Re: [RBW] Soma San Marcos review @ Bicycle Times
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? Is it the 6 degree sloping TT? 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”? In the end, we just don’t know why he feels that the Marcos is slow. 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. On Thursday, May 9, 2013 2:38:05 PM UTC-7, Steve Palincsar wrote: On Thu, 2013-05-09 at 10:03 -0600, René Sterental wrote: http://www.bicycletimesmag.com/content/review-soma-fabrications-san-marcos What do you think he means by geometry? For example, the following: For those of us used to more modern geometry, the extra top tube looks like overkill, and Well, it’s mainly about handlebar height and retro geometry to increase comfort. What is retro geometry? 71-72.5 head angle, 71.5-71.8 degree seat angle -- perhaps not as steep as many, even most today, but I think the expectation is the bike will be used with a B.17 and everybody always complains about the short rails on a B.17 not working well with steeper seat angles; and of course, if 72 is too slack the world is chock full of zero offset seat posts. But what's any of that got to do with the double top tube? Would anyone here call that geometry? -- 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.
Re: [RBW] Soma San Marcos review @ Bicycle Times
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.
Re: [RBW] Soma San Marcos review @ Bicycle Times
The stiffness of the frame also makes a bike feel fast/reactive versus slow/inert, to me, anyway. In my brief ride on a Roadeo, it felt responsive and springy like a skinny tire road bike. But then again, it's pretty obvious that a lot of perceptions of fastness have a lot more to with looks and familiarity than science. Dan G / pittsburgh pa -- 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.
Re: [RBW] Soma San Marcos review @ Bicycle Times
On Thu, 2013-05-09 at 10:03 -0600, René Sterental wrote: http://www.bicycletimesmag.com/content/review-soma-fabrications-san-marcos What do you think he means by geometry? For example, the following: For those of us used to more modern geometry, the extra top tube looks like overkill, and Well, it’s mainly about handlebar height and retro geometry to increase comfort. What is retro geometry? 71-72.5 head angle, 71.5-71.8 degree seat angle -- perhaps not as steep as many, even most today, but I think the expectation is the bike will be used with a B.17 and everybody always complains about the short rails on a B.17 not working well with steeper seat angles; and of course, if 72 is too slack the world is chock full of zero offset seat posts. But what's any of that got to do with the double top tube? Would anyone here call that geometry? -- 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.
