kickstart

What you don't seem to understand is that my gazelle, pigeon, and 1935 Raleigh are all virtually identical in geometry to a pashley and 30s path racers.

tjspiel

I didn't get that at first and now I understand the position you were taking. But what I'm hoping you understand is that the real 30's path racers used seat posts that moved the saddle forward to help achieve an effective geometry closer to a modern racing bike. An adjustable stem and lowering the bars on your Gazelle will not accomplish that. At best you might get the same aero benefits but at the cost of comfort and power.

I'm assuming Pashley wanted to save costs and use standard seat posts rather than making their own for the Guvnor. Modern seat posts that do the same thing wouldn't have worked since they are designed for compact geometries and the aesthetic is all wrong. If all you really care about is the look (and I'm assuming that's why most people are attracted to the pashley), then I suppose it's fine not to move the saddle forward, but you get something that can't be very comfortably ridden in the way it was intended.

This bike might do a better job of showing what they did with saddles:



This bike has shorter chain stays than your roadsters but it still has the slack seat and head tubes. I would think taking a roadster frame and turning it into a racing bike would result in some weird handling. There were other racing bikes from the 20's and 30's that utilized seat tube angles closer to what is typical today.

Edit: I was curious and I've learned by looking through some C&V posts that there's not a lot of agreement over what the term "Path Racer" really means. Some people insist that the term refers to old purpose built track bikes while others think the term applies to roadsters with flipped North road bars and stripped of fenders, lights, etc. There is even argument over the word "path" itself. It could apply to concrete, dirt, grass or even a wood track.

kickstart

That bike looks like the gazelle as its chain stays are 1 3/4" shorter than the pigeon, or Raleigh. The Pigeons handling is not only not weird, but is absolutely sublime, it glides over rough surfaces like a limousine, and inspires speeds on loose surfaces like gravel roads far beyond any other bike I have ever ridden. The Gazelle isn't quite as smooth, but its steering is more responsive. The reason I have 3 roadsters is their excellent ride quality over a wide spectrum of conditions while not being sluggish like comfort, cruiser, or cargo bikes.
Believe it or not there's very practical reasons why Roadsters have been the most popular type of bike for over 100 years just about everywhere except the US.

BTW, I measured my road bike and gazelle.
The road bikes hoods are 33" from the rear of the seat, and 1" lower than the seat, the BB 13" ahead of the rear of seat.
The Gazelle with the bar at its lowest setting, the flat of the bar is 33" from the rear of the seat, and 1" below the seat, the BB 16" ahead of the rear of the seat. The Gazelle is always more comfortable than the road bike, and never displays any undesirable handling characteristics.

These are not factoids I have read somewhere, these are real world experiences with bikes I own, and others I have ridden.

gregf83 

Very nice. Do you commute on that regularly?

caloso

Occasionally. I swapped the Campy 10 speed group over to build up a race bike for my son. I have the Gazelle set up as a fixed gear right now.

tjspiel

I'm not knocking roadsters but the very slack seat tube able (BB is 3 inches farther forward as you measured) is an important part of the geometry. Putting your bars in roughly the same relative position as on a road bike has some bad consequences as a result.

You may be perfectly comfortable and be able to generate plenty of power with the bars on your Gazelle all the way down, 4 inches forward, and your hands on the cross bar, but most people wouldn't enjoy that position for very long unless their bike was sized incorrectly in the first place. Might be fine for coasting down a hill, but pedaling hard for any distance? No. Of course that's not what people want a Gazelle for anyway, but that is why the path racers moved the seat forward, - it increased the effective seat tube angle.

It's sort of like saying you could get a riding position similar to a Gazelle by putting risers on a racing bike and using an adjustable stem facing backwards. You could probably achieve something close to as upright but handling would not be the same and it might feel more like standing than sitting.

pacificaslim

To get back to endurance vs. race geometry, there are pros who choose to race on the endurance bikes, and not just in the cobbles. Cancellara chose the endurance Trek for Tour de France this year, for example: (spoiler alert)..................hope its "slower handling" didn't contribute to his troubles today.

kickstart

Again you're missing the whole point, roadsters are not comparable to contemporary track, or high performance road bikes and never were meant to be, but they can be set up to function well for a real world balance of comfort, performance, and utility, and if one wants to put the balance more towards performance they can deliver far better than the undeserved reputation foisted on them. They are not the slugs many try to make them out to be.

My 3 roadsters

1935 Raleigh, England.............. 2013 Flying Pigeon, China................. 2014 Gazelle, Netherlands

tjspiel

A couple of thoughts on this. Just looking at the differences between endurance and race, they are pretty subtle. So subtle that one might just fit one person better than another and therefore be both faster and more comfortable for that individual regardless of how it's classified.

The other is that I know in the past at least that TDF bikes were custom made for each rider (or for the top ones at least). So even though a particular rider might be on a Trek Whatever, you wouldn't be able to get that exact Whatever in a shop, though maybe something close in a standard size.

Litespeed in the late 90's made bikes used in the TDF that were labeled as Treks and other brands.

tjspiel

Those are awesome bikes and I've understood for the last several posts the point you were trying make. However, in the context of this thread, I was not sure how far you were trying to go with it. In earlier posts you seemed unconvinced that geometry had any real affect on speed as long as the rider could put themselves in an aerodynamic position. But geometry does matter beyond that and the roadster geometry does hurt it in that regard. People will say that it's the engine that counts, and while it does, how you mount that engine on a bike matters too.

Here's the bike that I put most of miles on now. It's a bit of Franken bike and it is also a bit of a dog performance wise (relatively speaking). It's not because of weight or components so much as it is the geometry.



Originally it was a "sport touring" bike. It's got long chain stays and a slack seat tube for a plush ride. It has a complicated history and even though the riding position looks aggressive, that has more to do with the fact that it was intended for my wife and not me so the saddle is up higher relative to the bars than I'd like on this bike. It has a different stem and bars now so it's not quite as radical, but I still can't ride in the drops all that comfortably.

However, my road bike has a similar saddle to bar drop and I can ride in the drops on that just fine. That is because of the geometry. My knees don't end up so close to my chest while pedaling so I can be in a more aggressive position and still generate power.

rekmeyata

Actually most, if not all the riders ride top shelf factory bikes just like you and I could buy if we had the money. Maybe you should read this: Why You Need a Custom Road Bike - Forbes

Lance in 2005 did ride a Trek prototype bike, so there are rare exceptions. Sometimes they might ride custom made wheels but that's about it other than perhaps bikes that are one brand and relabeled a different brand.

You have to remember that the sponsors have reasons for giving them off the shelf bikes, it's so the general public interested in riding can see the bikes names and find an LBS that sells them, because whatever bike wins on Sunday sells on Monday, you can't really do that with a one of kind custom bike.

NormanF

Roadsters have very slack frame angles, fatter tires and higher bottom brackets - their ride can be described as plush, akin to driving a Cadillac. What they lack in speed, they more than make up for in unrivaled riding comfort.

They're meant to ride long distances without fatigue or rider discomfort and they can handle heavy loads very well.

Which makes them superb commuting and touring bikes.

old's'cool

From the above I infer that, also at the world-class competitive level, it's about the engine, or putting it another way, the bike to bike differentiation is inconsequential (aSSuming each competing bike is appropriately spec'd & geared for a given stage and the rider, & not prone to break down).

tjspiel

There have been TdFs in the past where an individual rider has blown the others away in certain stages by introducing a new technique or piece of equipment, - Greg Lemond's aero bars in 1989.

https://youtu.be/jb2bXtJ_Ci0

old's'cool

quite so, I'm sure, until the competition catches up, or the rulebook is modified to eliminate the competitive advantage.

tjspiel

I'm sure it's 99% the rider and I understand why the UCI wants to be careful that these races don't become just an arms race of technology rather than a determination of who's the best.

But, to be honest I'm a tech geek at heart and at some level I like the bikes to matter and that there be room for innovation. Though I've been out of it for a few years and don't know that I'll ever get back in, part of the fun of competing for me was making little tweaks to my bike to get the most out of it that I could. You learn pretty quickly that training matters more than anything you will do to your equipment, but messing with the bike was part of why triathlons were a lot more fun than marathons.

In my mind it's OK if part of being the best is making a breakthrough in technology or technique that no one else had thought of yet or executed as well.

rekmeyata

You would be correct of course. All components whether from Campy, Shimano, or SRAM are going to be dependable enough from break downs to make it through a season of racing, then in the next season the teams get all new bikes with all new components. The only changes you'll find on stock bike the pros get is the stuff it takes to get the bike to fit properly which includes seat post, crank arm length, stem length and height, and bar width, a seat and pedals the rider prefers, and (usually sponsored) wheels that team feels is best to use for the event or conditions that will be encountered on the race. Sometime there are some real minor changes to components, like one year Lance ran with a friction shifting front derailleur.

spare_wheel

pfffft.
let me guess...you live somewhere fairly flat.

spare_wheel

OH FFS! cancellera's domane is not an endurance bike in the least.
it was a highly customized bike with a saddle to drop distance that would cripple just about every rider on this forum. including me.

here is a recent iteration:

Pro Bike Gallery: Fabian Cancellara's yellow Trek Domane Team Issue - VeloNews.com

tjspiel

I've been really curious about this since historically that's not exactly how it's been. You might have seen a rider who's team was sponsored by Trek or Specialized and the bikes would all be painted with Trek or Specialized schemes and logos, but in truth the frames were often made by someone else.

The UCI rules are that the bikes have to be available to the public... but not for 9 months. So it's not true that these guys are all riding off the shelf bikes that you and I could go out and buy if we had the money. They are riding bikes (frames) customized for them, - at least for the big names. To comply with the rules the manufacturers have to make the designs available to the public at some point down the road. They can be sold as limited editions, in limited sizes, and as framesets only.

As spare_wheel said, Cancellara's Domane is not the same Domane you're going to find at your local bike shop. I'm guessing his frames are built to the exact dimensions he needs. They probably don't hand him a longer stem if the top tube is a little too short.

Trek's Race Shop Limited page says it pretty well.

kickstart

Its true, and you know where I ride is anything but flat.

The location of the BB means there's a little less power and efficiency in absolute terms, but it also balances out ones posture in its more upright riding position so one is neither pushing or pulling on the bars to support the upper body, or having to hold their head up.
The geometry absorbs shock and vibration far better than any other configuration without resorting to suspension. The geometry also provides a very stable ride without twitchyness or wandering yet still maintaining light, responsive steering even if carrying a substantial load.

Even though my road bike is lighter by 20 lbs and faster with a larger gear range, I can usually do the same amount of miles on my roadsters in the same time or less, and not feel as worn out. I may have to put a little more effort into pedaling, but everything else takes less out of me, therefore less overall fatigue at the end of the day.

Now of course, if you try to measure a roadsters speed, cargo capacity, or off/poor road ability in absolute terms by comparing it to a road bike, cargo bike, or MTB, then yes it will come up short, but......when all 3 categories are combined, then a roadster delivers the goods. You know, jack of all trades, master of none.

Some day if fiances allow, I want to get one of Gazelles sub 30 lb aluminum or CF roadsters.

pacificaslim

Oh FFS yourself. My comments about handling and the crash were tongue in cheek, but the fact remains that Cancellara is on the Domane, which is Trek's endurance racing frame and not the regular "performance" racing frame Madone. 71.9 instead of 73.5 head tube angle, more trail, etc.

tjspiel

According to this: Trek Introduces Domane Koppenberg to Race Shop Limited Collection, the racing team version of the Domane borrow's the Emonda SLR's geometry and uses Trek's "H1" fit system.

tjspiel

I think rekmeyata is right in that it's brilliant marketing for Trek and others.

Because of the tour and Cencellara, mere mortals can buy a more forgiving Domane and not feel like they're compromising on performance, - and for most they probably aren't. They will be more comfortable and perform as well or better as a result than they would on a Madone.

Apparently however, the Domanes that the pros are using are all out racing bikes and differ from the Domanes you'd see at a shop.

I-Like-To-Bike

I must be lost, I thought this was the "commuting" forum.