View Single Post
Old 01-08-22, 09:05 AM
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 3,109
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1119 Post(s)
Liked 987 Times in 576 Posts
Originally Posted by jamesdak View Post
Well to be honest, there is quite a bit of difference in comfort between the 4 aluminun road bikes I've ridden. The Vitus Argal was fast and comfortable enough but the handling going down hill at speed was vague and a bit scary. The Schwinn 684 was comfortable and fast on chipseal roads but seemed a bit dull in handling. The Klein Quantum II is just a dream in all aspects of the riding equation. Now the Cannondale, yeah I have to honestly say the rear end is harsh and right now I can't see using it on any long rides. Sorry is fun to hammer on though which is what it was built for.

That fatigue test link was an awesome read and something I don't remember seeing before.
Thanks for providing real-world differentiations from direct comparisons. I think of your contributions to Bikeforums as being up there among the most valuable posted on the site because of the sheer range of bikes you own and your evenhanded evaluations of them.

My experience differs from yours only in that I've found that the harshness of a given bike's ride seems to directlly correlate with the wheelbase. All my bikes with very short wheelbases, steel or aluminum, feel more or less the same with respect to harshness.

The perceived harshness of the shorter-wheelbase bikes seems to be the effect of the quicker, almost instantaneous impact of road surface undulations on the front and rear tires and has very little to do with the choice of frame material. My steel track bikes with genuine sprint geometry (and ultra-short wheelbase, around 958 mm, for example) are just as harsh (or, more accurately, hair-raising) to ride on the road as my aluminum bikes with the same wheelbase.
Trakhak is offline