I seem to be settling in on a position around 80-81 degrees. I was wondering how many bikes out there have good handling when ridden that steep. I’m not really looking for “acceptable” handling, or I’d stick with the converted road bike that I’m riding now. I’m looking for something that you can ride on the aerobars down twisty downhills at speed or swerve to avoid a dropped bottle without having to think.
Any experiences to share re. how well your bike handles if ridden steep?
Thanks.
None. My P2K feels much better than my old QR kilo, but on a highly technical downhill I’d feel more secure on my road bike…
How steep are you riding the P2K?
My Yaqui Carbo, built at 78 degrees, handles like a dream at downhill speed. This was one of the primary concerns that I expressed to Ves when we were going through the original set-up dance. I ride the bike at 80 degrees; super stable.
I’m riding a P3 at about 81 to 82 degrees, and I have no problem with the handling. I also live in the mountains where there are some wicked decents, and one that is almost straight away for 10 minutes. With no wind, or slight tail wind I get to over 55 mph on this descent, and never had a speed wobble, while many who ride with me and try and keep up, do. And many of these bikes are road bikes. Only thing I can figure is that the 650c wheels might have something to do with helping at the higher speeds. I don’t believe there have been tests done, but maybe the lower center of gravity, or the tighter circumfrence of the wheel helps out. Or maybe it’s just the bike, Just know that it works for me, good luck…
Another vote for Yaqui Carbo. No hands all day on my Yaqui. Had a P3 that wasn’t stable on a flat, let alone a steep downhill.
I have a stock Yaqui Carbo, ride at 77 degrees, extremely stable in all conditions - even no hands(or elbows…).
How steep were your riding the P3? What size was it and were the wheels 650 or 700?
Do you feel like you’ve lost any aero by going to the Yaqui?
Thanks.
Slowman has an article that goes into the specifics of his “dream ride” on a Yaqui.
http://www.slowtwitch.com/mainheadings/techctr/experiment.html
I’ve had three bikes set up steep, and all of them handled the way you described. One with short wheelbase, two with long wheelbase. Longer is better on straights, but they all cornered nicely at high speed. I think that sort of handling is more dependent on how a rider handles his own body weight shifts than what the bike is doing.
ADD: I do have a “no hands” requirement, though. The bike has to handle well riding with no hands. The short wheelbase bike didn’t, but the long ones did/do.
I am getting real close to pullying the trigger on the Yaqui Ocotillo with the DE frame. Everyone that can fit on this frame says it handles
like a dream. May have to give it a shot.
Dave
I’ve read that, and I’ve been talking with Ves. I even stumbled across this:
http://www.slowtwitch.com/mainheadings/product2006/tribikes/tribikeyaqui.html
I don’t know if Dan has any 2006 product reviews officially up, but I came across that one for Yaqui from Google.
I like the idea of a slacker head angle combined with more fork rake which results in a typical trail number. Are any frame makers other than Ves making bikes oriented like those along the lines of Dan’s geometry experiement?
I’m on a Zipp 2001 and am 5cm in front of the bb. I figure I’m very close to 90 as I sit on the tip of the saddle. My bikes all handle just fine with this setup. I’ve been riding bikes like this with this setup for years.
"How steep are you riding the P2K? "
Around 79/80.
Think about it - there’s a reason why road racers don’t ride steep angles bikes (except for the TT). That reason is that they just don’t handle as well.
" That reason is that they just don’t handle as well. "
If they were built right they would handle just fine. BTW, the STA choice of the pros has nothing to do with handling.
Nonsense. There is a reason why the CSC team is road racing Soloists and R2.5’s rather than P3’s. Ask Gerard if you don’t believe me.
It’s all about the Yaqui DE geometry.
I tend to agree. Why other manufacturers, especially those that aren’t Cervelo and therefore have nothing but market share to gain, don’t offer a DE-type geometry is beyond me. I also think that if I were Cervelo I’d buy up Softride’s patent portfolio and carbonize the design and come up with a world-beating beam bike, as well as come out with a DE geometry option.
Maybe it’s just me, but I also think the forward-turned seatpost on Cervelo’s seatpost is just ugly. I’m sure it makes sense from an engineering and economic point of view, but the look of it is something that I’d have to overcome if I were to ride one. Maybe Gerard and Phil can offer up a DE-styled bike that allows you to ride 80 degrees with a zero degree seatpost with the saddle in the middle of the rails. If not, then why not someone else?
There seems to be so little attempt at innovation. i’m not going to go chasing after marginal improvements and pay top dollar for it.
“There is a reason why the CSC team is road racing Soloists and R2.5’s rather than P3’s”
So, if I were to ask Gerard he would say that the reason CSC does not ride P3’s in road races is because they don’t handle well? Doubtful.
The real reason they don’t ride P3’s in mass start races has to do with Riis not being an idiot and setting his boys up on sleek looking, but relatively heavy time trial bikes with a mammoth stack of spacers and drop bars…
The reason the pros do not ride steep is because they are not allowed to - UCI regs require the seat to be 5cm behind the BB. Many would ride steeper if they could - especially in TT’s.
Have to agree with Monty. I live in the same area and have had my P3 up to 53 mph on Davenport Road (following an unsuspecting GMC Suburban) and it felt very solid and this is with 700 c wheels on a 58 cm frame.
I would not want to make any evasive manuevers at that speed but the bike is better than me.