lechat

i'm fairly new to road biking, just bought a bike that has straight cf forks. what gives! every bump is a jolt what were the engineers thinking of!

Allen

Most likely it's a disk brake compatible fork.

asgelle

Probably they were thinking that all forks absorb shock by flexing at the crown and that the flex is caused only by the position of the front axel relative to the steering axis, not the shape of the fork legs leading to that position. Therefore, whether the forks themselves are straight, bent or S-shaped makes no difference on fork performance. They also were thinking that the primary mode of shock absorption in a bicycle is through the tires and changing tire size and pressure will have orders of magnitude greater effect on road feel than any possible change in fork design or construction. Now knowing this, do you think the ride wil suddenly become more compliant?

ghettocruiser

That man, alas, speaks the truth.

This is just a theory, but if you are new to road biking, you may not realize that the harsh ride is not coming from your straight road bike fork, it is coming from your road bike.

Call it the price of speed. Personally, I'll pay any price.

DannoXYZ 

You've got about 1/2" of flex in the tyres, fork and frame when hitting bumps. If you're used to 3-4" of suspension travel from an MTB, forget about the cush ride. Or you can upgrade to the fattest tyres that'll fit your bike and run as low of pressure as possible (but not so low you'll get pinched flats).

You can also get suspension seatposts. Gel-padded shorts on top of gel-covers over gel seats will also help.

operator

I highly, highly doubt it's just the straight blade fork causing a harsh ride.

v1k1ng1001

I agree. That said, you can get better or worse straight bladed forks. Maybe your fork just stinks? Maybe it's not suited to your style of riding? Maybe you're not used to riding a modern road bike?

alanbikehouston

Around 1977, many well designed road bikes had steel forks with about a 74 degree angle that had a reverse "J" shape near the fork ends. The "J" was made of flexy steel that combined with the relaxed head tube angle to reduce the amount of shock transmitted up to the hands.

Today, poor design (the "imitation racing bike") has infected even entry-level road bikes. Straight forks with ZERO flex with a 72 degree headtube angle...even the slightest bump is transmitted straight to the hands.

One solution is to use 28mm or 32 tires at lower PSI levels. Sadly, some "pretend racing bikes" are so poorly designed, that 32mm tires won't fit, and even 28mm tires are a snug fit.

Folks who claim that the poorly designed road bikes of 2007 are somehow "faster" than the road bikes of thirty years ago are confused about how a bicycle works. The speed of a bicycle is based on how fast the rider turns the pedals, not on the design of the fork. And, a rider who is not beaten up by a harsh ride is probably in better shape for turning the pedals both faster and longer.

Want a comfortable riding road bike? Look around for a road bike built before around 1990 with a steel frame and steel fork.

ghettocruiser

I have to admit that none of the modern road bikes I have ridden are *poorly designed*, so I can't really comment on your comparison.

But I've ridden vintage steel road bikes and compared them to modern *well-designed* road racing bikes. I found the vintage bikes are only a bit less harsh, and slower, period.

UmneyDurak

They are you just didn't realize it. At least according to alans "anything outside U.S. is crap" logic.

Anyway normally you don't see straight forks on road bikes. All the ones I saw were on TT/Tri bikes.

ghettocruiser

Curious. I was wondering how he knew that the OP's bike was *poorly designed*.

If that is true, he also seems to be assuming that those of us who ride and enjoy modern road racing bikes have never owned or ridden on 1980s vintage steel.

Or perhaps that we are unable to distinguish ride quality and efficiency for ourselves and need to be told over the internet.

Say it ain't so.

cs1

He didn't know whether it was poorly designed. He was giving an opinion on modern bike design in general. While his delivery tends to be annoying, it's often times correct.

Tim

asgelle

Once again, whatever damping the fork provides does not come from flexing of the legs so it makes no difference whether they're straight or curved. You're confusing leg geometry with fork geometry.

https://yarchive.net/bike/head_bearing.html
"Peering over the bars at the front hub while coasting down a road at 20+ mph you will notice the
fork ends vibrating fore and aft. This motion does not arise at the fork end, but at the fork crown, as it bends the steer tube."

mandovoodoo

"Around 1977, many well designed road bikes had steel forks with about a 74 degree angle that had a reverse "J" shape near the fork ends. The "J" was made of flexy steel that combined with the relaxed head tube angle to reduce the amount of shock transmitted up to the hands."

What? Let's see, they all had a bend! Some a tight bend, some a larger bend. Ever bend a fork blade? Ever look at the wall thickness towards the dropout? These things were rigid at the bottom. The steel used was hardly "flexy." And you're clearly backwards on the fork rake. 74 is steep.

"Today, poor design (the "imitation racing bike") has infected even entry-level road bikes."

This is silly. The design on most bikes in this competitive market is superlative. Look at the amount of work that's gone into them. In the 1970s I'd just wing it and use experience. Now we've got all this computer processing power - and it gets used. Bikes today don't seem that different, anyway. Mostly a higher bottom bracket and shorter chain stays. But the materials will handle it.

The "imitation racing bike" comment is silly. I have a car. I'm sure it's an imitation racing car. It has disk brakes (from racing). Overhead cam (from racing). Independent suspension (from racing). One of the silliest comments I've ever read.

"Straight forks with ZERO flex with a 72 degree headtube angle...even the slightest bump is transmitted straight to the hands."

Backwards. 72 is shallow. Can't have "zero" flex. Want close to zero flex? Put a modern light rider on a heavy 1970s Columbus frame designed for a 250 lb bruiser. That will wake one's privates up in a hurry. 74 degrees is steep.

"One solution is to use 28mm or 32 tires at lower PSI levels. Sadly, some "pretend racing bikes" are so poorly designed, that 32mm tires won't fit, and even 28mm tires are a snug fit."

Isn't a poor design necessarily, just a compromise. To get the blades shorter. Would I like to run larger tires? Yes. Is this a "poor" design? No, just a compromise. Very tight geometry on a compact and bingo, I'm on 23s. Is that OK with me? Yes. I accepted the compromise without a wimper. I ride 23s anyway. If I were still hauling camping gear for hundreds of miles, I'd not like it. But I'd have a different bike.

Again, the silly "pretend racing bikes" thing. Performance bikes sold to the public are no more pretend racing bikes than a BMW is a pretend racing car. Have racing rules impacted R&D and in turn impacted design of bikes for civilians in less than desirable ways? Yes. But I'd look primarily to the continued use of user-hostile componentry, such as exposed chains, wheels that need truing, etc.

"Folks who claim that the poorly designed road bikes of 2007 are somehow "faster" than the road bikes of thirty years ago are confused about how a bicycle works. The speed of a bicycle is based on how fast the rider turns the pedals, not on the design of the fork. And, a rider who is not beaten up by a harsh ride is probably in better shape for turning the pedals both faster and longer."

To some extent. Looking at long distance and TT results, I'd think that something was making people faster. Certainly a rider not beaten up by a harsh ride will do better. I'm puzzled by the combination of stiff aluminum, stiff carbon, and radial stiff front wheels myself. But far from all bikes are built this way. And for the short or mid distance rider these designs do fine. I have one myself. Great to 45 miles, then a bit much. But that was true of many of the stiff criterium type bikes I rode in the 1970s. Poor design, perhaps. Poor choice of bike for a rider, always been a problem.

"Want a comfortable riding road bike? Look around for a road bike built before around 1990 with a steel frame and steel fork." Heavy. Nice yes, but hardly required. Let's look at a classic road bike:

73 x 73 angles, 55 cm square, 45 mm rake, 420 mm chainstays, 70 mm BB drop. Just pulled those out of my head. I think I have a 1970s bike just about like that up in the shed.

Let's pull a modern bike. I'll think "Specialized Roubaix" and pull up the specs. I'll go for a 55 cm top tube version.

73.5 x 72, 54 x 54.8 cm, 49 mm rake, 415 mm chainstays, 71.5 mm drop.

Wow! Given the slacker head and steeper seat, this is about the same TT. Except for 5 mm shorter chainstays this is a mellower bike!!! Waddabout that. And they ride nicely. The frame is great! I don't ride these, but hey, I could make it work. Mellow high speed cruiser. Lower BB, shallower head tube angle, longer rake. Looks like a touring bike to me. Where Specialized may fall down is in the stem. They put a 100 mm on it, puts the handlebars far back. Gives understeer etc. We read about those problems with this bike. I'd put a bigger person on this and a long stem, maybe a 120.

Surprise. I open my TDF guide and theres a picture of a Specialized TDF bike that is clearly a Roubaix with a long stem.

Not that I don't like retromod, but the most comfortable highest performance bikes I've ridden are today's bikes. I'm not fond of Aluminum, but it is getting better all the time, especially with alloy research and hydroforming. I'm excited about the new steels and looking forward to advances in hydroforming steel. And plastic has been an incredible innovation. I have a plastic bike, it's great!

On the straight fork thing, Colnago. Colnago steel. In the classic ages. Work great.



So. To the OP. I'd look at the tires. Some cheapies are very harsh. And the tire pressure. Then the seat. And position/fit.

Waldo

I see a fair amount of these on road bikes:

lechat

yeah waldo those are my forks. no where fore the energy to go but up!

alanbikehouston

[QUOTE=mandovoodoo;5274235....Let's pull a modern bike. I'll think "Specialized Roubaix" and pull up the specs. I'll go for a 55 cm top tube version. 73.5 x 72, 54 x 54.8 cm, 49 mm rake, 415 mm chainstays, 71.5 mm drop.

[/QUOTE]

The fella who posted that comment would like to pretend that the "Specialized Roubaix" is a "typical" road bike in 2007. Far from it. The owner of Specialized has discussed in detail his reason for introducing the Roubaix. He has said he is disgusted with how most road bikes, in every price range, are simply imitations of racing bikes. He wanted a road bike that was designed for the 99% of road bike riders who will never have a racing license.

But, even the Roubaix has compromises. Lots of compromises. Folks who want to use the Roubaix for week-end touring (a primary use for a well-designed road bike of 1977) wish the Roubaix had longer chainstays. Folks who commute to work over harsh inner city streets wish that the Roubaix had a longer wheelbase (to soak up road shock) and accepted fatter tires (for a plusher ride).

The introduction of the Roubaix, and the Trek Pilot series, are a very small effort to repair some of the damage done to road bike design by the "pretend race bike" fad, but the damage is very deep and difficult to repair when 95% of available road bikes are crude imitations of racing bikes.

In 1977, the MAJORITY of single males in the age 16 to age 30 age group owned a road bike, and many of them were using their road bike as daily transportation ten, eleven, and twelve months of the year. In 2007, due to the ridiculous effort to convert road bikes into imitation racing bikes, maybe 1% or 2% of males in that age group ride a road bike, and many of them are the "Sunny Saturdays in June" sort of "pretend racers" who hang their bikes in the garage in September because "riding season is over".....for even pretend racing has "a season".

The Roubaix, and bikes like it, give smarter, experienced cyclists a choice. But most unsophisticated purchasers of a road bike will leave the store with an imitation racing bike, soon to be hung in the garage due to the owner's unhappiness with its harsh ride, painful riding position, and its very limited abilities for use for commuting, touring, shopping...for any purpose other than pretend racing.

mandovoodoo

I just picked the Roubaix out randomly. I'm not pretending and you can hardly claim to know I'm "pretending." You're kind of an officious meddler, quite amusing! I get the impression you tickle lots of funny bones.

"Far from it. The owner of Specialized has discussed in detail his reason for introducing the Roubaix. He has said he is disgusted with how most road bikes, in every price range, are simply imitations of racing bikes. He wanted a road bike that was designed for the 99% of road bike riders who will never have a racing license."

Interesting. I do see the racing types riding these. They make sense to me. I ride something sort of similar.

Yes, for touring and all day, all week, 1000s of miles I'd have put on longer chainstays. Somewhat for the shock absorption (I never made a bike with chainstays that short that wasn't intended for the track) but mainly for easy long distance stability in a straight line. Fatter tires would be nice, too.

How that relates to bikes being "pretend" racing bikes remains obscure to me. In what way are most modern road bikes pretend racing bikes?

"In 1977, the MAJORITY of single males in the age 16 to age 30 age group owned a road bike, and many of them were using their road bike as daily transportation ten, eleven, and twelve months of the year."

I sure was. I was riding either a real racing bike, custom with tubulars and full Campy, or one of a sequence of classic English touring bikes set up for daily use.

"In 2007, due to the ridiculous effort to convert road bikes into imitation racing bikes, maybe 1% or 2% of males in that age group ride a road bike, and many of them are the "Sunny Saturdays in June" sort of "pretend racers" who hang their bikes in the garage in September because "riding season is over".....for even pretend racing has "a season"."

I don't know that this results from the kind of bikes people have. My current short wheelbase machine is the best and most comfortable bike I've had! Including my steel touring bikes. A bit punchier, but I don't get butt tired on it at all. Pretty cool. Of course, it is plastic.

"The Roubaix, and bikes like it, give smarter, experienced cyclists a choice."

Don't bikes like it give new and any other riders who pick them up a nice option? I'm not all that familiar with how things are marketed in any but a couple of shops. Bike Zoo in Knoxville seems to place the Roubaix and some other similar modes in prime position (one of the reasons I grabbed it as an example). West Bikes in Farragut has the Fuji (seems very traditional in geometry) and Giant. While they have the TCR, which is apparently racier, they have the OCR showcased, which is again quite similar. Looks like you'd have a fair chance to experience one of the more laid back models. Certainly my daughters Fuji Newest 2.0 is hardly an imitation racing bike! Tall head tube, adjustable stem, comfortable angles.

"But most unsophisticated purchasers of a road bike will leave the store with an imitation racing bike, soon to be hung in the garage due to the owner's unhappiness with its harsh ride, painful riding position, and its very limited abilities for use for commuting, touring, shopping...for any purpose other than pretend racing."

I'm still unclear on what criteria mark something as an "imitation racing bike." The bikes seem to match the market. In the 1970s students didn't have cars as much. The roads weren't as crowded. Folks needed cheap transportation and they got it. Go to college, get a better bike. Now students arrive with cars and little background in cycling. Cycling looks to me like the new golf, as far as road bikes go.

Here's where I really disagree. When I hit a good bike shop there are gobs of cool utility bikes. The market has stratified. I could get a heavy 3 speed or a road bike in the 1970s. Now I can get a cruiser, a comfort bike, a hybrid, various city bikes, etc. So the road bike is just a road bike, rather than a combination road tour utility bike because the specific needs are met by the other products. In most shops I see more of these other bikes than road bikes.

Now, on to "pretend racing." What on earth is that? Is that what I do? I go out and poke around. Ride fast in the fun parts, lean over hard, push hard, then ride mellow and look at the mountains, stop for lunch, get back out, take a turn I haven't before, blast through some corners, stop and watch a hawk. That doesn't sound like pretend racing. Then there's the club ride, very much like the club rides I led in the 1970s. That's not pretend racing either. At least not the few I've been on. Riding with most folks scares me, so I don't do it too often. So what is "pretend racing"? I see a goodly number of performance oriented riders really using their performance bikes. I suppose these folks may be racers. I don't know. They're riding the other direction usually!

So let's take your list:

Pretend racing - I suspect the run of the mill fancy road bikes fit here.

Commuting - Hybrids, city bikes, mountain bikes, mellower road bikes. I commute regularly on my plastic bike, even it is a "pretend racing bike."

Touring - I'll distinguish loaded touring from supported touring. I don't see much loaded touring happening. People seem to using specialty bikes. I couldn't see using my bike for loaded touring. But I walk into West Bikes and there's a steel "World Traveler" or some such thing in 853. Now for supported touring I'd use my bike in a heartbeat, or a Madone or Tarmac, or whatever. They're great bikes. Some are even real racing bikes.

Shopping - My parents have great shopping bikes. Upright position, wide gear range, racks etc.

So in my view the uses formerly taken up by "road bike" in general, rather than racing bike, have stratified into many different bikes. We're better off. I'll distinguish the 1970s racing bike from a standard road bike of the era. The racing bike being light, fairly short, narrow gear range, tubulars. Relatively few of us used those for grocery shopping, although I'll admit to have done it all too often!

So. What marks a pretend racing bike from a racing bike? When I see a race I think I'm seeing riders (at least in the lower echelons) riding what might fall under that pretend racing bike domain. Fairly sporty geometry aluminum and carbon bikes with Ultegra or whatever and a nice crisp position with the drop and reach in a standard kind of racy position, and wired on tires. I think you're promoting the concept that these are "pretend racing bikes" - but they're being raced!!! At the 4/5 level they're mostly not near as slick cool racy as my bike - and I'd definitely put myself in cat 7 (looks at the birds and stops for milkshakes).

So. What is pretend racing? What is a pretend racing bike?

Maybe the issue is that people aren't buying bikes for what they want to do. Or they don't know what they want to do and just get a bike that limits them. Or maybe they know what they want, and they don't want to shop and commute and ride all winter, they just want to tool around on a snappy handling machine in good weather. Which is a legitimate use.

I'll look at a Tarmac. See what it looks like. 54 x 54.8. 73.5 x 73. 45 mm rake. 69 mm drop. 405 mm chainstay. 130 mm head tube. 100 mm stem is stock. This isn't far off from 1975. The short chainstay is the main thing. I'd rather see a 145 mm head tube and a 110 or 115 mm stem, but there you go. So this one is a racing bike, pretty much standard, and I don't see the problem for an average performance rider. I'd rather see the longer chainstays. But I don't see how this would be a "pretend" racing bike. It looks like it could be a real racing bike or set up as a normal road performance bike. Racing version: Light wheels, tubulars, tight cassette, long stem parallel to the ground and right down on the headset. Performance road version, midweight wheels, clinchers, stem medium long, bars a bit higher. Less performance, touring level wheels, heavier clinchers (here's a weakness, 28s would be nice), medium stem angled up more.

So I don't see the "pretend" aspect at all. They're just bikes. Can be set up and used many different ways. And now we've got the other uses stratified out so that commuters get special commuter bikes etc.

I may just find myself aggravated by the undefined term "pretend racing." I can't imagine it actually takes place. "Let's go pretend to race." Seems silly and intended to insult to me. There's just racing and not racing. There is no pretend.

Phantoj

In the only test of fork stiffness I've ever seen, Damon Rinard found old-school steel forks to be the stiffest: https://www.damonrinard.com/rinard_forktest.html

and those harsh aluminum forks much less stiff, pretty much equivalent to CF.

halfspeed

All bikes have compromises. Lots of them. That's because no bike is truly capable of serving all purposes for all riders. What you seem to miss is that most riders aren't interested in commuting over rough inner city streets or touring. So few bikes are made with the compromises that come with bikes that meet those needs (i.e. weight and aerodynamics).

You may reasonably argue that perhaps people =should= want to use bikes the way you suggest, but complaining about the dearth of mass-market bikes that meet design criteria irrlevant to most riders is pointless.

nymtber

hmm when i took my specialized allez for a test spin before buying it, i was SHOCKED at how great it sucked up bumps, well you know small bumps.

sounds like youve got the tires pumped up too much. or you got too racy of a bike for your needs.

all i had ridden was mountain bikes with fat tires before my road bike. i find it comfortable and enjoy the benefits of a skinny tired, stiff efficient machine. but, i also bought decent gloves, padded shorts, and my bike came with padding under the bar tape, it all adds up to comfort

Aaron_F

Buy some cushy gloves and add a pad under the bar tape. That's probably about as good as it's going to get.