for porteur set up as well as rando
5. Maybe slightly more tire clearance (I find myself riding wider and wider tires as time goes on)
6. Threaded is fine, but 1" threadless might be better. I've never used threadless on low trail, but read it dampens shimmy, with the cartridge bearings of modern headsets. If this is not the case, than whatever works.

- Canti is fine, more options
- 7/5/7 TT if heat treated, otherwise standard 8/5/8 diameter is fine
- Keep vertical dropouts


Really the weird dropped TT, beefy fork, and beefy seatstay really drew me away from this bike. As well as small changes to the way i view biking in general.

I wish they found a way to somehow combine the Soma GR and Soma San Marcos. Maybe a Soma San Marcos with less TT slope and less trail? Cut corners where it won't affect geometry, etc. while keeping aesthetics in tact as much as possible. I think the Clem does a great job of this, but more for utility rather than road.

[Evan Baird]

I like that idea, but there is zero chance that will happen. Nope, never, give up, not gonna happen.

[Nick Favicchio]

I really wanna start yelling "$500 Taiwanese frame!!!!"

I own a Soma GR. It changed my world w/r/t cycling. It's not perfect and I'll prolly loot it and sell it when the MB-1 I can't justify the expense of arrives. BUT FOR WHAT IT IS its great.

If you want a better bike, you're gonna have to pay for it. It just can't be what everyone wants it to be, let alone for $500.

[Chris Cullum]

On Jul 4, 2015 7:36 AM, "Nick Favicchio" <nickfa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I really wanna start yelling "$500 Taiwanese frame!!!!"

I don't think anyone is saying it's not a good deal. Most of the changes are fairly cost neutral. Soma has already made some good changes, fork bend and non-dropped top tube. I think they can continue to refine it.

>
> I own a Soma GR.  It changed my world w/r/t cycling.  It's not perfect and I'll prolly loot it and sell it when the MB-1 I can't justify the expense of arrives.  BUT FOR WHAT IT IS its great.
>
> If you want a better bike, you're gonna have to pay for it.  It just can't be what everyone wants it to be, let alone for $500.
>

[Guy Washburn]

Actually not everyone is excited about raised top tube. The new geometry doesn't fit me nearly as well... By increasing the standover height it would push me down a size where the top tube is too short for me. I ride the 65cm -- 61cm top tube with a 12cm stem. I'd need a 14cm stem to get the same fit on a 61gm v2 frame... Not too many 14cm quill stems available...

[Nick Bull]

Yeah, I noticed that the higher top tube would make me buy the next smaller frame size and end up with a too-short top tube.  Compensating with a longer stem would not be ideal. 

[Fred Blasdel]

On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 9:27 AM, Nick Bull <nick.bi...@gmail.com> wrote:

Yeah, I noticed that the higher top tube would make me buy the next smaller frame size and end up with a too-short top tube.  Compensating with a longer stem would not be ideal.

You've got that backwards, tall road bikes need longer stems just to keep the front wheel weighted properly. As the stack height increases more stem extension is necessary just to keep the bars in the same place laterally.

A 61cm+ road bike needs a stem in the 120-140mm range just to be normal

[Nicholas Bull]

What I am talking about is position on the bike.  With well over 50,000 km of randonneuring events, I have a pretty good idea of what position I need to be in to ride long distances with minimal discomfort.  And I have roughly a dozen bikes set up all with the same position, despite small differences in the bike's geometry that sometimes require different stem lengths.  E.g. a 58 Rambouillet, 58 Gunnar Sport, 58 Grand Randonneur, several 22-1/2" early-80's Treks, and a "L/M" Burley Duet tandem.

To take a typical example, my Ram has a 57cm top tube and a 11cm stem, so from the center of my saddle to the top of my handlebars is about 69cm.

Let's suppose I bought a bike with a 20 cm long top tube.  To get the same position that my body needs to be in to ride long distances, I would need to buy a 48cm long stem.  Any shorter stem length would have me sitting more upright than is comfortable.  With a 48cm stem, handling might suffer. 

Nick

[Guy Washburn]

But if your feet don't comfortably touch the ground, there are other problems that are more pressing...


Also show me a quill stem over 130mm that is currently available...

[Eric Keller]

I find that my feet touching the ground are the last thing I think about when sizing a bike.  It isn't often that I have both feet on the ground anyway.

--

[WMdeR]

Dear Fred, 

Nick ain't a super-tall fellah. I think he's about my height (so decidedly average American), though he might be a touch taller.

Historically, bikes with a 58cm top tube would be 59-60cm frame size, and would have standovers in the 32+ inch range, and a 12cm stem or so. The GR v2 doesn't look all that weird in that context. I still wish they'd broken down and gone to 1 1/8" threadless, but that'd buck their aesthetic prejudice for the bike (which they blew with the banana fork and the overbuilt seatstay anyway).

V2 fixes the aesthetic problem with the fork rake, and presumably they went to a less hellastout blade, but they left the functional problem Those rack mounts and monster seatstays invite abuse of the design with a cargo rack and rear loads, and the bike geometry isn't going to respond well to that load paradigm.

Best,

Will

William M. deRosset

Fort Collins, CO

[Guy Washburn]

Unless the standover height is greater than your inseam...

[Andrew Fatseas]

I don't understand the obsession with standover height for road machines. I never straddle my bike with both feet on the ground and the top tube up my groin. I've always got at least one foot on a pedal. 

[Steve Palincsar]

On 07/07/2015 12:48 AM, Andrew Fatseas wrote:
> I don't understand the obsession with standover height for road
> machines. I never straddle my bike with both feet on the ground and
> the top tube up my groin. I've always got at least one foot on a pedal.

And yet, many of us do. Some examples: long waits at a traffic light;
stopped to get stuff like a rain jacket out of the handlebar bag and put
it on.

[Fred Blasdel]

On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 9:48 PM, Andrew Fatseas <andrew...@gmail.com> wrote:

I don't understand the obsession with standover height for road machines. I never straddle my bike with both feet on the ground and the top tube up my groin. I've always got at least one foot on a pedal. 

But why take that to more absurd extreme by insisting on the biggest frame you could possibly ride?

Why barely straddle a 65cm frame with a <120mm stem to make it work at the expense of handling?

[Guy Washburn]

If you need the the reach provided by the long top tube / stem extension you get the rest of the geometry it comes with. The sorrow of a bike with stock geometry. Handling is fine. It would be far worse on a small frame.

[Stephen Poole]

On 8 Jul 2015 12:45, "Guy Washburn" <guido...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> If you need the the reach provided by the long top tube / stem extension you get the rest of the geometry it comes with. The sorrow of a bike with stock geometry.

^ Exactly! My GR replacement is likely to have a 71° seat tube angle, and effective 54*61cm seat tube and top tube, but sloping. This will fit me very well; it doesn't need to fit anyone else.

Later,
Stephen

[Evan Baird]

I think the thing that most people missed with the original GR was that it was really designed to challenge the Rawland Sogn, not the Stag. When you consider the application of loaded trail riding, all of the characteristics of the first gen frame make a lot of sense. Granted that probably would have been more obvious if the Cazadero tires had been available when the frame launched, but it's hard to pitch 650b knobby tires that don't fit any of the bikes you sell.

[Guy Washburn]

Hmmm... No it wasn't all that obvious but it sure works well in that space... and on the road and...