Not not as many softride dealers, weight (not an issue for me), history of beam failures, bouncing while pedaling, looks, mechanical issues, price, weight limit.

As far as magazine reviews go I use the reviews of any magazine as toilet paper.

---

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.

"As far as magazine reviews go I use the reviews of any magazine as toilet paper. "



Well, I wouldn´t use glossy paper for that purpose :-)

I rode a Softride for a number of years and loved it. A sponsorship opportunity came up and now I'm riding a Colnago Dream Tri.

I doubt you could truly make an assessment of which bike is truly faster since the engine of a bike is independent of the frame. If you could make an assessment between the two you would find it insignificant.

I never experienced a beam failure on the six years of riding the Softride nor did I hear of any from other owners I knew. In addition, I seriously doubt the failures in Softrides are any more than that of traditional frame bikes.

Yes you bounce when you pedal. That's goes in hand with the shock absorption properties of a beam bike. You learn to adapt to that bouncing.

Having ridden both I can honestly say that the Softride was a much more comfortable ride and I felt fresher for the run. Whether any bike is better than the other is always in the eye of the beholder which makes bike reviews just that...a review...nothing more.

Who says Softrides are faster? Softride? Who says Cervelos are faster? Cervelo? You guys have got to stop believing everything you read on the web.

Softrides have an image problem. This is a hard sport. We train hard. We have hard bodies. We don't want a soft ride. Cervelos have a sexy name. This is a sexy sport. They may not be faster but they look it.

Softrides are heavy and weight does matter on most courses. Try lugging one of those behemouths up the hills in Lake Placid twice and then tell me how much fresher you feel on the run. Cervelo frames a a little heavy also. I don't have one of those either.

---

---------------------------
''Sweeney - you can both crush your AG *and* cruise in dead last!! 😂 '' Murphy's Law

Actually weight does not matter much. Softrides aren't much heavier than a traditional double diamond. MT TT7 was 19.1, my current TT bile is 18.9, my classic softride was 23.5 race weight. Even on hilly courses I crushed people on bike 4-6 pounds lighter. How much faster would have I gone ona bike 1.5kg less. Not enough for anyone to worry about.

---

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

You do realize Slowman does the reviews for Triathlete Mag?

It's a lot more than advertising. Boom bikes are just different and people don't like change. Softride could run a billion dollar ad blitz and only see an OK rise in sales.

---

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.

After ridin' a couple 100 milers with my triaining buddy (me on my P2k, him on his Softride) I was ready to heave his bike off every highway overpass we rode over. That damn Softride creaked and squaked so much I wanted to suggest stopping for a can of WD-40! Seriously, and he's taken it to the local Softride dealer several times for "adjustments" and they've never been able to cure it. Then to top if off, on our last ride, the adjusting bolt holding the beam in place broke...luckily we were only 5 miles from home. My new P3 may not be faster, but it sure is heck isn't slower, and it flies down the highway in stealth mode.

Reading through this thread, I am surprised no one has mentioned the obvious. Any time I have gone through the Softride geometry chart, I have concluded that the 700c bikes were unusable for a triathlon bike for many people since the chainstay was too long and the headtube too tall. If you are after a steep seattube bike with a reasonably low position, it seemed like many or even most people would be out of luck.

It seemed like the 650c bikes were better since the chainstay is shorter, but the headtube is still very tall. I have short legs and a long torso and I don't think I would be able to get low enough even with my very unaggressive position.

As for weight, desert dude, you could crush me on the hills of Lake Placid if you were pulling a child seat rig behind you. Underpowered, overweight, out of shape guys like me want to jettison every pound we can when we do that course, unless it involves actually losing weight from around our expanding stomachs.

Maybe Softride has come out with some new geometry since I checked last, so let me know if I am out of date. It wouldn't be the first time.

I certainly don't know what is faster, although, I can be persuaded to agree that a beam-er might be set up to be more aerodynamic than a bike with seat-stays.

For me, the beam bikes are about being able to rotate my pelvis forward in order to get into a more powerful pedalling position. Sure, I can rotate forward on a non-beam bike, but, not for long! Maybe I'm just not built to sit on a bike seat (then again, who IS built to sit on one?), but my glutes get one heck of a new workout when on my beam bike...my usual rides now leave my glutes sore. I am already faster over short distances and up hills by using my ample rear-end muscles more. Hopefully, this will turn into more speed over longer distances, too, as I get my quads used to the load. My quads are tiring quicker, I assume because they are under more strain from the increased gluteal involvement. No creaking, no clamps, no articulations to squeak. You can get a Titan Flex with a mighty stiff rod...will hold a 305 lb. rider! Oh, and mine weighs 19.3 lbs. (the bike, not the rod ;). I now say; "Spare the rod, spoil the boys".

---

Quid quid latine dictum sit altum videtur
(That which is said in Latin sounds profound)

A Softride only has a slow drag if you are running a disc in the back. Without the seattube to fare the back wheel it effectively turns it into another front wheel. I would say only a fraction of Softride users use a rear disc, at Hawaii none of them do so their are only handicaping their speed being on a Softride.

No they aren't.

I ride a beam bike (Elite Aria with Softride beam) and I go much faster with a disk.

"I would say only a fraction of Softride users use a rear disc, at Hawaii none of them do so their are only handicaping their speed being on a Softride."

If you're talking about Kona, discs aren't allowed.

---

---

"your horse is too high" - tigerchik

Slowman seems to review bikes sporadically. The past 2 months the bike reviews were done by someone else. I figure that since he is more blunt and honest with his assessments that Triathlete must have to buffer the next few with useless, sappy praise to keep the advertisers happy :)

The latest wind tunnel testing claimed that the Softride will be 82 seconds faster over 40 kms than a P3. That's a lot of time if this is true. I always believed that a Softride was likely more aero than any conventional diamond frame by not having a seat post but was shocked when this claim was made. 82 seconds is a lot of time over that distance.

I don't know much about Softrides except that they're so goofy looking. But then beauty only lies in the eye of the beholder.

If I was in the market for a new bike(which I'm not) I'd certainly have a serious look at a Softride based on the aero data alone.

But then I would have to change my handle to "softrideguy"

I dunno, but i just got back from an event that had a real, live, in-the-flesh Carbon P3. Now *that* generates buzz - I almost felt sorry for the Softride across the showroom floor.

can you explain this theory a little better. First I've heard of this. It would be nice to save $500 on a disk - - assuming you are right, it would be stupid to buy a disc.

I'm not an engineer nor do I play one in real or any make believe life. The air after hitting the front of a softride is able to reform into smoother layers than a double diamond frame. You get smoother air hitting your back wheel w/ the softride vs the frame downtube churning the air. I would argue that the softride would be a faster frame than the standard double diamond frame no matter what back wheel you toss on.

edit: I don't think the frame, no matter what it's style, makes as much difference as rider position.

---

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

Whatever happened to the truly 'fastest' bike, better than the softride, more aero, lighter, simpler mechanically--the zipp 2001??

That is one they should start making again...

---

---

Where would you want to swim ?

At IMFL every time I saw a beam bike the rider was bouncing wildly. It didnt look efficient.

that part I understand. Its the impact on a disc, and the prior poster's comments that a disc would be less aero - - that's what escapes me.

prior poster's comments that a disc would be less aero - - that's what escapes me.

I think what the prior poster meant was that it's much more important to use a disc on a softride than a conventional frame. If you start with a disc as the baseline, switching to a conventional rear wheel will cost you more time on a softride than a double diamond design, since there's no fairing for the wheel with on the softride.

It would be very interesting to see wind tunnel tests of the softride and a conventional frame with a disc, and then with a regular spoked wheel.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

that's what makes sense to me. Couldn't figure out why a disc would be worse. Thanks.

(damn, now I have to go out and buy a disc.)

Some of us do regular TT as well as Tri's. Since USA Cycling is adopting UCI rules in 2006 (I think that's when it happens), Softrides will be illegal. I'm not going to drop several grand on a bike that I can't race in a year.
That and they look funny.

elund wrote: At IMFL every time I saw a beam bike the rider was bouncing wildly. It didnt look efficient.


It certainly seems this might be the case...if you are bouncing, wouldn't you be less efficient? Then again, it's economy that's more important, that's why we ALL pedal at rpms that aren't as efficient as the really low rpms that are proven to be more efficient. But, we all know we go faster in a race by being more economical by using less calorically-efficient higher rpms. My definition of efficient is: power output per calorie burned. My definition of economy is: power output over a long (greater than a few minutes) period of time. Maybe these aren't the correct terms, but, these are the terms I'm using...I'll be glad to change the terminology to the correct ones if someone would like to correct me.

But, here's an idea for discussion: When you push down with your RIGHT leg, the resultant force would unweight the rider/beam, but, it isn't constant...i.e., the force on the crankarm starts off at near zero at 12:00 and builds to it's maximum (somewhere around 3-4-5-6 o'clock?), then this force on the RIGHT crankarm drops to it's lowest levels as the crank passes the bottom of the stroke. The maximum upward bounce (from unweighting the rider/beam) would lag behind, but closely coincide with the time of maximal downstroke force. At first glance, this seems inefficient, because not all the power is going to turn the crank...some of the power raised the beam/rider.

BUT, there is a return downward movement of the rider/beam!

This downward movement occurs after forces from the RIGHT leg begin to decrease...somewhere around the bottom of the stroke. What happens at the bottom of the RIGHT pedal stroke? The LEFT pedal is at 12:00...could the force that raised the rider/beam be re-captured by the LEFT leg since the beam is now falling? IOW, if the left leg is now pushing, and the beam is falling, could the left leg be capturing this movement and transferring it to the left pedal? At some point, the beam quits dropping as the left leg pushes harder, and the beam rises...again, the beam falls as the left leg pushing forces wane...and the RIGHT leg is back on downward pushing duty...potentially re-capturing force from the dropping rider/beam?

Here's another possibility...the bouncing a beam tends to exhibit can be attenuated by pulling up with the opposite leg! Let's say your RIGHT leg is pushing down and it tends to raise the beam/rider...if you pull up with the LEFT leg, you can attenuate the distance that beam/rider will rise. Perhaps riding on a beam encourages a "rounder" pedal stroke?

If you consider side-to-side "wiggling", I don't see how that could help...seems to me that a non-vertical movement would always be wasteful.

---

Quid quid latine dictum sit altum videtur
(That which is said in Latin sounds profound)

"Softrides are heavy and weight does matter on most courses. Try lugging one of those behemouths up the hills in Lake Placid twice and then tell me how much fresher you feel on the run. Cervelo frames a a little heavy also. I don't have one of those either. "

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

In 2001, Steve Larsen won IM Lake Placid on a P3

In 2002, Ryan Bolton won IM Lake Placid on a Softride...He ran a 2h49 marathon not bad all...

I personaly own 2 cervelos P3 and Soloist, no softride. I do love my cervelo, but I have to admit the Softride offers a more confortable ride and has fast. I did test it for a 60mi ride, i felt way fresher getting out of it!

Most people will say they feel better getting off the softride more so than a conventional frame. Bumps really don't effect you. I also think that riding a softride is similair to a training aid. it forces you to become an efficient pedaller or look like a pogo stick. The beam highlights your pedalling flaws. Always push down and you ride like this -_-_-_-_-. Pedal smooth and the beam will be rather quite and still.

---

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

"BUT, there is a return downward movement of the rider/beam"

Without getting into the engineering, I'll just tell you it doesn't work that way. I've ridden a Softride, and you have to pedal in circles or you bounce. The bouncing is out of synch with the pedal stroke, so it's lost energy. When you pedal good circles, the bike goes faster.

---

Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...

"At IMFL every time I saw a beam bike the rider was bouncing wildly. It didnt look efficient.".

It isn't efficient. Riding a Softride takes time and discipline. It ain't PCs, but it's the next best thing. Once you master circular pedalling, SRs are fast.

---

Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...

I have a Rocket. In races, I often see Classic/Qualifier riders bouncing up and down on their bikes. I'll see some Rocket owners with a tiny bounce, but in any event, only 1/100th the bounce of Classic/Qualifier riders.

The only time I have any bounce is when I'm spinning really high RPMs. I probably spin a tiny bit slower than other riders of my caliber on diamond frames, but I've never noticed any impact from the marginally decreased spin.

I've tried high RPMs and I've grinded it out. I really don't see that much of a difference, so I gear to the level just below the bounce. Its probably a 5 - 7 RMP difference.

I have to admit, it drives me insane when I see other Softrider owners bouncing so much. I want to scream at them to "smooth out your pedal stroke" and/or "put it in a bigger gear," but to this point I have always refrained.

I'm not good at biting my tongue. It just seems really severe to offer advice to a rider during the race - - especially as I can see that rider coming back later in the race during the run with a nice "see ya later" comment (damn all you fast runners) as he passed by me.

Any other softride owners feel the same way about offering advice to the "bouncers?" I want to offer my 2 cents, but I don't see that it would be appreciated.

"BUT, there is a return downward movement of the rider/beam"

CE Wrote: Without getting into the engineering, I'll just tell you it doesn't work that way.

I'd like to see it with a high-speed camera. If the beam is already falling before the opposite foot is pushing, it would tell me the bounce is simply inefficient. I suspect this is the case, but, I'd still like to see it. Also, since everybody's pedal stroke isn't the same, could be that it isn't as inefficient on every individual's stroke.

Still, like you said, I think beamers encourages a "rounder" stroke...and I think that is a good thing.

I'd also like to get that high-speed camera to compare the different beam setups not only during pedalling but when cornering hard through a bumpy turn...specifically to see what happens as far as lateral movement in a hard turn. Heck, as long as we have this camera available, lets run some double-diamond bikes through the same turn to see if a weighted-beam bike out-corners an outside pedal-weighted double-diamond bike due to the reported/theorized better tire traction provided by the suspension bikes.

When we're through discussing all the theory and tests, it still comes down to better comfort for me on long rides, so, hopefully I'll get to ride more this next year without lower back pain and saddle area issues.

---

Quid quid latine dictum sit altum videtur
(That which is said in Latin sounds profound)

"I'd like to see it with a high-speed camera. If the beam is already falling before the opposite foot is pushing, it would tell me the bounce is simply inefficient. I suspect this is the case..."
- - So do I. I've ridden Softride (liked it a lot) and it just took me a couple of days to really get smooth on the thing. I suspect that a steady diet of that would make you a better rider. Your TitanFlex must be similar, if not as pronounced.

"I'd also like to get that high-speed camera to compare the different beam setups not only during pedalling but when cornering hard through a bumpy turn...specifically to see what happens as far as lateral movement in a hard turn."
- - That's one I'd pay to see as well.

"Heck, as long as we have this camera available, lets run some double-diamond bikes through the same turn to see if a weighted-beam bike out-corners an outside pedal-weighted double-diamond bike due to the reported/theorized better tire traction provided by the suspension bikes."
- - Not to mention seeing if the lateral sway of the beam is an asset or a liability. I've always been curious about that.

"When we're through discussing all the theory and tests, it still comes down to better comfort for me on long rides, so, hopefully I'll get to ride more this next year without lower back pain and saddle area issues."
- - Count on it. I wish I'd had a SR for CaliMan last year. That was definitly 40 miles of bad road!!

---

Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...

Bumps in the road never go away. When a softride goes over the bumps the energy is transferred through to the beam. That's why you see them bounce. On a conventional frome those bumps are transferred and absorbed by the body and not the beam.

You should scream at them, that would be f*cking funny IMO.

I'll wager $5 that the softride would corner better given the same rider on a double diamond and a softride. In my sharper or off camber turns or rough turns is where you would see the greatest gains through a corner. I think my softride corners better than my current TT set up. I'd say I can carry 5mph more through a turn comfortably on the softride. Figure the avg tri/du course has at least 6 turns and your suddenly about 15-20 sec further up the road.

---

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

My experience, sounds similar to yours. I had a sponsorship deal with Softride back in the early- mid '90s when they were really trying to get the bikes out there. I trained and raced on a Softride Solo for 4 years. Loved the bike and recorded some very fast times( all time best times) in both triathlons and ITT's on it.

I don't race anymore and ride for fun and fitness. The Softride sits in the garage in bit's a pieces and I have been riding, when I do ride, Cervelo road bike for the few last years. I have a picture of me riding that Softride Solo at IMH in 1993 sitting on my desk here at work. The hardest thing I found about riding a Softride was weaning myself off it when I went back to a "normal" bike. There is a period of transition that you must go through going back to a fixed seat-post.

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

Hasn't it been shown that the best TTers are mashers, not "round pedalers", in that they put a lot of force into each downstroke? Wouldn't that imply that altering this winning method to accommodate the beam would put one at a disadvantage?

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

Hasn't it been shown that the best TTers are mashers, not "round pedalers", in that they put a lot of force into each downstroke?

I don't know. Has it? If so, are we talking about pure time trialers, or triathletes?

And when you say mashers who who put a lot of force on the downstroke, does that necessarily mean that they're not round pedalers? Mrs. Vitus grinds a bigger gear than I do, and has a much rounder pedal stroke. My growing impression is that it's generally easier to pedal in circles while "mashing" a big gear than while "spinning" a smaller one.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

I recall reading a reserch paper a few years ago, where they had taken top time trialers into the lab a tested them on where they were applying max force trying to determine what was the optimal pedal stroke.

Despite all the talk of spinning and a smooth pedal stroke it would seem that the top TT cyclists apply max force from 3 o'clock to 6 o'clock and that's it.

The other key pedal stroke technic tips I have been told about are to imagine you are scraping mud off the bottom of your boot and that the best cyclists, seem to have this ability to get the leg that is not applying force out of the way quickly and effciently on the backstroke to A) give themselves a micro rest and B) keep that leg out of the way so that the other leg CAN apply max force( ie the legs are not working against one another)

Fleck

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

ken wrote: Hasn't it been shown that the best TTers are mashers, not "round pedalers", in that they put a lot of force into each downstroke? Wouldn't that imply that altering this winning method to accommodate the beam would put one at a disadvantage?


I don't think so. I certainly haven't seen such proof...doesn't mean it doesn't exist, I just haven't seen it.

But, Lance Armstrong isn't considered to be a masher (at least, not anymore), and he seems to have decent TT results last time I checked. On the other hand, Bjorn Andersen is a masher, and he seems to do OK in TT's, too.

What is happening in the pedal stroke of these two riders? LA MAY be pedalling in "squares" without pulling up much at all, and BA MAY be a very "round" pedaller even though he is at an rpm commonly called "mashing". On the other hand, LA may be a very round pedaller, and BA may only push down. (I think they are both on the rounder side of the line, but, I don't know.) I guess my point is that neither "spinning" nor "mashing" denotes pulling up or not. One can "spin" while only pushing down or while pulling up. One can "mash" while only pushing down or while pulling up.

When I'm on a favorite circular TT course (Lowe's Motor Speedway in Charlotte), there are some 30+mph TTer's that pass me. Most of them are at a higher rpm than I am, but some are at my same rpm, and some are at a lower rpm than I. I'm also passing people that are at a higher rpm then I, the same rpm, and lower a rpm.

I don't see the proof here.

---

Quid quid latine dictum sit altum videtur
(That which is said in Latin sounds profound)

Fleck's recollection matches mine. Of course the maximum force is applied on the downstroke...somewhere between 3 o'clock and later.

This paper (I believe it was by Coyle, et.al., if it was the same paper) also had a discussion section where the author said that some of the riders, that didn't push down as hard as the fastest riders, partially compensated by having a "rounder" pedal stroke technique...similar to the "scrape the mud off the bottom of your shoe" and/or picking up the rising leg. And if these riders didn't have those stroke characteristics, they would have been further behind the very fastest. I don't remember the number of riders tested, but, it wasn't a big number (8? 12?).

This paper only showed what the pedalling characteristics currently were in this small sample of riders. If the best riders in this small sample happened to be "rounder" pedallers, it would not PROVE that round pedalling is "better", just as the paper didn't PROVE that not-so-round pedalling is "better".

Back to the bouncing...it would be my guess that bouncing would be inefficient...unless it were timed to recapture the forces with the opposite leg...something Cuz E thinks doesn't happen. I don't think the timing is sufficient to recapture energy either...but, I don't know. Anecdotal evidence such as Fleck's PRs and lots of other people's PRs occuring while on a beam bike isn't proof that beam bikes are faster, and, without seeing these people ride, I don't know whether these people rode with no bounce, little bounce, or a kangaroo bounce during their PRs. My guess is, they were smooth during their PRs, which might lend some support that smoother pedalling is a worthy goal. Again, I don't know.

What I DO know, is that riding on a beam is much more comfortable for me, and I hope to be able to put in many more comfortable miles this upcoming year. Perhaps, more miles will translate into faster times...if not, at least I'll be in less pain, so I'll enjoy it more.

---

Quid quid latine dictum sit altum videtur
(That which is said in Latin sounds profound)

Over the past few months I've been able to purchase 2 brand new Zipp 2001's, both still in the original bubble wrap and in the original Zipp box!! The second one is being built as we speak. I've now built up 4 of these bkes. They are very fast. NO bouncing on the beam, since I pre-load the beam and eliminate any bounce. The shock absorbsion(sp?) comes from the beam sitting on top of 2 elastomars. You can tighten the beam so as to squish the elastomers and get no bounce yet the beam still absorbs the road shock.

I've had a Softride, aluminum frame bikes , carbon frame bikes, lots of different manufacturers and a custom made Tiemeyer, but I always return to the Zipp's!

---

.
.
Paul

That's really cool! What are the Zipp beams made of? Do those beams have no flex, or just a little? How much total travel do you estimate your seat has on a Zipp? As you can tell, I've never seen one of these up close!

---

Quid quid latine dictum sit altum videtur
(That which is said in Latin sounds profound)

The carbon beam and frame are all hand made. Its just like a carbon bike frame, hollow! The beam will not have any movement if you pre-load the beam with the pre-load bolt. I can not push down on my beam and see it move at all. Even without a heavy/tight pre-load I'm sure you would not be able to depress the beam much against the elastomers anyway.

There is a pivot bolt that holds the beam to the frame...about 6-8 inches behind this bolt is the elastomers. The beam sits on the elastomers and has a bolt that is accessable from the top of the beam where you can either pre-load alot or a little onto the elastomers. Its actually a great setup once you get the beam height adjusted. You have to mount the beam then measure the BB to seat rail height. If its not right you have to take the beam off, adjust the height with an internal bolt that the elastomers sit on, remount the beam, pre-load as desired, re-measure, repeat until its right!

Softrides - as far as bouncing is concerned - I never felt it on my SE7 at race speeds. If I rode slow or at a high rpm over 105 then I would feel a bounce to the beam. With all the discussion about the effects of the bounce compared to effeciency....I actally had a feeling that IF I did bounce....it helped at times when I got tired. NOPE -no proof other then the feeling I had. I could have sweared the bouncing was helping me!

---

.
.
Paul

Not sure if Softride's are faster. I did see a guy at IMFL with a broken beam. He told us he had to ride stading up for the last 60 miles due to beam failure.

That sucks for him, but it is pretty impressive he went on to finish the race.

My definition of "masher" is one who exerts a lot of force over a small portion of the pedal cycle. It's not related to cadence. We don't know if Armstrong (or Andersson) is a "masher" by my definition; all we know is that he puts out a whole lot of power over a long period of time. As someone else mentioned, a study was done using force-measuring pedals (the only way to determine where in the pedal stroke the force is being applied), and found that the best cyclists/TTers put out their power over less of the cycle than others.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

>"the seat tube is the only tube on a bike that can lower the drag of a frameset. frames don't "churn" the airflow, wheels churn the air flow because of their spinning. frames disrupt it. that is why wheels have a bigger effect on a bike's drag then a frame (and account for more time savings if you have good ones)."

This makes sense to me and is consistent with what my non-engineer mind already thought. Therefore, I ask: what is the theory behind the Kestrel KM-40 and the new Airfoil? If you are right, this frame should be the worst of both worlds. (BTW, I was checking out an Airfoil frame at the LBS yesterday -- looks pretty sweet)

---

__________________________________________________
What a drag it is getting old. -- Stones

ken wrote: My definition of "masher" is one who exerts a lot of force over a small portion of the pedal cycle.

Could call them "hammers"? "Hammerers"? Suppose Hammegel people would object?

You may be right. Or, you may be right only under certain circumstances...I don't know. I think that a rider fitting your definition of a masher would show up as one of those riders that is a bouncer on a beam. I guess someone could do an experiment and see if they are faster or slower or unchanged in speed after training on a beam long enough to become "unbouncy". Still, it wouldn't really mean anything to the general riding public.

---

Quid quid latine dictum sit altum videtur
(That which is said in Latin sounds profound)

I hope Softride is reading this, as I agree 100% with your comments about the headtube length. I have a 650c Rocket (medium) and love the bike. Superior aerodynamics and comfort far outweigh any weight disadvantages. The one thing that annoys me is the fact that the head tube is 15cm!!! I have to run a declined stem and will need to invest in an Ergostem to get any lower (I run a 16cm drop at present). For such a well thought-out bike, I am amazed at this oversight. I have not seen anything to suggest that they have changed this on the new FasTT version (if they have, let me know and I might buy one)

Is the head tube longer to add stiffness to the bike?

---

Quid quid latine dictum sit altum videtur
(That which is said in Latin sounds profound)

We're reading it and getting some great feedback! The headtube length on the med Rocket TT is designed for the average/competitive rider in mind(dimentionally). Some will find the headtube length to short and others will find it to long, but most find it perfect.

The new Medium FASTT will have a headtube that is slightly shorter then Rocket TT. The web site will have all the new specs and will up and running before Christmas.

Thank you,

Adam

Softride Bike

rather than running a neg degree angle stem...run a Cinelli Angel..I swear the first time I rode mine I felt like I was pointed downhill the whole time. I'm almost scared of what my first downhill experience on them will be (nahhh not really...gonna be fun). For the record..I own two Powerwings and hope to one day up the ante to one of the newer versions..and I don't see myself going back to a regular frame any time soon.

no, the beam "emerges" from the head tube well below the top of the headtube - the top 5cm or so does not appear to be "structural"

Hey Adam - good to see you guys have your finger on the pulse. FYI, with Carbon X bars, the maximum drop I could achieve was a very modest 9cm. I changed to Hed bars which gave me another 3cm of drop with a flat stem. I have since installed a negative stem which gives me another 4cm of drop. I plan to go lower as I have not yet detected any loss of comfort or power. I know that the average person does not ride with 16cm of drop, but a headtube of 15cm is way excessive. Have a look at what your competition is doing (eg Cervelo, QR, etc). They are all going for minimal headtubes. Bill

don't go too much lower Bill..your knuckles will start to drag on the front tire...painfull and ugly...but it sure is aero;-)

actually, i was thinking i could avoid punctures if i used my chin to wipe the front tire :)

as an afterthoought..you could fasten a pair of Profile GT Jammers to your front forks...or maybe swap them out for your QR skewer..that oughta get you low enough..and shouldn't you be riding with your chin down? That can't be aero with your head up so high

you're right - I will use my forehead instead

seriously, 16cm drop is not extreme. i would guess Bjorn A rides with 25-30cm drop - now that's extreme!

I may of course be wrong, but I would venture to say you would have a tough time on any production tri-bike since you seem to ride really aggressive. Not that it is bad, but overall at the races I have been to including races where professionals were, very few people have their front end lower than their headtube would normally allow. As a manufacturer they have to produce what will work for the greatest range of people.

Softride is a unique bike that will attract certain individuals. I used to have a p2k that was very sexy and fast, but to me there is no amount of sexy and fast that makes up for a numb or just plain beat up crotch.

Softride:

Comfort= possibly the best except, maybe a titanflex.

Aero= certainly among the best

Adjustability= greater than any other, again with the exception of the titanflex.

And for the design being what it is, the bike on a whole is very structurally stable. I think they have done what is necessary to have the best performance possible in all aspects of riding.

most TT bikes in production now have a very short headtube. for example, take a look at

http://www.cervelo.com/...005/P3.html#Geometry

as you can see, they make only one frame (large in 700c) which has a head tube which is longer than the 15cm headtube on my (medium 650c) Rocket

Yes, I see what you are saying, but your proportions or needs may just be outside what they spec. I have a large 650 rocket (80 degree seat angle, 79cm bb to top of saddle)with 14cm of drop with the beam loaded and 2 cm of headset spacers. I have ridden it lower but found it not as comfortable, especially as I approach 60 miles. At what point does too low affect the quality of your run since you do not just run with your legs?

This will probably be one of those topics with no real conclusion, but it was enjoyable just the same.

Each manufacturer has a particular niche in mind, I am happy the bike was made precisely the way it was.

"This will probably be one of those topics with no real conclusion, but it was enjoyable just the same. "



It was never ment to. I just wanted to hear your opinion. And really enjoyed it, too.



Best regards



Martin

I just had an unexpected experience on the rollers. Just dusted the rollers off since I haven't been on them since last winter. Rode my double diamond bike on them a while, after a little shakiness, settled in and did OK. Then I put my beam bike on the rollers...I was much smoother as far as side-to-side motion. I thought I would dart back and forth more because I'd sometimes bounce slightly, therefore affecting the steering input. I guess the opposite happened, less unwanted steering input, because of the beam attenuation of any wiggling. Maybe people that don't bounce too much actually ride straighter on beam bikes for this reason? I don't know...I was just surprised by what I observed on the rollers.

---

Quid quid latine dictum sit altum videtur
(That which is said in Latin sounds profound)

Adam - a belated follow up thought - Softride's business plan is based around building a bike which has superior aerodynamics relative to traditional double diamond frames - the bikes are not cheap - you are selling to people who want to buy the fastest bike around and who are prepared to pay - but then you build a bike which makes it hard to set the bike up with more than about 10cm of drop without using a declined stem - let's see...build an aero bike...and then force the rider to sit up like a bloody great big sail - it doesn't make any sense - this is intended to be constructive criticism and I hope it is received that way - cheers, Bill

Bill,

The feedback and comments that are made on this forum is the best research that manufactures such as Softride can receive. So yes! We are taking this as constructive criticism and take all of these comments into account when we begin our design process.

The head tube length in relation to your drop from the saddle is dependent on a few different variables. Variables such as rider inseam, aero bar selection, and stem choice will all affect drop. I realize that the other manufactures you mentioned have shorter head tube lengths and that is the configured into the design of their bikes, such as ours is designed to fit with our geometry.

The new FASTT and FASTT7 have come down in cost and are now more affordable. The price for frame, fork, and beam is $2,250.00 down from $2,600.00. If you or anyone else of this forum would like more info on the design of the new FASTT please contact me.



Thank you,

Adam

Softride Bike

adam.greene@softride.com

Don't forget that the flip side of the coin of a shorter head tube is having shorter chainstays. The idea is to rotate the body position forward in order to get lower, not just to drop your head and shoulders and thus make the hip angle severe.

The idea of the tri position is to have a steep seat angle in order to aid in getting an aero position without collapsing the hip angle. This steep seat angle is achieved mostly by moving the bottom bracket back and thus making the chainstay shorter. Pushing the seat forward to achieve a steep seat angle doesn't work since it puts too much weight on the front wheel, thus compromising handling.

I would definitely give a Softride a try for my next bike, if your geometry supported a better aero position. I realize you can't be all things to all people or have 100 different models though.

Art - I don't think I agree with you here - you say that the BB is pushed back and that makes the chainstays shorter - with respect, the shortness of the chainstays is limited by the need to fit the wheel in there. Most makers already have the chainstays as short as possible. In fact, many makers are now adopting the rear-facing dropouts in order to shorten the chainstays a couple more mm and allow the wheel to get as close as possible to the seat tube.

Conceptually, I like to think of the BB as being fixed in space and I make this my "datum point". Hence, I prefer to think of the saddle being moved "forward", rather than the BB being moved "back".

When you move from a road position to a TT position you (a) rotate the seat tube to a steeper position, (b) lower the front end, and (c) slacken the front end to more of a touring geometry to account for the forward transfer of the rider's weight. The back end remains essentially unchanged - Bill.

My Cerveo P3 certainly has the chainstay just about as short as they can get it. Road bikes do not. Softrides, at least every time I have looked at their geometries, have road bike geometry, especially in their 700c bikes.

If you could just shove the seat forward without moving the BB, then road bikes with a forward seatpost would make great tri bikes. The reality is that, at least for most people, that doesn't work. I tried it with my road bike many moons ago, and it never worked for me, so I bought a P3. I couldn't handle the bike since way too much weight was on the front wheel.

Though I haven't looked at Softride geometry in the last year or two, I will wager that they could shorten the chainstay by 3 cm or more on their 700c bikes.

This is not a tough piece of information to find out. Just compare the Softride chainstay length to a 700c P3. You will find that the chainstay is a lot longer and the headtube higher. Correct me if I am wrong.

What I say is valid for me, and I think for most people. Those who are built like cats can get a great aero position without a steep seat tube and without being compromised by a severe hip angle. I don't qualify there since I am too fat and inflexible. I am sure Lance would have no problem though.

I never ceased to be amazed by the TdF breakaway riders when I see the beautiful, relaxed aero position they achieve on their road bike with a slack seat angle and no aerobars. I can get in that position too, but I would have to put in traction afterwards.

Chainstay length on the 650c frames is 37.4cm - I agree they could tighten that up a little - maybe they have done so on the new FAST frames?? I also agree that they make their headtubes too tall - if you scroll back thru the thread, you will see that was my original "gripe". One good thing about Softrides is that you can get as far forward as you want - they are very adjustable in that sense. I ride well forward (~81 degrees) and fairly low (16cm drop). I couldn't handle that much drop on a slack road bike.

I am going by memory here, but I recall the chainstay length for the 650c bikes was reasonable, but that the 700c bikes was much too long. Again, please correct me if I am wrong.

I agree with the headtube comment. My response was that, at least in general, a shorter chainstay is the flip side of a shorter headtube.

Sure, you can shove the seat way forward. The question is what does that do to the handling? Maybe you can handle such a bike, but I generally can't.

Shoving the seat way forward obviously makes the effective top tube that much shorter as well, so again you have handling and fit issues.

Enough memory. Softride 700c Rocket TT chainstay length is 41.5 cm vs. 38 cm for the comparable P3.

Dropping the headtube is not enough for riders like me. I need a shorter chainstay to have a bike I can handle with a steep seat angle.

Art, I agree the chainstay could be shortened. However, when it gets TOO short, shifting issues arise, especially those noisy cross-overs becoming worse as the chainstays get shorter. On the other hand, some of the chainring differences may be possible without rubbing interference. I know I can't run a 54X39 with about a 40cm chainstay without some rub, but a 54X42 is fine...only thing is, on some hills, I'd sure rather have my 39. Shorter chainstays may stiffen the rear end, but, that may impair ride quality to some degree, and it would affect handling.

So far, we've talked about the issues regarding shorter chainstays as: providing sufficient room to fit the wheel, weight distribution/handling, ride quality/stiffness, and chainline/shifting characteristics. Are there other aspects of chainstay length we're forgetting?

---

Quid quid latine dictum sit altum videtur
(That which is said in Latin sounds profound)

I've never had any problems with my beam. Also, when it bounces it just means that I'm not pedaling in the right gear. The bike doesn't make any noise except for my Zipp wheels. I was so happy to be riding my Softride up at Placid this year for Ironman. The bike is just amazing. Just one other thing to mention... Jurgen Zack rides a Softride as well as Ryan Bolton when he won Lake Placid Ironman a couple of years ago.

Yes, I have crossover gear problems on my P3, but they are very managable.

I can't add anything to your list of issues with regard to chainstay length. I am afraid the limits of my knowledge are detailed above.