Soma San Marcos review @ Bicycle Times

[René Sterental]

http://www.bicycletimesmag.com/content/review-soma-fabrications-san-marcos

[PeterG]

Nice....everyone who owns one seems to really enjoy the bike....

On Thursday, May 9, 2013 9:03:56 AM UTC-7, René wrote:

http://www.bicycletimesmag.com/content/review-soma-fabrications-san-marcos

[Steve Palincsar]

On Thu, 2013-05-09 at 10:03 -0600, René Sterental wrote:
> http://www.bicycletimesmag.com/content/review-soma-fabrications-san-marcos

What do you think he means by "geometry"?

For example, the following: "For those of us used to more modern
geometry, the extra top tube looks like overkill," and "Well, it’s
mainly about handlebar height and retro geometry to increase comfort."

What is "retro geometry?"

71-72.5 head angle, 71.5-71.8 degree seat angle -- perhaps not as steep
as many, even most today, but I think the expectation is the bike will
be used with a B.17 and everybody always complains about the short rails
on a B.17 not working well with steeper seat angles; and of course, if
<72 is too slack the world is chock full of zero offset seat posts.

But what's any of that got to do with the double top tube? Would anyone
here call that "geometry"?

[PeterG]

Doug, I know exactly what you mean. I too am looking for a road quick bike that i can put albatross bars on and be COMFORTABLE. Age creeps up on us and riding can become a burden if there is a long recovery. That doesn't make us want to not go faster...it just makes us hurt more if we do. I owned a Gunnar Sport that may have been perfect for that kind of riding. I never put anything other than drops on it but thinking back I probably should have... just to know. Good luck in your search.... 

On Thursday, May 9, 2013 2:33:15 PM UTC-7, Doug Williams wrote:

I'm leaning strongly toward a San Marcos, but I can't seem to let go of the idea of having a faster Roadeo. I like to do long solo rides. I ride with others on occasion, but I don’t worry about racing or drafting anybody. I want to be fast (doesn't everybody?) but I also want to be comfortable. Not just because I like comfort (I do) but I also think that being comfortable allows me to put in more effort, which makes me faster. Plus, at 55 years old, I don’t recover as quickly as I used to. I want to be able to ride daily. I don’t want to spend days “recovering” from the last ride.

 

So which bike do you guys think would be better for long, comfortable, randonneuring type (but not racing) riding? The San Marcos with the 6 degree slope TT and very upright position? Or the Roadeo with the lighter tubing (a little over half a pound, I think) and more “race bike” geometry? I would put a threaded stem on the Roadeo and build it up pretty much the same as a San Marcos. So I expect that I should be able to get the bars high enough on either bike. But there are still differences in the bikes, and I wonder how much “real world” difference there would be on a long ride.

 

But then I keep going back and forth. The San Marcos can take a back rack that could come in handy on longer rides. But then, I could clamp a rack on the Roadeo if I really had to. The Roadeo is a drop-dead gorgeous “true Rivendell” bike with a great paint job on higher quality steel. But then, the San Marcos is $1,300 less.

 

Analysis paralysis, I know.

 

[Toshi Takeuchi]

I'm quite confident that you can get into the right position in terms
of saddle height bars etc. on both the San Marcos and the Roadeo.

I'm also pretty sure that a half a pound here or there is not going to
make you appreciably faster on a long solo ride.

I think the tires that you use will make much more of a difference
than the frame you get. Wide supple tires will make that long solo
ride less jarring for the bones and less drag on your speed.

For long solo rides, I don't think you need a rear rack. I think it's
more convenient to have a small front rack (Mark's rack) and easy
access to your jacket and some food etc. For extra storage, I use
larger saddlebags...

Good luck!
Toshi

On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 2:33 PM, Doug Williams <sal...@minbaritm.com> wrote:
> I'm leaning strongly toward a San Marcos, but I can't seem to let go of the
> idea of having a faster Roadeo. I like to do long solo rides. I ride with
> others on occasion, but I don’t worry about racing or drafting anybody. I
> want to be fast (doesn't everybody?) but I also want to be comfortable. Not
> just because I like comfort (I do) but I also think that being comfortable
> allows me to put in more effort, which makes me faster. Plus, at 55 years
> old, I don’t recover as quickly as I used to. I want to be able to ride
> daily. I don’t want to spend days “recovering” from the last ride.
>
>
>
> So which bike do you guys think would be better for long, comfortable,
> randonneuring type (but not racing) riding? The San Marcos with the 6 degree
> slope TT and very upright position? Or the Roadeo with the lighter tubing (a
> little over half a pound, I think) and more “race bike” geometry? I would
> put a threaded stem on the Roadeo and build it up pretty much the same as a
> San Marcos. So I expect that I should be able to get the bars high enough on
> either bike. But there are still differences in the bikes, and I wonder how
> much “real world” difference there would be on a long ride.
>
>
>
> But then I keep going back and forth. The San Marcos can take a back rack
> that could come in handy on longer rides. But then, I could clamp a rack on
> the Roadeo if I really had to. The Roadeo is a drop-dead gorgeous “true
> Rivendell” bike with a great paint job on higher quality steel. But then,
> the San Marcos is $1,300 less.
>
>
>
> Analysis paralysis, I know.
>
>
>

> --
> 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 post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en-US.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>

[Doug Williams]

I also found the review frustratingly vague. As you said, he talks about geometry, but doesn’t specify what he means. To be fair, most bike reviews are like this one: a gloss over without offering any specifics.

He also says, “The San Marcos gets you where you want to go in comfort and style, but it’s not going to be the most racy thing to ride.” I infer from this that he thinks that the San Marcos is a slow bike. But WHY does he feel the San Marcos is slow? Is it the non-aerodynamic upright position? Is it the 6 degree sloping TT? Is it the extra 8 ounces of the double TT on the 63 cm model he was riding? Or is it some other aspect of what he calls “retro geometry”? In the end, we just don’t know why he feels that the Marcos is slow.

The lack of specifics in the review is frustrating. The reviewer rode the 63 cm model. The 47cm and 51 cm models have 650b wheels. The 59cm and 63cm models have 700c wheels but they also have the double TT. I’m looking at the 54cm San Marcos and trying to compare it to the 55 cm Roadeo. The 54 cm San Marcos is unique in that it has 700c wheels but no double top tube. It should be fairly easy to compare the 54cm 700c San Marcos to the 55cm 700c Roadeo, both with single top tubes. But this review provides no information to help with that.

[Steve Palincsar]

On Sat, 2013-05-11 at 07:45 -0700, Doug Williams wrote:
> I also found the review frustratingly vague. As you said, he talks
> about geometry, but doesn’t specify what he means. To be fair, most
> bike reviews are like this one: a gloss over without offering any
> specifics.
>
> He also says, “The San Marcos gets you where you want to go in comfort
> and style, but it’s not going to be the most racy thing to ride.” I
> infer from this that he thinks that the San Marcos is a slow bike. But
> WHY does he feel the San Marcos is slow? Is it the non-aerodynamic
> upright position?

And it's not like the bike was set up bolt upright. OK, maybe the
design doesn't permit you to slam the stem, but then, how many riders
actually can ride a bike with a slammed stem?

> Is it the 6 degree sloping TT?

I think we can safely eliminate that, because most racing bikes these
days are slopers, too.

> Is it the extra 8 ounces of the double TT on the 63 cm model he was
> riding? Or is it some other aspect of what he calls “retro geometry”?

Probably in the end, it comes down to "it looks slow."

> In the end, we just don’t know why he feels that the Marcos is slow.

He also mentions the 32mm tires in a way that makes me think he believes
they'll make the bike slow. However, it's not at all clear to me from
reading the review whether he actually ever rode the bike. Wouldn't
surprise me at all to find he did not.

>
> The lack of specifics in the review is frustrating. The reviewer rode
> the 63 cm model. The 47cm and 51 cm models have 650b wheels. The 59cm
> and 63cm models have 700c wheels but they also have the double TT. I’m
> looking at the 54cm San Marcos and trying to compare it to the 55 cm
> Roadeo. The 54 cm San Marcos is unique in that it has 700c wheels but
> no double top tube. It should be fairly easy to compare the 54cm 700c
> San Marcos to the 55cm 700c Roadeo, both with single top tubes. But
> this review provides no information to help with that.

I can see where that would be useful, but the chances of ever finding a
review with that level of specificity are about zero, I'm afraid.

But I think there's a lot of specificity missing even in the official
brochure about this bike. Does it fit like a Rivendell? How would you
size it? Are you really sure you'd take the 54?

And why does a 59 cm road frame need a double top tube, anyway?

[dan gee]

The stiffness of the frame also makes a bike feel fast/reactive versus slow/inert, to me, anyway. In my brief ride on a Roadeo, it felt responsive and springy like a skinny tire road bike. But then again, it's pretty obvious that a lot of perceptions of "fastness" have a lot more to with looks and familiarity than science.
Dan G / pittsburgh pa