Andrew wrote:
"Attempts to place a value or description on bike handling can be like trying to compare art work. We do it all the time but it doesn't really mean much."
********
I have to differ with Andrew on this. Assuming control for a few variables, like wheels, tires and stem-length, and assuming these variables are more-or-less standard for the kind of bike involved--that is, light racing wheels, 25-25mm tubular tires, and stem-length typical for a given frame size for a late-70s professional-level racing bike--I think you can easily make meaningful comparisons of how frames ride, assuming some reasonably precise descriptive language. Short, steep, high bikes (short stays and top-tube, steep angles, high bb shells) all have a pretty strong family resemblance in the way they ride, just as long, slack, low frames do. And this regardless of the wheels, tires, or stem-length you prefer. One might be able to mitigate some of the more annoying qualities of the former frames with fatter tires and softer rims, for instance...but in general, I've found various riders all describe frames like these in the same ways, and describe the differences in the same ways.
Also, if you prefer a slightly bigger frame for your body-type, or a slightly smaller one, the differences in road-feel between those two situations can be described fairly precisely as well.
So, in short, you can make meaningful comparisons in this area, as long as you define the circumstances a bit. And those descriptions can be very useful, as a couple here have already been to me.
Comparing how people *feel* about these differences, or what might be *better*, now, that gets into *chacon a son gout* territory.
Charles Andrews Los Angeles
Q: "Why do people spoil everything for themselves?
A: "In big ways, and little ways too, people do that all the time to themselves. We can't stand prosperity. We have to tinker with the machinery."
--John D. MacDonald