Peter P.
01-27-2010, 07:04 PM
The "We Test:" review of three racing bikes in the March issue of Bicycling led me to look closer.
The gist of the article is; some cyclist wants to get into racing with a $3.5k budget. Bicycling recommends one bike and two alternatives (can't offend the advertisers, you know). After reading the three sentence reviews, I decided to check the geometry of the three candidates , in my size (53.5 TT), to see if my interpretations of the specs would jibe with the reviews. Hey; I don't believe ANY of the copy Bicycling puts out; I just want to see how little they actually ride the bikes they portray or how little their reviewers know.
Now I know most of you would read the review, tear the page out, wipe your butt and leave the bathroom, but bear with me.
Giant TCR Advanced 2: "...manages to be aggressive yet still somewhat comfortable. The handling is balanced, with quick reflexes and superb high speed tracking."
How can aggressive (handling) conflict with comfort? And just what is "balanced" handling? I've wouldn't know what an unbalanced bike feels like. Quick reflexes?! The bike has a 72 degree head angle, albeit with no fork rake specified; maybe I should cut them some slack here. But while I think you CAN build a quality racing bike with a slack, 72 degree head angle, by itself I wouldn't call it quick.
Felt F3: "...most stable handling. (of the three bikes)"
This is the most unbelievable of the three. In my small size, it sports a 73.5 degree head angle with 45mm of rake. With those specs it results in a scant 52mm of trail. Combine the head angle with the trail figure and stable is not the word that comes to mind. This thing also has a wicked steep 76 degree seat angle, unheard of, even in small sizes, but that apparently wasn't noticed by the reviewer, and the seat angles are steeper than average across the board.
Specialized Tarmac Expert SL Double: "...crisp, responsive handling...". Well, either Specialized has done something right or as they say, "give enough monkeys typewriters and put them in a room and sooner or later they'll type the complete works of Shakespeare." Bicycling was bound to get it right sometime if they made up enough reviews.
The front end sports a 73 degree/45mm rake combination which is nothing short of generic in road racing bikes in my size. Not a bad thing, the majority of the population will hop on the bike and not notice a thing
Yeah so; I base my opinions of handling mostly on front end geometry and ignore the rest, but 5mm deviation in chainstay length is not going to be an eye opener and as long as the bike fits and I'm assuming a racing bike position, there won't be a lot of deviation. But man, Bicycling can really put some spin on their reviews. To their credit, they managed to write all three without using the trite, hackneyed phrases "all of a piece", "inspires confidence" and "corners like it's on rails". Maybe next month...
The gist of the article is; some cyclist wants to get into racing with a $3.5k budget. Bicycling recommends one bike and two alternatives (can't offend the advertisers, you know). After reading the three sentence reviews, I decided to check the geometry of the three candidates , in my size (53.5 TT), to see if my interpretations of the specs would jibe with the reviews. Hey; I don't believe ANY of the copy Bicycling puts out; I just want to see how little they actually ride the bikes they portray or how little their reviewers know.
Now I know most of you would read the review, tear the page out, wipe your butt and leave the bathroom, but bear with me.
Giant TCR Advanced 2: "...manages to be aggressive yet still somewhat comfortable. The handling is balanced, with quick reflexes and superb high speed tracking."
How can aggressive (handling) conflict with comfort? And just what is "balanced" handling? I've wouldn't know what an unbalanced bike feels like. Quick reflexes?! The bike has a 72 degree head angle, albeit with no fork rake specified; maybe I should cut them some slack here. But while I think you CAN build a quality racing bike with a slack, 72 degree head angle, by itself I wouldn't call it quick.
Felt F3: "...most stable handling. (of the three bikes)"
This is the most unbelievable of the three. In my small size, it sports a 73.5 degree head angle with 45mm of rake. With those specs it results in a scant 52mm of trail. Combine the head angle with the trail figure and stable is not the word that comes to mind. This thing also has a wicked steep 76 degree seat angle, unheard of, even in small sizes, but that apparently wasn't noticed by the reviewer, and the seat angles are steeper than average across the board.
Specialized Tarmac Expert SL Double: "...crisp, responsive handling...". Well, either Specialized has done something right or as they say, "give enough monkeys typewriters and put them in a room and sooner or later they'll type the complete works of Shakespeare." Bicycling was bound to get it right sometime if they made up enough reviews.
The front end sports a 73 degree/45mm rake combination which is nothing short of generic in road racing bikes in my size. Not a bad thing, the majority of the population will hop on the bike and not notice a thing
Yeah so; I base my opinions of handling mostly on front end geometry and ignore the rest, but 5mm deviation in chainstay length is not going to be an eye opener and as long as the bike fits and I'm assuming a racing bike position, there won't be a lot of deviation. But man, Bicycling can really put some spin on their reviews. To their credit, they managed to write all three without using the trite, hackneyed phrases "all of a piece", "inspires confidence" and "corners like it's on rails". Maybe next month...