Responsive bike with clearance for fat tyres?

For discussions about bikes and equipment.
User avatar
iow
Posts: 395
Joined: 27 Jul 2010, 11:01am
Location: isle of wight

Re: Responsive bike with clearance for fat tyres?

Postby iow » 7 Jan 2015, 11:20am

not ridden either, but can the lht or vaya be accurately described as responsive compared to the lighter weight frames advocated by bq?
not sure there is an inexpensive off the peg solution?
mark

reohn2
Posts: 35230
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Responsive bike with clearance for fat tyres?

Postby reohn2 » 7 Jan 2015, 11:33am

mrjemm wrote:I am trying to work that out from the geometry R2; http://salsacycles.com/bikes/vaya/2015_vaya_2/geometry/
Seems to me the reach is more with the longer bike of course, but the only reason you'd get more drop to the bars is by pulling up more seatpost, and the headtube is equally short as the seat tube. What am I missing?

I think my arms are relatively short, but on the 57, I never rode on the drops despite changing stems, spacers and so on to get a better fit, whilst on the 56, they're quite useable.


Salsa's geo figures for the 56 & 57cm Vaya shows a 10mm difference in seatube,ETT & head tube lengths.
The reach is only 1.1mm longer on the 57cm due to the s/tube angle on the 56cm being 73deg compared to 72.5deg on the 57cm.
So with the saddle in the same position the stem can only be an extra 10mm lower on the 56cm frame,though the handlebars could be lower than the headtube with say a +or- 15 or 20degree stem.

I'm confident your riding position can be replicated on both 56 and 57cm frame sizes with different stem lengths.
-----------------------------------------------------------
I cycle therefore I am.

reohn2
Posts: 35230
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Responsive bike with clearance for fat tyres?

Postby reohn2 » 7 Jan 2015, 12:19pm

iow wrote:not ridden either, but can the lht or vaya be accurately described as responsive compared to the lighter weight frames advocated by bq?
not sure there is an inexpensive off the peg solution?


That depends on what the OP regards as 'responsive'.
IMO 'responsive' is often confused with weight or acceleration.
If watts put in is to be measured by speed then I'd agree.
But is there more to it than that?
Riding the Vaya compared with a 3kg lighter Thorn Mk3 bike consistently returned times with 1mph(15to16mph av)over 70+mile rides,the Vaya being far more comfortable,due in no small part to the tyres,and which was my reason for selling the Thorn which,cannot be described in any way as an uncomfortable bike.Surprisingly the Thorn 'felt' faster but the numbers didn't lie and the comfort factor certainly didn't.

The planing article:- http://janheine.wordpress.com/2014/12/3 ... f-planing/ gives some reasons for flexible frames being more responsive if the amount of flexibility in the frame is matched to the rider.
But also in the article JH gives more than passing nod to the effect tyres have on response.

IMO riding bicycles is a very intimate relationship between machine and rider,and because people are all different no one bicycle suits all,finding the right bike can IME be a quest which needs a bit of searching and sometimes IME counter intuitive.
It seems JH has also found his experiences finding the right bike to be similar.
-----------------------------------------------------------
I cycle therefore I am.

Bikefayre
Posts: 176
Joined: 1 Dec 2014, 3:36pm

Re: Responsive bike with clearance for fat tyres?

Postby Bikefayre » 7 Jan 2015, 3:34pm

Would suggest a Cross bike, have a look at the Revolution range from edinburghbicycle.com The Specialized Tricross is a good bike to look at. A cross bike can be got with road bike gears yet take whatever tyres you fancy, take mudguards , racks, e t c A cross bike is a bike for all reasons and for all seasons!

Steveo2020
Posts: 215
Joined: 26 Apr 2012, 8:57pm

Re: Responsive bike with clearance for fat tyres?

Postby Steveo2020 » 7 Jan 2015, 8:25pm

sreten wrote:
I wouldn't be so hasty. The third rider in the double blind test couldn't tell any difference.
BQ says the diffrence is small, and the first two riders were attuned to what they are
allegedly looking for, ergo, it cannot be a meaningful double blind test in any reality.

The whole concept is extremely dubious, to say the least, and auto-suggestive.
I cannot see how it is taken for granted when riding carbon frames.


I wish I had been hastier. It's taken many years and thousands of miles to understand what now seems obvious.

I meant I have taken 'planing' for granted on the bikes I have ridden, not on all carbon bikes. I have ridden a couple of very dead carbon bikes.

Most of my lifetime riding has been done on two lightish steel frames, and then one very lightweight (653) steel frame and finally a carbon frame. The final steel frame and the carbon bike ride very similarly - I would describe it as lively. None of them were 'dead' like the Kinesis frame I referred to above.

Twenty years later I still remember the revelation the first time I got out of the saddle over the brow of a hill on the 653 frame. I wouldn't have missed that in a double blind test. At the time I thought it was because it was lighter then my previous bikes, and the carbon bike is lighter still, but the weight differences are small, and the Kinesis probably isn't much heavier than the 653 bike. The BQ planing theory chimes pretty much exactly with my experience.

An off the peg frame in standard diameter thin walled steel tubing is a rare thing now, but I think would be a huge upgrade for lots of people riding round bogged down on aluminium frames. Perhaps it will come back into fashion soon enough.

Steveo2020
Posts: 215
Joined: 26 Apr 2012, 8:57pm

Re: Responsive bike with clearance for fat tyres?

Postby Steveo2020 » 7 Jan 2015, 8:28pm

reohn2 wrote:
Salsa's geo figures for the 56 & 57cm Vaya shows a 10mm difference in seatube,ETT & head tube lengths.
The reach is only 1.1mm longer on the 57cm due to the s/tube angle on the 56cm being 73deg compared to 72.5deg on the 57cm.
So with the saddle in the same position the stem can only be an extra 10mm lower on the 56cm frame,though the handlebars could be lower than the headtube with say a +or- 15 or 20degree stem.

I'm confident your riding position can be replicated on both 56 and 57cm frame sizes with different stem lengths.


Thanks very much - much appreciated. I had tentatively reached the same conclusion. I'm tempted!

Cheers

Steve

Steveo2020
Posts: 215
Joined: 26 Apr 2012, 8:57pm

Re: Responsive bike with clearance for fat tyres?

Postby Steveo2020 » 7 Jan 2015, 8:35pm

reohn2 wrote:
iow wrote:not ridden either, but can the lht or vaya be accurately described as responsive compared to the lighter weight frames advocated by bq?
not sure there is an inexpensive off the peg solution?


That depends on what the OP regards as 'responsive'.
IMO 'responsive' is often confused with weight or acceleration.
If watts put in is to be measured by speed then I'd agree.
But is there more to it than that?
Riding the Vaya compared with a 3kg lighter Thorn Mk3 bike consistently returned times with 1mph(15to16mph av)over 70+mile rides,the Vaya being far more comfortable,due in no small part to the tyres,and which was my reason for selling the Thorn which,cannot be described in any way as an uncomfortable bike.Surprisingly the Thorn 'felt' faster but the numbers didn't lie and the comfort factor certainly didn't.

The planing article:- http://janheine.wordpress.com/2014/12/3 ... f-planing/ gives some reasons for flexible frames being more responsive if the amount of flexibility in the frame is matched to the rider.
But also in the article JH gives more than passing nod to the effect tyres have on response.

IMO riding bicycles is a very intimate relationship between machine and rider,and because people are all different no one bicycle suits all,finding the right bike can IME be a quest which needs a bit of searching and sometimes IME counter intuitive.
It seems JH has also found his experiences finding the right bike to be similar.


Thanks for this too. I wouldn't be expecting miracles from the Vaya but what you say sounds very encouraging. It's obviously not going to be like a lightweight racing frame, but I have assumed that it would be broadly similar to a couple of heavier but decent steel frames I have had, and therefore a big improvement on the current bike. Plus even if it were no better, at least I would have fewer compromises in tyre choice / luggage carrying than at present. Anyway, I'd not buy it without trying it first.

I'm feeling like the upshot of all this is that I have a splendid excuse to visit a framebuilder, but that might have to wait a few years!

Steve

User avatar
531colin
Posts: 12445
Joined: 4 Dec 2009, 6:56pm
Location: North Yorkshire

Re: Responsive bike with clearance for fat tyres?

Postby 531colin » 7 Jan 2015, 10:51pm

We have debated this "planing" business before.
As I recall, whats said to happen is this.....pressing down on the pedal flexes the frame. Jan Heine's stuff appears to show the frame flexing in all sorts of directions, but I think the major direction of flex is the BB goes sideways. The flex stores some energy in the frame, to reclaim this energy the frame must recoil in such a way as to drive the pedal upward; the rider must resist this upward pedal force in order for this force to drive the bike forward. If the rider uses muscle energy to resist the upward pedal thrust, then there is no gain. The frame will recoil when there is little or no lateral force from the pedal, isn't that after bottom dead centre? Won't frame recoil after BDC simply move the pedal sideways and up a bit? Won't Brucey's "free" force around BDC from the momentum of the leg hold the frame flexed?
In short, I don't think there is a free lunch to be had from the frame's elastic recoil.
On the other hand, there are bikes that are a joy to ride, and there are some dogs.
I'm 5' 10" and 11 stone, 67 years old, and a recreational touring cyclist, I've never been competitive. I recently had a Reynolds oversize frame (525, butted I think) ....the best description of the "ride" I can come up with is "crashing through the potholes". It was unbearable. Many years ago I had a Viking, don't remember the model, but not a "Severn Valley". It was of course lugged and brazed, and old fashioned inch and inch and eighth tubes. It was just dreadfully hard work, I don't remember it as being floppy, but maybe it was. I have ridden only a couple of disc forks, I found them unbearable too. If I got the tyre pressure low enough so the bars didn't bounce out of my hands off-road, when I got onto the tarmac the tyre was too soft to steer properly.
A couple of years ago, I had the opportunity to ride 3 bikes back to back, they were a Spa Ti Audax, a Spa Steel Audax, and a Spa steel Audax prototype that some numpty built in oversize. All the same wheels, tyres, and cycle parts. If somebody says there is no difference, don't believe them. :wink:

User avatar
willcee
Posts: 879
Joined: 14 Aug 2008, 11:30pm
Location: castleroe,co.derryUlster

Re: Responsive bike with clearance for fat tyres?

Postby willcee » 7 Jan 2015, 11:46pm

Colin et allia, interesting debate, interesting adjective ''planing'', my take on planing is where you are riding a bike that fits, good comfort from saddle, you are on form,good surfaces weather good, right gear ratios for the terrain, right wheels, right tyres.. and the bike just flies, i suggest its similar to driving a decent handling mk 2VW Golf gti where the power and torque curve graphs cross, effortless power,balanced handling, feel of the road and what the machine is doing.. i haven't yet come across an out of the box car that compares on a winding mountain road in the right hands, and it takes an extremely well driven very much faster car to stay close..
so to stay on track, i had a Dawes double blue A&P that fell in the planing mode, a steel lugged SLX de Rosa, a BMC streetfire alloy, a MERLIN titanium, a yellow Ribble 631.. to name a few. oh and a Rotrax Shirley..just my musings.. will

beardy
Posts: 3382
Joined: 23 Feb 2010, 4:10pm

Re: Responsive bike with clearance for fat tyres?

Postby beardy » 7 Jan 2015, 11:58pm

If the rider uses muscle energy to resist the upward pedal thrust, then there is no gain.


I think that almost all of us resist the pedal thrust without using any muscle energy. The number that genuinely pull up on the pedals for extended periods of time probably isnt that high.

In short, I don't think there is a free lunch to be had from the frame's elastic recoil.


It doesnt have to be a free lunch, merely a lessening of the losses.

I am just making observations here and have no idea whether it happens or doesnt.

sreten
Posts: 347
Joined: 29 Sep 2013, 10:59pm

Re: Responsive bike with clearance for fat tyres?

Postby sreten » 8 Jan 2015, 2:55am

Steveo2020 wrote:I wish I had been hastier. It's taken many years and thousands of miles to understand what now seems obvious.


Hi,

Please try and explain obvious, rather than "I'm now self convinced".
Planing is an an extremely dubious concept, in all respects.
If it was obvious, it would be, but it isn't, ergo its myth.

Top notch bikes by definition would include any advantage.

rgds, sreten.

reohn2
Posts: 35230
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Responsive bike with clearance for fat tyres?

Postby reohn2 » 8 Jan 2015, 8:55am

reohn2 wrote:It seems JH has also found his experiences finding the right bike to be similar.

At the end of that sentence I think should have wrote "but in different ways"
Steveo2020 wrote:Thanks for this too. I wouldn't be expecting miracles from the Vaya but what you say sounds very encouraging. It's obviously not going to be like a lightweight racing frame, but I have assumed that it would be broadly similar to a couple of heavier but decent steel frames I have had, and therefore a big improvement on the current bike. Plus even if it were no better, at least I would have fewer compromises in tyre choice / luggage carrying than at present. Anyway, I'd not buy it without trying it first.

The Vaya isn't a miraculous bike,but it is a comfortable doall machine with many capabilities,a tourer+ would be a better way to describe it.
What makes it special is rock steady predictable handling a kind of no think intuitive ride,huge tyre clearances,and also a undefinable quality that I can't quite put my finger on :? .Couple that with big light supple tyres and bingo,I found what for me is a sweet riding very pleasurable bike.

I'm feeling like the upshot of all this is that I have a splendid excuse to visit a framebuilder, but that might have to wait a few years!

I reckon the right builder could make a similar frame to the Vaya that would beat it hands down.It would cost a lot more though IMO.
-----------------------------------------------------------
I cycle therefore I am.

reohn2
Posts: 35230
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Responsive bike with clearance for fat tyres?

Postby reohn2 » 8 Jan 2015, 9:33am

531colin wrote:We have debated this "planing" business before.
As I recall, whats said to happen is this.....pressing down on the pedal flexes the frame. Jan Heine's stuff appears to show the frame flexing in all sorts of directions, but I think the major direction of flex is the BB goes sideways. The flex stores some energy in the frame, to reclaim this energy the frame must recoil in such a way as to drive the pedal upward; the rider must resist this upward pedal force in order for this force to drive the bike forward. If the rider uses muscle energy to resist the upward pedal thrust, then there is no gain. The frame will recoil when there is little or no lateral force from the pedal, isn't that after bottom dead centre? Won't frame recoil after BDC simply move the pedal sideways and up a bit? Won't Brucey's "free" force around BDC from the momentum of the leg hold the frame flexed?
In short, I don't think there is a free lunch to be had from the frame's elastic recoil.

I don't know if that's an accurate description or not,though I agree there's no free lunch.

On the other hand, there are bikes that are a joy to ride, and there are some dogs.
............ If somebody says there is no difference, don't believe them. :wink:

This is fact,I too have had a couple of dogs that feel leaden,especially on long rides,when they felt like they were nailed to the road draining energy out of me like a turf accountant empty's a punters pockets.
So good geometry apart,what make a bike a nice ride?
I'm so astounded at the difference good tyres make(Hyper alert) I'm almost tempted to buy a known dog and ride on those tyre to compare :?

BTW,JH is unconventional in other ways too and is totally immersed in the French Randonneur scene of yore,and curiously his touring load is carried all up front in two panniers and a huge bar bag,another counter intuitive that seems so wrong.
We aren't all right and we aren't all wrong
-----------------------------------------------------------
I cycle therefore I am.

User avatar
531colin
Posts: 12445
Joined: 4 Dec 2009, 6:56pm
Location: North Yorkshire

Re: Responsive bike with clearance for fat tyres?

Postby 531colin » 8 Jan 2015, 10:49am

reohn2 wrote:...............
So good geometry apart,what makes a bike a nice ride?........


I think the right sort of springiness for the rider's weight and strength, and for the bike's purpose.
Its very nice to have a stiff bike for a sudden acceleration, but at the end of a long day on poor roads you want a bit of comfort.

mig
Posts: 2015
Joined: 19 Oct 2011, 9:39pm

Re: Responsive bike with clearance for fat tyres?

Postby mig » 8 Jan 2015, 10:56am

i think that overt frame 'stiffness' always being a good thing is one of those things that has crossed over from cycle sport into the general field. the sort of thing read in the magazines and heard on the TV when they cover the track racing.

re. fat tyres. has anyone ever ridden one of those 'fat bikes' with 4 inch rims and HUGE tyres? are they...er....just plain daft for general use?