pq wrote: ↑13 Aug 2024, 11:41pm
I'm afraid I haven't read all the way through this thread, but here's my experience.
I've always found the idea that tyres make more difference to vertical compliance than a frame will pretty convincing, and I do like riding big tyres as a result. But I have a frame which doesn't behave that way. It's a 1999 Merlin Extralight, which is a super high end Ti race frame. When it was made it was reputed to be the lightest and most expensive production frame available, and that could well be true. Because of it's age it won't take tyres bigger than 25mm, so if tyres are more important, it should be much less comfortable than my other bikes, typically shod with 30mm tyres, but it isn't. It has a startlingly smooth ride quality, like nothing else I've ever ridden, including the 3 other Ti bikes that I own and loads of traditional skinny tubed steel frames. It's not that I don't feel the imperfections in the road, I do, but the frame takes the edge off them in a way that I really like. There's a lot of hype around Ti frames in terms of ride quality, but this is the only one I've ridden that actually delivers. None of the steel frames I've had do this to the same extent. The closest equivalent I currently own and ride regularly is a 1999 Roberts built of Columbus Nivacrom. Like the Merlin it can only take 25mm tyres, but unlike the Merlin it's a pretty harsh ride. Maybe someone used to a modern rigid crabon or alu frame might find it forgiving, but I don't! I should say that I use tubeless tyres on the Merlin which are a bit more compliant than tubed, but it had the same ride quality on tubed tyres, and before that on tubs. The other feature of the Merlin is that it has immensely beefy chainstays while everything else is skinny, the logic being that you can sprint on it without the bb moving under load and without compromising the ride quality. In other words vertical compliance and lateral rigidity. Well obviously it moves but less than you'd expect - it's a good frame to sprint on. I guess a carbon frame can use the lay-up to replicate and probably improve on what my Merlin does, but it is a remarkable frame to ride. So that's the compliant gem that I own, but it isn't steel.
The Merlin Extralight- with a superlight frame at just 1.02kg it is good to read you can feel the comfort in it! Doesn't yours of that era have the 1" steerer column?
Here's the original sales booklet from Merlin with the specs:
(My titanium light audax Yukon by Van Nicholas with its overized tubes, despite its low weight of 1.6kg is noticeably stiffer and harsher than my rather lightweight non-oversized steel frames with 1" steerers).
Interesting that the head angle gets steeper on the largest frames. What's the reason for that? Or is it actually that that's the angle they wanted and they had to lessen the angle on the smaller sizes in order to gain a bit of toe clearance?
Yes, it has a 1" steerer. By co-incidence I also have a van nic (well, an Airborne actually which amounts to the same thing). It's a Carpe Diem which is one of those CX style all purpose bikes which I use as a tourer. Blindfolded you wouldn't know it was Ti, but that was obvious from the outset with its oversized tubes and much higher weight than the Merlin. But the Merlin was a much much more expensive frame, so you'd expect that sort of performance from it. My Airborne was very cheap and for the price I can't complain. With fat tyres it rides perfectly nicely. Incidently the extralight was the first double butted titanium frame, and I think even now not many do it. Maybe that's why it rides so nicely.
Bmblbzzz wrote: ↑14 Aug 2024, 3:23pm
Interesting that the head angle gets steeper on the largest frames. What's the reason for that? Or is it actually that that's the angle they wanted and they had to lessen the angle on the smaller sizes in order to gain a bit of toe clearance?
I think they are chasing long top tube AND short wheelbase.
Not really my kind of bike.
My Merlin has enormous toe overlap, so I don't think they were bothered about that. The frames I've most enjoyed riding all have toe overlap, so it doesn't bother me in the slightest.
pq wrote: ↑15 Aug 2024, 11:35pm
My Merlin has enormous toe overlap, so I don't think they were bothered about that. The frames I've most enjoyed riding all have toe overlap, so it doesn't bother me in the slightest.
To be fair, toe overlap is an issue if I’m off road dodging roots rocks and overhanging branches. On tarred roads I don’t often turn the bars far enough for overlap to be an issue.
One bike I had with a bit of overlap, my toe bumped the guard occasionally. After riding it for a few months it didn’t bump anything like as often….. I guess another conditioned reflex ?
pq wrote: ↑15 Aug 2024, 11:35pm
My Merlin has enormous toe overlap, so I don't think they were bothered about that. The frames I've most enjoyed riding all have toe overlap, so it doesn't bother me in the slightest.
To be fair, toe overlap is an issue if I’m off road dodging roots rocks and overhanging branches. On tarred roads I don’t often turn the bars far enough for overlap to be an issue.
One bike I had with a bit of overlap, my toe bumped the guard occasionally. After riding it for a few months it didn’t bump anything like as often….. I guess another conditioned reflex ?
FWIW used to occasionally ride a fixed gear bike with toe overlap, on the road. The toe overlap was mainly a problem if I did a trackstand at the traffic lights.
My fixed bike has toe overlap too. We don't have traffic lights where I live (because there's no traffic) but when I used to live in a place with traffic lights, I don't recall an issue with track stands - and I do do them. The thing is nearly all the bikes I've ever owned, excluding the ones with 26" wheels have had toe overlap so I'm completely used to it. In fact I didn't notice it until people started getting all agitated about it, quite a while ago now I guess.
