On Sat, 2013-05-11 at 07:45 -0700, Doug Williams wrote: > I also found the review frustratingly vague. As you said, he talks > about geometry, but doesn’t specify what he means. To be fair, most > bike reviews are like this one: a gloss over without offering any > specifics. > > He also says, “The San Marcos gets you where you want to go in comfort > and style, but it’s not going to be the most racy thing to ride.” I > infer from this that he thinks that the San Marcos is a slow bike. But > WHY does he feel the San Marcos is slow? Is it the non-aerodynamic > upright position?
And it's not like the bike was set up bolt upright. OK, maybe the design doesn't permit you to slam the stem, but then, how many riders actually can ride a bike with a slammed stem? > Is it the 6 degree sloping TT? I think we can safely eliminate that, because most racing bikes these days are slopers, too. > Is it the extra 8 ounces of the double TT on the 63 cm model he was > riding? Or is it some other aspect of what he calls “retro geometry”? Probably in the end, it comes down to "it looks slow." > In the end, we just don’t know why he feels that the Marcos is slow. He also mentions the 32mm tires in a way that makes me think he believes they'll make the bike slow. However, it's not at all clear to me from reading the review whether he actually ever rode the bike. Wouldn't surprise me at all to find he did not. > > The lack of specifics in the review is frustrating. The reviewer rode > the 63 cm model. The 47cm and 51 cm models have 650b wheels. The 59cm > and 63cm models have 700c wheels but they also have the double TT. I’m > looking at the 54cm San Marcos and trying to compare it to the 55 cm > Roadeo. The 54 cm San Marcos is unique in that it has 700c wheels but > no double top tube. It should be fairly easy to compare the 54cm 700c > San Marcos to the 55cm 700c Roadeo, both with single top tubes. But > this review provides no information to help with that. I can see where that would be useful, but the chances of ever finding a review with that level of specificity are about zero, I'm afraid. But I think there's a lot of specificity missing even in the official brochure about this bike. Does it fit like a Rivendell? How would you size it? Are you really sure you'd take the 54? And why does a 59 cm road frame need a double top tube, anyway? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en-US. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
