RiddleOfSteel

If feeling and explaining a bike's "planing" ability was akin to chasing a ghost, then let's make things a little easier for us, shall we?

It has occurred to me lately that there are certain frames and certain components (and perhaps a combination thereof) that beget a noticeably "springy" feeling when accelerating out of the saddle with verve. Some frames have that spring or that magic, regardless of componentry. Other frames need a few other ingredients to make casserole roll. Heh. [I'll be here all week...] What bike(s) has(have) just plainly stood out to you with this characteristic compared to others that you have?

The expected answer of "X and Y race frame" doesn't always apply here, as my recent experience has borne out. Tighter, sharper, and tauter may not always be the answer. And that's the fun of this realization, and thus posing of question to the BF membership. Some race frames/setups really work off your leveraging and power inputs no matter how "behind" or "on top of" the gear you are. Other race frames/setups demand a certain starting RPM or higher and would rather just work at high speeds. Some standard or touring frames are heavy and solid feeling and don't want to dance. Other standard or touring frames (unloaded, in this case) are more than happy to dance out of the saddle and spring back when you push down on the pedal.

A little parameter-creating to give yet another hopelessly subjective question some firm-ish boundaries:

Primary components of interaction between rider and road:

1) frame (or, frame tubing - specific steel, AL, old CF)
2) chain stay length
3) tires
4) wheels (rims and spokes if you know them)
5) crank arm length relative to your height (I am 6'5" and run 175mm)

Excluding these factors:

1) Varying shoe type over the fleet. The human body naturally flexes and has spring or elasticity and thus can create an enhanced feeling of "this bike really works with me" when that could end up being a false positive once vintage cycling shoes and more recent clipless pedals/shoes have been introduced. Normal shoe use across all bikes ridden? That's fine. Clipless pedals on the fleet and thus ridden accordingly? That's the ideal as a stiff or direct connection to the bike eliminates one "feeling" variable in this equation, letting us focus on the bike.
2) Potentially, the rest of the frame's geometry. That will be for another entry in the solving the riddle of steel series (still not named, or organized).

So, what are RiddleOfSteel's examples to help us? Here they are, in no particular order:

1) 1988 Masi Nuova Strada - 64cm - SLX-SP tubing - 420mm chain stays (or rear center, BB to axle) - 7400 Dura-Ace hubs to Mavic MA40 36H rims - Deda Tre (Veloflex clone) folding 23mm tires - This frame shines through any wheel/tire combination you put on it, and is most "on point" with Continental Grand Prix 24mm tires on the same rims. It is still very good with the Deda tires.

2) 1985 Miyata 610 Touring - 63.5cm - DB chromoly - 450mm chain stays - 1600g Vuelta Corsa Lite rims - Kenda Kwickroller Sport folding 32mm - This is where my theory on "maybe larger tires [that are lighter and have supple sidewalls] are better" comes from. Also, long chain stays can absorb a big pedal stroke's worthy of energy, and then spring back at a pace that works with you.

3) 1985 Cannondale ST400 - 63.5cm - big tube aluminum with steel fork - 457mm chain stays - 7400 Dura-Ace hubs to Mavic MA2 32H rims - Continental Ultra Race folding 32mm - Oh no super stiff aluminum! Oh but wait! Take the enthusiasm with which aluminum reacts to inputs, make it a big frame, dampen any bad reactions with the big tires while simultaneously employing both aluminum's and big tires' advantages. Voila! [also, don't have the stem/bars too high--it dampens the ease and range of rocking the bike back and forth]

4) NON-C&V: 2016 Trek Emonda ALR - 62cm - super light aluminum frame, full CF fork - 410mm/very short chain stays - random 24mm wide Weinmann wheels from a same-year Raleigh roadie - Vittoria Open Corsa Evo CX folding 23mm - Step on the go pedal and this thing ROCKETS ahead. It's quite something.

*******

Honorable mention) 1974 Schwinn Paramount P15 Touring - 63.5cm - DB Reynolds 531 - 27" single-wall rims and cheap $12 Kenda white wall tires - 170mm cranks - Always a pleasant surprise getting this thing up to higher speeds.

Not on the above list) 1985 Schwinn Peloton - she is the most sensitive to wheel and tire combinations, and I've had numerous. Vuelta Corsa Lites and Vittoria Open Corsa 25mm...good for razor sharp everything (very cool) and speed (good times)...maybe it's that light SL/SP tubing combo.... Still trying to figure her out.

*******

Anyway, RoS novel. You know the drill. Lots of context laid out (to help aid the discussion), all of it. Thank you for reading, contemplating, and contributing! I'm curious to see if we find any themes.

Mr. 66

I'll bite, I myself think of frames in road ride feel, geometry, wieght, with wheels consistent across a spectrum of frames. I like to think of bike frames as tuning forks when coasting. Probably the highest pitch bikes I have are the italian with Columbus tubing, these also have less flex to them when climbing or off the saddle. But that does not hole true for me when it comes to my tres tubi bianchi. That bike has a really funky vibe to it, great geometry, its like the vibration from the stays and forks hits the main triangle is muted and bounces back like sound off a wall.

With my fave 531 double butted forks and stays frame, english Falcon, this has a lower resonance, more flex it just feels like it hubs the road better. A lot more springy in the hill climbs, this also has a more relaxed geometry. I also have a trek 560 531 with cromoly forks and stays, very combfortable geometry, this feels way different noodlely. The vibes feel better that the bianchi tres tubi, way more springy. I think this feels better than the bianchi because the matrials of the frame are similar incomposition.

I also have Peugeot all 531 and that road feel is incredible, pretty similar to the falcon, but the vibe feels better and better as the speed increases. I can see why the forks are bent, holy crap I hope I can slow down for that turn at the bottom of the hill. This bike is stiffer than the falcon, but no where near that of my Columbus frames.

Not on the c & v is my road touring 853 tubed tig welding frame rocky mountain sherpa. A very stiff ride a fair high tune, pretty nice feel but it is the geometry that stands out for me. Racks bags don't make much difference this ride feels almost like using a climbing machine at the gym.

The schwinn suburban, well that felt like I dragging an elephant behind me...

Dfrost 

You knew I’d bite on this one, @RiddleOfSteel!

I hear you about the sprinting response, of which I have essentially zero capability any more as you well know, Dan. But I sense the planing feel in a different way - that sense of a bike that feels “at one with me” in many situations, not just in the sense of bike fit (which certainly matters), but more in its feedback to a variety of efforts. I have fond memories of the ‘72 Masi GC during my brief racing days, with its responsiveness, stability, steering, etc, etc.

Of my current and recent bikes:
The 1987 Marinoni Sports Tourer, (SLX tubing, 43.5mm CS, 700x28 or 32 and 650x38 Compass or Grand Bois tires on a variety of wheels). I’ve come home late at night from a full day of riding and bike wrenching, and it usually says to me “let’s take that longer route home” or “how about a bigger gear up that hill?” It always feels exciting to ride this bike, in the best possible way. Those senses don’t change with the various wheels and tires, although I love the “go anywhere, pavement quality doesn’t matter” relaxing ride with the 38’s, but miss the higher speed stability of the 700’s (new wheels planned).

1979 Miyata 912 with Gugificazione rando mods to the fork (Tange Champion main tubes, 41-42mm CS, Compass 700x26, 28 and 32mm tires). I would have said this bike didn’t have that same planing feel, but recently did a comparison of 28 and 32mm tires on it, and surprisingly felt some of that same “push a bigger gear” feel, but much more noticeably with the 28’s. Maybe it’s just the fun of those recent mods, but this bike, which I’ve owned since new through four major reconfigurations, has become noticeably more interesting to ride.

I owned and really tried to love a Rivendell Rambouillet for ten years, also with excellent tires and wheels. For several years, all three of these bikes were set up identically and I rotated through them often on my 36-mile round trip commute, even switching wheels and tires to feel any differences (none that mattered from a planing sense). What I noticed again and again was that whenever I was riding the Riv, I wished that I was riding either the Marinoni or Miyata, and that was even before I found a good leather saddle/seatpost combo for the 912. BTW, speed was essentially identical between those three on that commute.

Maybe I would have felt differently if I was a powerful rider like Dan that would stress the OS tubes of the Riv. But at 68...

When they were identical:


I did love an aluminum 1992 Klein Performance as my only bike for over 30,000 miles, with lots of fast-ish group rides, centuries+ and several fabulous credit card tours in Europe back in my more sprint-able days, but never when we had the light, supple, fat tires now available. Those might have changed my dissatisfaction with its apparent ride qualities, as well as the fact that it was a few cm too short as I became less supple.

When I also owned a 65cm 1976 Masi GC during the last few years of Klein ownership, I recall that the Masi always felt “fast” and there were occasions when I had to hold back to stay with my riding companions. It wasn’t the right bike for me in other respects.

My experience is only with better quality 32-spoke wheels and tires, and a heavy, less supple tire would degrade the sense of planing and certainly, responsiveness. But I’d think that a high quality frame that fits would be apparent regardless. Dan does lots of tire and wheel swaps, and his current bike stable exceeds my lifetime bike count, so he and most of you are much better qualified to comment on the subtle diffferences.

Overriding (unintentional pun) sense these days is that the Marinoni and Miyata meet all my riding and bike owning needs, and it would take something really special to replace them.

The Golden Boy 

My 1978 Trek 730 has a wonderful springy ride. It's a 531 framed bike- it happens to be my lightest bike- by far.

My assumption has always been that the metal is stronger, allowing the tubing to be thinner and therefore able to flex. I assume the tubing for this bike was chosen to be thinner at the expense of "stiffness." I've been told that's not the way it works. But I'm unable to think of a better way to explain it.

TiHabanero

Chain stays between 42 and 43cm seems to have the best overall feel in steel. Reynolds 531 is very springy and comfy. 44cm and longer chain stays have a lot of give to them, but don't necessarily spring back like the 42.5 chain stays.
Titanium in modern diameters is stiffer than steel, but not overly so. Again 42-43cm chain stays work very well here.
Steel forks, when designed for it, ride incredibly well. When designed to be stiff, they are certainly stiff!

Wheel build and tire choice have a major influence on the ride quality of any bike and may be the largest contributing factor in the "feel" of a machine.

Andy_K 

Isn't that planing? I could be wrong. The whole concept has always seemed fuzzy to me. Or maybe I'm just mis-reading your question. Are you trying to break planing down into smaller chunks for easy chewing?

In any event, I have two bikes that stand out from the others in some quasi-springy kind of ways.

1) 1982 Specialized Sequoia -- 56 cm -- "Special Series Touring" tubes (I've read that it's Tange #2 with a Tange #3 downtube) -- 425 mm chain stays -- 5600 105 rear hub 36-spoke, M590 Deore front hub 32-spoke, 700c Salsa Delgado Cross rims, 700x28 Conti Grand Prix 4000S II tires. From the first time I rode this bike I've been impressed with it. I swear it even coasts faster than my other bikes. I've used these wheels on other bikes and thought they were pigs. On this one it doesn't seem to matter. I'm almost afraid to try it with better wheels.

2) 2001 LeMond Buenos Aires -- 55 cm -- Reynolds 853 main tubes, Reynolds 525 stays, Icon carbon fork -- 415 mm chain stays -- 5700 105 hubs, 32-spoke, DT Swiss R460 rims, Conti Grand Prix 4 Seasons 700x28 tires. Before I got the Sequoia this was my gold standard for ride feel. I've generally attributed it mostly to perfectly dialed in fit, but switching from the Deore/105/Salsa wheels that are now on the Sequoia to the 105/R460 wheels bumped it up another notch.

Chombi1 

Might sound strange, but the bike that ""sang" and felt best to me so far was my humble, but albeit, nodded up, Carbolite, straight gauge, lugless, high tensile, carbon steel framed 1982 Peugeot PH10s......
It agressively wooshed forward when you stood up on the pedals and made the most beautiful sounds speeding down the roads!
It was hard to admit it, but I was actually a bit disappointed with the fancier PSV I replaced it with in 84.....

Super_Sport

The only bike that has planed well for me (so far) is my 1978 Motobecane Grand Jubile.

It's a 57 cm built with Vitus 172 and has 430 mm chainstays. The real catch with this bike is that it didn't plane for me with 700x28 or 700x32 Paselas. But I built up some 650b VO Diagonale rims on Ultegra hubs and Pari Moto tires. Now it's an absolute dream.

Scottybigs 

Topical due to Jan Heine's latest blog post: https://janheine.wordpress.com/2018/...es-are-faster/

Honestly, I don't feel like I've been riding bikes long enough to fully discern a frame that planes vs. a frame that drains.

This being said - and it will take time to confirm - but I believe that my Wabi Special fixed gear road bike (not C&V) is the closest I've gotten. I can climb hills faster on this wonder bike than my other steel rides, and even after 100km rides (yes, fixed), I always feel like I could ride another 20 more. It's just the right combination of geometry and tubing quality.

Specs:

- Lugged Reynolds 725 oversized tubing, fork has very thin walled blades
- 400mm chainstays
- 170mm cranks, 5'11.5 height
- Grand Bois Cerf 28c tires
- Mavic Open Sports laced to 32H Gran Compe Small Flange track hubs (love these hubs)

JReade

Reading that makes me think of my hockey sticks. You can buy sticks in varying level of flex, with something like 110 flex the top end, stiffest stick. It's a measure of deflection. The stiffest flex will net you the hardest shot, IF you can maximize the flex. I'm 6'5" and 200 pounds, I can get a lot of leverage into the stiff stick, and get a good shot off, but the guy who is 5'7" and 180 will be doing a lot more work for the same shot. The true is the same for the converse: if I go for a low flex stick, I will be wasting energy making a stick flex beyond meaningful amounts, and not getting much more on my shot.

I imagine that this is true for bikes as well. Stiffness should be mated to the rider, however we can't all get custom frames..

repechage

This "planing" thing always makes me laugh.
Now, two interesting experiences.
1. One time, and only one time, I was climbing a canyon that I had done on my clubs Sunday ride scores of times, that ascent was on a Teledyne Titan, if I kept the right cadence in a particular gear, the frame FELT as if it was giving more back than I was expending. These were not known to be particularly stiff, but Titanium definitely has a different spring co-efficient than steel. Fall off or spin faster, and the effect went away. So, something in the material and structure, forces at play. Did it make me faster? No, to keep up with the leaders, or regain contact you did what you needed to do. All pre power meters.
2. There was one particular famous maker Italian bike at the shop for which I worked that just never sold after a test ride. I rode it once as part of a checkout ride, it felt DEAD, like everything you gave it, it sucked it up and gave nothing back. Dreadful to ride, made me feel like I was riding 20 miles a week, not 200. Not the tubes, not the geometry, it was in the construction, probably brazing as the root cause.
So it goes.
My geometry / alignment test btw, ride no-hands down a grade for a spell, coast even, only the best don't start to speed wobble. Give me that one.

79pmooney

This is tough to quantify because so much of this is ME. I have bikes that when I get on them after not riding them for a long time feel dead but wake up as I spend more time on them.

I raced a fairly flexible Fuji Pro. Skinny tubes. 59 cm so the smallest frame with the heavier tubing. Real flex with the BB foot push test. I spent a lot of time on that bike, loved it and loved its feel. Never felt it needed anything to be faster (outside a bigger engine). My Mooney, with its much longer chainstays and lot bigger clearances, didn't feel as good. Well not until I set it up fix gear almost 40 years later. My ti bikes might be too stiff, but they are fun! Both put out everything I put in. My ti fix gear felt like a fast machine when dialed it up to finish a century a couple of summers ago. (Rode 16 miles to get to it.)

For "springy" I have never had a bike as much so as my 531 '73 Raleigh Competition with its narrow super long butted chainstays and skinny forks. Fun! Too flexible to be truly fast but still! (That frame is also really light!)

Ben

79pmooney

Planing. This bugs me. I'm an engineer and I've both studied and experienced planing. Planing is a well defined phenomenon, BUT!!! bicycles don't do it. Ever. Boats and automobiles plan. Boats by design and intent for high speed, cars by poor driving and bald tires for low control. Constructive resonant flex in a structure is not "planing". I'm not saying that it doesn't happen. Just use another word, please! (A major university with an A+ engineering program received a lot of money to teach me what planing really is.)



Ben

Lascauxcaveman 

Yes, Mechanical Engineering has a great deal to do with how a bicycle frame responds to input.

But seriously, most of my bikes feel pretty springy when I'm in good shape. I've only owned a couple over the years that felt like real duds, regardless. The current dud I have in my stable I think would be be fine if I weighed around 170 instead of 205.

And I get what you're saying about planing, since I've been driving powerboats and sailing sailboats in stiff winds since I was 10 years old. And I feel that 'thing' with a good, light bike, with good tires on a smooth stretch of road where things become less effortful at good speed, but I don't think I'd call it planing, per se. It's really something else.

Pull quote from the Jan Heine blog post linked to above: "Our tests indicate that more powerful riders may benefit from (slightly) stiffer frames. It all depends on your pedal stroke and power output." That sounds pretty reasonable.

79pmooney

I wasn't thinking Mechanical Engineering! Good one. But if you want to learn about real planing, become a Naval Architect. NA. (If you want to improve the propulsion, controls and systems, the other ME, Marine Engineering. And the 'name' for those schools that teach both? NAME. But pronounced nay-me.)

Ben

RiddleOfSteel

@79pmooney don't worry, I only mentioned planing as it had been discussed before, much to the fractured (lack of?) conclusion. Mostly in a humorous light as it was a discussion of unquantifiable feeling. Planing does not figure into this at all.

@Andy K this is just on the acceleration end of things. I consider "planing" to be an 'at speed' feeling, and not a getting-up-to-speed feeling. That was a big reason I focused the list of variables to what is in between one's feet and the road, via the rear wheel (the rear wheel, chainstay and thus tubing, and crankset). No need to think into deep levels--a frame and bike setup will let you know when its in tune with the way you accelerate quickly (to say nothing of during quick riding). And I think you've understood it--your Sequoia with the "could be nicer" wheels alludes to your understanding of when things match, they really do, and it's ok to not 'upgrade.'

********

This conversation is going in the direction I was hoping! The Jan Heine article linked by @Scottybigs, with the general sentiment echoed by others, is great, and what I'm getting at. @Dfrost will roll his eyes a bit at me and say "tires tires tires!" I will say "but I can't fit 28's on my Paramount! Slightly kidding, but I enjoy getting nice racy tires for cheap at the co-op.

General themes picked up so far:

1) That darn Reynolds 531 when done right is just magic.
2) 420-430mm (aka not the shortest, raciest) chain stays are a sweet spot.
3) A decent amount of Columbus tubing types/the frame geometries they are built into, are stiff! This I can very much corroborate.

JH's "frame pushes back" line is significant, IMO. I may even say that the frame is "dragging" when accelerating or climbing a hill. JH's comment on a frame feeling fine at a certain effort level or cadence, but quickly falling off if either effort or cadence is not maintained; is also significant. Same with frames being too light! Frame, rider, and road continually "talk" to each other, with the frame as the intermediary. Too light a bike, and the road tells the frame what to think/feel, and thus the rider only "hears" the road's opinion. Too heavy a bike and the rider can suffer. Too heavy a rider and the bike can suffer. But I digress.

My Peloton has felt the most jack rabbit-like up hills with largely the same setup as I have currently, save for Michelin Lithion 23mm folding tires and a 5mm shorter stem. Everything else was identical. Currently there is "push back" of sorts out of the saddle going up hills. The frame has always felt light and rigid, if a touch nervous. Columbus SL with an SP downtube, there you go. Also, those Vuelta wheels seem to affect bikes differently.

This makes me want to run 175mm cranks on my older '74 Paramount, preferably with a modern groupset. Even with heavy Kenda white walls, that interactive 531 tubing with 434mm chain stays feels really good.

********

Final thought of the night:

Perhaps there is an optimal "give" amount in a frame/wheel/tire setup? This would be per size, and thus proportional, of course. Does a setup where everything gives fairly evenly give the same result as say a vintage Cannondale SR with deep section wheels and under-inflated tires? Or is it really almost on a frame-by-frame basis (the quality of the mitering and brazing)?

As always, thanks guys. Keep it coming!

masi61

Interesting thread - “RiddleOfSteel”.

A few observations: You’ve got a couple of steel bikes and a couple of aluminum bikes. You are able to discern subtle differences in feel and responsiveness between them. At your height and weight I could see where the aluminum bikes could potentially be higher performing.

I’m 5’11.5” & my weight is variable between ~180-220#.

I have a steel Saint Tropez (generic Japanese mid 1980’s road frame eerily identical to certain Specialized or Centurian Iron Man frames from this era) with 56 square geometry (center to center both top and seat tube). The seat stays are a standard (it seems 405 or 410mm). It has Ishiwata “EX” triple butted chromoly main tubes. The fork is Tange chromoly. It is my most comfortable steed. But the others are not far off. I would say that the bottom bracket on this bike does have flex based on my average speeds recorded on my favorite country loop of ~42++ miles. Typically my average is 0.5 to 1.0 mph slower on this bike.

My club rider is a size 56 Flyte SRS3 aluminum. This stiff aluminum frame took me nearly 10 years to optimize! When unfit, I would say it has an uninspiring ride. I knew I was on to something when I sized myself on a smaller frame years ago using the Saint Tropez as an inexpensive fit experiment.

You have opened up a huge can of worms with this thread due to such a large number of geometries, materials and sizing decisions to be made. This is the essence of being a cyclist. Obtaining this kinesthetic knowledge is more intuitive for some whereas others struggle with it.

I’m going to tell you that age 55, I have learned to seek more compact, more racy geometry as opposed to more endurance or touring type geometry. I went smaller after reading Greg Lemond’s “Complete Book of Bicycling” over 20 years ago. He gives an algorithm for obtaining the correct frame size in his book that I thought too harsh at the time. In a nutshell (IIRC) you accurately measure your cycling inseam, multiply by .883 to obtain optimal saddle height at 96” leg extension. The chapter on bike fit was very helpful and recommended a size 55 (center to center seat tube) frame. At the time I thought it too racer specific but now think it is spot on. Granted the numbers generated were for horizontal top tube bikes. Nowadays sloping top tube frames are fitted through virtual top tube length. Building a more compact bike permitted the use of a longer seatpost and stem. I do use a 5 degree upward rise Salsa stem on the Saint Tropez to increase comfort for longer more leisurely rides and to make longer intervals on the handlebar drops possible. The stem on the Flyte was mounted upward rise, but the bike didn’t start to come alive until I flipped the stem horizontal (I use shallow drop bars) and worked on fitness and flexibility at the gym. As fitness increases, so does all day comfort on what you might have thought was a more squirrelly or racy steed. Another benefit of a compact is climbing - I thing taller, longer bikes are great for seated climbing if you’re OK with that. But I prefer to climb in an alternating way, shifting my weight back on the saddle while seated part of the time, but then for standing I really like the dynamics of the compact frame to stay flippable when out of the saddle.

So when you talk about “planing” ability - I must concur that this term is too damn confusing and doesn’t quite capture what you’re trying to get at. But props to you for stimulating a lively discussion.

A lot of us classic and vintage road riders can wax poetic for years about our preferred steeds, this is the essence of our hobby. A great combination of biomechanics and fitness - it makes for a rewarding lifelong quest!

USAZorro

I think you hit a major part of it right there (the bolded portion).

All frames - even the stiffest - have some amount of flex. The amount of flex can vary with frame material, frame size, tube thickness, construction of the rear triangle, pedaling cadence and the forces imparted to the frame by the rider (amongst possibly others). Planing is a phenomenon that occurs when the "rebound" of the frame contributes to making the next downstroke. To me, "not planing" is when this doesn't happen, and "dead" is when the rebound works against making the next downstroke.

I believe that individual pedaling style plays a significant role - recognizing that pedaling style may well be different when one is cruising on the flats, spinning up for a sprint, or finding a groove on a lengthy climb. Intuition tells me that the greater the tranverse force that gets applied while pedaling, the greater potential there is for "planing" to occur, so it seems entirely plausible that bike "A" ridden by cyclist "A" may tend to plane while cruising, but not when climbing, and might be "dead" in a sprint. Bike "B" may have different characteristics for cyclist "A", and both those bikes may not produce the same effects for cyclist "B".

No wonder this is so difficult to define and measure. As an older rider whom I greatly respect often says, YMMV - and this particularly so on this topic.

seypat

I think what others refer to as springiness and the P word, I refer to as springiness and the rowing/sculling effect. With the sculling effect, under a hard pedal effort the bike will sink/flex a little, then rebound and lurch forward like a scull/crew boat. At the other end of the spectrum, I have the launch factor. The launch factor refers to the bike being so stiff that if you hit something like a dip/bump/railroad track you stand a good chance of being launched from the bike because the bike will lose contact with the road. As the stiffness of the bike goes up, so does the launch factor. I'm 5'8" 200lbs and ride 54-56 frames. I have 6 vintage bikes/frames. I also have 3 vintage bikes in the 48-52 range for the wife and kids. 2 of those are Mixtes. The tubing spans 531DB, Colombus SL, Tange 1-2, Miyata TBS, etc. One has French tubing. All of the bikes have 32 or 36H rims and roll on Panacer Pasalas from 23-1 1/4" except for one. That one has Conti Grand Prix Classic. Two of the bikes are 1972s. The rest are Japanese and span the 80's decade. Similar saddles on all.

Only 2 of those bikes really have the sculling effect, the 2 1972 bikes. One is a 56 531DB(Crescent 920) and the other is a 54 French bike(Lejeune TDF). Both are 120 spaced and ride HF hubs. The Crescent has DB spokes and narrow 700 Rigida rims/23/25tires. The Lejeune is rocking 14Ga straight spokes and 27" 1 1/4" Wolber 58s. Descending on either of these bikes is a joy. They soak up every bump and dip out there. You can see the front fork working kind of like a suspension. The rest of the bikes don't really have the sink and rebound. They just lurch forward like the are connected to a rail. If you stand you will get a little sink. The launch factor goes up a little also. The Chainstays on the 2 70s bike are not the longest. They are at the long end of the spectrum, however.

At the other end of the spectrum is the 90/91 52 Team Miyata with the Triple Butted Splined tubing, racing geometry and short chainstays. Blue Steel hard crit bike. That bike was acquired for my wife to do Tris/Dus on. Too stiff for her. Unless she is racing, she would rather roll on one of the Mixtes. The launch factor is high with the Miyata. I also have a Miyata 912 with the same tubing. I gives a different ride. Not as harsh. I also have a 56 Lotus Legend Compe with racing geometry and short chainstays. I haven't ridden it yet. The new rims for it, which I ordered on 11/10/17, just came in 2 days ago. It's winter time and I am a patient person.

Draw your own conclusions. Maybe the 72 bikes were built for the crappy roads of Europe at the time. Maybe it is the 120 spacing or the High Flange hubs. I personally think 2 wheelsets with identical components except HF/LF, the HF wheelset always rides better. Maybe it is a combo of all of that. Both of the 72 bikes wear the World Champion Stripes. Maybe those companies knew what they were doing. Hard to say.

seypat

Since we are talking about it, what about under braking conditions? People are only talking about accelerating. The 2 bikes I mentioned above also have some sink and rebound under hard braking as well.

masi61

Wow - sink & rebound under heavy braking? This doesn’t sound too safe, can you elaborate?

seypat

It's like in a car or on a motorcycle. When the brakes are hit hard, they grip and there is a slight compression of the whole system as it is slowing down. Let off the brakes, slight decompression. Same as pumping the brakes on an automobile. Not a safety hazard. Now that I have mentioned it, I'm guessing others will notice it also.

Salamandrine 

I will be the cynical one. Intangible is fine for art, music, even religion. I prefer bicycles to be tangible. They are machines. Planing is as real as leprechauns. I'll believe it when I see some actual data -- not double blind subjective tests.

For me, springy bikes have always been the worst climbers. But it's a more complicated question than that. Vertically compliant ("springy") bikes can climb fine. Laterally stiff bikes always climb better. My Mercian touring bike is 725OS, and it seems to climb better than any of my other bikes, even though it has a long wheelbase and soft Cadillac ride.

masi61

This is where a stiff front end of the bike comes in. I’m excited about the potential for increased fork stiffness on newer designs that use a 1.5” lower bearing. I have had slippage issues leading to slop in the bearings on my Reynolds Ouzo pro 1-1/8” fork. I finally got the problem traced to a faulty fork plug that slipped, preventing sufficient “pre-load” on the headset bearings. Once these are set correctly the frame and fork act like a complete entity again.

HTupolev

The BQ double-blind tests included note-taking, but were not subjective tests in themselves. They were tracking rider power.