On 8/21/20 5:19 PM, Andrew Turner wrote:
I like this guy's videos as they're very thorough but not daunting.
It's not exactly anything super controversial though. Basically all
frames have close to 0 vertical compliance by themselves before
factoring in seatposts, tires, etc. Totally checks out, frames use the
same tech as bridges for Pete's sake. Now he's including a lot of
footage of carbon yet the title is only steel vs. aluminum...perhaps
that's due to his touring background though.
Vertical compliance is only one part of the equation though. These
people in the comments saying they've gone from steel to alloy to
carbon and back to steel, defending it as the most comfortable are
missing the point of the video. There are other factors that play into
why you might prefer one over the other. Hell, if I had the money, the
eye for carbon and murdered-out componentry, and rode bikes for no
purpose other than to ride a bike, I probably would prefer the ride
quality of an Open U.P.(P.E.R.) with the fattest Rene Herse EL tires,
over some vintage Trek 720 on 700 x 23s.
That vintage 720 probably came with 27 x 1 1/4" tires, the equivalent of
a 700x32. http://www.vintage-trek.com/images/trek/1983/83Trek14.jpg
But I don't have that kind of money for bikes, I like the way lugged
steel looks more, and I can 650b that trek, add racks and bags to
transport me and things, crank that quill stem up to the sky, and ride
equally as comfortable as the Open at a fraction of the cost and at a
fraction of the speed ;)
That vintage 720 is no slouch. It was respected then and it is still
respected.
--
Steve Palincsar
Alexandria, Virginia
USA
--
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-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/f2d97666-a817-9dca-c273-26c5a3074690%40his.com.
