>From: chuang\@micro (Michael Chuang)
Subject: Re: TREK advice wanted

The person who objected to the garish color scheme of the 2300 has my
complete agreement.

=====================================================================
>From cbnewsj!att!cs.rice.edu!shenry
Subject:  re: MORE OPINIONS WANTED

You might be better off with a very functional but less expensive
Miyata 914/916 or Bridgestone RB-1 or Bianchi Alfana.
These are all exceptionally good entry level racers.  Once you get to
Cat 3, you might be ready for a decision on a higher level racer, even
custom, based on your racing style, interests, etc.

All three of these bikes have good components and cost considerably less
than what you are looking at so far.  They all three have slight 
differences between them in design that one of them ought to do you.
=====================================================================
>From: cbnewsj!att!sunee.uwaterloo.ca!prtaetzel
Subject:  re: MORE OPINIONS WANTED

That Trek model might as well be made of lead.  I was looking at one 
and was surprised to find that it was as heavey as stell (ie 1lb heavier
than my Klein).  I would suggest the 'Dale.  They are nice light bikes.
DOn't beleive the hype about a harsh, brutal ride.  My Klein rides like
any other bike I have been on; but it does not have any flex at the
bottom bracket when you pedal.

===================================================================

>From ay Wed Aug 12 10:15:41 CDT 1992 cs.rice.edu (Sam Henry)
To: b.katz\@mtsol.att.com, bk\@mtsol.att.com
Subject: re: MORE OPINIONS WANTED

the RB-1 has gained a strong word-of-mouth reputation at places like
this forum.
The importer does not confine himself to complete groups for the
Bridgestone frames.  He has been very effective mixing and matching
within a manufacturer's stuff.  The result is an extremely good bike
at a very reasonable price.  Don't be surprised to see 600 ultegra
derailleurs and 500EX cranks.
Also, Bridgestone has done a good job with the geometry--slack angles
and longer top tubes, for example.  Good road bike, pretty good time 
trialer.  Might want something else for Criteriums.  That's why I 
recommended two or three bikes to look at, since they are all a little 
different.  One I may have forgotten to mention (sins on my head) is
the Schwinn Paramount PDG-series.  Not the custom Paramount OS bikes,
but the ones made in Japan (-3, -5, -7).  Another variation on
geometry, and a damned good bike.  I like everything about it except the
geometry.  Well built, good component selection, etc.

Sam
=====================================================================
>From att!Teradyne.COM!lewa Wed Aug 12 10:04:26 PDT 1992 remote from mtsol
From: lewa\@Teradyne.COM (Albert Lew)
To: b.katz\@mtsol.att.ect: re: MORE OPINIONS WANTED

Hi,

>Question:  What does "Decent geometry" or "poor geometry >    Isn't it directly related to comfort and handling (which you also
  >   comment on)?  This has been particularly confusing to me.
  
Chris Moll (a fellow netter) and myself (both proud owners of Mikkelsen custom
bicycles) have some disagreements on these points.

My opinion is that comfort is primarily related to the frame material, because
I've noticed a definite difference between the three road frames I've owned:
Raleigh Technium, Trek 2000, and the Mikkelsen (made of Excell tubing - some-
thing like French Columbus EL - very light, with very thin walls), even though
the I've ridden all of them with MA-40s and high thread count, kevlar beaded
tires (700x23C) at some point.

The Raleigh feels very dead (no liveliness), the Trek is too jittery, and the
Mikkelsen absorbs the bumps yet provides excellent tactile feedback when
descending and sprinting.

Chris claims that comfort is mostly due to tire inflation and rim type.  He
argues that a Matrix ISO-C rim with an 18c tire is going to be much more un-
forgiving than an GEL330 sewup with a 25C tires.  This is true, but I think
that certain bikes such as Cannondales and Treks are simply uncomfortable,
no matter what the geometry or rim/tire combination.

As for handling, it is related to geometry, but only in theory.  In general,
bikes with steeper head angles will steer faster, and bikes with slacker head
angles will steer slower.  Assume the fork rake (amount of curve in the fork)
is about the same regardless of head angle (this is generally the case).
I prefer slack head angles because I can fine tune my way through corners, and
Chris prefers steep head angles because he wants instant response.  In both
cases, we think that our Mikkelsens have excellent handling.  Good handling
is a result of several factors, including alignment and geometry.

Alignment is simply a question of how straight the bike is.  There can be
many things wrong, such as the rear triangle being bent to the left or right,
the bottom bracket not being perpendicular to the top tube, etc, etc.  Lugs
do not guarantee good alignment, but they can help.  A Mikkelsen or Richard
Sachs will handle better than any production bike, even if they have the same
geometry, because the customs are built with more care and are straighter than
production jobs.  Cannondales are not aligned that well, because they fall out
of aligment in the heat treating process.  Trek's AL/carbon lugset isn't that
well aligned, either, because I've noticed some problems in the bike's 
handling around corners.  A well aligned bike will ride very neutrally.  It's
only tendency is to do whatever you tell it to do.

The overall geometry of the bike is important too, because your weight 
distribution affects the handling of the bike.  Having a really long stem on
a bike is a disadvantage, because you've got to put in alot more input at the
handlebars, which is harder to do since more of your weight is out there in 
the first place.  So longer top tubes help reduce your stem length, which 
improves the handling.  And unless you're comfortable, the bike won't handle
well, period.

When I'm talking about decent geometry, I'm primarily talking about top
tube length and seat angle.  Slacker seat angles and longer top tubes should
be de rigeur for most bike manufacturers, but they are not.  :-(  Most people
cannot fit themselves correctly on a production bike.  If they think they can,
they often reevaluate this opinion after riding a bike for a year or two.  For
the first time rider, the "flat back" position is uncomfortably low.  For 
someone who rmiles/week, the "flat back" position is the most
agreeable pos, and it is only possible with Anyway, I've flamed enough.  Again, I recommend the RB-1 as a fine example of
a nicely built, nicely designed steel bike, at a nice price.  (Unlike my 
Mikkelsen, whose frame costs as much as an RB-1. :-(


albert
========================================================================