Leisesturm

They are correct. We upgraded our BB7's to Spyres. Hy/Rd's would have been $100 more, and something fully hydraulic would have been more still. I don't know, the bike matters I think. We have a Raleigh Coupe (Shimano 105) i 'could', but have chosen not to source brakes that might come OEM on a $5K bicycle. That's personal. But objectively: contact patch. To upgrade the Spyres to 203mm diam. rotors is as far an upgrade as any team needs that isn't bombing downhill competitively. Seriously expensive full hydro's might indeed grab the rotor harder but would the tires take it? I think not. If you doubt me about your need for $500/pr. hydro brakes why not ask the team in your riding club with the combined age of 140 years, how much the brakes that have been stopping their rig reliably for 40 years (including the summer in The Rockies) cost.

waynesulak

I think your right that the tires and I would add the wheels can make a huge difference. As steel is special, I agree that it is not. The design & material together work to make a difference.

I had a friend have a top of line older carbon Trek which he loved that suffered separation of the metal BB shell bonding to the frame. Given the age of the frame, Trek replaced the it free but with a bottom level carbon frame. He complained that the new frame looked great but has a really dead feel. He ending up buying a newer Trek carbon frame which he felt had a more lively feel. Makes since to me. I think cheaper carbon, aluminum or steel frames are all about cost and not performance. Design for cheap lower skilled production results in more or different material and a dead feel.

I am unsure what is meant when people say a frame is lively. To me it means flexible but not too flexible. I think there is a Goldilocks range where the frame has the right amount of spring for the rider but not so much as to feel flexible. I have ridden high end steel frames that were so stiff they felt dead and ones that seem to jump forward as I pedal.

To me steel is only special in that it makes it cheap to design and build one off and artistic designs.

If I recall correctly your new bike is a fairly high trail and high wheel flop design. Do you notice any difference in handling at really low speeds or at road speed, changing your line mid corner?

It would be an interesting to put some wheels as similar as possible to your Calfee's on the bike and see what you think.

richjac

We've had similar experiences with our new Mocha - very similar bike with 650b wheels, lower component spec.

Having to remove both wheels to use our hitch mounted rack is bit of a pain with the thru axles and adapter required for the front fork mount. We're still getting used to the contortions required to mount the rear wheel without bending the derailleur - definitely a two person operation.

The Avid BB7 disc brakes are OK but have less stopping power than the Avid V brakes I had on our old Trek T900.

I bought into the "use the widest tire that will fit" logic and mounted Compass Switchback Hill 650b X 48 tires. Nice tires, but they have a max inflation pressure of 55 PSI - I may sneak a few extra lbs in there to see if it will handle a bit better - the front seems a bit resistant to steering at low speeds.

Overall we're happy with the bike as we can easily go back and forth between roads and gravel trails, and it is our only bike. We're having fun during the short Wisconsin summer.

mtseymour

That's a cool paint job.

mtseymour

Why not use the front and rear brake simultaneously (50/50) or the front slightly more (60/40)? Even with full hydraulic disk brakes, it's much less efficient to only use the rear.

merlinextraligh

Haven't ridden it enough to get a really good feel for its handling, but it definitely feels like it wants to go straight more and is slower to turn in.


The Java has a head tube angle of 71 degrees, and a fork with 55mm of rake. By comparison, our Robusta has a head tube angle of 73 degrees and 50mm of rake. The Calfee also has a 73 degree headtube, but I don't have the fork rake handy.


Unfortunately the 148 Boost setup prevents me from swapping out a wheel from either of the other bikes.
Someday, we'll likely build up a set of wheels for a second set of tires aimed more at fast road riding.

merlinextraligh

I'm not sure I'm sold yet on thru axles, or Boost 148 in particular.


Even with disc brakes, I question whether the purported added stiffness is necessary on an extremely stiff non-suspension steel fork.


The Thru Axle design is definitely more of a PITA to deal with on a rack fork mount rack, particularly with an adapter.


And with the Boost 148 hubs on our bike not having a QR lever, you've got to pull out a 6mm wrench every time you put the bike on a rack.


Plus, Boost 148, at least fro now limits your hub choices.


It may take off and be the new standard for MTB, but so far I'm still a bit skeptical,


Not sure if Avid has changed the design of the BB7's, but there at least used to be some concern about overheating them and melting plastic parts. If you do a lot of descending you might look into that.

merlinextraligh

We took the bike to the Forks Area Trail System (FATS) in South Carolina this weekend, and rode several beginner and intermediate single track trails.

While it's definitely not a full on MTB, we, and the bike, did ok.

The bottom brackets are lower than an MTB, and I need to work on timing the positioning of the Stoker's pedals to avoid striking rocks and stumps and such.

For single track, I'd definitely prefer flat bars and MTB brake levers, as opposed to drop bars, and brifters.

That said, it does show that this is a Swiss Army knife of tandems, capable of doing it all from road to gravel to moderate single track.