BigLegEmma, GGM, Marcelo: Pegoretti Rides

[dbrk]

I've had two rides on the new Great Googlee Mooglee and I've had Emma for quite a while, going on two seasons now. I'm also a few years into Marcelos, though the current one is new and the best yet. All three are stock 59cm, which I have discovered is my magic Pegoretti size. I love the set back, 72d sta, 45mm rake, and the resulting way the bikes let you "sit in" on them. The front ends differ by fork: Marcelo: Reynolds Ouzo with CK hs
BLE Reynolds: Pro Peloton with CK hs
GGM: Mizuno integrated (taken from a DeRosa King, there being very few 45mm rake option integrated forks, none currently available from Reynolds) with PMP hs.

All three bikes are set up nearly identically with Ritchey 40cm bars and 12cm stems, Thomson posts (shim for the GGM) and Regal saddles, Record brifters, Rec or Chorus ders., Proton wheels. Other than the forks, the biggest differences in equipment are tires:
BLE: Conti 3000 23c frt/25c rear on Proton wheels
Marcelo: Michelin Pro Race (might be Axial Pro) 23c on Proton wheels
GGM: Michelin Pro Race 25c (the rear is a very tight fit) on Zonda wheels
BLE and Marcelo both use TA Zephyr 48-36 cranksets, GGM uses the Ritchey WCS Compact 50-34. Tires and wheels make more difference in the ride than any other component choice and since these bikes all use wheelsets VERY close to one another, I think tires are way more important still in this comparison.

There are a few three hour loops around Bristol in the Finger Lakes of western NY that give you a good idea of everything. All of these rides include some gravel and hardpack roads---because I think every ride deserves at least a mile of these, which would include the requisite getting-out-the-driveway event, something that most visitors here really dislike (loooose gravel, nasty little climb, etc) but I positively live for. Then there are rollers, steep short climbs, long steady climbs (some very steep, some moderate), long straight descents, long twisting descents, and almost no flats; wide shoulders and unusually good pavement abound while the gravel roads are largely hardpacked by this time of year. You would have a hard time finding a better environment for a bike comparison. At the TdFL we went longer and I chose generally less steep and fewer hills than I normally ride alone. The bikes' set ups also form a good comparison because the frames are identical in size, differing principally in fork (but not rake), less so in parts, as mentioned.

With these nearly identical set ups, the Marcelo is the lightest though I cannot say how much lighter (it being the one not yet weighed on the same scale). Emma weighs 19.4lbs and the GGM weighs 20.64lbs. I was surprised that Emma was a full pound lighter but I think some (just some) might be in the wheels and the rest made up in the very OS sized GGM tubing. Note that no effort (none) has been made to build the bikes lighter. I am of the view that one could easily take a pound off each without much effort. My parts choices are about my preferences, many of which are decidedly "heavy" by weenie-standards.

I suppose the rider makes a big difference. I am just shy of 5'10" and I wish I were still 155lbs. I'm in pretty much peak condition (despite a few nasty, persistent injuries) but no longer the man I once was, clearly. I prefer to climb seated, never been a sprinter, and consider myself only an average climber but a good gregario, so I can just trundle along at steady speeds. In short, I bring no great power, size, and consequent stress to a bike frame. I like my frames on the large size by conventional (too small, waaaay too small) standards but I balance out nicely on a Pegoretti 59cm, seated well behind the spindle (no KOPS for me, thank you) and with a "normal" looking 12cm stem (which I deem neither short nor long, hence "normal"). Because I am on the smallish and less powerful size of the equation, I think myself more sensitive to bikes being too stiff than not stiff enough. All stiffness is measured ultimately in comparison to a Principia Rex, a Danish bike I once had made of aluminum that would rattle the teeth out of crow, just a horrible bike for anyone but the hardest core stiffguy racer. A Pegoretti rides, oh, about ten million times better and my Fina (needs replacing with a 59cm...) was steel-like smoooooth in comparison to the Principia, and for that matter any other aluminum bike I've owned (myriad). The Fina is the _only_ aluminum bike I have ever loved.

So the verdict? Interestingly, Emma is by far the stiffest and most responsive, efficient frame. She is really stiff in comparison to the Marcelo and noticably more stiff than the new GGM. You can actually tell the difference. For some smaller, less powerful folks, Emma may strike you as "too much bike," as it were, but not for me and I think most folks would be very, very pleased. Emma is not at all harsh or chattering the teeth or just too _hard_. Emma's smaller (38mm) than the GGM (44mm) diameter downtube has those cutout, inset reinforcements that really seem to do something to stiffen the downtube. Emma wears those BIG legs (you must see in person to believe how cool they look...), 35.0-25.0 tapered chainstays while I think the GGM wears the same 24.0 cylindrical chainstays as the Marcelo. But there is no mistaking the sensation that Emma is efficient though I would say not the least bit uncomfortable. The surprise has been how smooth the GGM is and how much more the GGM rides like the Marcelo than either bike rides like Emma. Perhaps Dario made my GGM a bit more mellow because he knows I am more weasel than clydesdale, but I think the GGM's reputation as ultra-stiff is overstated. I have found it remarkably smooth and forgiving--- very like the Marcelo--- though stiffer in the bb. My old Marcelo I could get a tad of front derailleur rub by really pounding up hill but the current one will not do that. On Great Googlee there is not the slightest hint that I could generate that level of lateral frame flex. Still, I've twice come home now to the sensation of "geez, that was a _great_ riding bike and my body tells me so..." The GGM is a truly wonderful bike and I would be happy to ride it all day, it being far, far better than just an efficient, fast, short ride racer. Again, mine strikes me as having all the virtues of great steel without cavaet or reservation.

I would rate the forks all even, btw, with no advantage to any: none do anything bad, all do everything right especially on scary descents, rough roads, and front end flexing, stressful climbs. The forks were not players in the comparative feeling of the bikes. I like carbon forks that never draw attention to themselves.

I would like to try a Duende to see if it is even more comfortable than the Marcelo. But, interestingly, these particular Pegorettis do indeed ride differently by material even when they are all steel. I think my next (hopefully) will be a CCKMP because I'm about the right size. I would not like to have to choose among them, as if one were superior, because I think they each have their charms and virtues. I will say that I pick Emma when I'm feeling most feisty and want that really responsive ride. But what I've also learned is that the Pegorettis have such _excellent_ road manners and behave so consistently, so correctly, that I always get off the bikes feeling like the bikes had a great day (even if I have not). I was expecting the GGM to be more like Emma and less like the Marcelo but that is decidedly not my experience, so that's the revelation, for what it's worth.

What I really feel is really, really lucky.

dbrk

dr. b

how long is the HT on a 59 if one cuts off the extension? A pego is doof's fantasy bike (though one will, in all likelihood, never be his)...a 57 or a 59 would both "work" with a 120 stem (setback post on the small one, non-setback on the larger one...the gunnar matches up with the 57, whereas the giordana has the same dimensions (quel surprise) as a 59 pego) as the reach on both bikes is the same...both of doof's bikes have 17cm head tubes, which is the ticket....


dr. d.

[Fixed]

Wow a great review dude you should be paid that's better than the reviews in the mags. thanks it was fun to read.Cheers

[dbrk]

Originally Posted by Dr. Doofus

dr. b

how long is the HT on a 59 if one cuts off the extension? ...both of doof's bikes have 17cm head tubes, which is the ticket....

dr. d.

dr. d[oof].

On the 59cm bikes the headtubes measure 20.3cm and I think the most you could safely remove is 2.5cm, this gives you 17.8. If I were you, I go for smaller size.

d[r.]b[rk]

[Climb01742]

douglas, as always, wonderful report. i can heartily endorse your desire for a cckmp. we seem alike in build and power (non)output. i'm finding the cckmp my fav peg. for shorter rides, on better roads, the marcelo is wonderful. it zooms. for pure speed (or what passes for it from me) the marcelo gets the nod by just a bit. but going longer, over worse roads, the cckmp is, for me, more forgiving. and lordy, does it go uphill, especially out of the saddle. i would, though, love to ride an emma once. pegorettis...collect them all.

[jerk]

good review.

the jerk's emma will be out in full force tomorrow, since sadly, the c50 is going away. (the jerk is really stupid, he sold it thinking there was a colnago c50 ultra rasmussen bike en route....but colnago won't be making any larger than 58 for the forseeable future....and yes, 180mm stem is too long.)

jerk

great comments

Doug,

How in the world do you manage to fit on a 58? I'm 5'9" and barely fit a 55 Serotta!

Great review, as always :-)

[dbrk]

Originally Posted by kenyee

Doug,
How in the world do you manage to fit on a 58? I'm 5'9" and barely fit a 55 Serotta!

Riding a "race" style bike is quite different in terms of fit, balance, weight, tires, etc., than a randonneur or other style. Race bikes generally ask for a bit more weight forward and on the hands and so, as the redoubtable jerk tells us, usually a longer stem. It is not uncommon to see 10 or even 9cm stems on Singer Randonneurs and I'd venture to say that Mr. Csuka and Alex Singer know a thing or two about bicycles. But this is another kettle of fish.

A Pegoretti has a pretty slack seat tube angle (a very good thing, since you almost never hear someone say, "geez, I wish I could get my saddle more forward...") and though the bb height is very much in the racer-ish camp at 7cm, on a 59cm I have about 5cm of bar/saddle drop, a 12cm stem, and a very stable but relaxed pressure on my hands. The _fashion_ is to ride smaller bikes because smaller is stiffer, handles quicker, and is more aerodynamic but so long as you have enough weight properly distributed then a race-style bike can also fit a bit larger. It may be out of fashion to ride a larger frame but try using a Campag NR seatpost on a modern bike and find out how quickly you run out of post because the frame is too small.

My PBH is 85cm and my pedal stroke puts my saddle at 77cm, which is pretty tall and a bit more than usual, which is about PBH-11cm (depending on the pedal, the KOPS or non-KOPS, etc.). Any one can stand over a bike with 23c tires, a bb drop of 7, that is PBH-25cm. This formula works about, oh, 98% of the time in terms of the much exaggerated SOH issue. But mountain biking, modern racing, etc., has all led to smaller frames. I normally ride a 60cm or sometimes 61cm randonneur, sometimes even in a racer-looking bike though the geos are not much like modern racers. There are just two things to think about: first, is your weight and pedal position suitable (a larger frame doesn't necessarily make this harder) and second, how much bar/saddle drop do you want. Most folks are slamming back their seats (seat angles too steep) and aching in their backs because they have been fit like under-30 racers on race bikes. I am likely as flexible as anyone on this Forum (it's the yoga...) but I don't want a modern race fit. With the relaxed sta on the Pegorettis, I never have setback issues, saddle position is fine, and there is plenty of forward weight. As handlebars come UP, so too they come BACK towards you, which leads to a longer stem. You have to have enough weight forward and your pedal position nailed, and voila, you fit on a larger frame.

Tell me your PBH and subtract 25cm and I GUARANTEE you that you can stand over a frame that size. You may not be used to it, the bike shop may not approve, you may get called names, but you will fit. The bike will actually look normal too when you get on it.

I will be slammed for saying such things but I've helped dozens of persons get fit on bikes that aren't leaning you over like the tower of Pisa, without heaps of spacers or radical riser stems, and the bikes handle just fine. This style of fit does not suit crit racing, btw!!! Know how you really ride, I say!! To each his own!! Be comfortable with what you like!

dbrk

[dave thompson]

Originally Posted by kenyee

Doug,

How in the world do you manage to fit on a 58? I'm 5'9" and barely fit a 55 Serotta!

Great review, as always :-)

PBH is the secret! I'm 5'11", with an 87.5cm PBH and ride a 60 Serotta. That and a willingness to have only a handful of seatpost showing. And a declination to adhere to "standard" stand-over formulas.

[Fixed]

Who is this masked bike guru? I am goin have to read this 10 times to try and understand all this.Thank s Cheers

Originally Posted by dbrk

Tell me your PBH and subtract 25cm and I GUARANTEE you that you can stand over a frame that size.

My PBH is 83cm and I can't see how a 58 would work, though it's probably because I'm nowhere near as flexible as you :-)
I use an 8cm stem w/ the 55cm stock serotta and there's a fist of seatpost showing (1cm behind KOPS). Rides great to me, even if the stem looks a bit odd to people ;-)
Gotta pop by International Bike and try a Pegoretti...

[jerk]

dbrk is completely spot on about fit. race bikes have changed. drops aren't as deep, hoods are the primary riding position and racers at the euro-pro level are getting bigger and to a lesser extent roads are getting better....so bikes are lower than they were before but the end result is the same....just the seats are higher the head tubes are shorter the drops are lower and aren't used as much and the brake hoods are higher....oh, frame materials are also fatter so a 55 c-c frame in scandium/carbonium/unobtanium sits taller than one made out of 753....by the way both are going to break within 10,000 kms of racing.

case in point. petacchi and merckx are/were the same size. petacchi rode a 55c-c pinarello with a 58.5 top tube and a 140 stem when he won milan-san remo...merckx rode a 61 cm c-c colnago with a 58.5 top-tube and a 130 stem when he won san remo for the last time.... both had a comp[arable degree of set back, the drops on merckx's bike were lower, the tops were higher and the hoods were in the same exact place.....setback was the same...but merckx's bike looks like a dbrk fit and petacchi's bike looks, well modern. like the jerk's bike.
jerk

[dbrk]

Originally Posted by jerk

dbrk is completely spot on about fit. race bikes have changed. drops aren't as deep, hoods are the primary riding position and racers at the euro-pro level are getting bigger and to a lesser extent roads are getting better....so bikes are lower than they were before but the end result is the same....just the seats are higher the head tubes are shorter the drops are lower and aren't used as much and the brake hoods are higher....oh, frame materials are also fatter so a 55 c-c frame in scandium/carbonium/unobtanium sits taller than one made out of 753....by the way both are going to break within 10,000 kms of racing.

case in point]...but merckx's bike looks like a dbrk fit and petacchi's bike looks, well modern. like the jerk's bike.
jerk

Gosh, I wish I'd said it that directly and correctly. Yes, yes, yes, this is exactly what I mean. Senor jerk has put it as well in a clear historical context and for that he deserves special kudos.

Thanks a million, this helped everyone, I think, including (or especially) me.

dbrk

[Climb01742]

ok, i'm out of my depth here, but i'll wade in anyway...given all that's been said, couldn't a bike be designed (or fitted) to a rider simply by knowing their 3 contact points, as defined by saddle height, saddle setback and reach? this would position a rider "in space" as it were, letting a fitter/builder create under the rider an appropriate frame. as the merckx, petacchi example points out (i think) their contact points were nearly identical, yet the frames under them were quite different. are we, as riders, focusing on the "wrong" thing when we think of our bikes as a size (a 55 or whatever) when the important dimensions are the 3 floating in space? does this make any sense?