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. On Thursday, May 9, 2013 2:38:05 PM UTC-7, Steve Palincsar wrote: > > 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"? > > > > > -- 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 post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@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.
