Bonefishblues wrote:Similar ones, with some context, lest it sounded rather blunt and interrogatory, as was rather obvious, I'd hoped, but happy to explain to you.
I could indeed have commented about how I think those factors might influence the responsiveness of a bike, but I didn't because I thought that it would be superfluous and that the inference was fairly obvious, as has been demonstrated by the other posters who have explained - rather better than I would have - why I asked those questions.
I did briefly consider writing such a longer post, but as well as consciously deciding not to because I thought it would be stating the obvious and I know that I am often too longwinded (c.f...erm...this post), it also went fleetingly through my mind that it would be patronisingly sexist to do so (c.f...erm...actually, better not go there). I would not have provided an explanation if I were addressing the questions to a poster whom I knew or believed to be male, so to provide it to ElaineB would imply that I thought she might not understand the reasons for my asking because she is a woman. In fact I would go further and say that the reasons for the questions are so self-evident, that to explain why I was asking them might even be considered insulting.
As far as I was concerned the only reasons I might have had for explaining were the slightly gushing nature of her enthusiasm for the bike (I think the more experience people have, the less they tend to post in that style [although without wanting to stereotype I think that posting style can also be more common in US based forums]) and what I thought was a rather weak argument in the form of the reference to the video of the bike's performance in the Tour d'Afrique. The latter is a marketing video and the bikes were ridden without racks and panniers - I also suspect the riders may have had significant support/back up, and if there had been any significant problems with the bike I doubt they would have been included in the video. (As it happens I can recall a male poster who was similarly enthusiastic about his bike and similarly made an 'appeal to authority' to justify why it was a good bike, and my response was similarly sceptical.) I am not interested in a marketing video, but I
am interested in ElaineB's own personal experience, because that is the acid test. She finds it a great bike and really likes the handling compared to other tourers*.
* In my previous post I was tempted to ask what other tourers, but I didn't because a) I preferred to keep the post short, and b) again mindful of how words on a screen can be misconstrued (c.f...erm...better not go there either), I did not want it to be inferred that I was implying she might not have ridden enough different bikes for her comparison to be an informed one. So ElaineB, what tourers
are you comparing it against?
My suspicion when I posted was that she is a small rider (but rather than just assume that and post the following comments which might not have been applicable, I thought it appropriate to ask her first - another reason for my not going into detail in that post: it might not have have applied to her and been completely irrelevant). Since she has confirmed that she rides an extra small frame, that makes her perspective more interesting than the average male who rides a medium frame. It's probably a lot easier for designers to make the right choices for the average person on a medium frame: tubesets have been developed and refined to give the optimum result for probably the >90th percentiles of rider heights/weights. 531Colin has a much better idea of how the 54cm size of the Spa frames he has designed ride, compared with the large and small frames, because that's the size he rides. He will not have the same level of intuitive understanding when he is designing and specifying tubesets and geometry for extra short and extra tall riders (and I suspect that, like any good designer, he is always keen to get feedback and insight from such riders, as he demonstrated on a recent thread where a tall rider had purchased a large Ti Touring frame).
Moreover, I think that designing good very small frames is potentially much more demanding than designing very large frames. In other words, with the availability of larger diameter tubes in a choice of thickness and which can be tig welded and 1 1/8" headsets, designers and builders are freed from the strength and stiffness limitations imposed by traditional narrow tubes joined by lugs and with headtubes for 1" steerers and quill stems. The resulting frames may be heavy, but the ratio of rider weight to frame weight may not be significantly worse than for an average rider on a medium frame.
If the frames for very tall riders need to be, as it were, 'overbuilt' with thicker larger diameter tubesets, very small riders logically need frames which are 'underbuilt', with thinner walled and/or narrower diameter tubsets. That is probably a difficult balance to get right for a race frame, but getting it right for a tourer is probably much more difficult: the bike is likely to have to cope with rougher roads and harsher use/conditions, and 20kg in panniers is likely to have much greater impact for a rider on a very small frame than one on a very large frame. For someone on a large LHT, 20kg might add less than 20% to the overall weight and the frame is likely to be so stiff and strong that it has much less impact on the handling. Whereas for someone riding an extra small frame, 20kg might add 40% to the overall weight, and getting the balance of frame stiffness and strength right to cope with both laden and unladen riding is probably quite tricky.
Given ElaineB's experience that makes me wonder if Cinelli have hit a sweetspot in their extra small frame. If so I suspect it might be because they primarily make racing bikes, and that background and experience of building lightweight racing bikes results in them pushing the envelope a bit when choosing tube thicknesses for a touring bike, at least for small riders, whereas a UK or US bike brand designer might be that bit more conservative. The bike might possibly not be as robust as, say, a LHT, but that is a trade off many might be willing to make if the alternative was a bike that to them had a rather dead, heavy ride quality. If so, that's very useful information for other cyclists who need an extra small frame, because recommendations from those of us who ride medium or larger frames based on those frames are not worth anywhere near as much. It would be interesting if ElaineB and Vantage (
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=131583&start=15#p1380308) were to swap and compare bikes.
Finally, I would point out that in my original post I said that the 130mm OLN would disqualify it
for me when looking for a serious touring bike to use with loaded panniers. We are all of us free to make our own choices, and we are all different: what one rider needs and suits them best might be quite different for another. Personal preferences and experience may also make a huge difference to what one wants from a bike. If you've never had a spoke break on tour you might put much less importance on the OLN size, possibly quite justifiably (e.g. if you are a light rider and/or you get your 130mm OLN wheels from a very good wheelbuilder), similarly you might be the sort that is able to face a spoke breakage on tour with complete equanimity, possibly because you have the skill and equipment to fix it yourself or because you just use your smartphone to call a taxi to take you to the nearest bike shop. Conversely, if you've had a spoke break in the middle of nowhere, when you're still a long way from your accommodation and/or you risk missing a transport connection, the weather is bad, and there's no mobile signal, then you are likely to be a lot more risk averse when it comes to choices in future which determine how strong your wheels are.
