I'm hoping someone here has some insight for me on geometry and ride characteristics.
First of all, it seems awfully suspicious that a degree here or there in angle would cause me to be a noticeably far more effective cyclist and have the ability to change the "feel" of the bicycle so radically. Since both the bikes I've ridden a lot recently fit me so well, and I can document fairly detailed geometry specs, I thought I'd check this out with the brain trust here. Maybe someone can explain this to me!
Trek: Seat tube 73.25 degrees head tube 73.5 degrees bottom bracket drop 7.5 cm wheelbase 99.6 cm fork offset 4.2
Waterford: Seat tube 75.3 degrees head tube 72.8 degrees bottom bracket drop 7.5 cm wheelbase 984.9 cm fork offset 4.2
The Trek is full 531, frame and fork. The Waterford is 853, triangle, 531 fork, 531 head tube and TrueTemper platinum stays. Obviously there is a significant weight difference...
What I've noticed specifically, is the Waterford is much more responsive to increased pedaling speed, corners nicer, is more responsive to steering and it is easier to get a nice rhythm out of the saddle.
Since the wheelbase differences are pretty minor, are all these differences just due to the head and seat angles?
If so, that means that my Montelatici will handle more like my Waterford. Stevan tells me that the head tube is 72.5 and the seat is 75.0.
I know this stuff is probably uber-geek to be concerned with, and Ray (my really nice boyfriend - credit him and mom with the Birthday Waterford) tells me to stop quantifying fun, but it is my nature to know why, and thats what I wanna know!
On another, more classic tack, when did all this attention get paid to geometry in bicycle manufacture? Did the people riding the 49 Giro know this stuff, or at least the people making their bicycles? Did everyone follow the same school of thought??
Ann Phillips, Atlanta Ga - where the sun has shone for the last three days and bicycles got ridden!