u235

How far and time wise are you riding this bike compared to your old one? The longer the ride and the more you are lugging around might be a factor along with possibly some fit or dimension differences may be playing a bigger role in your "comfort" than maybe a frame/fork stiffness. Tires can change things drastically.

WizardOfBoz

If that observation is real (I find stuff like that hard to judge), one might say that the 90mm has less length to absorb shock, but typically those stems are stiffer than heck. Suspect (as have others) that the fork is really, really stiff. Looking at it, its wide (that is, stiff) down to the dropouts. Be interesting to know if the stiffness abated if you threw a new more flexible fork into the frame.

Tire inflation and construction, and wheel construction (are you using 2 cross in front? - I can't recall) all play a role in shock absorption, but I can't believe that all those folks hyping their CF handlebars and CF forks as "shock absorbing", and the people buying them and reporting positively, are completely wrong.

If you're married to the fork, that shock absorbing stem that wgscott pointed out looks cool.

Cyclist0108

I can feel differences between my two steel-framed road bikes, even with very compliant tires. Also, I have never found any of my aluminum-framed bikes to be comfortable. I suspect that, with a 54 frame, it might just be too stiff. (One was a Cannondale, who were a bit notorious for stiff frames.) The one carbon bike I tried for a day, Lauf, complete with the leaf-spring fork, was brutally stiff and unforgiving on the same trails that my steel frame CX Enve fork bike is comfortable on.

There are so many variables it is almost impossible to generalize.

u235

I can find comfort on my very rigid AL bike on miles and days of various gravel and terrain even with racks and bags with the right tire. The wrong tire setup can be brutal on the same bike. We are talking about on road here asphalt and chipseal. I mean how can a 10-20mm stem difference be a big factor in comfort and feel (not talking about fit mind you) compared to say a 25mm tire vs a 38 tire at 30 PSI lower pressure? I find that very hard to fathom. This seems to me more of a angles and different position being uncomfortable or different more than the raw vibration/harmonic related harshness.

ChinookTx

+1 for the Shock Stop stem. I have on on both my bikes, and love them. They haven't developed any play so far aside from the initial "softening" after a couple of rides. (The breaking-in of the elastomer inserts). They are expensive so do make sure you have your stem lengths properly determined first!

squirtdad

fwiw

bike Team Miyata 84

rider clyde 265

clincher wheelset, dura ace hubs, 32 h, spokes straight gauge, mavic MA40 rims, Bontrager 25mm tires at 110 psi. harsh harsh ride

tubular wheelset, (wheelsmith build like new) sanshin hubs, butted spokes, Mavic 330 rims (close to MA40 would be GP4...these are a bit lighter) Challenge elite tubular at 130 psi. bike dances, super smooth responsive ride.

the tubulars are a big part, but I thing the wheel is also a big part.....bit lighter rim, spokes may be a bit more supple

ymmv

TiHabanero

"the new bike has the exact same stack as the previous one. Reach, with a 90mm stem, is 8mm longer and I felt cramped. I switched to a 110mm stem and compensating with one less spacer, so the reach is 30mm longer than the older bike. While it felt way better on day rides, after the second day on road it felt too long."

With either stem installed the way you have it set up, the saddle height to stem height difference is the same as the old bike?

NeoY2k

Yep pretty much.
The new bike with 80mm stem +6° and 40mm spacers has 448mm reach and 643mm stack. Previous bike was 440 reach and 643 stack.
But new bike feels shorter, which seems reasonable given it has steeper seat tube. I tried it with a 110mm stem as I felt cramped, and while it is really nice on a day ride, after 3 days on the road it felt too long.

Currently trying a 100mm redshift stem. It does help with vibration. With vibration out of the way, it highlights its geometry funkiness.
With a 75° seat tube angle and 73° head tube angle, it is pretty twitchy at low speeds, and I have the saddle slid rearward to compensate for the seat tube angle.

That seems pretty agressive for loaded touring.
Considering a frame swap to a Genesis Croix de Fer, but felt their ride pretty uninspiring. Though, at least, nothing wrong with their handling or position on the bike.

LesterOfPuppets

These guys claimed 440mm ATC for this P2 fork they used to have.

https://www.tritoncycles.co.uk/frame...sc-fork-p10537

ThermionicScott 

Are you sure you're not locking your elbows as you ride?

Rather than putting 70 psi into each tire, try 65 in front and 75 in the rear.

NeoY2k

Yep thanks. Kona made tons of P2 forks with differing A2C all bearing the same name.
And no mention of the required A2C on the 2007 geometry charts, though they now state it since circa 2010.
And they never answered my mail asking about it

Though, if the bike is supposed to have 71° head tube angle and it measures around 73,7° I only see a mismatched fork length as a possible culprit...
But then the photos definately don't let you think there is a 465mm fork in that bike... And the top tube would be crazily sloping...