Ever had a road bike that handled poorly?

[Kontact]

Aside from overly flexible frames, forks or wheels, has anyone had a road race bike that handled poorly? Hard to maneuver accurately, too vague at speed, unable to corner properly, won't hold a line, too twitchy to control, impossible to ride hands off.

What bike was it, was there anything odd about its design and did you figure out why it sucked?

Thanks!

[dddd]

1991 Specialized Epic, size 58 with 10cm stem.
I replaced it with the same bike, 56cm and with 11cm stem, after trying a smaller steel bike and liking the way it descended twisty roads.
Basic problem with the first one (the 58cm) was that I always tended to steer in to the apex too soon, making for a relatively spastic, nervous line through the corner, in two "bites" instead of one sweep.
It was a revelation to me how much of a smoother line and relaxed feel that I had with the smaller frame using a slightly longer stem.
I often descended the hills above Pasadena in those years so the high-speed cornering was a big deal that kept me from getting dropped.

On an odd-ball build, I once put a longer 11cm stem on a 22" Varsity (having 70-degree frame angles), and while the fit was improved, I could hardly steer the thing while off of the saddle. A 10cm (as shown) was a big improvement in terms of steering but not as good of a fit, so I should have started with a larger frame and 9cm stem like I finally tried some years later. The silver one handles well, the green one seems to require much more steering effort. Both are shown below:

https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7059/6832436050_9ebc5b6e30_c.jpg

https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3779/14100992917_8763610fbe_c.jpg


Another bike I had was an older Kestrel road bike, which fit properly but was highly susceptible to even a slight cross-wind. It turned out that the very old, very shallow "aero" rims with the pointy cross-section profile were the culprit, not the bike.

https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7172/6697177369_e7d6bd3001_b.jpg

[Peter P.]

I had a Sterling (the brand name before he switched to Bilenky) sport touring road bike that seemed like it didn't want to change its line. I always swore it had a pitted headset feeling even though the headset was fine. It just didn't feel like you could turn the handlebars.

It wasn't so bad that I wanted to get rid of the bike, but that's how it felt.

When it was stolen and replaced with another Bilenky sport touring bike, the new bike didn't have those qualities. Go figure.

[palincss]

I had a Sterling (the brand name before he switched to Bilenky) sport touring road bike that seemed like it didn't want to change its line. I always swore it had a pitted headset feeling even though the headset was fine. It just didn't feel like you could turn the handlebars.


It's surprising how even a slightly overly-tight head set can screw up your steering.

[19wisconsin64]

Back in the 80's I got a Trek 660 frameset and built it up. It was a "sport" frame. Somehow it never dawned on me that this frame was never meant to be part of a fast handling bike, and was meant more for meandering about on two wheels.

While it was great at holding a straight line, the head tube angles were such that it handled extremely slowly. On top of that the front fork would do two bizarre things - bob up and down like big spring over bumps in a very harsh uncomfortable way, and transmit said bumps as vibrations through my entire upper torso. Painful.

Trek made a lot of other bikes which were quite good back in the day, but this was not one of them. The current Trek Domane frameset I ride has little to to with my old frameset made in Waterloo, Wisconsin other than being designed there-but it's amazing.

[oldpotatoe]

Aside from overly flexible frames, forks or wheels, has anyone had a road race bike that handled poorly? Hard to maneuver accurately, too vague at speed, unable to corner properly, won't hold a line, too twitchy to control, impossible to ride hands off.

What bike was it, was there anything odd about its design and did you figure out why it sucked?

Thanks!

About 1988 or so Simoncini got from Excel...mix of heavy feeling, vague, soft, dead feeling...SLX but it was awful..never figured out why it was so bad..cut it up and made a stool..

[rockdude]

Litespeed Vortex, death wobble at speed.

[commonguy001]

I had a Titus Ti FCR that had been a custom team bike (don't remember the team but maybe RDS cycling) I bought on the cheap back around 2003/04. It was pretty much perfect size wise but for whatever reason that thing was the most uncomfortable and jenky handling bike I've ever owned. Ended up that the head tube races weren't parallel so had that fixed and it helped some but it was still not great. Also, try and find a shop that is willing to use their tools on a Ti frame... it wasn't easy but I found a guy up for the challenge who apparently didn't care if he was going to ruin the blades.

The angles didn't seem too odd either with just under 74 HTA and 72.5 STA... the down tube was pretty massive so that probably played into the lack of comfort and it was a bit of a tank at around 4 pounds for a 58cm frame completely stripped.

Sold it to a guy locally, after it'd been in my house for a good decade, who put it on eBay right away. No idea if he made any money but I doubt it was much after fees and all that.

[zap]

Bicycles I've ridden with pinned (above do) rear stay's with the Serotta ST (w/bearing) design the worst of all.

Litespeed Catalyst.........terrible at speed as the rear chain stays were far too soft.

All bicycles tested with too short stems and too wide handlebars.

[carpediemracing]

Unique to my fit but I have a very long front center (75.5 STA, 56.5 TT, 40 cm c-c seat tube with sloping top tube frame so about a 48 cm level top tube size).

With such a long front center, and a position with 0-4mm set back, the 405mm stays were way too long. Even coasting through turns I could get the back end to chatter across the road.

I had my second frame built with 390mm stays, then altered the original frame to "short as possible" 393mm stays. Now much better, rear end is planted all the time.

So if long front center with little setback then short chainstays.

[duff_duffy]

2nd one to mention Litespeed Vortex. If you don’t understand the term noodley, get one and you will! One of the few titanium bikes I did not enjoy owning.

[MattTuck]

If you have a poorly handling bike, try putting a dime down the seat tube. Sometimes it takes 2 or 3. can radically change the balance of the bike and improve handling. ;) ;) :rolleyes::banana:

[jm714]

I have a custom steel frame. The left rear was slightly out of alignment and when i went to build it it up I couldn’t get the rear wheel in without jamming it in. I don’t know if the builder let it out that way or if it got bent when it was shipped to me. I sent it back and got it straightened out without any issues. However, I can’t lift my hands off the bars without that bike diving left on me. Otherwise it rides great and I really enjoy riding it until I sit up and let go.

[longlist]

i had a trek 2200 that was horrible. it never rode straight and your couldn't ride it no handed. the fit was fine but it was horrible. the seat tightening area broke twice too. i stopped by trek in wisconsin. spoke to the owner. they looked at it and said it was fine. forgot to put the bearings in the headset and didnt put it back together right.

[FlashUNC]

Serotta Fierte. All the liveliness and personality of a fully loaded garbage truck.

[David Tollefson]

Almost every production frame I've ever owned has had... "character" in regards to handling issues. Mostly in a tendency to pull to one side when riding no-handed (and no, it wasn't always the same direction). My first real roadie, a Trek 560 back in the early 80's (I think it was an 83) had vicious speed wobble until I replaced the wheels with some Mavic Open 4CDs laced to Sprint hubs.

[Ken Robb]

Serotta Fierte. All the liveliness and personality of a fully loaded garbage truck.

Gee, I never owned one but I did a 10 mile demo ride and thought it was fine. I like a relaxed position and value high-speed stability over quick steering.

[wallymann]

worst handling bike on the planet. rode these in NYC...i was shocked...they are unsafe!

https://www.motivateco.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Motivate-Bike_Silhouette-1024x669.png

[C40_guy]

I've had two. The first was my first "high-end" bike, all Campy Nuovo Record. Proteus Designs frame, bought off the rack.

I rode it for a couple of years, didn't know it was lacking. Then I took a friend's Holdsworth for a spin, and even though the Holdsworth was too large for me, it felt much more responsive than the Proteus. There wasn't anything wrong with the Proteus, it just didn't have much life to it.

I traded it in on a custom Condor frame, moved all the parts over.

My second was a Colnago Super Pui. Bought cheap, stored at my inlaws house in Florida for visits. It also felt lifeless...and it didn't seem to want to turn much. If it had been my first Colnago, I wouldn't have bought another. I didn't have much money into it, and I only rode it a few days a year, so it served its purpose. I sold it recently for about what I paid for it 15 years ago.

[wallymann]

...However, I can’t lift my hands off the bars without that bike diving left on me. Otherwise it rides great and I really enjoy riding it until I sit up and let go.

i had a colnago ovalmaster...loved the bike except for its propensity to seek out the nearest ditch the moment i took my hands off the bars. after several years of generally positive ownership, memorable rides, and generally great handling, i'd just had enough of that peculiar behaviour. replaced it with with a colnago master, same rabobank colorway, so i'm good!

[FlashUNC]

Gee, I never owned one but I did a 10 mile demo ride and thought it was fine. I like a relaxed position and value high-speed stability over quick steering.

I'm glad somebody liked it. Wasn't for me at all.

[old_fat_and_slow]

About 1988 or so Simoncini got from Excel...mix of heavy feeling, vague, soft, dead feeling...SLX but it was awful..never figured out why it was so bad..cut it up and made a stool..

You bought a bike from your cross-town competitor?? :eek: Did Vecchio's not exist at the time?

Those Simoncini's were sweet looking with all that chrome. I almost pulled the trigger on one of those several times.

[benb]

Give me access to your best handling bike + shoes and some wrenches and I bet I can make some adjustments that you won't be able to easily see that will wreck the handling.

IME little fit problems can totally ruin the handling. Same with moving your cleats a little. Just have your cleats offset a teeny bit and your pedal stroke will pull your pelvis off center and mess all kinds of stuff up.

Put too much setback on the saddle and you'll feel the front end start feeling weird.

I pretty much have never had any bike that actually handled badly in a way that was worse than the fit getting screwed up even a little bit.

The two things I have seen, but one of them wasn't on a road bike:

- Whippy front front forks that would bend enough to chatter under hard braking. We're talking 1980s/1990s cheap steel forks on MTBs with Cantis though.

- I had a Giant TCR Composite in 2004.. IIRC this was pretty early in composite production of the TCR. It was soft enough side to side and torsionally it could wind up and skip the rear wheel pushing the bike over really hard in crit cornering. Just a trait of the bike though, never caused me to crash or anything but other guys would remark on it following me through corners! Anything under 8/10ths cornering and it was totally fine and the lack of stiffness never impacted pedaling though all of us would think it was a pretty flexy BB compared to modern carbon and even most Ti frames which are not as stiff as typical modern carbon.

When I ordered a custom Serotta Concours in 2007 the whole process was FUBAR and the LBS managed to convince me to buy a bike that was too big and no one at Serotta called them out on it. It was an amazing testament to Serotta that bike handled great despite clearly being too big.

[parris]

I had an early 80's Trek 770 I bought as a frameset that on paper had all the right numbers to work. It was the only bike I've owned that had a shimmy that I could induce at will. It was also one of the few bikes I've been on that just didn't give anything back. No snap or life.

[Kontact]

Unique to my fit but I have a very long front center (75.5 STA, 56.5 TT, 40 cm c-c seat tube with sloping top tube frame so about a 48 cm level top tube size).

With such a long front center, and a position with 0-4mm set back, the 405mm stays were way too long. Even coasting through turns I could get the back end to chatter across the road.

I had my second frame built with 390mm stays, then altered the original frame to "short as possible" 393mm stays. Now much better, rear end is planted all the time.

So if long front center with little setback then short chainstays.

This sounds like a problem from a lack of saddle set back rather than too much front center.

[Seamus]

worst handling bike on the planet. rode these in NYC...i was shocked...they are unsafe!

https://www.motivateco.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Motivate-Bike_Silhouette-1024x669.png

Judging by the weaving riders do on these on bike paths, this is the correct answer. I try to give them a wide berth.

[zennmotion]

Waterford 2200 cyclocross steel lugged f/f. In fairness, it was a cross bike so road handling is a little compromised, but it really wasn't fun at speeds above 20mph, cornered badly and was even worse on a CX race course, front end felt very imprecise and unsure. The geometry and even carefully measuring the alignment gave no clues- it should have fit, standard 56square and the front end, while a longer trail measure than I'm used to (~63mm as close as I could measure) still not anything extreme. I bought it used, originally built as a stock frame for show display so it shoulda been completely average in design and handling. In addition the cable guides were mounted at the head tube/DT junction and the cables pulled on the canti brakes when the wheel was turned more than 30deg or so, even sometimes causing inadvertent braking on tight CX turns. I never really understood why it sucked, I ebay'ed it to someone in Canada who wrote me later that he really loves it- go figure...

So if a metallic gold colored lugged Waterford cross bike in 56cm shows up on Craigslist/Alberta or Ebay don't be tempted. It's possessed and not in a good way.

[parco]

I had a lugged LandShark that would go into a speed wobble even on gentle hills. It wasn't that great on flat land either.

[zennmotion]

You bought a bike from your cross-town competitor?? :eek: Did Vecchio's not exist at the time?

Those Simoncini's were sweet looking with all that chrome. I almost pulled the trigger on one of those several times.

Did you not see what he did there? he said the bike sucked. Crazy like a fox:cool:

[donevwil]

This won't go over well, but the worst handling bike I've ever owned was a 1990 (maybe '89?, '91?) Serotta Nova Special X (or was it an nhx?) in 62L. I don't remember, only owned it for about a month.

Fit was the closest stock frame I could find and it was beautiful, but at anything above 35 mph it would begin to shimmy like the devil. New frameset, brought back to the shop for a check and all was deemed A-ok. After another week I stripped it, returned it to the shop who sent it back to Serotta for eval. Again all was deemed A-ok, built it up again and no change. Returned it to the shop for a full refund.

Ended up going custom with almost identical geo, tubes (SPX) and all the same components. Everything was great. Never did determine what the he!! was going on.

[GregL]

I had a circa 2001 Cannondale CAAD3 that, in its OEM form, was a fine bike. Happily rode and raced it for five seasons. A few years into owning the bike, I replaced the stock, 1" steel steerer, carbon legged fork with a Reynolds Ouzo Pro. While the weight dropped nicely, the combination of a good frame with a good fork equaled a mediocre bike. The stiffness balance from front to rear was altered to the point where the bike just wasn't as good a handler, especially down steep hills. Around the same time, the Jerk wrote some excellent posts about front/rear stiffness balance. His explanations were a lightbulb moment for me regarding bike design and handling. All my bikes since then were purchased with F/R stiffness balance as part of the evaluation criteria.

Greg

[Mark McM]

For bikes that weren't actually bent or broken, I can't say I've had a road bike that had truly unacceptable handling. I've had a bike or two whose response and handling weren't what I preferred, but none that couldn't be compensated for. The vast majority of the stability and handling come from the rider, not the bike (unless it is actually bent or broken).

The closest I've come to unacceptably handling bikes are these:

I have a 2002 Litespeed Ghisallo. At the time, this was the lightest production frame (only 865 grams), and these 1st year models are notorious for being very flexy. This bike doesn't track as well my other bikes, and it is more prone to being knocked offline by road imperfections. It also has a bit of wobble at speeds over 40 mph. But I've never let it slow me down on descents (I just damp out the wobble by gripping the top tube between my knees).

My Redline Conquest (cyclocross) bike had poor steering response, and tended to oversteer (somewhat like steering flop). It turned out that the head tube was not faced well, and the way the headset bearings were cocked made it want to oversteer when leaned to the side. Once the headset was faced properly, the handling was fixed.

My Columbus SLX (steel) Nobilette developed a tendency to want to turn left when ridden no hands. The steering seemed to be just fine when riding with hands on the bars. Leaning the bike to the right when no-handed would make the bike track straight, but it was annoying to ride with a constant lean when no-handed. It turned out that one of the fork blades was misaligned. After I had the fork straightened, it tracked straight and true when riding no-handed.

[Tickdoc]

cut it up and made a stool..

:banana:

[David Tollefson]

- Whippy front front forks that would bend enough to chatter under hard braking. We're talking 1980s/1990s cheap steel forks on MTBs with Cantis though.


Oh, if we're adding BRAKING into the mix, I'll have to say every bike I've ever had that sported canti brakes. Every. One.

But in the fork department, I'll add this: My second custom bike ever was a TiCycles Softride (1991-ish time frame). I had it originally spec'ed with a nice, light carbon fork, a Trek model, if I remember right. Went through a couple crits with it, and it was okay. Nothing special. Then I did a long TT with it... And it had scary, totally uncontrollable death wobble at anything over 30. As in the bars were steady but the front wheel was shaking side to side a good 8" or so. Obviously my race result sucked, and my confidence in the bike was completely undermined. I had the fork replaced with a Kestrel EMS, and it was the most rock-solid handler at any speed, even with the Specialized Tri-Spokes front and rear.

[Kontact]

Oh, if we're adding BRAKING into the mix, I'll have to say every bike I've ever had that sported canti brakes. Every. One.

But in the fork department, I'll add this: My second custom bike ever was a TiCycles Softride (1991-ish time frame). I had it originally spec'ed with a nice, light carbon fork, a Trek model, if I remember right. Went through a couple crits with it, and it was okay. Nothing special. Then I did a long TT with it... And it had scary, totally uncontrollable death wobble at anything over 30. As in the bars were steady but the front wheel was shaking side to side a good 8" or so. Obviously my race result sucked, and my confidence in the bike was completely undermined. I had the fork replaced with a Kestrel EMS, and it was the most rock-solid handler at any speed, even with the Specialized Tri-Spokes front and rear.

Canti chatter is generally from having a long cable drop from the top of the headset. Using a fork mounted cable stop and the problem magically disappears.

[benb]

Oh, if we're adding BRAKING into the mix, I'll have to say every bike I've ever had that sported canti brakes. Every. One.



Might have to agree with you on this now that you put it that way. Which is what always blows my mind about certain segments of riders still trying to tell us Cantis are the bees knees all these years later. Whether it's cross racers, touring riders, rando people.

My All City Space Horse had all the shuddery fork/canti issues with cantis. It's like a new bike with Mini-Vs.

It's like there was a segment of riders on cantis trying to get tons of braking power (MTB riders) and a segment that only really cared about clearance and wasn't as worried about brake performance, and your feelings about the brakes depends on which camp you came out of.

[Kontact]

Might have to agree with you on this now that you put it that way. Which is what always blows my mind about certain segments of riders still trying to tell us Cantis are the bees knees all these years later. Whether it's cross racers, touring riders, rando people.

My All City Space Horse had all the shuddery fork/canti issues with cantis. It's like a new bike with Mini-Vs.

It's like there was a segment of riders on cantis trying to get tons of braking power (MTB riders) and a segment that only really cared about clearance and wasn't as worried about brake performance, and your feelings about the brakes depends on which camp you came out of.

The Mini-Vs cured the shudder the same way this device does, by getting rid of the long cable drop from the stem:

https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1403/7343/products/ca15089-2_1600x.jpg?v=1471028376

It has little to do with forks or brake design.

[shinomaster]

About 1988 or so Simoncini got from Excel...mix of heavy feeling, vague, soft, dead feeling...SLX but it was awful..never figured out why it was so bad..cut it up and made a stool..

I remember seeing those in Excel catalogs! I was in High school and they looked beautiful to my eyes.

My Serotta Atlanta from 1999 is just heavy and sluggish. It's nimble in some ways, but for my riding style, it was over built.

[colker]

The Mini-Vs cured the shudder the same way this device does, by getting rid of the long cable drop from the stem:

https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1403/7343/products/ca15089-2_1600x.jpg?v=1471028376

It has little to do with forks or brake design.

Yes. You are right. Suntour has a neat pivot that does the same thing...

[Mark McM]

It has little to do with forks or brake design.

Well, except that the chatter was caused by flexing of the part of the fork (crown and steerer) that connected the stem mounted hanger and the brake arms. Using a fork crown mounted cable hanger removes the fork steerer from the equation.

[Kontact]

Well, except that the chatter was caused by flexing of the part of the fork (crown and steerer) that connected the stem mounted hanger and the brake arms. Using a fork crown mounted cable hanger removes the fork steerer from the equation.

I don't think it is cause by the crown flexing. My MTB has a stout rigid aluminum fork and it shudders. The flex is from the fact that the brake arms have play on their mounting posts and are flexible themselves. The brakes try to move with the rim until the cable angle changes the way the brake pads engage the rim and they skip, then repeat. Shorten the cable and the brakes can't move forward as far with the rim.

It is a similar problem to the Scott Self Energizing brakes - the variable brake tension causes oscillation.

[sandyrs]

Not a road bike but I've owned more than one cross bike that handled terribly. One felt impossible to turn, while the other felt unstable and "floppy" in corners.

[Mark McM]

I don't think it is cause by the crown flexing. My MTB has a stout rigid aluminum fork and it shudders. The flex is from the fact that the brake arms have play on their mounting posts and are flexible themselves. The brakes try to move with the rim until the cable angle changes the way the brake pads engage the rim and they skip, then repeat.

If the problem was flex or play of the brake arms or the mounting posts, then moving the cable hanger mounting location from the top of the steerer to the crown wouldn't solve the problem. If moving the cable hanger mount from the top of the steerer to the crown solves the problem, then the problem must be between the top of the steerer and the crown.

It has long been known and accepted that the majority of (fore-aft) fork flex occurs in the steerer. After all, the steerer experiences the largest bending moments. Under braking forces, the steerer flexes (in bending), causing a difference in the distance between the cable hanger and the brake posts. This obviously causes a change in the brake actuation, and results in the brake pad catch and release that is the cause of chattering.

This was also explained in this VeloNews Technical Q&A article (http://www.velonews.com/2010/09/news/cyclocross/technical-qa-with-lennard-zinn-return-to-cross_101807).

[kingpin75s]

If the problem was flex or play of the brake arms or the mounting posts, then moving the cable hanger mounting location from the top of the steerer to the crown wouldn't solve the problem. If moving the cable hanger mount from the top of the steerer to the crown solves the problem, then the problem must be between the top of the steerer and the crown.

It has long been known and accepted that the majority of (fore-aft) fork flex occurs in the steerer. After all, the steerer experiences the largest bending moments. Under braking forces, the steerer flexes (in bending), causing a difference in the distance between the cable hanger and the brake posts. This obviously causes a change in the brake actuation, and results in the brake pad catch and release that is the cause of chattering.

This was also explained in this VeloNews Technical Q&A article (http://www.velonews.com/2010/09/news/cyclocross/technical-qa-with-lennard-zinn-return-to-cross_101807).

^ THIS. The steerer.

I had this conversation year's ago with my old mechanic who was previously a designer for Salsa Cycles and who happened to design one of my favorite utility bikes, the Casseroll. I tested this after our discussion with my Lynskey Cooper CX and a Ouzo Pro CX fork (shudder), a Morati Fork (shudder) and a steel Vicious fork (No shudder). I have never had shudder with Canti brakes and a good steel steerer tube.

[shinomaster]

I had a circa 2001 Cannondale CAAD3 that, in its OEM form, was a fine bike. Happily rode and raced it for five seasons. A few years into owning the bike, I replaced the stock, 1" steel steerer, carbon legged fork with a Reynolds Ouzo Pro. While the weight dropped nicely, the combination of a good frame with a good fork equaled a mediocre bike. The stiffness balance from front to rear was altered to the point where the bike just wasn't as good a handler, especially down steep hills. Around the same time, the Jerk wrote some excellent posts about front/rear stiffness balance. His explanations were a lightbulb moment for me regarding bike design and handling. All my bikes since then were purchased with F/R stiffness balance as part of the evaluation criteria.

Greg

The rake, or axle crown measurements could have been off too. I had a Columbus Muscle fork on my Caad4 for years and then I replaced it with a Deda carbon fork and the handleing was just way off. It ruined the bike.

[GregL]

The rake, or axle crown measurements could have been off too. I had a Columbus Muscle fork on my Caad4 for years and then I replaced it with a Deda carbon fork and the handleing was just way off. It ruined the bike.
You are 100% correct that the axle-to-crown distance was greater for the Ouzo Pro. To me, that was barely perceptible. However, the flexy 1" carbon steerer was VERY noticeable. It didn't ruin the handling, but made it much less precise when descending.

Greg

[dddd]

Even though V-brakes came into vogue at around the same time as the thicker 1-1/8" steer tubes, I've ridden bikes with every combination possible of steer tube diameter and brake type. The very worst offenders have had 1" steer tubes and were largely remedied by use of a crown-mounted cable housing stop ("hanger").

As was pointed out earlier by the OP, the flexing of the brake itself can generate some self-energizing action of one sort or another, enough to cause some chatter even with a crown-mounted hanger.

My '87 Jamis Dakar retains some chatter after I changed to a crown-mounted housing stop, though it is much-improved.

[gasman]

Litespeed Catalyst.........terrible at speed as the rear chain stays were far too soft.
.

I still have a Litespeed Catalyst. It's my rain bike so it gets a lot of use. I didn't have any problem for the first 4 or 5 years then it developed wobble on technical descents-i got rid of the OEM Time fork and replaced it with a Kestrel EMS Pro fork. No problems since then. I do agree though that the back end is very soft but that makes for a comfy ride for me.

[foggypeake]

I have a Merckx Majestic that handled like a truck, and I could not figure what was wrong.

Then I found this thread: https://forums.thepaceline.net/showthread.php?t=29455

As Samster described in the thread, I switched the fork to a different rake (from 43mm to 50mm) and it transformed the handling of the bike (please accept my belated gratitude).

[Kontact]

If the problem was flex or play of the brake arms or the mounting posts, then moving the cable hanger mounting location from the top of the steerer to the crown wouldn't solve the problem. If moving the cable hanger mount from the top of the steerer to the crown solves the problem, then the problem must be between the top of the steerer and the crown.

It has long been known and accepted that the majority of (fore-aft) fork flex occurs in the steerer. After all, the steerer experiences the largest bending moments. Under braking forces, the steerer flexes (in bending), causing a difference in the distance between the cable hanger and the brake posts. This obviously causes a change in the brake actuation, and results in the brake pad catch and release that is the cause of chattering.

This was also explained in this VeloNews Technical Q&A article (http://www.velonews.com/2010/09/news/cyclocross/technical-qa-with-lennard-zinn-return-to-cross_101807).

The "problem" is what the cable length allows the brake to do. You could solve this all sorts of difficult ways, or you can simply move the cable stop closer to the brake. No one seems to have problems with rear cantis because the cable is never as long as it is in front, even though seat stays aren't as thick as fork blades.

I just doubt you could solve the shudder with a long cable even if you had the world's stiffest steerer and solid steel fork blades because the canti mounts are purposely loose inside the brakes arms. You could come up with bearings for the brake arms to ride on to take away that play, or you could just not give them all that cable to swing on the end of. Who cares if the crown can flex if you know the canti mounts definitely have several degrees of play in them?

Long brake cable runs are essentially the same kind of problem as driveside spokes - too little bracing angle to control the brake arms moving fore/aft.

[dddd]

I gotta admit that I never considered that the cables played any role in preventing the brake arms moving/flexing front to rear.
Can I ask where that hypothesis originated from?

I've had situations where I needed to control the fore-aft flex at the pads of road calipers using tethers to the fork blades, which had the curious effect of making the brake modulation much, much better by eliminating much of the friction at the pivot(s). So the ball bearings in some caliper's pivots are not superfluous.
But in this case, the tethers were positioned in line with the rim's movement and force past the brake pads.
A transverse cable has virtually no component of it's direction/force vector in line with the braking force, so would seem to be useless in controlling flex caused by actual braking force.

https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7385/12525181645_946cf17ff2_c.jpg

https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/765/22105112255_1e0b99ee94_c.jpg

[Kontact]

I gotta admit that I never considered that the cables played any role in preventing the brake arms moving front to rear.
Can I ask where that hypothesis originated from?


As always, I am just trolling the forum, as you have accused me multiple times.

http://forums.mtbr.com/attachments/cyclocross/781655d1363546863-fork-shudder-chatter-problem-solution-works-me-img_9709.jpg

http://forums.mtbr.com/cyclocross/fork-shudder-chatter-problem-solution-works-me-844303.html

[dddd]

[QUOTE=Kontact;2362099]As always, I am just trolling the forum, as you have accused me multiple times.

That's cool, you can troll your own thread/post all you want and it's fine with us.

[Kontact]

That's cool, you can troll your own thread/post all you want and it's fine with us.

I guess that wasn't clear enough for you:

Your attitude sucks, you don't get to insult me and ask my opinion in alternation. Do no address me any more.

[idrinkwater]

hot takes:
colnago dream: meh all around
my current Merckx corsa: I don't like the ride feel. Could be the fit though.

[gasman]

[QUOTE=Kontact;2362099]As always, I am just trolling the forum, as you have accused me multiple times.

That's cool, you can troll your own thread/post all you want and it's fine with us.


I guess that wasn't clear enough for you:

Your attitude sucks, you don't get to insult me and ask my opinion in alternation. Do no address me any more.


Okay guys lets chill.

[MerckxMad]

"On an odd-ball build, I once put a longer 11cm stem on a 22" Varsity (having 70-degree frame angles), and while the fit was improved, I could hardly steer the thing while off of the saddle. A 10cm (as shown) was a big improvement in terms of steering but not as good of a fit, so I should have started with a larger frame and 9cm stem like I finally tried some years later. The silver one handles well, the green one seems to require much more steering effort. Both are shown below:

Another bike I had was an older Kestrel road bike, which fit properly but was highly susceptible to even a slight cross-wind. It turned out that the very old, very shallow "aero" rims with the pointy cross-section profile were the culprit, not the bike."

Uncanny. Of all of the many bikes I've owned over the years, a mid-80's Schwinn Paramount and 2000-something Kestrel were the two that never felt quite right. The Paramount flexed but not in a good way and the Kestrel's rear end would lift and skip when I rode out of the saddle.

[Kontact]

"On an odd-ball build, I once put a longer 11cm stem on a 22" Varsity (having 70-degree frame angles), and while the fit was improved, I could hardly steer the thing while off of the saddle. A 10cm (as shown) was a big improvement in terms of steering but not as good of a fit, so I should have started with a larger frame and 9cm stem like I finally tried some years later. The silver one handles well, the green one seems to require much more steering effort. Both are shown below:

Another bike I had was an older Kestrel road bike, which fit properly but was highly susceptible to even a slight cross-wind. It turned out that the very old, very shallow "aero" rims with the pointy cross-section profile were the culprit, not the bike."

Uncanny. Of all of the many bikes I've owned over the years, a mid-80's Schwinn Paramount and 2000-something Kestrel were the two that never felt quite right. The Paramount flexed but not in a good way and the Kestrel's rear end would lift and skip when I rode out of the saddle.

What's uncanny? Your 2000s era Kestrel's stiff rear end has nothing to do with a 1980s Kestrel's susceptibility to crosswinds. (I'm assuming you aren't comparing a Varsity to a Paramount.)

[dddd]

You seem to be sorta crashing your own thread. All he was seeming to try to say was that like mine, his Schwinn and Kestrel bikes, respectively, had handling issues. Coincidental, not technical.

[MerckxMad]

What's uncanny? Your 2000s era Kestrel's stiff rear end has nothing to do with a 1980s Kestrel's susceptibility to crosswinds. (I'm assuming you aren't comparing a Varsity to a Paramount.)

adjective
1.
having or seeming to have a supernatural or inexplicable basis; beyond the ordinary or normal; extraordinary:
uncanny accuracy; an uncanny knack of foreseeing trouble.
2.
mysterious; arousing superstitious fear or dread; uncomfortably strange:
Uncanny sounds filled the house.

[Kontact]

adjective
1.
having or seeming to have a supernatural or inexplicable basis; beyond the ordinary or normal; extraordinary:
uncanny accuracy; an uncanny knack of foreseeing trouble.
2.
mysterious; arousing superstitious fear or dread; uncomfortably strange:
Uncanny sounds filled the house.

Sure. I was wondering what part of your comparison you thought was inexplicable, extraordinary or unforseeable? The fact that it was a Schwinn and a Kestrel in both cases, or something even stranger than two people both having problems with two common brands?

[MerckxMad]

Sure. I was wondering what part of your comparison you thought was inexplicable, extraordinary or unforseeable? The fact that it was a Schwinn and a Kestrel in both cases, or something even stranger than two people both having problems with two common brands?

adjective, snarkier, snarkiest.
1.
testy or irritable; short.
2.
having a rudely critical tone or manner:

[Kontact]

adjective, snarkier, snarkiest.
1.
testy or irritable; short.
2.
having a rudely critical tone or manner:

It was an innocent question, trying to understand if I missed something in the comparison made.

You can be sure that your condescending responses have left me regretful for having asked, and I will endeavor to not make that mistake again with you.

[Bruce K]

And, after careful consideration by the mods, we're done here.

Too many noses out of joint.

BK