Evil bike..?

[Popoki_Nui]

I swear this bike is evil, or hates me, or something. I just don't get it: it's the lightest bike in my fleet, and should be the fastest. It has nice 700c x 23 road tires, decent enough running gear (Shimano 600), and weighs a whopping 19 pounds. Nice wide range freewheel.
Yet the longer I ride it, the heavier and slower it gets. Honestly....I can't figure this out. By the time I've spent an hour or two on it, it feels like forty pounds of lead pipe on concrete wheels. I bought it as an unrideable wreck, and spent ages rebuilding everything. All the bearings and new, well lubed and adjusted, and run smooth and free. No brake drag. Frame is straight and true. (Had some fender rub today, but it behaves the same with or without fenders) Everything's just fine mechanically, but at the end of almost every ride I swear I'm towing a hundred pound sled behind me. Today I was tempted to hurl it into the sea and walk home.
Anyone ever experience anything like this?? I am SO frustrated.....

~Sherry.

[xeney]

Does it fit? That's how my road bike felt when I got a new saddle that was less adjustable than my old one, and I wound up way too far forward over the cranks. It just felt pedaling through Jello or something!

[Popoki_Nui]

Does it fit? That's how my road bike felt when I got a new saddle that was less adjustable than my old one, and I wound up way too far forward over the cranks. It just felt pedaling through Jello or something!

Yep, the bike fits fine. When I rescued it from a junk pile, I took measurements of the frame dimensions and compared them to the measurements of my Gitane, just to make sure the bike was going to fit and hence worth restoring. The only differences are the rear triangle is a little shorter, and the fork rake is a little less, resulting in a shorter wheelbase. Otherwise, the frame is a good fit, and the saddle height and angle, stem and bar height are identical to my Gitane.
It's so weird: all my other bikes (mountain, road, cross) feel better the longer I ride them. This one is just the opposite.

[gnarwhal]

I think i'd have a good fiddle with the saddle if i were you...not sure what else to offer, except that my bike too is evil. In a slightly different manner though...it did this to me last week.

[Popoki_Nui]

I think i'd have a good fiddle with the saddle if i were you...not sure what else to offer, except that my bike too is evil. In a slightly different manner though...it did this to me last week.

Ouch! What happened??

edit: I have indeed adjusted the saddle (and replaced the one in the pic). For some reason, the bike just does not want to roll)

[DeniseGoldberg]

I could be wrong, but I believe that both the shorter rear triangle and the fork rake will change the feel of the bike. The fit may be correct, but you are probably comparing the feel of the bike to your other bikes and it sounds like the frame geometry is very different.

From an article by Sheldon Brown on bike frame materials:

Frame geometry. Generally, frames with longer chain stays, and less vertical seat-tube and head-tube angles are more comfortable. This doesn't make them any slower, but may reduce maneuverability (also known as twitchiness.)

I know that you weren't asking about frame materials but if you're interested in the full article, it can be found here.

There are probably some women here who are a lot more familiar with frame geometry and how it changes the handling of a bike - hopefully one of them will chime in here. Now I'm curious...

[mimitabby]

I'm curious too. It looks like a great bike, why doesn't it roll well?

[Popoki_Nui]

Sure, the shorter rear end and steeper fork does change the feel of the bike (this one is indeed a lot "twitchier than any of my other road bikes), but that shouldn't have a significant effect on speed. Even going downhill, this bike is slow. ( to put it another way, a LOT more effort is required to attain the same speed as on my other road bikes, even downhill). FWIW, the geometry of the frame (main triangle tube angles and lengths) are virtually identical with my TdF, only the wheelbase is different. Both are d/b steel.

I'm wondering if I'm using tires which are too narrow? I have read in the past that tires which are too narrow can cause a loss of efficiency. Maybe that's the problem??

[Bad JuJu]

Interesting.... I've always thought that it was wider tires that cause lower efficiency by providing greater rolling resistance. But hey, you learn something every day--how would narrow tires cause decreased efficiency?

[BleeckerSt_Girl]

There's just something about that bike picture that makes it look oddly proportioned in some way, not sure what it is. The saddle and handlebars seem awfully big and clunky, but you say you changed the saddle. Everything looks so short in length and built up tall, even the frame, but it's just an impression...

[SouthernBelle]

There's just something about that bike picture that makes it look oddly proportioned in some way, not sure what it is. The saddle and handlebars seem awfully big and clunky, but you say you changed the saddle. Everything looks so short in length and built up tall, even the frame, but it's just an impression...

Look at the length of the headtube (term?) the distance from the toptube to the down tube does seemd to be greater. The backend seems to be higher too. Or is this all just an optical illusion. Could you compare the measurements on specific parts of the frame with your other bikes?

[Popoki_Nui]

There's just something about that bike picture that makes it look oddly proportioned in some way, not sure what it is. The saddle and handlebars seem awfully big and clunky, but you say you changed the saddle. Everything looks so short in length and built up tall, even the frame, but it's just an impression...

No...you're quite right....the very short wheelbase makes the bike look short and tall. It looks somewhat more proportionate in person vs that photo, but it is oddly proportioned compared to other bikes. The bars look clunky due to the thick cork wrap, but they're just regular flat road bars with bar ends.

[Grog]

You didn't say anything about the wheels.

What about the hubs? Are they the same as your other bikes? Maybe they're a different quality and just don't roll as fast? Maybe the bearings need a bit more maintenance?

Just pitchin' in.

[Popoki_Nui]

Look at the length of the headtube (term?) the distance from the toptube to the down tube does seemd to be greater. The backend seems to be higher too. Or is this all just an optical illusion. Could you compare the measurements on specific parts of the frame with your other bikes?

Mostly it's an illusion from the angle I took the pic from, and those lines on my garage door don't help either Maybe I should try for a better pic...

I did compare measurements from my Gitane (which is supremely comfy to ride, and which I compare all potential project bikes with): the top tube, down tube, seat tube, and head tube are all the same. The head tube angle is identical. The seat tube angles are a degree or so different (72 degrees on the Gitane vs ~70.5 on the Bianchi). Nothing there explains why the dike requires such high effort to get the same speed. Curiouser and curiouser....

[Popoki_Nui]

You didn't say anything about the wheels.

What about the hubs? Are they the same as your other bikes? Maybe they're a different quality and just don't roll as fast? Maybe the bearings need a bit more maintenance?

Just pitchin' in.

All ideas gratefully received!! The hubs are Shimano 600, Ambrosio rim up front and Mavic rear. I completely disassembled them, replaced the bearings, lubed, reassembled, adjusted them when I rebuilt the bike. They spin nice and easily (only about 650km's on them), certainly as well as the hubs on my other bikes. Brand new XT cartridge BB, too.
To put this all into perspective, I normally do an avg speed or around 25-30km/h (15-18mph) on rolling roads/paths on my Gitane and Falcon on a nice Sunday ride. This bike I can just manage 20km/h (12mph) with the same effort. Just seems like I'm fighting to make it go.....