Re: [RBW] Re: Why do some bikes just feel consistently faster?

['John Hawrylak' via RBW Owners Bunch]

 The discussion made me think about the various factors., especially Bill L's 
undergearing comments
In my case, I went from a touring style frame with 7 speeds wide range gearing 
(13-34) to a thin wall frame with 9 speeds wide range gearing (12-36).   While 
the 2 extra gears dont seem like much, they do you give you a gear where you 
did not have one, and if the new gear is just a little bit higher and you can 
use it, the 9 speed bike might 'seem' faster.  
Maybe I was undergeared on the 7 speed, because the next gear up was too high, 
while the 9 speed had a gear just a little bit higher than the 7 speed and I 
was comfortable in that gear.  So I seem faster.
Here is the gearing (gear inches) for the top 4 cogs in each.  Both used a 46T 
chainring
7sp    13T    15T    17T    20T    24T  97        84      74     63 
  52
9sp    12T    14T    16T    18T    21T 101      86      76      68      
58
My cruising range is 55 to 77, and the riding was predominately flat with small 
hills.  The 9 speed does have slightly higher gears in the cruising range and 
since the rides were predominately cruising, then being able to use the 
slightly higher gears could feel like the 9 speed 'seemed' faster.. Did do one 
(1) 10M time trail in the 9 speed thin wall and was not faster than in the 7 
speed.  Fitness could be a big variable, but I was a little disappointed the 
thin wall did not go much faster.   It sure seems like it wants 'to go" much 
better than the tourer.
So maybe Bill has something with 'undergearing' as a cause.  I think I'll say 
that, and just enjoy riding the thin wall 9 speed
John HawrylakWoodstown NJ





On Sunday, January 14, 2024 at 05:13:15 PM EST, Patrick Moore 
 wrote:  
 
 Actually, "not really" is not true. Others have raised old issues in new ways 
that clarified them to some extent; for example, enumerating all the factors 
that might play a part in such a feeling, and the elaborations on the 
phenomenon rightly or wrongly called "planing"
On Sat, Jan 13, 2024 at 10:14 PM Patrick Moore  wrote:

Not really, but it's fun rehashing old stories.
On Sat, Jan 13, 2024 at 8:07 AM Bill Lindsay  wrote:

In this year's revisiting of this topic, have you picked up anything new?
Bill LindsayEl Cerrito, CA





-- 

Patrick MooreAlburquerque, Nuevo Mexico, Etats Unis d'Amerique, Orbis Terrarum
---
Executive resumes, LinkedIn profiles, bios, letters, and other writing services

---

When thou didst not, savage, know thine own meaning,

But wouldst gabble like a thing most brutish,

I endowed thy purposes with words that made them known.


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google 
Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/rbw-owners-bunch/e1zJO1Hhl-U/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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/CALuTfgtKy%3DTnCR8Hr8hm_i2%2BAf2ZKCVFXPugq%3DMnNZ5_6%2BbzFg%40mail.gmail.com.
  

-- 
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/1754641144.1573183.1705274462582%40mail.yahoo.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Why do some bikes just feel consistently faster?

[Patrick Moore]

Actually, "not really" is not true. Others have raised old issues in new
ways that clarified them to some extent; for example, enumerating all the
factors that might play a part in such a feeling, and the elaborations on
the phenomenon rightly or wrongly called "planing"

On Sat, Jan 13, 2024 at 10:14 PM Patrick Moore  wrote:

> Not really, but it's fun rehashing old stories.
>
> On Sat, Jan 13, 2024 at 8:07 AM Bill Lindsay  wrote:
>
>> In this year's revisiting of this topic, have you picked up anything new?
>>
>> Bill Lindsay
>> El Cerrito, CA
>>
>
>

-- 

Patrick Moore
Alburquerque, Nuevo Mexico, Etats Unis d'Amerique, Orbis Terrarum
---

Executive resumes, LinkedIn profiles, bios, letters, and other writing
services

---

*When thou didst not, savage, k**now thine own meaning,*

*But wouldst gabble like a** thing most brutish,*

*I endowed thy purposes w**ith words that made them known.*

-- 
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/CALuTfgtKy%3DTnCR8Hr8hm_i2%2BAf2ZKCVFXPugq%3DMnNZ5_6%2BbzFg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Why do some bikes just feel consistently faster?

[Patrick Moore]

Not really, but it's fun rehashing old stories.

On Sat, Jan 13, 2024 at 8:07 AM Bill Lindsay  wrote:

> In this year's revisiting of this topic, have you picked up anything new?
>
> Bill Lindsay
> El Cerrito, CA
>

-- 
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/CALuTfgubDOtXCuNsuY7ZjUwT2-B1rmTJC-nc0Cx3Qq%3Dq75LoXA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Why do some bikes just feel consistently faster?

[Bill Lindsay]

In this year's revisiting of this topic, have you picked up anything new?

Bill Lindsay
El Cerrito, CA

On Friday, January 12, 2024 at 3:37:33 PM UTC-8 Patrick Moore wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 2:40 PM 'John Hawrylak' via RBW Owners Bunch <
> rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>> Responding to Bill L's 2nd thought experiment, here's my quick $0.02 
>> (can't find the cent key)
>>
>> Is Cyclist A's bike fast?  
>> It's as fast they like it to be.  They report 'happy' not necessarily fast
>>
>> Is the magical encouragement claimed by Cyclist B all in their head?
>> No, with the initial gearing, they felt a higher gear would be ok and it 
>> worked out to be so.   Good for them
>>
>> Is "a slightly under geared bike" and "encourages me to ride one cog 
>> smaller" the exact same thing?
>> Good point, in this case it seems to be.
>>
>
> For what it's worth, my "one gear higher" is based on a years' long 
> comfortable cruising gear, or very small range, basically 70-72" for a 
> heavier bike that carries loads. When I say that a bike encourages a gear 1 
> tooth smaller, that means about 75" instead of about 70". For the Herse and 
> the Matthews #1, for example, that meant I'd feel like riding a ~74-75" 
> gear in the same conditions that for the 2003 Curt I'd feel most 
> comfortable in a ~70" gear. 
>
>
>> Assumptions
>> 1  both bikes have same tubing since weight is given as 17# for both with 
>> no qualifications for other components
>> 2  A and B weigh about the same, within 20#
>>
>> Observation
>> The gearing change was about 6% higher in both cases or about 4.4gi if 
>> using 700x32 tires (74.4gi to 78.8gi).  This is pretty much my upper 
>> cruising range, so we are not talking hills.
>>
>> John Hawrylak
>> Woodstown NJ
>>
>>
>> On Friday, January 12, 2024 at 02:03:29 PM EST, Bill Lindsay <
>> tape...@gmail.com> wrote: 
>>
>>
>> I only got one taker on my last thought experiment.  Here's another one:
>>
>> Cyclist A has a 17-pound fixie.  They take a guess at a gear for the 
>> fixie, install a 49x18 and ride it around.  They decide "This seems a 
>> little under geared." and they switch the 18 tooth cog for a 17.  They ride 
>> that and decide "this is just right" and ride the bike happily
>>
>> Cyclist B has a 17-pound fixie.  They take a guess at a gear for the 
>> fixie, install a 49x18 and declare this is "usual". They ride it around and 
>> find the bicycle encourages them to ride one tooth smaller.  They obey the 
>> bicycle's encouragement and switch the 18 tooth cog for a 17.  They ride 
>> that happily, and ask everyone around them "What makes this bike encourage 
>> me to ride one tooth smaller than usual, consistently?"  
>>
>> Is Cyclist A's bike fast?  Is the magical encouragement claimed by 
>> Cyclist B all in their head?  Is "a slightly under geared bike" and 
>> "encourages me to ride one cog smaller" the exact same thing?
>>
>> Bill Lindsay
>> El Cerrito, CA
>>
>> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 9:42:00 AM UTC-8 Bill Lindsay wrote:
>>
>> OK, thought experiment time!  
>>
>> You have to build four bikes. All four bikes must fit you identically.  
>> All the contact points of all four bikes will be identical.  All four bikes 
>> will have geometry/handling that are similar enough to each other that 
>> you'll concede they ride/handle the same.
>>
>> Bike A is for sand and has 3.0" wide tires and weighs 30 pounds
>> Bike B is for grocery runs, pavement and firm dirt.  It's got front and 
>> rear derailleurs and weighs 30 pounds unloaded and 75 pounds with groceries
>> Bike C has an IGH and is used for pavement and grocery runs.  It weighs 
>> 28 pounds unloaded and 73 pounds with groceries
>> Bike D is a stripped down fixie for unloaded pavement rides only.  It 
>> weighs 17 pounds
>>
>> You mostly ride bikes A, B and C.  Every once in a while you ride bike D 
>> and every time you do, it feels amazingly fast and easy to pedal.  
>>
>> Question:  Why does Bike D feel fast and easy to pedal?  
>>
>> Bill Lindsay
>> El Cerrito, CA
>>
>> On Monday, January 8, 2024 at 10:12:25 AM UTC-8 Patrick Moore wrote:
>>
>> All bikes have the same effective sta: the 1999 and the Matthews #2 clone 
>> both have 73* stas, and the Matthews #1 has the saddle forward on the rails 
>> to compensate for the 72* sta. I start setup with saddle height and setback 
>> wrt the bb centerline -- pretty close to identical for all my bikes -- and 
>> use the saddle to gauge bar and brake lever position.
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 7, 2024 at 2:49 PM 'John Hawrylak, Woodstown NJ' via RBW 
>> Owners Bunch  wrote:
>>
>> Patrick
>>
>> Maybe this was asked/answered, but is the STA or saddle setback the same 
>> on Ford Blue as the others??   Are you in a different position??
>>
>> John Hawrylak
>> Woodstown NJ
>>
>> On Thursday, December 28, 2023 at 5:35:08 PM UTC-5 Patrick Moore wrote:
>>
>> This is hardly a new question for me or for others, but it is a question 
>> that strikes me anew when I ride the 1999 Joe Starck a

Re: [RBW] Re: Why do some bikes just feel consistently faster?

[Patrick Moore]

On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 2:40 PM 'John Hawrylak' via RBW Owners Bunch <
rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> Responding to Bill L's 2nd thought experiment, here's my quick $0.02
> (can't find the cent key)
>
> Is Cyclist A's bike fast?
> It's as fast they like it to be.  They report 'happy' not necessarily fast
>
> Is the magical encouragement claimed by Cyclist B all in their head?
> No, with the initial gearing, they felt a higher gear would be ok and it
> worked out to be so.   Good for them
>
> Is "a slightly under geared bike" and "encourages me to ride one cog
> smaller" the exact same thing?
> Good point, in this case it seems to be.
>

For what it's worth, my "one gear higher" is based on a years' long
comfortable cruising gear, or very small range, basically 70-72" for a
heavier bike that carries loads. When I say that a bike encourages a gear 1
tooth smaller, that means about 75" instead of about 70". For the Herse and
the Matthews #1, for example, that meant I'd feel like riding a ~74-75"
gear in the same conditions that for the 2003 Curt I'd feel most
comfortable in a ~70" gear.


> Assumptions
> 1  both bikes have same tubing since weight is given as 17# for both with
> no qualifications for other components
> 2  A and B weigh about the same, within 20#
>
> Observation
> The gearing change was about 6% higher in both cases or about 4.4gi if
> using 700x32 tires (74.4gi to 78.8gi).  This is pretty much my upper
> cruising range, so we are not talking hills.
>
> John Hawrylak
> Woodstown NJ
>
>
> On Friday, January 12, 2024 at 02:03:29 PM EST, Bill Lindsay <
> tapebu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> I only got one taker on my last thought experiment.  Here's another one:
>
> Cyclist A has a 17-pound fixie.  They take a guess at a gear for the
> fixie, install a 49x18 and ride it around.  They decide "This seems a
> little under geared." and they switch the 18 tooth cog for a 17.  They ride
> that and decide "this is just right" and ride the bike happily
>
> Cyclist B has a 17-pound fixie.  They take a guess at a gear for the
> fixie, install a 49x18 and declare this is "usual". They ride it around and
> find the bicycle encourages them to ride one tooth smaller.  They obey the
> bicycle's encouragement and switch the 18 tooth cog for a 17.  They ride
> that happily, and ask everyone around them "What makes this bike encourage
> me to ride one tooth smaller than usual, consistently?"
>
> Is Cyclist A's bike fast?  Is the magical encouragement claimed by Cyclist
> B all in their head?  Is "a slightly under geared bike" and "encourages me
> to ride one cog smaller" the exact same thing?
>
> Bill Lindsay
> El Cerrito, CA
>
> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 9:42:00 AM UTC-8 Bill Lindsay wrote:
>
> OK, thought experiment time!
>
> You have to build four bikes. All four bikes must fit you identically.
> All the contact points of all four bikes will be identical.  All four bikes
> will have geometry/handling that are similar enough to each other that
> you'll concede they ride/handle the same.
>
> Bike A is for sand and has 3.0" wide tires and weighs 30 pounds
> Bike B is for grocery runs, pavement and firm dirt.  It's got front and
> rear derailleurs and weighs 30 pounds unloaded and 75 pounds with groceries
> Bike C has an IGH and is used for pavement and grocery runs.  It weighs 28
> pounds unloaded and 73 pounds with groceries
> Bike D is a stripped down fixie for unloaded pavement rides only.  It
> weighs 17 pounds
>
> You mostly ride bikes A, B and C.  Every once in a while you ride bike D
> and every time you do, it feels amazingly fast and easy to pedal.
>
> Question:  Why does Bike D feel fast and easy to pedal?
>
> Bill Lindsay
> El Cerrito, CA
>
> On Monday, January 8, 2024 at 10:12:25 AM UTC-8 Patrick Moore wrote:
>
> All bikes have the same effective sta: the 1999 and the Matthews #2 clone
> both have 73* stas, and the Matthews #1 has the saddle forward on the rails
> to compensate for the 72* sta. I start setup with saddle height and setback
> wrt the bb centerline -- pretty close to identical for all my bikes -- and
> use the saddle to gauge bar and brake lever position.
>
> On Sun, Jan 7, 2024 at 2:49 PM 'John Hawrylak, Woodstown NJ' via RBW
> Owners Bunch  wrote:
>
> Patrick
>
> Maybe this was asked/answered, but is the STA or saddle setback the same
> on Ford Blue as the others??   Are you in a different position??
>
> John Hawrylak
> Woodstown NJ
>
> On Thursday, December 28, 2023 at 5:35:08 PM UTC-5 Patrick Moore wrote:
>
> This is hardly a new question for me or for others, but it is a question
> that strikes me anew when I ride the 1999 Joe Starck and find, once again
> as always in getting on for 25 years of ownership that *it's just easier
> to maintain speed and cadence in given conditions in given gears,* this
> both on the flats and on hills. I remember being struck by this, again at
> the start of each ride on it, in the first years of ownership.
>
> Tires make a difference, 

Re: [RBW] Re: Why do some bikes just feel consistently faster?

['John Hawrylak' via RBW Owners Bunch]

 Responding to Bill L's 2nd thought experiment, here's my quick $0.02 (can't 
find the cent key)
Is Cyclist A's bike fast?  It's as fast they like it to be.  They report 
'happy' not necessarily fast
Is the magical encouragement claimed by Cyclist B all in their head?No, with 
the initial gearing, they felt a higher gear would be ok and it worked out to 
be so.   Good for them
Is "a slightly under geared bike" and "encourages me to ride one cog smaller" 
the exact same thing?
Good point, in this case it seems to be.
Assumptions1  both bikes have same tubing since weight is given as 17# for both 
with no qualifications for other components2  A and B weigh about the same, 
within 20#
ObservationThe gearing change was about 6% higher in both cases or about 4.4gi 
if using 700x32 tires (74.4gi to 78.8gi).  This is pretty much my upper 
cruising range, so we are not talking hills.
John HawrylakWoodstown NJ

On Friday, January 12, 2024 at 02:03:29 PM EST, Bill Lindsay 
 wrote:  
 
 I only got one taker on my last thought experiment.  Here's another one:
Cyclist A has a 17-pound fixie.  They take a guess at a gear for the fixie, 
install a 49x18 and ride it around.  They decide "This seems a little under 
geared." and they switch the 18 tooth cog for a 17.  They ride that and decide 
"this is just right" and ride the bike happily
Cyclist B has a 17-pound fixie.  They take a guess at a gear for the fixie, 
install a 49x18 and declare this is "usual". They ride it around and find the 
bicycle encourages them to ride one tooth smaller.  They obey the bicycle's 
encouragement and switch the 18 tooth cog for a 17.  They ride that happily, 
and ask everyone around them "What makes this bike encourage me to ride one 
tooth smaller than usual, consistently?"  
Is Cyclist A's bike fast?  Is the magical encouragement claimed by Cyclist B 
all in their head?  Is "a slightly under geared bike" and "encourages me to 
ride one cog smaller" the exact same thing?
Bill LindsayEl Cerrito, CA

On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 9:42:00 AM UTC-8 Bill Lindsay wrote:

OK, thought experiment time!  
You have to build four bikes. All four bikes must fit you identically.  All the 
contact points of all four bikes will be identical.  All four bikes will have 
geometry/handling that are similar enough to each other that you'll concede 
they ride/handle the same.
Bike A is for sand and has 3.0" wide tires and weighs 30 poundsBike B is for 
grocery runs, pavement and firm dirt.  It's got front and rear derailleurs and 
weighs 30 pounds unloaded and 75 pounds with groceriesBike C has an IGH and is 
used for pavement and grocery runs.  It weighs 28 pounds unloaded and 73 pounds 
with groceriesBike D is a stripped down fixie for unloaded pavement rides only. 
 It weighs 17 pounds
You mostly ride bikes A, B and C.  Every once in a while you ride bike D and 
every time you do, it feels amazingly fast and easy to pedal.  
Question:  Why does Bike D feel fast and easy to pedal?  
Bill LindsayEl Cerrito, CA

On Monday, January 8, 2024 at 10:12:25 AM UTC-8 Patrick Moore wrote:

All bikes have the same effective sta: the 1999 and the Matthews #2 clone both 
have 73* stas, and the Matthews #1 has the saddle forward on the rails to 
compensate for the 72* sta. I start setup with saddle height and setback wrt 
the bb centerline -- pretty close to identical for all my bikes -- and use the 
saddle to gauge bar and brake lever position.
On Sun, Jan 7, 2024 at 2:49 PM 'John Hawrylak, Woodstown NJ' via RBW Owners 
Bunch  wrote:

Patrick
Maybe this was asked/answered, but is the STA or saddle setback the same on 
Ford Blue as the others??   Are you in a different position??
John Hawrylak
Woodstown NJ

On Thursday, December 28, 2023 at 5:35:08 PM UTC-5 Patrick Moore wrote:

This is hardly a new question for me or for others, but it is a question that 
strikes me anew when I ride the 1999 Joe Starck and find, once again as always 
in getting on for 25 years of ownership that it's just easier to maintain speed 
and cadence in given conditions in given gears, this both on the flats and on 
hills. I remember being struck by this, again at the start of each ride on it, 
in the first years of ownership.
Tires make a difference, tho' it felt this way with 571 X 23 mm Conti Grands 
Prix and Michelin Pro Races and with 559 X 23 mm Specialized Turbos; with the 
slightly wider (27.19 mm rear at 60 psi and 27.49 mm front at 55 psi on my 19 
mm OW rims) and even lighter and more supple Elk Passes it feels even faster 
and smoother. 
BTW, I wholly discountenance the opinion that harshness or vibration makes 
riders think they're going fast. At least, perhaps some people do that, but 
I've always associated harshness with slowness and smoothness with speed. But 
again, the '99 has always felt smooth and fast.
What provoked this perennial question was my very pleasant mid-afternoon ride 
today. My route included about 1 mile of steep hill starting at Broadway and, 
feeling tir

Re: [RBW] Re: Why do some bikes just feel consistently faster?

[Bill Lindsay]

I only got one taker on my last thought experiment.  Here's another one:

Cyclist A has a 17-pound fixie.  They take a guess at a gear for the fixie, 
install a 49x18 and ride it around.  They decide "This seems a little under 
geared." and they switch the 18 tooth cog for a 17.  They ride that and 
decide "this is just right" and ride the bike happily

Cyclist B has a 17-pound fixie.  They take a guess at a gear for the fixie, 
install a 49x18 and declare this is "usual". They ride it around and find 
the bicycle encourages them to ride one tooth smaller.  They obey the 
bicycle's encouragement and switch the 18 tooth cog for a 17.  They ride 
that happily, and ask everyone around them "What makes this bike encourage 
me to ride one tooth smaller than usual, consistently?"  

Is Cyclist A's bike fast?  Is the magical encouragement claimed by Cyclist 
B all in their head?  Is "a slightly under geared bike" and "encourages me 
to ride one cog smaller" the exact same thing?

Bill Lindsay
El Cerrito, CA

On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 9:42:00 AM UTC-8 Bill Lindsay wrote:

> OK, thought experiment time!  
>
> You have to build four bikes. All four bikes must fit you identically. 
>  All the contact points of all four bikes will be identical.  All four 
> bikes will have geometry/handling that are similar enough to each other 
> that you'll concede they ride/handle the same.
>
> Bike A is for sand and has 3.0" wide tires and weighs 30 pounds
> Bike B is for grocery runs, pavement and firm dirt.  It's got front and 
> rear derailleurs and weighs 30 pounds unloaded and 75 pounds with groceries
> Bike C has an IGH and is used for pavement and grocery runs.  It weighs 28 
> pounds unloaded and 73 pounds with groceries
> Bike D is a stripped down fixie for unloaded pavement rides only.  It 
> weighs 17 pounds
>
> You mostly ride bikes A, B and C.  Every once in a while you ride bike D 
> and every time you do, it feels amazingly fast and easy to pedal.  
>
> Question:  Why does Bike D feel fast and easy to pedal?  
>
> Bill Lindsay
> El Cerrito, CA
>
> On Monday, January 8, 2024 at 10:12:25 AM UTC-8 Patrick Moore wrote:
>
>> All bikes have the same effective sta: the 1999 and the Matthews #2 clone 
>> both have 73* stas, and the Matthews #1 has the saddle forward on the rails 
>> to compensate for the 72* sta. I start setup with saddle height and setback 
>> wrt the bb centerline -- pretty close to identical for all my bikes -- and 
>> use the saddle to gauge bar and brake lever position.
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 7, 2024 at 2:49 PM 'John Hawrylak, Woodstown NJ' via RBW 
>> Owners Bunch  wrote:
>>
>>> Patrick
>>>
>>> Maybe this was asked/answered, but is the STA or saddle setback the same 
>>> on Ford Blue as the others??   Are you in a different position??
>>>
>>> John Hawrylak
>>> Woodstown NJ
>>>
>>> On Thursday, December 28, 2023 at 5:35:08 PM UTC-5 Patrick Moore wrote:
>>>
 This is hardly a new question for me or for others, but it is a 
 question that strikes me anew when I ride the 1999 Joe Starck and find, 
 once again as always in getting on for 25 years of ownership that *it's 
 just easier to maintain speed and cadence in given conditions in given 
 gears,* this both on the flats and on hills. I remember being struck 
 by this, again at the start of each ride on it, in the first years of 
 ownership.

 Tires make a difference, tho' it felt this way with 571 X 23 mm Conti 
 Grands Prix and Michelin Pro Races and with 559 X 23 mm Specialized 
 Turbos; 
 with the slightly wider (27.19 mm rear at 60 psi and 27.49 mm front at 55 
 psi on my 19 mm OW rims) and even lighter and more supple Elk Passes it 
 feels even faster and *smoother.* 

 BTW, I wholly discountenance the opinion that harshness or vibration 
 makes riders think they're going fast. At least, perhaps some people do 
 that, but I've always associated harshness with slowness and smoothness 
 with speed. But again, the '99 has always felt *smooth* and *fast.*

 What provoked this perennial question was my very pleasant 
 mid-afternoon ride today. My route included about 1 mile of steep hill 
 starting at Broadway and, feeling tired and sluggish and being old I 
 considered swapping the Phil 17/19Dingle wheel (76" and 68") with the SA 
 TF 
 wheel (76" and 57" underdrive), but didn't want the bother and decided I'd 
 just walk if necessary.

 I did plan to move the chain to the 19 t/68" gear once I got downtown, 
 but didn't do this, either. Winds variable up to about 7-8 mph.

 I took it easy but found myself following some youngster on a thin-tire 
 700C derailleur hybrid for about 8 miles; I finally caught up to him at 
 the 
 first light on Coal and followed him up the climb. I think he was a UNM 
 student and at least 45 years younger than I, and he put a few yards on me 
 up the hill spinning in a low gear

Re: [RBW] Re: Why do some bikes just feel consistently faster?

['John Hawrylak' via RBW Owners Bunch]

 A 1010 steel frame would typically be a thicker tube gauge than a 531 frame, 
since it has a lower tensile strength.   Since the majority of frames of this 
period used 1" diameter TT and 1-1/8" diameter DT, the thicker tube gauge 
results in a stiffer frame of the same frame size.   It would be interesting to 
see the 73 Moto frame weights.
John Hawrylak  Woodstown NJ
On Friday, January 12, 2024 at 12:30:31 PM EST, Ron Mc 
 wrote:  
 
 '73 catalog, Grand Touring was straight-gauge 1020

On Friday, January 12, 2024 at 11:13:15 AM UTC-6 John Hawrylak, Woodstown NJ 
wrote:

 P Moore asked:   "what besides tubing stiffness might make a main triangle 
stiff or stable?"
Frame size:  small frames are stiffer than large frames.
John HawrylakWoodstown NJ
On Friday, January 12, 2024 at 10:48:14 AM EST, Patrick Moore 
 wrote:  
 
 And yet that very light 531 normal gauge 1973 Motobecane frame handled heavy 
rear loads (all comparisons on Tubus Fly racks) better than much stouter 
frames. Why should that have been?
To turn that into another question: what besides tubing stiffness might make a 
main triangle stiff or stable?
It was rather remarkable: That presumably thinnish-wall, and certainly lighter, 
normal gauge 531 Motobecane handled rear loads better (for me -- this is all 
judged by seat-of-pants feel -- than that (for me) overbuilt 2003 Curt 
frameset, and better than with the Ram.
Fond memory: grunting 45 lb on the rear Fly in a 67" fixed gear on that 
Motobecane up an uber-steep 4/10 mile hill at 4 mph by the bike computer -- 
yep, 20 rpm. 
On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 6:13 AM Ron Mc  wrote:

Hi Patrick, on the rear load thing - that stability is in the main triangle. 


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google 
Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/rbw-owners-bunch/e1zJO1Hhl-U/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to 
rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/CALuTfgsJVMMdPHP-CiqvJBhbEQzTE0DOUpsAUOuv4oEa9RhTOQ%40mail.gmail.com.
  


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google 
Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/rbw-owners-bunch/e1zJO1Hhl-U/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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/f074a7a6-6f64-4652-a9de-3018a9d294dcn%40googlegroups.com.
  

-- 
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/1205016933.855960.1705081211620%40mail.yahoo.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Why do some bikes just feel consistently faster?

[Ron Mc]

'73 catalog, Grand Touring was straight-gauge 1020
[image: Capture.JPG]

On Friday, January 12, 2024 at 11:13:15 AM UTC-6 John Hawrylak, Woodstown 
NJ wrote:

> P Moore asked:   "what besides tubing stiffness might make a main triangle 
> stiff or stable?"
>
> Frame size:  small frames are stiffer than large frames.
>
> John Hawrylak
> Woodstown NJ
>
> On Friday, January 12, 2024 at 10:48:14 AM EST, Patrick Moore <
> bert...@gmail.com> wrote: 
>
>
> And yet that very light 531 normal gauge 1973 Motobecane frame handled 
> heavy rear loads (all comparisons on Tubus Fly racks) better than much 
> stouter frames. Why should that have been?
>
> To turn that into another question: what besides tubing stiffness might 
> make a main triangle stiff or stable?
>
> It was rather remarkable: That presumably thinnish-wall, and certainly 
> lighter, normal gauge 531 Motobecane handled rear loads better (for *me* -- 
> this is all judged by seat-of-pants feel -- than that (for me) overbuilt 
> 2003 Curt frameset, and better than with the Ram.
>
> Fond memory: grunting 45 lb on the rear Fly in a 67" fixed gear on that 
> Motobecane up an *uber-*steep 4/10 mile hill at 4 mph by the bike 
> computer -- yep, 20 rpm. 
>
> On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 6:13 AM Ron Mc  wrote:
>
> Hi Patrick, on the rear load thing - that stability is in the main 
> triangle. 
>
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the 
> Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/rbw-owners-bunch/e1zJO1Hhl-U/unsubscribe
> .
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to 
> rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/CALuTfgsJVMMdPHP-CiqvJBhbEQzTE0DOUpsAUOuv4oEa9RhTOQ%40mail.gmail.com
>  
> 
> .
>

-- 
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/f074a7a6-6f64-4652-a9de-3018a9d294dcn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Why do some bikes just feel consistently faster?

['John Hawrylak' via RBW Owners Bunch]

 P Moore asked:   "what besides tubing stiffness might make a main triangle 
stiff or stable?"
Frame size:  small frames are stiffer than large frames.
John HawrylakWoodstown NJ
On Friday, January 12, 2024 at 10:48:14 AM EST, Patrick Moore 
 wrote:  
 
 And yet that very light 531 normal gauge 1973 Motobecane frame handled heavy 
rear loads (all comparisons on Tubus Fly racks) better than much stouter 
frames. Why should that have been?
To turn that into another question: what besides tubing stiffness might make a 
main triangle stiff or stable?
It was rather remarkable: That presumably thinnish-wall, and certainly lighter, 
normal gauge 531 Motobecane handled rear loads better (for me -- this is all 
judged by seat-of-pants feel -- than that (for me) overbuilt 2003 Curt 
frameset, and better than with the Ram.
Fond memory: grunting 45 lb on the rear Fly in a 67" fixed gear on that 
Motobecane up an uber-steep 4/10 mile hill at 4 mph by the bike computer -- 
yep, 20 rpm. 
On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 6:13 AM Ron Mc  wrote:

Hi Patrick, on the rear load thing - that stability is in the main triangle. 


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google 
Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/rbw-owners-bunch/e1zJO1Hhl-U/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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/CALuTfgsJVMMdPHP-CiqvJBhbEQzTE0DOUpsAUOuv4oEa9RhTOQ%40mail.gmail.com.
  

-- 
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/108183738.853616.1705079585910%40mail.yahoo.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Why do some bikes just feel consistently faster?

[Patrick Moore]

The stiffness of the main triangle might be a big part of rear load
stability, but I'd guess that the stiffness of the rear rack is equally a
cause; I recall carrying a 2 feet tall (literally) stack of mostly hardback
library books in a pannier on the left side of a Fly on the very flexy
(normal gauge aluminum tubing) Raleigh Technium, and finding the bike still
perfectly rideable, if not perfectly balanced.

On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 6:13 AM Ron Mc  wrote:

> Hi Patrick, on the rear load thing - that stability is in the main
> triangle.

-- 
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/CALuTfgvp_M7sH7%2B8L%3DA2twRZOg_FWs%2BhpPOZz5jP%2BKtgfDqtUA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Why do some bikes just feel consistently faster?

[Patrick Moore]

And yet that very light 531 normal gauge 1973 Motobecane frame handled
heavy rear loads (all comparisons on Tubus Fly racks) better than much
stouter frames. Why should that have been?

To turn that into another question: what besides tubing stiffness might
make a main triangle stiff or stable?

It was rather remarkable: That presumably thinnish-wall, and certainly
lighter, normal gauge 531 Motobecane handled rear loads better (for *me* --
this is all judged by seat-of-pants feel -- than that (for me) overbuilt
2003 Curt frameset, and better than with the Ram.

Fond memory: grunting 45 lb on the rear Fly in a 67" fixed gear on that
Motobecane up an *uber-*steep 4/10 mile hill at 4 mph by the bike computer
-- yep, 20 rpm.

On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 6:13 AM Ron Mc  wrote:

> Hi Patrick, on the rear load thing - that stability is in the main
> triangle.

-- 
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/CALuTfgsJVMMdPHP-CiqvJBhbEQzTE0DOUpsAUOuv4oEa9RhTOQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Why do some bikes just feel consistently faster?

[Ron Mc]

Hi Patrick, on the rear load thing - that stability is in the main 
triangle.  
People sought out old Raleigh Grand Prix to build touring bikes because of 
the straight-gauge 10-20 tubes and rigid main triangle.  
In comparison, my International frame has too much flex in the main 
triangle to carry a rear load, but it's a wonderful ride and climber.  
Regards

On Thursday, January 11, 2024 at 4:34:47 PM UTC-6 Patrick Moore wrote:

> Oh, one more tangentially related remark: The best bikers I've owned for 
> rear load carrying have had light and flexy frames; most notably the 1973 
> Motobecane Grand Record whose frame felt so light compared to that 2003 Riv 
> Curt custom and was noticeably more flexible. The flexy-flyer early -ed 
> Raleigh Technium sports tourer also carried rear loads very well, better 
> than the current 2020 Matthews; and the current .8 .4 .8 normal gauge 531 
> 2020 Matthews, if not the best load carrier, does as well as the over-stiff 
> 2003 Curt and the 2nd gen Rambouillet; Tubus Flys, tho' the 2003 later had 
> a Matthews custom rack and the 2020's Fly was modified in by Bilenky to, 
> among other things, to sit lower over the shorter, 26" wheel.
>
> On Thu, Jan 11, 2024 at 3:29 PM Patrick Moore  wrote:
>
>> I'm sure weight makes a difference; I'm not convinced it makes all the 
>> difference since I've had at least a couple of bikes that consistently felt 
>> "faster" despite weighing 10 or 12+ lbs more than the 1999. I expect as 
>> others have said that it is a happy coincidence of weight, flex, tires, 
>> fit, and position.
>>
>> The 2 Matthews -- fat tire road bike for dirt, 26" wheel road bike for 
>> errands -- actually have, I think, thinner tubing and lighter frames, 
>> proportions preserved, than the 1999. The 2020 Matthews errand bike frame 
>> was deliberately built with lighter, more flexible tubes than the 2003 Riv 
>> Goodrich custom which cloned the 1999, and indeed, with Elk Passes, I began 
>> to think that it might even be faster than the 1999 despite it's 8 or 10 lb 
>> greater weight. It feels fast with the el NPs but no longer a competitor to 
>> the 1999. The 622 fat tire Matthews felt almost as fast with the Big Ones 
>> (and only slightly slower again with the Somas, preferred for their 
>> pavement handling) and despite a 12 or 13 lb weight difference, but part of 
>> that may have been the "feel" of longer 175 mm cranks, tho this too had 
>> thinwall (OS) tubing.
>>
>> But again: the 1958 Herse felt (consistently over 18 or 24 months) 1 cog 
>> faster than "usual" despite thick-wall tubes that caused 2 other owners to 
>> pass it on cheap, heavy weight (forget, but it must have been at least 28 
>> lb if not more with racks), and ho-hum 32 mm Paselas. Tho' the thick-wall 
>> tubing was normal gauge.
>>
>> Again, all of these and my other bikes have been set up for largely the 
>> same riding position.
>>
>> Too look at the question from the reverse -- What made a bike feel so 
>> slow and awkward? -- the Monocog is a good instance, tho' it's current and 
>> improved "feel" is merely "nice" and not superlative. When I got it, with 
>> stiff, heavily knobbed and IIRC wire bead tires, OEM wide (2012) bar, and 
>> 172 mm Q crank, it just felt penitential to ride, on dirt and certainly on 
>> pavement. Supple (relatively) WTB Rangers, 156 mm Q crank, close-in 44 cm 
>> (hoods) drop bar with no ramps, tiny-reach upjutter stem (7 cm along 
>> extension, 30 or 35* rise), now it's actually fun to ride. What hasn't 
>> changed is the girder-stiff tubing.
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 9, 2024 at 1:22 PM 'John Hawrylak, Woodstown NJ' via RBW 
>> Owners Bunch  wrote:
>>
>>> Bill L questioned the 12# weight difference.
>>>
>>> I sort of missed the 12#, mainly since Bike D was stated to 'feel fast' 
>>> and I assumed B & C would use heavier tubing due to the 73 to 75# load 
>>> requirement and A must be thick gauge tubing given the 30# weight (Schwinns 
>>> in the 1980"s used 1010 18 gauge tubing in lugged frames and quoted 30 to 
>>> 32# weights).
>>>
>>> I admit D should be about 1 mph faster than the A, B C due to the 11 to 
>>> 13# weight difference (basis R Schwinn stated Schwinn tests showed 12# 
>>> change in frame resulted in a 1 mph change with same effort).   I focused 
>>> on the 'feel fast' vs 'tested and shown faster'.
>>>
>>
>
> -- 
>
> Patrick Moore
> Alburquerque, Nuevo Mexico, Etats Unis d'Amerique, Orbis Terrarum
>
> ---
>
> Executive resumes, LinkedIn profiles, bios, letters, and other writing 
> services
>
>
> ---
>
> *When thou didst not, savage, k**now thine own meaning,*
>
> *But wouldst gabble like a** thing most brutish,*
>
> *I endowed thy purposes w**ith words that made them known.*
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google

Re: [RBW] Re: Why do some bikes just feel consistently faster?

[Patrick Moore]

Oh, one more tangentially related remark: The best bikers I've owned for
rear load carrying have had light and flexy frames; most notably the 1973
Motobecane Grand Record whose frame felt so light compared to that 2003 Riv
Curt custom and was noticeably more flexible. The flexy-flyer early -ed
Raleigh Technium sports tourer also carried rear loads very well, better
than the current 2020 Matthews; and the current .8 .4 .8 normal gauge 531
2020 Matthews, if not the best load carrier, does as well as the over-stiff
2003 Curt and the 2nd gen Rambouillet; Tubus Flys, tho' the 2003 later had
a Matthews custom rack and the 2020's Fly was modified in by Bilenky to,
among other things, to sit lower over the shorter, 26" wheel.

On Thu, Jan 11, 2024 at 3:29 PM Patrick Moore  wrote:

> I'm sure weight makes a difference; I'm not convinced it makes all the
> difference since I've had at least a couple of bikes that consistently felt
> "faster" despite weighing 10 or 12+ lbs more than the 1999. I expect as
> others have said that it is a happy coincidence of weight, flex, tires,
> fit, and position.
>
> The 2 Matthews -- fat tire road bike for dirt, 26" wheel road bike for
> errands -- actually have, I think, thinner tubing and lighter frames,
> proportions preserved, than the 1999. The 2020 Matthews errand bike frame
> was deliberately built with lighter, more flexible tubes than the 2003 Riv
> Goodrich custom which cloned the 1999, and indeed, with Elk Passes, I began
> to think that it might even be faster than the 1999 despite it's 8 or 10 lb
> greater weight. It feels fast with the el NPs but no longer a competitor to
> the 1999. The 622 fat tire Matthews felt almost as fast with the Big Ones
> (and only slightly slower again with the Somas, preferred for their
> pavement handling) and despite a 12 or 13 lb weight difference, but part of
> that may have been the "feel" of longer 175 mm cranks, tho this too had
> thinwall (OS) tubing.
>
> But again: the 1958 Herse felt (consistently over 18 or 24 months) 1 cog
> faster than "usual" despite thick-wall tubes that caused 2 other owners to
> pass it on cheap, heavy weight (forget, but it must have been at least 28
> lb if not more with racks), and ho-hum 32 mm Paselas. Tho' the thick-wall
> tubing was normal gauge.
>
> Again, all of these and my other bikes have been set up for largely the
> same riding position.
>
> Too look at the question from the reverse -- What made a bike feel so slow
> and awkward? -- the Monocog is a good instance, tho' it's current and
> improved "feel" is merely "nice" and not superlative. When I got it, with
> stiff, heavily knobbed and IIRC wire bead tires, OEM wide (2012) bar, and
> 172 mm Q crank, it just felt penitential to ride, on dirt and certainly on
> pavement. Supple (relatively) WTB Rangers, 156 mm Q crank, close-in 44 cm
> (hoods) drop bar with no ramps, tiny-reach upjutter stem (7 cm along
> extension, 30 or 35* rise), now it's actually fun to ride. What hasn't
> changed is the girder-stiff tubing.
>
> On Tue, Jan 9, 2024 at 1:22 PM 'John Hawrylak, Woodstown NJ' via RBW
> Owners Bunch  wrote:
>
>> Bill L questioned the 12# weight difference.
>>
>> I sort of missed the 12#, mainly since Bike D was stated to 'feel fast'
>> and I assumed B & C would use heavier tubing due to the 73 to 75# load
>> requirement and A must be thick gauge tubing given the 30# weight (Schwinns
>> in the 1980"s used 1010 18 gauge tubing in lugged frames and quoted 30 to
>> 32# weights).
>>
>> I admit D should be about 1 mph faster than the A, B C due to the 11 to
>> 13# weight difference (basis R Schwinn stated Schwinn tests showed 12#
>> change in frame resulted in a 1 mph change with same effort).   I focused
>> on the 'feel fast' vs 'tested and shown faster'.
>>
>

-- 

Patrick Moore
Alburquerque, Nuevo Mexico, Etats Unis d'Amerique, Orbis Terrarum
---

Executive resumes, LinkedIn profiles, bios, letters, and other writing
services

---

*When thou didst not, savage, k**now thine own meaning,*

*But wouldst gabble like a** thing most brutish,*

*I endowed thy purposes w**ith words that made them known.*

-- 
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/CALuTfgv%3DwimLAcxZ8spk%2BknCbXgPh043_y1T1tTEwV2mEw00qA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Why do some bikes just feel consistently faster?

[Patrick Moore]

I'm sure weight makes a difference; I'm not convinced it makes all the
difference since I've had at least a couple of bikes that consistently felt
"faster" despite weighing 10 or 12+ lbs more than the 1999. I expect as
others have said that it is a happy coincidence of weight, flex, tires,
fit, and position.

The 2 Matthews -- fat tire road bike for dirt, 26" wheel road bike for
errands -- actually have, I think, thinner tubing and lighter frames,
proportions preserved, than the 1999. The 2020 Matthews errand bike frame
was deliberately built with lighter, more flexible tubes than the 2003 Riv
Goodrich custom which cloned the 1999, and indeed, with Elk Passes, I began
to think that it might even be faster than the 1999 despite it's 8 or 10 lb
greater weight. It feels fast with the el NPs but no longer a competitor to
the 1999. The 622 fat tire Matthews felt almost as fast with the Big Ones
(and only slightly slower again with the Somas, preferred for their
pavement handling) and despite a 12 or 13 lb weight difference, but part of
that may have been the "feel" of longer 175 mm cranks, tho this too had
thinwall (OS) tubing.

But again: the 1958 Herse felt (consistently over 18 or 24 months) 1 cog
faster than "usual" despite thick-wall tubes that caused 2 other owners to
pass it on cheap, heavy weight (forget, but it must have been at least 28
lb if not more with racks), and ho-hum 32 mm Paselas. Tho' the thick-wall
tubing was normal gauge.

Again, all of these and my other bikes have been set up for largely the
same riding position.

Too look at the question from the reverse -- What made a bike feel so slow
and awkward? -- the Monocog is a good instance, tho' it's current and
improved "feel" is merely "nice" and not superlative. When I got it, with
stiff, heavily knobbed and IIRC wire bead tires, OEM wide (2012) bar, and
172 mm Q crank, it just felt penitential to ride, on dirt and certainly on
pavement. Supple (relatively) WTB Rangers, 156 mm Q crank, close-in 44 cm
(hoods) drop bar with no ramps, tiny-reach upjutter stem (7 cm along
extension, 30 or 35* rise), now it's actually fun to ride. What hasn't
changed is the girder-stiff tubing.

On Tue, Jan 9, 2024 at 1:22 PM 'John Hawrylak, Woodstown NJ' via RBW Owners
Bunch  wrote:

> Bill L questioned the 12# weight difference.
>
> I sort of missed the 12#, mainly since Bike D was stated to 'feel fast'
> and I assumed B & C would use heavier tubing due to the 73 to 75# load
> requirement and A must be thick gauge tubing given the 30# weight (Schwinns
> in the 1980"s used 1010 18 gauge tubing in lugged frames and quoted 30 to
> 32# weights).
>
> I admit D should be about 1 mph faster than the A, B C due to the 11 to
> 13# weight difference (basis R Schwinn stated Schwinn tests showed 12#
> change in frame resulted in a 1 mph change with same effort).   I focused
> on the 'feel fast' vs 'tested and shown faster'.
>

-- 
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/CALuTfgtjvEf9ed%2BVgTXDZKHy4gh1GaOzh0Ln-%2BwDvMU9OfM-%3DQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[RBW] Re: Why do some bikes just feel consistently faster?

[Mike Godwin]

I recall "reynoldslugs" (Max Beach) on the ibob list positing thin/slim 
seat stays add to the effect of a bike feeling fast, or least adding to the 
swing effect when pedaling. I tend to agree with him on that when comparing 
my Lemond Zurich and mid-70s Bob Jackson to say a Roadeo.  But, the larger 
diameter stays on my no-longer-in-quiver BMC Road bike had nearly the same 
feel as the Zurich and BJ.  

Yup, its the whole system, let's ride it!
Mike SLO CA 
On Thursday, December 28, 2023 at 2:35:08 PM UTC-8 Patrick Moore wrote:

> This is hardly a new question for me or for others, but it is a question 
> that strikes me anew when I ride the 1999 Joe Starck and find, once again 
> as always in getting on for 25 years of ownership that *it's just easier 
> to maintain speed and cadence in given conditions in given gears,* this 
> both on the flats and on hills. I remember being struck by this, again at 
> the start of each ride on it, in the first years of ownership.
>
> Tires make a difference, tho' it felt this way with 571 X 23 mm Conti 
> Grands Prix and Michelin Pro Races and with 559 X 23 mm Specialized Turbos; 
> with the slightly wider (27.19 mm rear at 60 psi and 27.49 mm front at 55 
> psi on my 19 mm OW rims) and even lighter and more supple Elk Passes it 
> feels even faster and *smoother.* 
>
> BTW, I wholly discountenance the opinion that harshness or vibration makes 
> riders think they're going fast. At least, perhaps some people do that, but 
> I've always associated harshness with slowness and smoothness with speed. 
> But again, the '99 has always felt *smooth* and *fast.*
>
> What provoked this perennial question was my very pleasant mid-afternoon 
> ride today. My route included about 1 mile of steep hill starting at 
> Broadway and, feeling tired and sluggish and being old I considered 
> swapping the Phil 17/19Dingle wheel (76" and 68") with the SA TF wheel (76" 
> and 57" underdrive), but didn't want the bother and decided I'd just walk 
> if necessary.
>
> I did plan to move the chain to the 19 t/68" gear once I got downtown, but 
> didn't do this, either. Winds variable up to about 7-8 mph.
>
> I took it easy but found myself following some youngster on a thin-tire 
> 700C derailleur hybrid for about 8 miles; I finally caught up to him at the 
> first light on Coal and followed him up the climb. I think he was a UNM 
> student and at least 45 years younger than I, and he put a few yards on me 
> up the hill spinning in a low gear but I was surprised once again (this is 
> the point, don't mind my meandering) at *how well and easily* the bike 
> climbs.
>
> ???
>
> Planing? The frame is not as over-beefy as the 2003 Goodrich custom but 
> it's not as light and certainly has fatter tubes than the wonderful 
> thinwall 531 normal gauge 2020 Matthews replacement of the 2003.
>
> Weight? With the Phil it's right at 18 lb without bottle or bag versus ~28 
> for the Matthews road with F+R racks, fenders, lights, and SA 3 speed hub, 
> and versus the 30-31 lb of the Matthews road-bike-for-dirt with 2X10 
> derailleur drivetrain, 50 mm tires, 2X gauge fenders, dynamo lighting, and 
> rear rack. But it feels fast on the flats at steady-state cruising. I 
> daresay that the weight makes a difference on hills, but I *don't* think 
> that weight is the only reason.
>
> I know that some bikes just fit and feel "perfect," and this is one of 
> them (tho' the 2 Matthewses fit just about the same since I built them up 
> to do so). That old Herse was a tank that 2 earlier owners sold for cheap 
> but for me it rode "fast" if not as fast as the 1999 Joe Starck.
>
> To end this meandering: since so much of my riding is either errands 
> requiring bags or dirt requiring fat tires the 1999 gets ridden less than 
> it otherwise would, but if I had to get ride of all bikes but one, I'd 
> happily keep this and build 1 or 2 alternative wheelsets (geared/skinny, 
> geared/fattish) and buy a bit selection of strap-on saddlebags from repair 
> kit only to Sackville Medium.
>
> I've owned 5 Rivendells including 3 customs and this one is the last (tho' 
> the 2020 Matthews is a copy of the 2003).
>
> Sorry, can't resist posting again:
>
> [image: image.png]
> -- 
>
> Patrick Moore
> Alburquerque, Nuevo Mexico, Etats Unis d'Amerique, Orbis Terrarum
>
> ---
>
> Executive resumes, LinkedIn profiles, bios, letters, and other writing 
> services
>
>
> ---
>
> *When thou didst not, savage, k**now thine own meaning,*
>
> *But wouldst gabble like a** thing most brutish,*
>
> *I endowed thy purposes w**ith words that made them known.*
>

-- 
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 

Re: [RBW] Re: Why do some bikes just feel consistently faster?

['John Hawrylak, Woodstown NJ' via RBW Owners Bunch]

Bill L questioned the 12# weight difference.

I sort of missed the 12#, mainly since Bike D was stated to 'feel fast' and 
I assumed B & C would use heavier tubing due to the 73 to 75# load 
requirement and A must be thick gauge tubing given the 30# weight (Schwinns 
in the 1980"s used 1010 18 gauge tubing in lugged frames and quoted 30 to 
32# weights).

I admit D should be about 1 mph faster than the A, B C due to the 11 to 13# 
weight difference (basis R Schwinn stated Schwinn tests showed 12# change 
in frame resulted in a 1 mph change with same effort).   I focused on the 
'feel fast' vs 'tested and shown faster'.

I did ride a Trek 5500 (Rolf paired spoke wheels) for 5 years between 
riding a 1975 Schwinn Approved Voyaguer II and a 1988 Schwinn Voyaguer 
(touring) and both with 36 spoke wheels.  I did not find it to 'feel a 
significant degree faster' than the Voyageur II even though it weighed 
less.  I may have been faster, but did not feel it.

However, my Norther-Lyon (36 spoke Velocity Atlas wheels) *does 'feel 
faster"* than either of the 2 Schwinns and is definitely easier to pedal 
than the other 3.   So my answer is probably biased to my experiences & 
assumptions discussed above.

Note:  The 4 frames are all essentially the same sizes: 21" )C-T), 54cm and 
52cm, both C-C.  So tube rigidity may be more important in the smaller 
frame since a small frame is more rigid than a large one.

This was enjoyable and thought provoking.  Thanks Bill   

John Hawrylak
Woodstown NJ

On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 2:24:49 PM UTC-5 Bill Lindsay wrote:

> John played along and gave an interesting answer.  Interesting for two 
> reasons:
>
> 1. Patrick Moore's Bike C is objectively more flexible than Bike D.  
> 2. John H doesn't think a 12 pound lighter bike will feel faster or easier 
> to pedal
>
> BL in EC
>

-- 
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/7b7c309e-4fb7-4b5b-b35c-f5cbe2f9e3e2n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Why do some bikes just feel consistently faster?

[Bill Lindsay]

John played along and gave an interesting answer.  Interesting for two 
reasons:

1. Patrick Moore's Bike C is objectively more flexible than Bike D.  
2. John H doesn't think a 12 pound lighter bike will feel faster or easier 
to pedal

BL in EC

-- 
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/eeb7272c-f2d2-4846-8c01-a07ffecf1a1bn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Why do some bikes just feel consistently faster?

['John Hawrylak' via RBW Owners Bunch]

 Because the other 3 are stiffer and harder to pedal, unless operated at their 
design conditions, e.g B & C need a 73 to 75 lbm additional load.

John HawrylakWoodstown NJ
On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 12:42:09 PM EST, Bill Lindsay 
 wrote:  
 
 OK, thought experiment time!  
You have to build four bikes. All four bikes must fit you identically.  All the 
contact points of all four bikes will be identical.  All four bikes will have 
geometry/handling that are similar enough to each other that you'll concede 
they ride/handle the same.
Bike A is for sand and has 3.0" wide tires and weighs 30 poundsBike B is for 
grocery runs, pavement and firm dirt.  It's got front and rear derailleurs and 
weighs 30 pounds unloaded and 75 pounds with groceriesBike C has an IGH and is 
used for pavement and grocery runs.  It weighs 28 pounds unloaded and 73 pounds 
with groceriesBike D is a stripped down fixie for unloaded pavement rides only. 
 It weighs 17 pounds
You mostly ride bikes A, B and C.  Every once in a while you ride bike D and 
every time you do, it feels amazingly fast and easy to pedal.  
Question:  Why does Bike D feel fast and easy to pedal?  
Bill LindsayEl Cerrito, CA

On Monday, January 8, 2024 at 10:12:25 AM UTC-8 Patrick Moore wrote:

All bikes have the same effective sta: the 1999 and the Matthews #2 clone both 
have 73* stas, and the Matthews #1 has the saddle forward on the rails to 
compensate for the 72* sta. I start setup with saddle height and setback wrt 
the bb centerline -- pretty close to identical for all my bikes -- and use the 
saddle to gauge bar and brake lever position.
On Sun, Jan 7, 2024 at 2:49 PM 'John Hawrylak, Woodstown NJ' via RBW Owners 
Bunch  wrote:

Patrick
Maybe this was asked/answered, but is the STA or saddle setback the same on 
Ford Blue as the others??   Are you in a different position??
John Hawrylak
Woodstown NJ

On Thursday, December 28, 2023 at 5:35:08 PM UTC-5 Patrick Moore wrote:

This is hardly a new question for me or for others, but it is a question that 
strikes me anew when I ride the 1999 Joe Starck and find, once again as always 
in getting on for 25 years of ownership that it's just easier to maintain speed 
and cadence in given conditions in given gears, this both on the flats and on 
hills. I remember being struck by this, again at the start of each ride on it, 
in the first years of ownership.
Tires make a difference, tho' it felt this way with 571 X 23 mm Conti Grands 
Prix and Michelin Pro Races and with 559 X 23 mm Specialized Turbos; with the 
slightly wider (27.19 mm rear at 60 psi and 27.49 mm front at 55 psi on my 19 
mm OW rims) and even lighter and more supple Elk Passes it feels even faster 
and smoother. 
BTW, I wholly discountenance the opinion that harshness or vibration makes 
riders think they're going fast. At least, perhaps some people do that, but 
I've always associated harshness with slowness and smoothness with speed. But 
again, the '99 has always felt smooth and fast.
What provoked this perennial question was my very pleasant mid-afternoon ride 
today. My route included about 1 mile of steep hill starting at Broadway and, 
feeling tired and sluggish and being old I considered swapping the Phil 
17/19Dingle wheel (76" and 68") with the SA TF wheel (76" and 57" underdrive), 
but didn't want the bother and decided I'd just walk if necessary.
I did plan to move the chain to the 19 t/68" gear once I got downtown, but 
didn't do this, either. Winds variable up to about 7-8 mph.
I took it easy but found myself following some youngster on a thin-tire 700C 
derailleur hybrid for about 8 miles; I finally caught up to him at the first 
light on Coal and followed him up the climb. I think he was a UNM student and 
at least 45 years younger than I, and he put a few yards on me up the hill 
spinning in a low gear but I was surprised once again (this is the point, don't 
mind my meandering) at how well and easily the bike climbs.
???
Planing? The frame is not as over-beefy as the 2003 Goodrich custom but it's 
not as light and certainly has fatter tubes than the wonderful thinwall 531 
normal gauge 2020 Matthews replacement of the 2003.
Weight? With the Phil it's right at 18 lb without bottle or bag versus ~28 for 
the Matthews road with F+R racks, fenders, lights, and SA 3 speed hub, and 
versus the 30-31 lb of the Matthews road-bike-for-dirt with 2X10 derailleur 
drivetrain, 50 mm tires, 2X gauge fenders, dynamo lighting, and rear rack. But 
it feels fast on the flats at steady-state cruising. I daresay that the weight 
makes a difference on hills, but I don't think that weight is the only reason.
I know that some bikes just fit and feel "perfect," and this is one of them 
(tho' the 2 Matthewses fit just about the same since I built them up to do so). 
That old Herse was a tank that 2 earlier owners sold for cheap but for me it 
rode "fast" if not as fast as the 1999 Joe Starck.
To end this meandering: since so much of my riding is eit

Re: [RBW] Re: Why do some bikes just feel consistently faster?

[Chris Halasz]

The video depicts "simulated displacement of the bicycle frame when excited 
at a natural frequency of 446.54Hz. The motion is magnified five times."

Requesting some help with my simple mind on this. 446.54Hz? And magnified 
five times. I can't help be reminded of the wreck.bikes.tech Jobst days, 
when data showed no measurable deflection with large mass placed on steel 
vs. aluminum frames. 

Still wondering whether 'planing' (just resonance?) isn't all in the head, 
like fancy labels on wine bottles actually affecting 'taste'. If it's in 
the head, the dopamine release will find its way to the pedals, and cranks. 
It's still real. Next thing you know, you're traveling at ... 4446.54Hz. 

I'm reminded of Sam Maloof's take on chair design: the better chair invites 
(compels?) you to sit.  

Also reminded of the Richard Sachs axiom: 'The bike is not the frame, the 
bike is the bike.' Or something like that. It's a system of frame, wheels, 
spoke tension, tires, seat post and stem protrusion and length. How that 
all feels, and looks, affects the brain and body. 

And Patrick, that is one fine system of a bike.

On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 9:40:37 AM UTC-8 Ron Mc wrote:

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxxhoKVVCvg
>
> I don't know how to embed this, or whether good will embed it, but the 
> youtube link is the mode shape that produces planing from the rear 
> triangles.  
>
>
> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 10:02:55 AM UTC-6 Keith P. wrote:
>
>> Really interesting points Ted.
>> Thanks for writing them up!
>> k.
>>
>> On Jan 9, 2024, at 6:12 AM, Bill Schairer  wrote:
>>
>> Ted,
>>
>> I love your explanation!  My niece is a college crew coach and she also 
>> cycles.  I will have to ask her about "swing."
>>
>> Bill S
>> San Diego
>>
>> On Monday, January 8, 2024 at 7:15:31 AM UTC-8 Ted Durant wrote:
>>
>> Not to be overly contrarian, but ...
>>
>> Planing is a terrible word for the phenomenon in question, which is when 
>> the flex characteristics of the bike are such that the energy stored in 
>> deformation (of the frame and all the attached parts) is efficiently 
>> returned to power the rear wheel during the lower power part of the 
>> pedaling cycle. When a boat planes, it rises out of the water, resulting in 
>> a large reduction in coefficient of drag. The equivalent on a bicycle would 
>> be the development of a vacuum around the bike and rider at a certain 
>> speed. That would be fun, but it's certainly not what's happening on earth. 
>> Ironically, there is a well-known and used term in Jan's back yard, for the 
>> exact phenomenon he is trying to describe. Rowers have long used the word 
>> "swing" to describe a shell and oars whose flex characteristics synchronize 
>> well with their strokes, allowing them to go faster for a given power 
>> output. Jan claims that bikes that "plane" magically increase a rider's 
>> power output, but the reality is that bikes that swing well waste less of 
>> the rider's  power. A better way to put it might be that such a bike puts 
>> more of the rider's power to the back wheel. 
>>
>> The flex characteristics of the frame are important, of course, but the 
>> entire bicycle (and its rider) is a system of springs and in such a system 
>> the softer springs affect flex first, with the stiffer springs becoming 
>> more relevant as the forces increase. For most of us on this list, we don't 
>> spend a lot of time putting enough power into the pedals to get to the 
>> point where frame flexibility is significantly tested. At 57kg, I can tell 
>> you that I rarely put out that kind of power. I have a brevet bike made of 
>> .7/.4/.7 standard diameter tubing, and I can make that frame flex, but not 
>> for very long. That bike rides on 42mm tires at about 33 psi, and the tires 
>> are definitely the soft springs in that system.
>>
>> I don't attribute aluminum, or stiffer frames in general, to an increased 
>> focus on cadence. Track cyclists have always been obsessed with cadence. 
>> With the introduction of multiple gear systems for road biking came the 
>> opportunity to develop notions of "ideal" cadence. Note that when Jan talks 
>> about frames "planing" for him, he almost always talks about it working for 
>> his preferred cadence. Stiff frames, in fact, reduce the importance of 
>> cadence, as they reduce the contribution of the frame to swing (for a given 
>> power input). For me, cadence is only important when going uphill or into a 
>> headwind. It is important because I need enough momentum in my feet to keep 
>> a steady speed. Without that momentum, I am repeatedly accelerating during 
>> the power phase and decelerating during the non-power phase. That is 
>> terribly inefficient. And that is why, as discussed in the recent thread on 
>> gearing, it is so important to have low gears in steep hills. Long before 
>> aluminum frames were a twinkle in Gary Klein's eyes, cyclists talked about 
>> "staying on top of a gear" when climbing. It meant to

Re: [RBW] Re: Why do some bikes just feel consistently faster?

[Bill Lindsay]

OK, thought experiment time!  

You have to build four bikes. All four bikes must fit you identically.  All 
the contact points of all four bikes will be identical.  All four bikes 
will have geometry/handling that are similar enough to each other that 
you'll concede they ride/handle the same.

Bike A is for sand and has 3.0" wide tires and weighs 30 pounds
Bike B is for grocery runs, pavement and firm dirt.  It's got front and 
rear derailleurs and weighs 30 pounds unloaded and 75 pounds with groceries
Bike C has an IGH and is used for pavement and grocery runs.  It weighs 28 
pounds unloaded and 73 pounds with groceries
Bike D is a stripped down fixie for unloaded pavement rides only.  It 
weighs 17 pounds

You mostly ride bikes A, B and C.  Every once in a while you ride bike D 
and every time you do, it feels amazingly fast and easy to pedal.  

Question:  Why does Bike D feel fast and easy to pedal?  

Bill Lindsay
El Cerrito, CA

On Monday, January 8, 2024 at 10:12:25 AM UTC-8 Patrick Moore wrote:

> All bikes have the same effective sta: the 1999 and the Matthews #2 clone 
> both have 73* stas, and the Matthews #1 has the saddle forward on the rails 
> to compensate for the 72* sta. I start setup with saddle height and setback 
> wrt the bb centerline -- pretty close to identical for all my bikes -- and 
> use the saddle to gauge bar and brake lever position.
>
> On Sun, Jan 7, 2024 at 2:49 PM 'John Hawrylak, Woodstown NJ' via RBW 
> Owners Bunch  wrote:
>
>> Patrick
>>
>> Maybe this was asked/answered, but is the STA or saddle setback the same 
>> on Ford Blue as the others??   Are you in a different position??
>>
>> John Hawrylak
>> Woodstown NJ
>>
>> On Thursday, December 28, 2023 at 5:35:08 PM UTC-5 Patrick Moore wrote:
>>
>>> This is hardly a new question for me or for others, but it is a question 
>>> that strikes me anew when I ride the 1999 Joe Starck and find, once again 
>>> as always in getting on for 25 years of ownership that *it's just 
>>> easier to maintain speed and cadence in given conditions in given gears,* 
>>> this 
>>> both on the flats and on hills. I remember being struck by this, again at 
>>> the start of each ride on it, in the first years of ownership.
>>>
>>> Tires make a difference, tho' it felt this way with 571 X 23 mm Conti 
>>> Grands Prix and Michelin Pro Races and with 559 X 23 mm Specialized Turbos; 
>>> with the slightly wider (27.19 mm rear at 60 psi and 27.49 mm front at 55 
>>> psi on my 19 mm OW rims) and even lighter and more supple Elk Passes it 
>>> feels even faster and *smoother.* 
>>>
>>> BTW, I wholly discountenance the opinion that harshness or vibration 
>>> makes riders think they're going fast. At least, perhaps some people do 
>>> that, but I've always associated harshness with slowness and smoothness 
>>> with speed. But again, the '99 has always felt *smooth* and *fast.*
>>>
>>> What provoked this perennial question was my very pleasant mid-afternoon 
>>> ride today. My route included about 1 mile of steep hill starting at 
>>> Broadway and, feeling tired and sluggish and being old I considered 
>>> swapping the Phil 17/19Dingle wheel (76" and 68") with the SA TF wheel (76" 
>>> and 57" underdrive), but didn't want the bother and decided I'd just walk 
>>> if necessary.
>>>
>>> I did plan to move the chain to the 19 t/68" gear once I got downtown, 
>>> but didn't do this, either. Winds variable up to about 7-8 mph.
>>>
>>> I took it easy but found myself following some youngster on a thin-tire 
>>> 700C derailleur hybrid for about 8 miles; I finally caught up to him at the 
>>> first light on Coal and followed him up the climb. I think he was a UNM 
>>> student and at least 45 years younger than I, and he put a few yards on me 
>>> up the hill spinning in a low gear but I was surprised once again (this is 
>>> the point, don't mind my meandering) at *how well and easily* the bike 
>>> climbs.
>>>
>>> ???
>>>
>>> Planing? The frame is not as over-beefy as the 2003 Goodrich custom but 
>>> it's not as light and certainly has fatter tubes than the wonderful 
>>> thinwall 531 normal gauge 2020 Matthews replacement of the 2003.
>>>
>>> Weight? With the Phil it's right at 18 lb without bottle or bag versus 
>>> ~28 for the Matthews road with F+R racks, fenders, lights, and SA 3 speed 
>>> hub, and versus the 30-31 lb of the Matthews road-bike-for-dirt with 2X10 
>>> derailleur drivetrain, 50 mm tires, 2X gauge fenders, dynamo lighting, and 
>>> rear rack. But it feels fast on the flats at steady-state cruising. I 
>>> daresay that the weight makes a difference on hills, but I *don't* think 
>>> that weight is the only reason.
>>>
>>> I know that some bikes just fit and feel "perfect," and this is one of 
>>> them (tho' the 2 Matthewses fit just about the same since I built them up 
>>> to do so). That old Herse was a tank that 2 earlier owners sold for cheap 
>>> but for me it rode "fast" if not as fast as the 1999 Joe Starck.
>>>
>>> To end this m

Re: [RBW] Re: Why do some bikes just feel consistently faster?

[Ron Mc]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxxhoKVVCvg

I don't know how to embed this, or whether good will embed it, but the 
youtube link is the mode shape that produces planing from the rear 
triangles.  


On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 10:02:55 AM UTC-6 Keith P. wrote:

> Really interesting points Ted.
> Thanks for writing them up!
> k.
>
> On Jan 9, 2024, at 6:12 AM, Bill Schairer  wrote:
>
> Ted,
>
> I love your explanation!  My niece is a college crew coach and she also 
> cycles.  I will have to ask her about "swing."
>
> Bill S
> San Diego
>
> On Monday, January 8, 2024 at 7:15:31 AM UTC-8 Ted Durant wrote:
>
> Not to be overly contrarian, but ...
>
> Planing is a terrible word for the phenomenon in question, which is when 
> the flex characteristics of the bike are such that the energy stored in 
> deformation (of the frame and all the attached parts) is efficiently 
> returned to power the rear wheel during the lower power part of the 
> pedaling cycle. When a boat planes, it rises out of the water, resulting in 
> a large reduction in coefficient of drag. The equivalent on a bicycle would 
> be the development of a vacuum around the bike and rider at a certain 
> speed. That would be fun, but it's certainly not what's happening on earth. 
> Ironically, there is a well-known and used term in Jan's back yard, for the 
> exact phenomenon he is trying to describe. Rowers have long used the word 
> "swing" to describe a shell and oars whose flex characteristics synchronize 
> well with their strokes, allowing them to go faster for a given power 
> output. Jan claims that bikes that "plane" magically increase a rider's 
> power output, but the reality is that bikes that swing well waste less of 
> the rider's  power. A better way to put it might be that such a bike puts 
> more of the rider's power to the back wheel. 
>
> The flex characteristics of the frame are important, of course, but the 
> entire bicycle (and its rider) is a system of springs and in such a system 
> the softer springs affect flex first, with the stiffer springs becoming 
> more relevant as the forces increase. For most of us on this list, we don't 
> spend a lot of time putting enough power into the pedals to get to the 
> point where frame flexibility is significantly tested. At 57kg, I can tell 
> you that I rarely put out that kind of power. I have a brevet bike made of 
> .7/.4/.7 standard diameter tubing, and I can make that frame flex, but not 
> for very long. That bike rides on 42mm tires at about 33 psi, and the tires 
> are definitely the soft springs in that system.
>
> I don't attribute aluminum, or stiffer frames in general, to an increased 
> focus on cadence. Track cyclists have always been obsessed with cadence. 
> With the introduction of multiple gear systems for road biking came the 
> opportunity to develop notions of "ideal" cadence. Note that when Jan talks 
> about frames "planing" for him, he almost always talks about it working for 
> his preferred cadence. Stiff frames, in fact, reduce the importance of 
> cadence, as they reduce the contribution of the frame to swing (for a given 
> power input). For me, cadence is only important when going uphill or into a 
> headwind. It is important because I need enough momentum in my feet to keep 
> a steady speed. Without that momentum, I am repeatedly accelerating during 
> the power phase and decelerating during the non-power phase. That is 
> terribly inefficient. And that is why, as discussed in the recent thread on 
> gearing, it is so important to have low gears in steep hills. Long before 
> aluminum frames were a twinkle in Gary Klein's eyes, cyclists talked about 
> "staying on top of a gear" when climbing. It meant to maintain a fast 
> enough cadence that you were pedaling smoothly, maintaining a constant 
> speed. Cyclists have also long talked about using smaller gears and a 
> higher cadence to "work your heart, not your legs." 
>
> So, I also don't have _the_ answer to why some bikes seem/feel/are faster 
> than others. Many of my best Strava times on climbing segments and my best 
> 100km time are on my Heron prototype, which is a road frame but has the 
> heavy rear stays from the touring frame. You can feel the weight of the 
> stays (and the weight of the old SunTour freewheel) when you pick up the 
> bike. Maybe it's just that I have so much invested in that bike that it 
> inspires me to push a little harder. I tend to believe Jan's hypothesis 
> that stiffness in the downtube and chainstays and flex in the top tube, 
> relative to each other, help a bike swing in a way that returns energy to 
> the rear wheel. Interestingly, old Reynolds tube sets were always spec'd 
> that way, with thinner walls in the top tube than in the down tube. 
> Somewhere along the way they switched to the Columbus standard, where top 
> tube and down tube walls are the same. The Heron Road bikes have .1mm 
> thinner top tube walls than down tube, and my prototype has ext

Re: [RBW] Re: Why do some bikes just feel consistently faster?

[Keith Paugh]

Really interesting points Ted.Thanks for writing them up!k.On Jan 9, 2024, at 6:12 AM, Bill Schairer  wrote:Ted,I love your explanation!  My niece is a college crew coach and she also cycles.  I will have to ask her about "swing."Bill SSan DiegoOn Monday, January 8, 2024 at 7:15:31 AM UTC-8 Ted Durant wrote:Not to be overly contrarian, but ...Planing is a terrible word for the phenomenon in question, which is when the flex characteristics of the bike are such that the energy stored in deformation (of the frame and all the attached parts) is efficiently returned to power the rear wheel during the lower power part of the pedaling cycle. When a boat planes, it rises out of the water, resulting in a large reduction in coefficient of drag. The equivalent on a bicycle would be the development of a vacuum around the bike and rider at a certain speed. That would be fun, but it's certainly not what's happening on earth. Ironically, there is a well-known and used term in Jan's back yard, for the exact phenomenon he is trying to describe. Rowers have long used the word "swing" to describe a shell and oars whose flex characteristics synchronize well with their strokes, allowing them to go faster for a given power output. Jan claims that bikes that "plane" magically increase a rider's power output, but the reality is that bikes that swing well waste less of the rider's  power. A better way to put it might be that such a bike puts more of the rider's power to the back wheel. The flex characteristics of the frame are important, of course, but the entire bicycle (and its rider) is a system of springs and in such a system the softer springs affect flex first, with the stiffer springs becoming more relevant as the forces increase. For most of us on this list, we don't spend a lot of time putting enough power into the pedals to get to the point where frame flexibility is significantly tested. At 57kg, I can tell you that I rarely put out that kind of power. I have a brevet bike made of .7/.4/.7 standard diameter tubing, and I can make that frame flex, but not for very long. That bike rides on 42mm tires at about 33 psi, and the tires are definitely the soft springs in that system.I don't attribute aluminum, or stiffer frames in general, to an increased focus on cadence. Track cyclists have always been obsessed with cadence. With the introduction of multiple gear systems for road biking came the opportunity to develop notions of "ideal" cadence. Note that when Jan talks about frames "planing" for him, he almost always talks about it working for his preferred cadence. Stiff frames, in fact, reduce the importance of cadence, as they reduce the contribution of the frame to swing (for a given power input). For me, cadence is only important when going uphill or into a headwind. It is important because I need enough momentum in my feet to keep a steady speed. Without that momentum, I am repeatedly accelerating during the power phase and decelerating during the non-power phase. That is terribly inefficient. And that is why, as discussed in the recent thread on gearing, it is so important to have low gears in steep hills. Long before aluminum frames were a twinkle in Gary Klein's eyes, cyclists talked about "staying on top of a gear" when climbing. It meant to maintain a fast enough cadence that you were pedaling smoothly, maintaining a constant speed. Cyclists have also long talked about using smaller gears and a higher cadence to "work your heart, not your legs." So, I also don't have _the_ answer to why some bikes seem/feel/are faster than others. Many of my best Strava times on climbing segments and my best 100km time are on my Heron prototype, which is a road frame but has the heavy rear stays from the touring frame. You can feel the weight of the stays (and the weight of the old SunTour freewheel) when you pick up the bike. Maybe it's just that I have so much invested in that bike that it inspires me to push a little harder. I tend to believe Jan's hypothesis that stiffness in the downtube and chainstays and flex in the top tube, relative to each other, help a bike swing in a way that returns energy to the rear wheel. Interestingly, old Reynolds tube sets were always spec'd that way, with thinner walls in the top tube than in the down tube. Somewhere along the way they switched to the Columbus standard, where top tube and down tube walls are the same. The Heron Road bikes have .1mm thinner top tube walls than down tube, and my prototype has extra heavy stays, so there you go.Ted DurantMilwaukee WI 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/42724a9c-8994-42b1-922a-774b953d1f71n%40googlegroups.com.




-- 
You received this message because you 

[RBW] Re: Why do some bikes just feel consistently faster?

[Bill Schairer]

Ted,
I love your explanation!  My niece is a college crew coach and she also 
cycles.  I will have to ask her about "swing."

Bill S
San Diego

On Monday, January 8, 2024 at 7:15:31 AM UTC-8 Ted Durant wrote:

Not to be overly contrarian, but ...

Planing is a terrible word for the phenomenon in question, which is when 
the flex characteristics of the bike are such that the energy stored in 
deformation (of the frame and all the attached parts) is efficiently 
returned to power the rear wheel during the lower power part of the 
pedaling cycle. When a boat planes, it rises out of the water, resulting in 
a large reduction in coefficient of drag. The equivalent on a bicycle would 
be the development of a vacuum around the bike and rider at a certain 
speed. That would be fun, but it's certainly not what's happening on earth. 
Ironically, there is a well-known and used term in Jan's back yard, for the 
exact phenomenon he is trying to describe. Rowers have long used the word 
"swing" to describe a shell and oars whose flex characteristics synchronize 
well with their strokes, allowing them to go faster for a given power 
output. Jan claims that bikes that "plane" magically increase a rider's 
power output, but the reality is that bikes that swing well waste less of 
the rider's  power. A better way to put it might be that such a bike puts 
more of the rider's power to the back wheel. 

The flex characteristics of the frame are important, of course, but the 
entire bicycle (and its rider) is a system of springs and in such a system 
the softer springs affect flex first, with the stiffer springs becoming 
more relevant as the forces increase. For most of us on this list, we don't 
spend a lot of time putting enough power into the pedals to get to the 
point where frame flexibility is significantly tested. At 57kg, I can tell 
you that I rarely put out that kind of power. I have a brevet bike made of 
.7/.4/.7 standard diameter tubing, and I can make that frame flex, but not 
for very long. That bike rides on 42mm tires at about 33 psi, and the tires 
are definitely the soft springs in that system.

I don't attribute aluminum, or stiffer frames in general, to an increased 
focus on cadence. Track cyclists have always been obsessed with cadence. 
With the introduction of multiple gear systems for road biking came the 
opportunity to develop notions of "ideal" cadence. Note that when Jan talks 
about frames "planing" for him, he almost always talks about it working for 
his preferred cadence. Stiff frames, in fact, reduce the importance of 
cadence, as they reduce the contribution of the frame to swing (for a given 
power input). For me, cadence is only important when going uphill or into a 
headwind. It is important because I need enough momentum in my feet to keep 
a steady speed. Without that momentum, I am repeatedly accelerating during 
the power phase and decelerating during the non-power phase. That is 
terribly inefficient. And that is why, as discussed in the recent thread on 
gearing, it is so important to have low gears in steep hills. Long before 
aluminum frames were a twinkle in Gary Klein's eyes, cyclists talked about 
"staying on top of a gear" when climbing. It meant to maintain a fast 
enough cadence that you were pedaling smoothly, maintaining a constant 
speed. Cyclists have also long talked about using smaller gears and a 
higher cadence to "work your heart, not your legs." 

So, I also don't have _the_ answer to why some bikes seem/feel/are faster 
than others. Many of my best Strava times on climbing segments and my best 
100km time are on my Heron prototype, which is a road frame but has the 
heavy rear stays from the touring frame. You can feel the weight of the 
stays (and the weight of the old SunTour freewheel) when you pick up the 
bike. Maybe it's just that I have so much invested in that bike that it 
inspires me to push a little harder. I tend to believe Jan's hypothesis 
that stiffness in the downtube and chainstays and flex in the top tube, 
relative to each other, help a bike swing in a way that returns energy to 
the rear wheel. Interestingly, old Reynolds tube sets were always spec'd 
that way, with thinner walls in the top tube than in the down tube. 
Somewhere along the way they switched to the Columbus standard, where top 
tube and down tube walls are the same. The Heron Road bikes have .1mm 
thinner top tube walls than down tube, and my prototype has extra heavy 
stays, so there you go.

Ted Durant
Milwaukee WI 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/42724a9c-8994-42b1-922a-774b953d1f71n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Why do some bikes just feel consistently faster?

[Patrick Moore]

All bikes have the same effective sta: the 1999 and the Matthews #2 clone
both have 73* stas, and the Matthews #1 has the saddle forward on the rails
to compensate for the 72* sta. I start setup with saddle height and setback
wrt the bb centerline -- pretty close to identical for all my bikes -- and
use the saddle to gauge bar and brake lever position.

On Sun, Jan 7, 2024 at 2:49 PM 'John Hawrylak, Woodstown NJ' via RBW Owners
Bunch  wrote:

> Patrick
>
> Maybe this was asked/answered, but is the STA or saddle setback the same
> on Ford Blue as the others??   Are you in a different position??
>
> John Hawrylak
> Woodstown NJ
>
> On Thursday, December 28, 2023 at 5:35:08 PM UTC-5 Patrick Moore wrote:
>
>> This is hardly a new question for me or for others, but it is a question
>> that strikes me anew when I ride the 1999 Joe Starck and find, once again
>> as always in getting on for 25 years of ownership that *it's just easier
>> to maintain speed and cadence in given conditions in given gears,* this
>> both on the flats and on hills. I remember being struck by this, again at
>> the start of each ride on it, in the first years of ownership.
>>
>> Tires make a difference, tho' it felt this way with 571 X 23 mm Conti
>> Grands Prix and Michelin Pro Races and with 559 X 23 mm Specialized Turbos;
>> with the slightly wider (27.19 mm rear at 60 psi and 27.49 mm front at 55
>> psi on my 19 mm OW rims) and even lighter and more supple Elk Passes it
>> feels even faster and *smoother.*
>>
>> BTW, I wholly discountenance the opinion that harshness or vibration
>> makes riders think they're going fast. At least, perhaps some people do
>> that, but I've always associated harshness with slowness and smoothness
>> with speed. But again, the '99 has always felt *smooth* and *fast.*
>>
>> What provoked this perennial question was my very pleasant mid-afternoon
>> ride today. My route included about 1 mile of steep hill starting at
>> Broadway and, feeling tired and sluggish and being old I considered
>> swapping the Phil 17/19Dingle wheel (76" and 68") with the SA TF wheel (76"
>> and 57" underdrive), but didn't want the bother and decided I'd just walk
>> if necessary.
>>
>> I did plan to move the chain to the 19 t/68" gear once I got downtown,
>> but didn't do this, either. Winds variable up to about 7-8 mph.
>>
>> I took it easy but found myself following some youngster on a thin-tire
>> 700C derailleur hybrid for about 8 miles; I finally caught up to him at the
>> first light on Coal and followed him up the climb. I think he was a UNM
>> student and at least 45 years younger than I, and he put a few yards on me
>> up the hill spinning in a low gear but I was surprised once again (this is
>> the point, don't mind my meandering) at *how well and easily* the bike
>> climbs.
>>
>> ???
>>
>> Planing? The frame is not as over-beefy as the 2003 Goodrich custom but
>> it's not as light and certainly has fatter tubes than the wonderful
>> thinwall 531 normal gauge 2020 Matthews replacement of the 2003.
>>
>> Weight? With the Phil it's right at 18 lb without bottle or bag versus
>> ~28 for the Matthews road with F+R racks, fenders, lights, and SA 3 speed
>> hub, and versus the 30-31 lb of the Matthews road-bike-for-dirt with 2X10
>> derailleur drivetrain, 50 mm tires, 2X gauge fenders, dynamo lighting, and
>> rear rack. But it feels fast on the flats at steady-state cruising. I
>> daresay that the weight makes a difference on hills, but I *don't* think
>> that weight is the only reason.
>>
>> I know that some bikes just fit and feel "perfect," and this is one of
>> them (tho' the 2 Matthewses fit just about the same since I built them up
>> to do so). That old Herse was a tank that 2 earlier owners sold for cheap
>> but for me it rode "fast" if not as fast as the 1999 Joe Starck.
>>
>> To end this meandering: since so much of my riding is either errands
>> requiring bags or dirt requiring fat tires the 1999 gets ridden less than
>> it otherwise would, but if I had to get ride of all bikes but one, I'd
>> happily keep this and build 1 or 2 alternative wheelsets (geared/skinny,
>> geared/fattish) and buy a bit selection of strap-on saddlebags from repair
>> kit only to Sackville Medium.
>>
>> I've owned 5 Rivendells including 3 customs and this one is the last
>> (tho' the 2020 Matthews is a copy of the 2003).
>>
>> Sorry, can't resist posting again:
>>
>> [image: image.png]
>> --
>>
>> Patrick Moore
>> Alburquerque, Nuevo Mexico, Etats Unis d'Amerique, Orbis Terrarum
>>
>> ---
>>
>> Executive resumes, LinkedIn profiles, bios, letters, and other writing
>> services
>>
>>
>> ---
>>
>> *When thou didst not, savage, k**now thine own meaning,*
>>
>> *But wouldst gabble like a** thing most brutish,*
>>
>> *I endowed thy purposes w**ith w

[RBW] Re: Why do some bikes just feel consistently faster?

[Ted Durant]

On Monday, January 8, 2024 at 10:15:31 AM UTC-5 I wrote:

The Heron Road bikes have .1mm thinner top tube walls than down tube, and 
my prototype has extra heavy stays, so there you go.


A bit more on this, just for fun. I had Waterford build an ST-22 that is in 
many ways a duplicate of the Heron Road. However, it has a lighter top tube 
(.7/.4/.7 vs .8/.5/.8), a  lighter down tube (.65/.45/.65 vs .9/.6/.9), and 
lighter chain stays (30x17 oval tapering to 12.5mm, 0.8 wall, vs 22.2 round 
tapering to 12, probably 1.0 wall). I find the Heron to be a nicer ride. 
BUT, there are a couple of other critical differences. Both bikes use the 
Heron round blade fork crown, but the ST22 has slightly longer (bit more 
rake, bit more clearance) but stiffer (1.2mm vs 1.0mm wall at the tips) 
blades. In addition, the ST22 fork has beefy fork ends for the SON SL 
connectors, and a Schmidt SON hub. Also, the ST22 rides on DT TK540 rims, 
compared to Mavic MA2 on the Heron. Someday I'll put the Heron's wheels on 
the ST22 and see how that changes things; I expect it will change a lot.

Don't underestimate the importance of the fork to the feel and handling of 
a bike.

Ted Durant
Milwaukee WI 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/eceb8d63-9494-44d9-b412-826dae4528aen%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Why do some bikes just feel consistently faster?

[Ron Mc]

Terrible word or not, it's easier to use the word than to describe the 
natural frequency that occurs in the rear triangles, to take excess mash 
energy and push the frame forward, making the bike feel lighter.  It's a 
true phenomenon of steel, designed into good-climbing bikes, and it's 
always a joy to feel yourself accelerating on grades.  

On Monday, January 8, 2024 at 9:15:31 AM UTC-6 Ted Durant wrote:

> Not to be overly contrarian, but ...
>
> Planing is a terrible word for the phenomenon in question, which is when 
> the flex characteristics of the bike are such that the energy stored in 
> deformation (of the frame and all the attached parts) is efficiently 
> returned to power the rear wheel during the lower power part of the 
> pedaling cycle. When a boat planes, it rises out of the water, resulting in 
> a large reduction in coefficient of drag. The equivalent on a bicycle would 
> be the development of a vacuum around the bike and rider at a certain 
> speed. That would be fun, but it's certainly not what's happening on earth. 
> Ironically, there is a well-known and used term in Jan's back yard, for the 
> exact phenomenon he is trying to describe. Rowers have long used the word 
> "swing" to describe a shell and oars whose flex characteristics synchronize 
> well with their strokes, allowing them to go faster for a given power 
> output. Jan claims that bikes that "plane" magically increase a rider's 
> power output, but the reality is that bikes that swing well waste less of 
> the rider's  power. A better way to put it might be that such a bike puts 
> more of the rider's power to the back wheel. 
>
> The flex characteristics of the frame are important, of course, but the 
> entire bicycle (and its rider) is a system of springs and in such a system 
> the softer springs affect flex first, with the stiffer springs becoming 
> more relevant as the forces increase. For most of us on this list, we don't 
> spend a lot of time putting enough power into the pedals to get to the 
> point where frame flexibility is significantly tested. At 57kg, I can tell 
> you that I rarely put out that kind of power. I have a brevet bike made of 
> .7/.4/.7 standard diameter tubing, and I can make that frame flex, but not 
> for very long. That bike rides on 42mm tires at about 33 psi, and the tires 
> are definitely the soft springs in that system.
>
> I don't attribute aluminum, or stiffer frames in general, to an increased 
> focus on cadence. Track cyclists have always been obsessed with cadence. 
> With the introduction of multiple gear systems for road biking came the 
> opportunity to develop notions of "ideal" cadence. Note that when Jan talks 
> about frames "planing" for him, he almost always talks about it working for 
> his preferred cadence. Stiff frames, in fact, reduce the importance of 
> cadence, as they reduce the contribution of the frame to swing (for a given 
> power input). For me, cadence is only important when going uphill or into a 
> headwind. It is important because I need enough momentum in my feet to keep 
> a steady speed. Without that momentum, I am repeatedly accelerating during 
> the power phase and decelerating during the non-power phase. That is 
> terribly inefficient. And that is why, as discussed in the recent thread on 
> gearing, it is so important to have low gears in steep hills. Long before 
> aluminum frames were a twinkle in Gary Klein's eyes, cyclists talked about 
> "staying on top of a gear" when climbing. It meant to maintain a fast 
> enough cadence that you were pedaling smoothly, maintaining a constant 
> speed. Cyclists have also long talked about using smaller gears and a 
> higher cadence to "work your heart, not your legs." 
>
> So, I also don't have _the_ answer to why some bikes seem/feel/are faster 
> than others. Many of my best Strava times on climbing segments and my best 
> 100km time are on my Heron prototype, which is a road frame but has the 
> heavy rear stays from the touring frame. You can feel the weight of the 
> stays (and the weight of the old SunTour freewheel) when you pick up the 
> bike. Maybe it's just that I have so much invested in that bike that it 
> inspires me to push a little harder. I tend to believe Jan's hypothesis 
> that stiffness in the downtube and chainstays and flex in the top tube, 
> relative to each other, help a bike swing in a way that returns energy to 
> the rear wheel. Interestingly, old Reynolds tube sets were always spec'd 
> that way, with thinner walls in the top tube than in the down tube. 
> Somewhere along the way they switched to the Columbus standard, where top 
> tube and down tube walls are the same. The Heron Road bikes have .1mm 
> thinner top tube walls than down tube, and my prototype has extra heavy 
> stays, so there you go.
>
> Ted Durant
> Milwaukee WI USA
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this g

[RBW] Re: Why do some bikes just feel consistently faster?

[Ted Durant]

Not to be overly contrarian, but ...

Planing is a terrible word for the phenomenon in question, which is when 
the flex characteristics of the bike are such that the energy stored in 
deformation (of the frame and all the attached parts) is efficiently 
returned to power the rear wheel during the lower power part of the 
pedaling cycle. When a boat planes, it rises out of the water, resulting in 
a large reduction in coefficient of drag. The equivalent on a bicycle would 
be the development of a vacuum around the bike and rider at a certain 
speed. That would be fun, but it's certainly not what's happening on earth. 
Ironically, there is a well-known and used term in Jan's back yard, for the 
exact phenomenon he is trying to describe. Rowers have long used the word 
"swing" to describe a shell and oars whose flex characteristics synchronize 
well with their strokes, allowing them to go faster for a given power 
output. Jan claims that bikes that "plane" magically increase a rider's 
power output, but the reality is that bikes that swing well waste less of 
the rider's  power. A better way to put it might be that such a bike puts 
more of the rider's power to the back wheel. 

The flex characteristics of the frame are important, of course, but the 
entire bicycle (and its rider) is a system of springs and in such a system 
the softer springs affect flex first, with the stiffer springs becoming 
more relevant as the forces increase. For most of us on this list, we don't 
spend a lot of time putting enough power into the pedals to get to the 
point where frame flexibility is significantly tested. At 57kg, I can tell 
you that I rarely put out that kind of power. I have a brevet bike made of 
.7/.4/.7 standard diameter tubing, and I can make that frame flex, but not 
for very long. That bike rides on 42mm tires at about 33 psi, and the tires 
are definitely the soft springs in that system.

I don't attribute aluminum, or stiffer frames in general, to an increased 
focus on cadence. Track cyclists have always been obsessed with cadence. 
With the introduction of multiple gear systems for road biking came the 
opportunity to develop notions of "ideal" cadence. Note that when Jan talks 
about frames "planing" for him, he almost always talks about it working for 
his preferred cadence. Stiff frames, in fact, reduce the importance of 
cadence, as they reduce the contribution of the frame to swing (for a given 
power input). For me, cadence is only important when going uphill or into a 
headwind. It is important because I need enough momentum in my feet to keep 
a steady speed. Without that momentum, I am repeatedly accelerating during 
the power phase and decelerating during the non-power phase. That is 
terribly inefficient. And that is why, as discussed in the recent thread on 
gearing, it is so important to have low gears in steep hills. Long before 
aluminum frames were a twinkle in Gary Klein's eyes, cyclists talked about 
"staying on top of a gear" when climbing. It meant to maintain a fast 
enough cadence that you were pedaling smoothly, maintaining a constant 
speed. Cyclists have also long talked about using smaller gears and a 
higher cadence to "work your heart, not your legs." 

So, I also don't have _the_ answer to why some bikes seem/feel/are faster 
than others. Many of my best Strava times on climbing segments and my best 
100km time are on my Heron prototype, which is a road frame but has the 
heavy rear stays from the touring frame. You can feel the weight of the 
stays (and the weight of the old SunTour freewheel) when you pick up the 
bike. Maybe it's just that I have so much invested in that bike that it 
inspires me to push a little harder. I tend to believe Jan's hypothesis 
that stiffness in the downtube and chainstays and flex in the top tube, 
relative to each other, help a bike swing in a way that returns energy to 
the rear wheel. Interestingly, old Reynolds tube sets were always spec'd 
that way, with thinner walls in the top tube than in the down tube. 
Somewhere along the way they switched to the Columbus standard, where top 
tube and down tube walls are the same. The Heron Road bikes have .1mm 
thinner top tube walls than down tube, and my prototype has extra heavy 
stays, so there you go.

Ted Durant
Milwaukee WI 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/7796a273-c889-4e29-8470-02f681ae3e07n%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Why do some bikes just feel consistently faster?

['John Hawrylak, Woodstown NJ' via RBW Owners Bunch]

Patrick

Maybe this was asked/answered, but is the STA or saddle setback the same on 
Ford Blue as the others??   Are you in a different position??

John Hawrylak
Woodstown NJ

On Thursday, December 28, 2023 at 5:35:08 PM UTC-5 Patrick Moore wrote:

> This is hardly a new question for me or for others, but it is a question 
> that strikes me anew when I ride the 1999 Joe Starck and find, once again 
> as always in getting on for 25 years of ownership that *it's just easier 
> to maintain speed and cadence in given conditions in given gears,* this 
> both on the flats and on hills. I remember being struck by this, again at 
> the start of each ride on it, in the first years of ownership.
>
> Tires make a difference, tho' it felt this way with 571 X 23 mm Conti 
> Grands Prix and Michelin Pro Races and with 559 X 23 mm Specialized Turbos; 
> with the slightly wider (27.19 mm rear at 60 psi and 27.49 mm front at 55 
> psi on my 19 mm OW rims) and even lighter and more supple Elk Passes it 
> feels even faster and *smoother.* 
>
> BTW, I wholly discountenance the opinion that harshness or vibration makes 
> riders think they're going fast. At least, perhaps some people do that, but 
> I've always associated harshness with slowness and smoothness with speed. 
> But again, the '99 has always felt *smooth* and *fast.*
>
> What provoked this perennial question was my very pleasant mid-afternoon 
> ride today. My route included about 1 mile of steep hill starting at 
> Broadway and, feeling tired and sluggish and being old I considered 
> swapping the Phil 17/19Dingle wheel (76" and 68") with the SA TF wheel (76" 
> and 57" underdrive), but didn't want the bother and decided I'd just walk 
> if necessary.
>
> I did plan to move the chain to the 19 t/68" gear once I got downtown, but 
> didn't do this, either. Winds variable up to about 7-8 mph.
>
> I took it easy but found myself following some youngster on a thin-tire 
> 700C derailleur hybrid for about 8 miles; I finally caught up to him at the 
> first light on Coal and followed him up the climb. I think he was a UNM 
> student and at least 45 years younger than I, and he put a few yards on me 
> up the hill spinning in a low gear but I was surprised once again (this is 
> the point, don't mind my meandering) at *how well and easily* the bike 
> climbs.
>
> ???
>
> Planing? The frame is not as over-beefy as the 2003 Goodrich custom but 
> it's not as light and certainly has fatter tubes than the wonderful 
> thinwall 531 normal gauge 2020 Matthews replacement of the 2003.
>
> Weight? With the Phil it's right at 18 lb without bottle or bag versus ~28 
> for the Matthews road with F+R racks, fenders, lights, and SA 3 speed hub, 
> and versus the 30-31 lb of the Matthews road-bike-for-dirt with 2X10 
> derailleur drivetrain, 50 mm tires, 2X gauge fenders, dynamo lighting, and 
> rear rack. But it feels fast on the flats at steady-state cruising. I 
> daresay that the weight makes a difference on hills, but I *don't* think 
> that weight is the only reason.
>
> I know that some bikes just fit and feel "perfect," and this is one of 
> them (tho' the 2 Matthewses fit just about the same since I built them up 
> to do so). That old Herse was a tank that 2 earlier owners sold for cheap 
> but for me it rode "fast" if not as fast as the 1999 Joe Starck.
>
> To end this meandering: since so much of my riding is either errands 
> requiring bags or dirt requiring fat tires the 1999 gets ridden less than 
> it otherwise would, but if I had to get ride of all bikes but one, I'd 
> happily keep this and build 1 or 2 alternative wheelsets (geared/skinny, 
> geared/fattish) and buy a bit selection of strap-on saddlebags from repair 
> kit only to Sackville Medium.
>
> I've owned 5 Rivendells including 3 customs and this one is the last (tho' 
> the 2020 Matthews is a copy of the 2003).
>
> Sorry, can't resist posting again:
>
> [image: image.png]
> -- 
>
> Patrick Moore
> Alburquerque, Nuevo Mexico, Etats Unis d'Amerique, Orbis Terrarum
>
> ---
>
> Executive resumes, LinkedIn profiles, bios, letters, and other writing 
> services
>
>
> ---
>
> *When thou didst not, savage, k**now thine own meaning,*
>
> *But wouldst gabble like a** thing most brutish,*
>
> *I endowed thy purposes w**ith words that made them known.*
>

-- 
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/1d8e24a9-0448-4830-8a0e-806fbfc45371n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Why do some bikes just feel consistently faster?

[Patrick Moore]

Actually, the frame is 78 cm c-c; those are 16" wheels.

No, it's 57 c-c, but I've had others tell me of similar bikes (1995 26"
wheel Riv Road custom), "Man, that's a big frame!" thanks to the 559 mm bsd
wheels (24" when shod with 13 mm tires, 24 3/4" with the 28 mm Elk Passes
shown.

I don't know what the tubing is; it's OS and, when Chauncey Matthews hefted
the bare frame+fork+headset he muttered, "Huh! Not light!" -- The
near-geometrical clone he built for me in 2020 for an IGH drivetrain (his
2020 geom-cloned the 2003 which was a geom clone of this 1999) is standard
gauge and probably thinner wall, or at at least some of the main tubes are
.8 .4 .8, and compared to the excessively stout 2003 this Matthews also
seemed to "plane" when shod with the Elk Pass tires -- I thought, "this one
is even faster than the 1999!" -- but not as much with the (extra light)
Naches Passes.

Yes, I think Ford Blue is the fastest color; certainly faster than red, as
the scientists have shown. But OTOH it seemed as fast when coated with the
mere Joe Bell navy metallic paint with cream accents, tho' really, I like
the Ford Blue powdercoat better.

Yes, the bar tape is too light. This Lizard Skin sky blue replaced a darker
LS tape; I asked the LBS to order the same but they came up with this one.
I agree that a darker color would work better. White? Hell, no! I scored 6
boxes of VO tape on sale including 2 boxes of orangey-red (for the sage
green Matthews) and 2 of darker blue (for the 1999 once the LS wears out,
which it does too quickly).

On Sun, Jan 7, 2024 at 11:20 AM 'John Hawrylak, Woodstown NJ' via RBW
Owners Bunch  wrote:

> +1 on Bill L's thoughts on Ford Blue.   I would suggest planning as the
> frame is large (25"??) and if a normal wall tubing was used, the large
> frame might plane without being too flexible.   Do you know what wall
> thickness was used???   Maybe it's better not to know, following Bill's
> line of thought.
>
> PS, the darker blue bars contrast nicely.   Would Ford use a white??
>
> John Hawrylak
> Woodstown NJ
>
> On Thursday, December 28, 2023 at 5:35:08 PM UTC-5 Patrick Moore wrote:
>
>> This is hardly a new question for me or for others, but it is a question
>> that strikes me anew when I ride the 1999 Joe Starck and find, once again
>> as always in getting on for 25 years of ownership that *it's just easier
>> to maintain speed and cadence in given conditions in given gears,* this
>> both on the flats and on hills. I remember being struck by this, again at
>> the start of each ride on it, in the first years of ownership.
>>
>> Tires make a difference, tho' it felt this way with 571 X 23 mm Conti
>> Grands Prix and Michelin Pro Races and with 559 X 23 mm Specialized Turbos;
>> with the slightly wider (27.19 mm rear at 60 psi and 27.49 mm front at 55
>> psi on my 19 mm OW rims) and even lighter and more supple Elk Passes it
>> feels even faster and *smoother.*
>>
>> BTW, I wholly discountenance the opinion that harshness or vibration
>> makes riders think they're going fast. At least, perhaps some people do
>> that, but I've always associated harshness with slowness and smoothness
>> with speed. But again, the '99 has always felt *smooth* and *fast.*
>>
>> What provoked this perennial question was my very pleasant mid-afternoon
>> ride today. My route included about 1 mile of steep hill starting at
>> Broadway and, feeling tired and sluggish and being old I considered
>> swapping the Phil 17/19Dingle wheel (76" and 68") with the SA TF wheel (76"
>> and 57" underdrive), but didn't want the bother and decided I'd just walk
>> if necessary.
>>
>> I did plan to move the chain to the 19 t/68" gear once I got downtown,
>> but didn't do this, either. Winds variable up to about 7-8 mph.
>>
>> I took it easy but found myself following some youngster on a thin-tire
>> 700C derailleur hybrid for about 8 miles; I finally caught up to him at the
>> first light on Coal and followed him up the climb. I think he was a UNM
>> student and at least 45 years younger than I, and he put a few yards on me
>> up the hill spinning in a low gear but I was surprised once again (this is
>> the point, don't mind my meandering) at *how well and easily* the bike
>> climbs.
>>
>> ???
>>
>> Planing? The frame is not as over-beefy as the 2003 Goodrich custom but
>> it's not as light and certainly has fatter tubes than the wonderful
>> thinwall 531 normal gauge 2020 Matthews replacement of the 2003.
>>
>> Weight? With the Phil it's right at 18 lb without bottle or bag versus
>> ~28 for the Matthews road with F+R racks, fenders, lights, and SA 3 speed
>> hub, and versus the 30-31 lb of the Matthews road-bike-for-dirt with 2X10
>> derailleur drivetrain, 50 mm tires, 2X gauge fenders, dynamo lighting, and
>> rear rack. But it feels fast on the flats at steady-state cruising. I
>> daresay that the weight makes a difference on hills, but I *don't* think
>> that weight is the only reason.
>>
>> I know that some bikes just fit and f

[RBW] Re: Why do some bikes just feel consistently faster?

[Ron Mc]

Grand would understand what I'm saying, about finding form in yourself, and 
finding the dynamics in your frame.  
I can't quote the exact copy, but once I read Grant copy to the effect, try 
*not* shifting as often, so you don't ride in cadence.  

On Sunday, January 7, 2024 at 12:20:52 PM UTC-6 John Hawrylak, Woodstown NJ 
wrote:

> +1 on Bill L's thoughts on Ford Blue.   I would suggest planning as the 
> frame is large (25"??) and if a normal wall tubing was used, the large 
> frame might plane without being too flexible.   Do you know what wall 
> thickness was used???   Maybe it's better not to know, following Bill's 
> line of thought.
>
> PS, the darker blue bars contrast nicely.   Would Ford use a white??
>
> John Hawrylak
> Woodstown NJ
>
> On Thursday, December 28, 2023 at 5:35:08 PM UTC-5 Patrick Moore wrote:
>
>> This is hardly a new question for me or for others, but it is a question 
>> that strikes me anew when I ride the 1999 Joe Starck and find, once again 
>> as always in getting on for 25 years of ownership that *it's just easier 
>> to maintain speed and cadence in given conditions in given gears,* this 
>> both on the flats and on hills. I remember being struck by this, again at 
>> the start of each ride on it, in the first years of ownership.
>>
>> Tires make a difference, tho' it felt this way with 571 X 23 mm Conti 
>> Grands Prix and Michelin Pro Races and with 559 X 23 mm Specialized Turbos; 
>> with the slightly wider (27.19 mm rear at 60 psi and 27.49 mm front at 55 
>> psi on my 19 mm OW rims) and even lighter and more supple Elk Passes it 
>> feels even faster and *smoother.* 
>>
>> BTW, I wholly discountenance the opinion that harshness or vibration 
>> makes riders think they're going fast. At least, perhaps some people do 
>> that, but I've always associated harshness with slowness and smoothness 
>> with speed. But again, the '99 has always felt *smooth* and *fast.*
>>
>> What provoked this perennial question was my very pleasant mid-afternoon 
>> ride today. My route included about 1 mile of steep hill starting at 
>> Broadway and, feeling tired and sluggish and being old I considered 
>> swapping the Phil 17/19Dingle wheel (76" and 68") with the SA TF wheel (76" 
>> and 57" underdrive), but didn't want the bother and decided I'd just walk 
>> if necessary.
>>
>> I did plan to move the chain to the 19 t/68" gear once I got downtown, 
>> but didn't do this, either. Winds variable up to about 7-8 mph.
>>
>> I took it easy but found myself following some youngster on a thin-tire 
>> 700C derailleur hybrid for about 8 miles; I finally caught up to him at the 
>> first light on Coal and followed him up the climb. I think he was a UNM 
>> student and at least 45 years younger than I, and he put a few yards on me 
>> up the hill spinning in a low gear but I was surprised once again (this is 
>> the point, don't mind my meandering) at *how well and easily* the bike 
>> climbs.
>>
>> ???
>>
>> Planing? The frame is not as over-beefy as the 2003 Goodrich custom but 
>> it's not as light and certainly has fatter tubes than the wonderful 
>> thinwall 531 normal gauge 2020 Matthews replacement of the 2003.
>>
>> Weight? With the Phil it's right at 18 lb without bottle or bag versus 
>> ~28 for the Matthews road with F+R racks, fenders, lights, and SA 3 speed 
>> hub, and versus the 30-31 lb of the Matthews road-bike-for-dirt with 2X10 
>> derailleur drivetrain, 50 mm tires, 2X gauge fenders, dynamo lighting, and 
>> rear rack. But it feels fast on the flats at steady-state cruising. I 
>> daresay that the weight makes a difference on hills, but I *don't* think 
>> that weight is the only reason.
>>
>> I know that some bikes just fit and feel "perfect," and this is one of 
>> them (tho' the 2 Matthewses fit just about the same since I built them up 
>> to do so). That old Herse was a tank that 2 earlier owners sold for cheap 
>> but for me it rode "fast" if not as fast as the 1999 Joe Starck.
>>
>> To end this meandering: since so much of my riding is either errands 
>> requiring bags or dirt requiring fat tires the 1999 gets ridden less than 
>> it otherwise would, but if I had to get ride of all bikes but one, I'd 
>> happily keep this and build 1 or 2 alternative wheelsets (geared/skinny, 
>> geared/fattish) and buy a bit selection of strap-on saddlebags from repair 
>> kit only to Sackville Medium.
>>
>> I've owned 5 Rivendells including 3 customs and this one is the last 
>> (tho' the 2020 Matthews is a copy of the 2003).
>>
>> Sorry, can't resist posting again:
>>
>> [image: image.png]
>> -- 
>>
>> Patrick Moore
>> Alburquerque, Nuevo Mexico, Etats Unis d'Amerique, Orbis Terrarum
>>
>> ---
>>
>> Executive resumes, LinkedIn profiles, bios, letters, and other writing 
>> services
>>
>>
>> --

[RBW] Re: Why do some bikes just feel consistently faster?

['John Hawrylak, Woodstown NJ' via RBW Owners Bunch]

+1 on Bill L's thoughts on Ford Blue.   I would suggest planning as the 
frame is large (25"??) and if a normal wall tubing was used, the large 
frame might plane without being too flexible.   Do you know what wall 
thickness was used???   Maybe it's better not to know, following Bill's 
line of thought.

PS, the darker blue bars contrast nicely.   Would Ford use a white??

John Hawrylak
Woodstown NJ

On Thursday, December 28, 2023 at 5:35:08 PM UTC-5 Patrick Moore wrote:

> This is hardly a new question for me or for others, but it is a question 
> that strikes me anew when I ride the 1999 Joe Starck and find, once again 
> as always in getting on for 25 years of ownership that *it's just easier 
> to maintain speed and cadence in given conditions in given gears,* this 
> both on the flats and on hills. I remember being struck by this, again at 
> the start of each ride on it, in the first years of ownership.
>
> Tires make a difference, tho' it felt this way with 571 X 23 mm Conti 
> Grands Prix and Michelin Pro Races and with 559 X 23 mm Specialized Turbos; 
> with the slightly wider (27.19 mm rear at 60 psi and 27.49 mm front at 55 
> psi on my 19 mm OW rims) and even lighter and more supple Elk Passes it 
> feels even faster and *smoother.* 
>
> BTW, I wholly discountenance the opinion that harshness or vibration makes 
> riders think they're going fast. At least, perhaps some people do that, but 
> I've always associated harshness with slowness and smoothness with speed. 
> But again, the '99 has always felt *smooth* and *fast.*
>
> What provoked this perennial question was my very pleasant mid-afternoon 
> ride today. My route included about 1 mile of steep hill starting at 
> Broadway and, feeling tired and sluggish and being old I considered 
> swapping the Phil 17/19Dingle wheel (76" and 68") with the SA TF wheel (76" 
> and 57" underdrive), but didn't want the bother and decided I'd just walk 
> if necessary.
>
> I did plan to move the chain to the 19 t/68" gear once I got downtown, but 
> didn't do this, either. Winds variable up to about 7-8 mph.
>
> I took it easy but found myself following some youngster on a thin-tire 
> 700C derailleur hybrid for about 8 miles; I finally caught up to him at the 
> first light on Coal and followed him up the climb. I think he was a UNM 
> student and at least 45 years younger than I, and he put a few yards on me 
> up the hill spinning in a low gear but I was surprised once again (this is 
> the point, don't mind my meandering) at *how well and easily* the bike 
> climbs.
>
> ???
>
> Planing? The frame is not as over-beefy as the 2003 Goodrich custom but 
> it's not as light and certainly has fatter tubes than the wonderful 
> thinwall 531 normal gauge 2020 Matthews replacement of the 2003.
>
> Weight? With the Phil it's right at 18 lb without bottle or bag versus ~28 
> for the Matthews road with F+R racks, fenders, lights, and SA 3 speed hub, 
> and versus the 30-31 lb of the Matthews road-bike-for-dirt with 2X10 
> derailleur drivetrain, 50 mm tires, 2X gauge fenders, dynamo lighting, and 
> rear rack. But it feels fast on the flats at steady-state cruising. I 
> daresay that the weight makes a difference on hills, but I *don't* think 
> that weight is the only reason.
>
> I know that some bikes just fit and feel "perfect," and this is one of 
> them (tho' the 2 Matthewses fit just about the same since I built them up 
> to do so). That old Herse was a tank that 2 earlier owners sold for cheap 
> but for me it rode "fast" if not as fast as the 1999 Joe Starck.
>
> To end this meandering: since so much of my riding is either errands 
> requiring bags or dirt requiring fat tires the 1999 gets ridden less than 
> it otherwise would, but if I had to get ride of all bikes but one, I'd 
> happily keep this and build 1 or 2 alternative wheelsets (geared/skinny, 
> geared/fattish) and buy a bit selection of strap-on saddlebags from repair 
> kit only to Sackville Medium.
>
> I've owned 5 Rivendells including 3 customs and this one is the last (tho' 
> the 2020 Matthews is a copy of the 2003).
>
> Sorry, can't resist posting again:
>
> [image: image.png]
> -- 
>
> Patrick Moore
> Alburquerque, Nuevo Mexico, Etats Unis d'Amerique, Orbis Terrarum
>
> ---
>
> Executive resumes, LinkedIn profiles, bios, letters, and other writing 
> services
>
>
> ---
>
> *When thou didst not, savage, k**now thine own meaning,*
>
> *But wouldst gabble like a** thing most brutish,*
>
> *I endowed thy purposes w**ith words that made them known.*
>

-- 
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 t

[RBW] Re: Why do some bikes just feel consistently faster?

[Ron Mc]

And I use 3x6 half-step triple with form, core muscles, spin, mash and 
planing.  
My only x9 is a compact double with a road ring and an off-road ring.  

On Sunday, January 7, 2024 at 8:41:28 AM UTC-6 sarahlik...@gmail.com wrote:

> If you paint your bike a fast color, your bike goes faster.
>
> On Thursday, December 28, 2023 at 2:35:08 PM UTC-8 Patrick Moore wrote:
>
>> This is hardly a new question for me or for others, but it is a question 
>> that strikes me anew when I ride the 1999 Joe Starck and find, once again 
>> as always in getting on for 25 years of ownership that *it's just easier 
>> to maintain speed and cadence in given conditions in given gears,* this 
>> both on the flats and on hills. I remember being struck by this, again at 
>> the start of each ride on it, in the first years of ownership.
>>
>> Tires make a difference, tho' it felt this way with 571 X 23 mm Conti 
>> Grands Prix and Michelin Pro Races and with 559 X 23 mm Specialized Turbos; 
>> with the slightly wider (27.19 mm rear at 60 psi and 27.49 mm front at 55 
>> psi on my 19 mm OW rims) and even lighter and more supple Elk Passes it 
>> feels even faster and *smoother.* 
>>
>> BTW, I wholly discountenance the opinion that harshness or vibration 
>> makes riders think they're going fast. At least, perhaps some people do 
>> that, but I've always associated harshness with slowness and smoothness 
>> with speed. But again, the '99 has always felt *smooth* and *fast.*
>>
>> What provoked this perennial question was my very pleasant mid-afternoon 
>> ride today. My route included about 1 mile of steep hill starting at 
>> Broadway and, feeling tired and sluggish and being old I considered 
>> swapping the Phil 17/19Dingle wheel (76" and 68") with the SA TF wheel (76" 
>> and 57" underdrive), but didn't want the bother and decided I'd just walk 
>> if necessary.
>>
>> I did plan to move the chain to the 19 t/68" gear once I got downtown, 
>> but didn't do this, either. Winds variable up to about 7-8 mph.
>>
>> I took it easy but found myself following some youngster on a thin-tire 
>> 700C derailleur hybrid for about 8 miles; I finally caught up to him at the 
>> first light on Coal and followed him up the climb. I think he was a UNM 
>> student and at least 45 years younger than I, and he put a few yards on me 
>> up the hill spinning in a low gear but I was surprised once again (this is 
>> the point, don't mind my meandering) at *how well and easily* the bike 
>> climbs.
>>
>> ???
>>
>> Planing? The frame is not as over-beefy as the 2003 Goodrich custom but 
>> it's not as light and certainly has fatter tubes than the wonderful 
>> thinwall 531 normal gauge 2020 Matthews replacement of the 2003.
>>
>> Weight? With the Phil it's right at 18 lb without bottle or bag versus 
>> ~28 for the Matthews road with F+R racks, fenders, lights, and SA 3 speed 
>> hub, and versus the 30-31 lb of the Matthews road-bike-for-dirt with 2X10 
>> derailleur drivetrain, 50 mm tires, 2X gauge fenders, dynamo lighting, and 
>> rear rack. But it feels fast on the flats at steady-state cruising. I 
>> daresay that the weight makes a difference on hills, but I *don't* think 
>> that weight is the only reason.
>>
>> I know that some bikes just fit and feel "perfect," and this is one of 
>> them (tho' the 2 Matthewses fit just about the same since I built them up 
>> to do so). That old Herse was a tank that 2 earlier owners sold for cheap 
>> but for me it rode "fast" if not as fast as the 1999 Joe Starck.
>>
>> To end this meandering: since so much of my riding is either errands 
>> requiring bags or dirt requiring fat tires the 1999 gets ridden less than 
>> it otherwise would, but if I had to get ride of all bikes but one, I'd 
>> happily keep this and build 1 or 2 alternative wheelsets (geared/skinny, 
>> geared/fattish) and buy a bit selection of strap-on saddlebags from repair 
>> kit only to Sackville Medium.
>>
>> I've owned 5 Rivendells including 3 customs and this one is the last 
>> (tho' the 2020 Matthews is a copy of the 2003).
>>
>> Sorry, can't resist posting again:
>>
>> [image: image.png]
>> -- 
>>
>> Patrick Moore
>> Alburquerque, Nuevo Mexico, Etats Unis d'Amerique, Orbis Terrarum
>>
>> ---
>>
>> Executive resumes, LinkedIn profiles, bios, letters, and other writing 
>> services
>>
>>
>> ---
>>
>> *When thou didst not, savage, k**now thine own meaning,*
>>
>> *But wouldst gabble like a** thing most brutish,*
>>
>> *I endowed thy purposes w**ith words that made them known.*
>>
>

-- 
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 o

[RBW] Re: Why do some bikes just feel consistently faster?

[Sarah Carlson]

If you paint your bike a fast color, your bike goes faster.

On Thursday, December 28, 2023 at 2:35:08 PM UTC-8 Patrick Moore wrote:

> This is hardly a new question for me or for others, but it is a question 
> that strikes me anew when I ride the 1999 Joe Starck and find, once again 
> as always in getting on for 25 years of ownership that *it's just easier 
> to maintain speed and cadence in given conditions in given gears,* this 
> both on the flats and on hills. I remember being struck by this, again at 
> the start of each ride on it, in the first years of ownership.
>
> Tires make a difference, tho' it felt this way with 571 X 23 mm Conti 
> Grands Prix and Michelin Pro Races and with 559 X 23 mm Specialized Turbos; 
> with the slightly wider (27.19 mm rear at 60 psi and 27.49 mm front at 55 
> psi on my 19 mm OW rims) and even lighter and more supple Elk Passes it 
> feels even faster and *smoother.* 
>
> BTW, I wholly discountenance the opinion that harshness or vibration makes 
> riders think they're going fast. At least, perhaps some people do that, but 
> I've always associated harshness with slowness and smoothness with speed. 
> But again, the '99 has always felt *smooth* and *fast.*
>
> What provoked this perennial question was my very pleasant mid-afternoon 
> ride today. My route included about 1 mile of steep hill starting at 
> Broadway and, feeling tired and sluggish and being old I considered 
> swapping the Phil 17/19Dingle wheel (76" and 68") with the SA TF wheel (76" 
> and 57" underdrive), but didn't want the bother and decided I'd just walk 
> if necessary.
>
> I did plan to move the chain to the 19 t/68" gear once I got downtown, but 
> didn't do this, either. Winds variable up to about 7-8 mph.
>
> I took it easy but found myself following some youngster on a thin-tire 
> 700C derailleur hybrid for about 8 miles; I finally caught up to him at the 
> first light on Coal and followed him up the climb. I think he was a UNM 
> student and at least 45 years younger than I, and he put a few yards on me 
> up the hill spinning in a low gear but I was surprised once again (this is 
> the point, don't mind my meandering) at *how well and easily* the bike 
> climbs.
>
> ???
>
> Planing? The frame is not as over-beefy as the 2003 Goodrich custom but 
> it's not as light and certainly has fatter tubes than the wonderful 
> thinwall 531 normal gauge 2020 Matthews replacement of the 2003.
>
> Weight? With the Phil it's right at 18 lb without bottle or bag versus ~28 
> for the Matthews road with F+R racks, fenders, lights, and SA 3 speed hub, 
> and versus the 30-31 lb of the Matthews road-bike-for-dirt with 2X10 
> derailleur drivetrain, 50 mm tires, 2X gauge fenders, dynamo lighting, and 
> rear rack. But it feels fast on the flats at steady-state cruising. I 
> daresay that the weight makes a difference on hills, but I *don't* think 
> that weight is the only reason.
>
> I know that some bikes just fit and feel "perfect," and this is one of 
> them (tho' the 2 Matthewses fit just about the same since I built them up 
> to do so). That old Herse was a tank that 2 earlier owners sold for cheap 
> but for me it rode "fast" if not as fast as the 1999 Joe Starck.
>
> To end this meandering: since so much of my riding is either errands 
> requiring bags or dirt requiring fat tires the 1999 gets ridden less than 
> it otherwise would, but if I had to get ride of all bikes but one, I'd 
> happily keep this and build 1 or 2 alternative wheelsets (geared/skinny, 
> geared/fattish) and buy a bit selection of strap-on saddlebags from repair 
> kit only to Sackville Medium.
>
> I've owned 5 Rivendells including 3 customs and this one is the last (tho' 
> the 2020 Matthews is a copy of the 2003).
>
> Sorry, can't resist posting again:
>
> [image: image.png]
> -- 
>
> Patrick Moore
> Alburquerque, Nuevo Mexico, Etats Unis d'Amerique, Orbis Terrarum
>
> ---
>
> Executive resumes, LinkedIn profiles, bios, letters, and other writing 
> services
>
>
> ---
>
> *When thou didst not, savage, k**now thine own meaning,*
>
> *But wouldst gabble like a** thing most brutish,*
>
> *I endowed thy purposes w**ith words that made them known.*
>

-- 
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/72e10df3-e3f0-41fc-ad24-5f82a59e5581n%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Why do some bikes just feel consistently faster?

[Bill Lindsay]

In my opinion, you love your Ford Blue Rivendell Custom.  I think it's a 
very good thing to love one's bicycle.  I think it is a very fortunate and 
somewhat rare thing to be able to maintain that type of affection for a 
machine over the 20-something years.  I do not know of, nor would speculate 
to offer, some objective, measurable attribute of your FRBC that makes it 
mysteriously one-tooth-faster than some other undefined hypothetical 
machine.  Like a functioning marriage, I think this 20-something year love 
affair has something to do with the bike, and something to do with the 
rider of the bike.  To the extent that the bike is not sentient, then I 
would speculate that the enduring love has somewhat more to do with the 
rider.  I think it's fine Winter chat fodder to ask "why do I like this 
bike so much?"   I can't offer a reason why, but I congratulate the OP for 
liking that FBRC so much, for so long.  

Bill Lindsay
El Cerrito, CA
On Thursday, December 28, 2023 at 2:35:08 PM UTC-8 Patrick Moore wrote:

> This is hardly a new question for me or for others, but it is a question 
> that strikes me anew when I ride the 1999 Joe Starck and find, once again 
> as always in getting on for 25 years of ownership that *it's just easier 
> to maintain speed and cadence in given conditions in given gears,* this 
> both on the flats and on hills. I remember being struck by this, again at 
> the start of each ride on it, in the first years of ownership.
>
> Tires make a difference, tho' it felt this way with 571 X 23 mm Conti 
> Grands Prix and Michelin Pro Races and with 559 X 23 mm Specialized Turbos; 
> with the slightly wider (27.19 mm rear at 60 psi and 27.49 mm front at 55 
> psi on my 19 mm OW rims) and even lighter and more supple Elk Passes it 
> feels even faster and *smoother.* 
>
> BTW, I wholly discountenance the opinion that harshness or vibration makes 
> riders think they're going fast. At least, perhaps some people do that, but 
> I've always associated harshness with slowness and smoothness with speed. 
> But again, the '99 has always felt *smooth* and *fast.*
>
> What provoked this perennial question was my very pleasant mid-afternoon 
> ride today. My route included about 1 mile of steep hill starting at 
> Broadway and, feeling tired and sluggish and being old I considered 
> swapping the Phil 17/19Dingle wheel (76" and 68") with the SA TF wheel (76" 
> and 57" underdrive), but didn't want the bother and decided I'd just walk 
> if necessary.
>
> I did plan to move the chain to the 19 t/68" gear once I got downtown, but 
> didn't do this, either. Winds variable up to about 7-8 mph.
>
> I took it easy but found myself following some youngster on a thin-tire 
> 700C derailleur hybrid for about 8 miles; I finally caught up to him at the 
> first light on Coal and followed him up the climb. I think he was a UNM 
> student and at least 45 years younger than I, and he put a few yards on me 
> up the hill spinning in a low gear but I was surprised once again (this is 
> the point, don't mind my meandering) at *how well and easily* the bike 
> climbs.
>
> ???
>
> Planing? The frame is not as over-beefy as the 2003 Goodrich custom but 
> it's not as light and certainly has fatter tubes than the wonderful 
> thinwall 531 normal gauge 2020 Matthews replacement of the 2003.
>
> Weight? With the Phil it's right at 18 lb without bottle or bag versus ~28 
> for the Matthews road with F+R racks, fenders, lights, and SA 3 speed hub, 
> and versus the 30-31 lb of the Matthews road-bike-for-dirt with 2X10 
> derailleur drivetrain, 50 mm tires, 2X gauge fenders, dynamo lighting, and 
> rear rack. But it feels fast on the flats at steady-state cruising. I 
> daresay that the weight makes a difference on hills, but I *don't* think 
> that weight is the only reason.
>
> I know that some bikes just fit and feel "perfect," and this is one of 
> them (tho' the 2 Matthewses fit just about the same since I built them up 
> to do so). That old Herse was a tank that 2 earlier owners sold for cheap 
> but for me it rode "fast" if not as fast as the 1999 Joe Starck.
>
> To end this meandering: since so much of my riding is either errands 
> requiring bags or dirt requiring fat tires the 1999 gets ridden less than 
> it otherwise would, but if I had to get ride of all bikes but one, I'd 
> happily keep this and build 1 or 2 alternative wheelsets (geared/skinny, 
> geared/fattish) and buy a bit selection of strap-on saddlebags from repair 
> kit only to Sackville Medium.
>
> I've owned 5 Rivendells including 3 customs and this one is the last (tho' 
> the 2020 Matthews is a copy of the 2003).
>
> Sorry, can't resist posting again:
>
> [image: image.png]
> -- 
>
> Patrick Moore
> Alburquerque, Nuevo Mexico, Etats Unis d'Amerique, Orbis Terrarum
>
> ---
>
> Executive resumes, LinkedIn profiles, bios, letters, and other writ

[RBW] Re: Why do some bikes just feel consistently faster?

[Patrick Moore]

Just looked at Cyclemeter: 15.17 mph just lollygagging and with clock
running over multiple stops; and a little boy messing around with a scooter
on the bike path stopped to yell, "You're going *fast!"* Well, not very,
but my usual clock running/many stops time is more like 12 mph.

-- 
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/CALuTfgs1-ZEhQy9fuFWUe3MDVG92AYUsq5m8nH1KBJbjqfSOyQ%40mail.gmail.com.