I just returned from a long ride this weekend, and was a bit surprised by the brouhaha on this list. It appears that few of the commenters have read the article, and that there are some misperceptions about what we wrote.
First, we never said that we “didn’t like” the Pegoretti. The summary of the article clearly says “It performs well under constant efforts” and the conclusion states “it offers a pleasant feel.” It’s not a bad bike. Was it the best bike we’ve ever ridden? No, but I think we clearly state the reasons why.
Regarding the fit – I ride many bikes, and I found that bar height to the millimeter is not crucial for me. I rode the Pegoretti more in the drops than I would on most bikes, because the head tube extension pushed the bars higher up. When you measure how deep the drops are, you realize that 40 mm isn’t a huge deal. The Pegoretti's drops were deeper than the ones I usually ride, so the difference in the end was minor. And when you look at Fausto Coppi’s bikes, you see that he had his handlebars pretty high up, too. Didn’t slow him down much, did it?
I
am concerned with bar reach – in fact, that is how I size my bikes. Looking over Pegoretti’s sizes, a smaller frame would have made the top tube much too short... Here are the sizes for the Love3:
Frame Geometry
I was surprised that Pegorettis apparently are sized for a more upright position than most performance-oriented riders prefer. The test bike had a huge 45 mm head tube extension, so it is sized like a conventional 62.5 cm frame (center-center), yet its top tube measured 57.5 cm. To get the bars 4 cm lower, we would have had to accept a 55 cm top tube! Now that would have affected the bike’s performance! (I know that Pegoretti offers custom frames, but my build is very normal, and I usually fit on stock bikes quite well.)
When you look at the Trek Madone we tested in the same issue, its bars also were a bit higher than I usually ride. It didn’t affect that bike’s performance, either. Both testers set some of their fastest times on the Trek.
Regarding the handling, the “pro racers don’t descend at the limit of adhesion” actually was a quote from Alex Stieda, the first North American to wear the yellow jersey in the Tour de France. He told the story how he tried to make up positions in the bunch on a descent, only to have Hinault's lieutenant ride up and tell him to "stop risking lives." Stieda may know more about pro racing than most on this forum.
When you ask motorcycle racers whether a motorbike on 23 mm tires pumped to 100 psi can handle well, they’ll laugh and tell you that they run much wider tires at 35 to 40 psi. As Hinault's lieutenant pointed out to Alex Stieda, bike races aren’t won descending. Otherwise, racing bikes would look quite different.
On to the next: While I enjoy riding long distances, we did not evaluate the Pegoretti as a brevet bike. We tested it as a racing bike – riding it up to 100 miles, climbing hills fast, descending, sprinting. I raced for 10 years, all the way up to Category 2, so I think I have a good idea what racing requires. If you don’t believe it, look at the power figures from our double-blind tests of frame stiffness. We managed to get up to about 900 Watts for uphill sprints, repeatedly, and could sustain 625 Watts. That doesn't put us in the league of Cancellara, but I doubt that many Pegoretti owners put out more. We didn’t complain that the Pegoretti doesn’t accept fenders or wide tires, or that it can’t carry luggage. We don’t expect that from a racing bike. We expect it to perform well, period.
We only test bikes that we think will appeal to our readers. I once rode a Pegoretti Marcelo for 15 miles, and rather liked it. When people told me that for true performance, we should go to the Love 3, we figured that we should test one of those. In the end, we just report what we find. There are some surprises, both to us and our readers. We liked a Trek Madone, we weren’t too fond of some steel bikes, we thought a French bike handled poorly… we call it as we see it.
Finally, we did pass the test report along to the importer, Gita, asking them to pass it along to Mr. Pegoretti. If they felt that we needed a different size, or that we had overlooked or misinterpreted something else, they should have said so. Which other publication allows the makers to comment before the test is published? And which prints there comments alongside the original test article. Gita and Dario Pegoretti chose not to reply… which is fine, too.
To summarize, the Pegoretti’s sizing gives you a hint at its apparent audience. It’s sized for casual riders who don’t want to/can’t stretch out on the bike like a racer. It feels good under constant efforts, but for us, it worked less well in all-out sprints. But then, casual riders don't sprint... Now you can argue that casual riders might be better on wider tires that offer more comfort, but that overlooks the strong aesthetic appeal of a racing bike with narrow tires. As an aesthetic choice, I can see the Love3's appeal.
In the end, most purchases are aesthetic choices, anyhow. People buy a Porsche or Ferrari because they like the looks, the story behind it, but not because they will get from A to B faster than they would in a Subaru WRX Sti. There is nothing wrong with aesthetic choices, but magazine tests have to provide the facts. The aesthetic choices are up to the readers. That way, Porsche drivers aren't disappointed when they get passed by a well-driven Subaru on the twisty road in the mountains. That is why we never have a "Bike of the Year" or even a comparison test – each bike appeals to different people. If you like your Pegoretti, then it is the right bike for you.
Jan Heine
Editor
Bicycle Quarterly
Vintage Bicycle Press -- Home Page
Bookmarks