Bicycle Quarterly Reviews the Love #3

[Peter B]

C'mon folks, it's like reading Grant Peterson. You already know what to expect.

Jan's preferences are well known so no big surprise to me in his review. I'm disappointed by his undisclosed bias which reveals oblivion at best and at worst outright disrespect for variety in cycling and to Dario's work. Again, no big surprise.

As for Jan's being a 'cyclist' though, and in the context of variety in cycling, I'll bet there's only a handful here who could have matched his 50 hour PBP '07 finish.

[Z3c]

atmo it's a magazine not 1s and 0s.

Understood, but a magazine that I have never heard of nor read prior to this thread.

[Jacques]

i don't find the guy's opinions nearly as offensive as his gaps in logic and lack of critical thinking.

[henry g.]

read by an audience that likes randonneur, audax, 650b, and the like. journalistically, his task is to report and inform on this segment of the little ol bike world -- which he probably does very well.

He really is interested in what makes bicycles perform well in any application though he is most closely identified with rando type bikes. Maybe because he thinks the French got it right with touring, racing and rando bikes geometry wise. That puts him at odds with virtually all the manufacturers and builders current geometry preferences. It would would be a boring world if we all sang from the same song sheet.

I think where he got into the weeds on this review (besides the fit issues which look far from what the builder intended) was speculating about Pegoretti's client's motivation, pros preferred descending methods and geo and where Dario's bikes may or may not be big sellers. Those sort of subjective speculations can be very provocative and distract from your main points.

To bad that becomes a distraction because I think it is plausible that a lower trail racing bike with a trail of say 48-50 and tires in the 25-28 range might well descend better - allowing for easier corrections of line at speed and be less affected by crosswinds then a more typical bike with higher trail and skinnier tires. It may also be true that recreational riders who want a racing bike for the weekends might be better served by "racing" bikes quite different then those the pros ride. Road going sports cars bear little resemblance to cars on the track.

[DOOFUS]

He really is interested in what makes bicycles perform well in any application though he is most closely identified with rando type bikes. Maybe because he thinks the French got it right with touring, racing and rando bikes geometry wise. That puts him at odds with virtually all the manufacturers and builders current geometry preferences. It would would be a boring world if we all sang from the same song sheet.

It may also be true that recreational riders who want a racing bike for the weekends might be better served by "racing" bikes quite different then those the pros ride. Road going sports cars bear little resemblance to cars on the track.

if he's interested in how a racing bike rides properly, he'd take the effort to figure out how to set one up properly

a french race bike doesn't have any damn difference in geometry than an italian one or a dutch one or an american one or whatever. there are race bikes and there are bag on the handlebars bikes. they have different geos for the different applications

ineptitude is no way to liven up the world

if you are too fat, inflexible, and weak to ride a properly set up racing bike, then yeah, you'll be better off on something else

[Peter B]

if he's interested in how a racing bike rides properly, he'd take the effort to figure out how to set one up properly

a french race bike doesn't have any damn difference in geometry than an italian one or a dutch one or an american one or whatever. there are race bikes and there are bag on the handlebars bikes. they have different geos for the different applications

ineptitude is no way to liven up the world

if you are too fat, inflexible, and weak to ride a properly set up racing bike, then yeah, you'll be better off on something else

Jan may be many things, inept as a critical reviewer among them. But he is not 'too fat, inflexible or weak' as a cyclist. Do a Google search. I'll say it again, there's few on this forum who could better his 50 hour finish on PBP '07.

[e-RICHIE]

Jan may be many things, inept as a critical reviewer among them .

thanks for that vote atmo.

But he is not 'too fat, inflexible or weak' as a cyclist. Do a Google search. I'll say it again, there's few on this forum who could better his 50 hour finish on PBP '07.

i'd wager doof was waxing rhetorical and shit and meant "if one was too fat, inflexible, etc...".

[DOOFUS]

Jan may be many things, inept as a critical reviewer among them. But he is not 'too fat, inflexible or weak' as a cyclist. Do a Google search. I'll say it again, there's few on this forum who could better his 50 hour finish on PBP '07.

note last quote from henry g in my post

that was what Iw as responding to

heine is a fast fit PBP rider. and he wrote a real stupid bike review.

[henry g.]

a french race bike doesn't have any damn difference in geometry than an italian one or a dutch one or an american one or whatever. there are race bikes and there are bag on the handlebars bikes.

The French constructeur race bikes were not meant to have bags on the bars. They were set up for 700c tires typically a bit wider then used today (25-28) but that was common to not just the French back then. They had trails of 48-50 which is quite a bit lower then the fashion today. It wasn't just French bikes set up this way pre-60's but Singer and Herse continued with this geometry and tire size on their race bikes long after it went out of mainstream use. I believe Merckx preferred a lower trail (low 50's?) when other builders had moved to a trail in the high 50's. Alan cross bikes had a lower trail at the hight of their popularity as well. Wider tires are back in the Northern Classics, maybe lower trail will make a comeback as a result as well, at least on the Pave and Strada Biancha.

[Michael White]

It may also be true that recreational riders who want a racing bike for the weekends might be better served by "racing" bikes quite different then those the pros ride. Road going sports cars bear little resemblance to cars on the track.

This generalization: that most people are idiotic sheep who blindly buy Pro bikes for their amateurish needs . . . this is an absurd opinion that you'd never hear at an actual shop with a mortgage to pay, though I've been hearing it for years not only from Jan Heine, but from many others on the outskirts of the industry with a particular ax to grind. But how many actual racing bikes do you see being ridden at the local weekly rides? Not that many, actually. The mainstream does have its less high strung permutations, like the Trek Pilot, Giant Defy, Specialized Roubaix, etc., and those bikes are well loved and ridden hard by people who could care less what bike Indurain rode.

The idea that it needs to be pointed out to the public that they shouldn't be riding the bikes that they ride, in fact they're probably fools for buying a racing-derived bike, and would be better served with the rando model . . . well, that's not only a very odd and self-serving way to promote one's own corner of the bike world, it's fundamentally untrue.

[DOOFUS]

The French constructeur race bikes were not meant to have bags on the bars. They were set up for 700c tires typically a bit wider then used today (25-28) but that was common to not just the French back then. They had trails of 48-50 which is quite a bit lower then the fashion today. It wasn't just French bikes set up this way pre-60's but Singer and Herse continued with this geometry and tire size on their race bikes long after it went out of mainstream use. I believe Merckx preferred a lower trail (low 50's?) when other builders had moved to a trail in the high 50's. Alan cross bikes had a lower trail at the hight of their popularity as well. Wider tires are back in the Northern Classics, maybe lower trail will make a comeback as a result as well, at least on the Pave and Strada Biancha.

that's really cool. and I knew that already. the point is that there is no "french" race bke. call it an audax, or a constructeur, or whatever.

but so what? it's not about fashion, it's about what works for the application. if the fool really wanted to test how well a peg races in its intended use, he'd take it to his local 35+ 1-2-3 crits and RRs. he didn't.

if some guy placed top 10s in P1/2 or 35+ on a constructeur bike with an audax setup, then it's because he's a super stud riding the wrong fucking bike for that kind of race. likewise for the guy who wins PBP on a Dogma with 13cm of saddle to bar drop.

[Dazza]

He really is interested in what makes bicycles perform well in any application though he is most closely identified with rando type bikes. Maybe because he thinks the French got it right with touring, racing and rando bikes geometry wise. That puts him at odds with virtually all the manufacturers and builders current geometry preferences. It would would be a boring world if we all sang from the same song sheet.

I think where he got into the weeds on this review (besides the fit issues which look far from what the builder intended) was speculating about Pegoretti's client's motivation, pros preferred descending methods what the heck is a pro's preferred descending method, compared to other methods of exploring the limits of tyre adhesion, I have never heard of it in all my years of racing and being a national team mechanic in 21 countries and geo and where Dario's bikes may or may not be big sellers. Those sort of subjective speculations can be very provocative and distract from your main points.

To bad that becomes a distraction because I think it is plausible that a lower trail racing bike with a trail of say 48-50 and tires in the 25-28 range might well descend better - allowing for easier corrections of line at speed and be less affected by crosswinds then a more typical bike with higher trail and skinnier tires. It may also be true that recreational riders who want a racing bike for the weekends might be better served by "racing" bikes quite different then those the pros ride. Road going sports cars bear little resemblance to cars on the track.

I am off downstairs to make a track fork, cheerio

now I get it
The pros generally keep the rubber side down {the correct side of tyre adhesion as Eric mentioned}
and the enthusiasts don't ????

[henry g.]

The idea that it needs to be pointed out to the public that they shouldn't be riding the bikes that they ride, in fact they're probably fools for buying a racing-derived bike, and would be better served with the rando model . . . well, that's not only a very odd and self-serving way to promote one's own corner of the bike world, it's fundamentally untrue.

Suggesting that racing type bikes used on the road maybe would handle better with lower trail and slightly wider tires is not recommending a Rando. Suggesting the ability to fit fenders to bikes that are not strictly dedicated to actual racing is not saying you should trade in your race bike for a Rando either.

Nothing wrong with CF race bikes but don't you think it a bit odd that the ability to fit fenders and wider tires is nonexistent on production performance bikes? I mean pro racers used to fit fenders to their winter trainers at one time. In a country where a huge portion of the population is obese a little wider tire might be useful on a percentage of performance rigs.

[Michael White]

don't you think it a bit odd that the ability to fit fenders and wider tires is nonexistent on production performance bikes? I mean pro racers used to fit fenders to their winter trainers at one time. In a country where a huge portion of the population is obese a little wider tire might be useful on a percentage of performance rigs.

No offense, but you don't keep up.

[e-RICHIE]

The idea that it needs to be pointed out to the public that they shouldn't be riding the bikes that they ride, in fact they're probably fools for buying a racing-derived bike, and would be better served with the rando model . . . well, that's not only a very odd and self-serving way to promote one's own corner of the bike world, it's fundamentally untrue.

i'd have to agree with this and add that most of the so-called rando models, especially from the contemporary f'builders who
are all copying each others styles and details vis-a-vis (that's french, by the way...) flickr pages and blogs - these are hardly
ever near a rando event atmo, much less made for or purchased by folks that would ever compete in one. there's a whole lotta
i wanna be a constructeur stuff going but the era in which truly integrated bicycles had a regular arena in which to compete
has long since passed. now what we see is the bicycle equal to civil war reenactments atmo. and i'll leave it here for now - the
pegoretti at issue is as fine a bicycle as anyone would ever need for PBP or any brevet AS LONG AS IT FITS THE RIDER.

[JeffS]

The conclusion:
The Pegoretti is a bit of a conundrum. It is a racing bike, yet its sizing indicates that it is not intended for racers
[snip]
"Overall, the appeal of the Pegoretti probably lies more in the name and the story behind the brand, rather than the actual bike. The Love 3 provides performance and handling that is not dissimilar from other bikes costing much less."

He's not all wrong.

[DOOFUS]

He's not all wrong.

100%

in the sense that a guy could point to a pile of mule shit and say

"you could eat that for lunch, same as a steak"

[TMB]

............ AS LONG AS IT FITS THE RIDER.

Richie,

You need to get over this fixation you've got about FIT.

Any bike can fit anyone.

Play with the crank length, seatpost and stem and you can anything fit.




I read that on the internet ................................




..............................so it must be true.

[El Chaba]

now what we see is the bicycle equal to civil war reenactments atmo. .

THAT is funny....

[henry g.]

t

if some guy placed top 10s in P1/2 or 35+ on a constructeur bike with an audax setup,

i think you misunderstood me. Singer and the rest did not just make Audax bikes. They also made racing bikes and still do;

Cycles Alex Singer - Competition

they were not set up like the Audax bikes at all, but they did have lower trail (48-50) then is common today.