MX Leader vs Arcobaleno vs Corsa Extra ride characteristics?

[oldpotatoe]

Originally Posted by parallelfish

Boy, you aren't kidding! Following the first descent of Glendora Mountain Road on my MXL I had a grin on my face for the rest of the week.

It should be mentioned while comparing MXLeaders and Corsa/Corsa Extras, saying a MXL descends 'the best', doesn't mean the other descend poorly, cuz they don't. Something about Merckx, I had a Simoncini, SLX, same dimension as Merckx, lugged and it rode like crappola.

[velofinds]

Good thread -- raises a couple of questions on my end:

- any MXL feedback from shorter riders? E.g., anyone riding a 52-54cm? The conventional wisdom (not necessarily expressed here) seems to suggest these bikes might be bone-jarring in that size
- does the Corsa Extra ride dramatically different from SLX-tubed Italian bikes of similar vintage? (EDIT: I guess oldpotatoe answered this question; any other opinions?)

Oh and weisan,

Originally Posted by weisan

That's not this bike, is it? I see you are in Austin.. that frame was being offered in Austin..

[weisan]

Leegf pal, yes it is! I even gave you credit for it.
http://forums.thepaceline.net/showthread.php?t=180576

[velofinds]

Originally Posted by weisan

Leegf pal, yes it is! I even gave you credit for it.
http://forums.thepaceline.net/showthread.php?t=180576

Awesome! So happy to see someone here get it. And thanks for the mention

[jmoore]

Originally Posted by msl819

remind me... yours does or does not have the MXL fork? It seems like I have inquired about your before.

No MXL fork. It has a Della Santa fork painted to match.

I should have never sold that MXL fork I had.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

[lhuerta]

Originally Posted by leegf

- does the Corsa Extra ride dramatically different from SLX-tubed Italian bikes of similar vintage? (EDIT: I guess oldpotatoe answered this question; any other opinions?)

...how a Corsa or Corsa Extra rides compared to other bikes of the same era, will be a geometry related issue and a fit issue, and obviously, tubing also has something to do with it. Comparing a Corsa Extra (built primarily in Merckx's steeper "Racing Geometry" ) will yield a different fit and ride when compared to an MXL (in Merckx Century laid back geometry) which also included slightly longer wheelbase.

The point being that tubing type has to be weighed together with and not independent of fit and geo.

[velofinds]

Originally Posted by lhuerta

...how a Corsa or Corsa Extra rides compared to other bikes of the same era, will be a geometry related issue and a fit issue, and obviously, tubing also has something to do with it. Comparing a Corsa Extra (built primarily in Merckx's steeper "Racing Geometry" ) will yield a different fit and ride when compared to an MXL (in Merckx Century laid back geometry) which also included slightly longer wheelbase.

The point being that tubing type has to be weighed together with and not independent of fit and geo.

Nice information, thanks. In that image, why would the Century and not the supposedly racier Corsa Extra be optimized for a greater power-to-weight ratio? Presumably, a racer would care more about (and be more impacted by) this than a recreational rider would, no? Seems a bit counterintuitive to me, unless the idea was to give recreational riders an advantage that racers are (were) expected to provide themselves.

[TronnyJenkins]

Sweet graphic. That's actually pretty helpful.

[wallymann]

Originally Posted by christian

Many of the mid-nineties models suffered from low brake bridges. A 28 in the front was no problem.

yep. i think this was when they started using a more "fast-back" seat-cluster (which brings the seatstays closer together at the top) but used existing inventory of brake-bridges. to get the bridges to fit, they'd tend to run a little lower. my corsa-01 suffers this as well.

[lhuerta]

Originally Posted by leegf

Nice information, thanks. In that image, why would the Century and not the supposedly racier Corsa Extra be optimized for a greater power-to-weight ratio? Presumably, a racer would care more about (and be more impacted by) this than a recreational rider would, no? Seems a bit counterintuitive to me, unless the idea was to give recreational riders an advantage that racers are (were) expected to provide themselves.

...not sure what you mean? I don't think either is more "racier" then the other, both are tools for racing (don't confuse "Century" with recreational....I think that is more modern marketing lingo then what Merckx was intending in the late 80s and early 90s). The Century geo simply provides a bit more laid back STA yielding a shorter reach (in most frame sizes) compared to Corsa's with same TT length, and a better weight balance over the frame. Whether a rider's power-to-weight ratio changes as a results of their position on a century geo frame, well that all depends on whether the century geo was a good fit for them. Which brings me back to my points from earlier posts about fit, geo , etc....

IME, I have owned both a 56cm Corsa (racing geo) and a 56cm Century TSX, because of my body dimensions (long femurs) the century geo is a custom fit for me and the racing geo frame is not. I need a shorter stem on the racing geo frame to match reach and in order to match my setback measrement my saddle is pushed back further on the racing geo frame, negatively effecting my weight balance over the frame, and thus negatively effecting handling. They are both amazing bikes, but one fits me better then the other. Despite the same frame size....same frames with different geo yield different ride charteristics for different riders.

[TronnyJenkins]

Feel free to post more pictures by the way

[wallymann]

this "century" geo diagram and the idea of changing one's position arbitarily for a certain bike is a ridiculous proposition.

why on earth would i take my position, for which i have developed tons of muscle memory, and change it arbitrarily and give away all that trained-in goodness?!

my position is my position, full stop.

if a frame has a slacker or steeper geometry than what i normally ride, then i have to adjust my saddle/stem to compensate so that i can achieve my position.

if someone believes i should change my position, that's a completely different discussion.

[hankchong]

Originally Posted by wallymann

if someone believes i should change my position, that's a completely different discussion.

I think that's what Eddy is advocating, no?

[wallymann]

Originally Posted by hankchong

I think that's what Eddy is advocating, no?

as if that guy knows *anything* about what it takes to be successful on the bike!

[lhuerta]

Originally Posted by wallymann

this "century" geo diagram and the idea of changing one's position arbitarily for a certain bike is a ridiculous proposition.

why on earth would i take my position, for which i have developed tons of muscle memory, and change it arbitrarily and give away all that trained-in goodness?!

There is an important distinction between "positions the rider" and rider position