Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Framebuilders
Reload this Page >

Open Source List of Frame Measurements?

Notices
Framebuilders Thinking about a custom frame? Lugged vs Fillet Brazed. Different Frame materials? Newvex or Pacenti Lugs? why get a custom Road, Mountain, or Track Frame? Got a question about framebuilding? Lets discuss framebuilding at it's finest.

Open Source List of Frame Measurements?

Old 12-07-19, 01:38 PM
  #1  
bikingman
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 129
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Open Source List of Frame Measurements?

Hello!

Does anyone know of an open source dataset of frame measurements as described by the manufacture?

To illustrate my idea, I created https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Hchy-HQwfRFUSmpGENmRIY1ephZ0pDnnIvk9QaDpYMc/edit?usp=sharing]this workbook [/url] in Google Sheets that contains information found on BMC's website. Basically, I'm looking for a list of bike frames with the associated information in tabular format that's relevant to frame building. Ideally, this dataset would be queryable in Excel or a similar software.

Thanks!
bikingman is offline  
Old 12-07-19, 03:22 PM
  #2  
Nessism
Senior Member
 
Nessism's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Torrance, CA
Posts: 2,832

Bikes: Homebuilt steel

Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 175 Post(s)
Liked 34 Times in 29 Posts
I'm unaware of such a database.

Back when I got serious about riding and later framebuilding in the 1990's I made my own spreadsheet of specs of frames in my size. Take away was that there was very little difference. There were a few outliers with steep angles or slightly longer chain stays but overall there wasn't much variation. I frankly doubt that experienced framebuilders would use such a database should it be available. Most custom frames are custom fit for the intended user and purpose so a database of off the shelf frame specs wouldn't be very useful.
Nessism is online now  
Likes For Nessism:
Old 12-07-19, 03:40 PM
  #3  
bikingman
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 129
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
That's a great reply, thanks! I asked because I'd like to get my head around the categorical differences in frame types by looking at geometries over large number of bicycles types. Like was do gravel bikes look like, what do mountain bikes look etc....

I'll keep my eye out, thanks!
bikingman is offline  
Old 12-07-19, 07:40 PM
  #4  
duanedr 
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Seattle
Posts: 292
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 41 Post(s)
Liked 16 Times in 12 Posts
I agree with Nessism. Having said that...

Of course someone has done this! It was (cleverly) called the Frame Geometry Project!! Looks like the most recent bike was 2008 Rivendells.

https://www.hiddenfortress.org/geometry/index.html
__________________
https://www.flickr.com/photos/54319503@N05/
https://www.draper-cycles.com
duanedr is offline  
Likes For duanedr:
Old 12-07-19, 09:44 PM
  #5  
bikingman
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 129
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by duanedr View Post
I agree with Nessism. Having said that...

Of course someone has done this! It was (cleverly) called the Frame Geometry Project!! Looks like the most recent bike was 2008 Rivendells.

https://www.hiddenfortress.org/geometry/index.html
Wow, this is exactly what I had in mind. Thanks for pointing this out. Wonder how the info was gathered. I'll inspect the backend once I'm near a computer.

On a side note - when you say every frame is different. Is this down to every angle and tube length? I mean, are there no rules of thumb or windows of measure used on a given frame type you consider while designing a frame? For example, do headtube angles fall within 2 degrees of each other for 80% of road bikes?I imagine there are general rules, and that's what I wanted to look for in the data. But this approach might be short sighted!

Thanks again!
bikingman is offline  
Old 12-08-19, 12:16 PM
  #6  
duanedr 
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Seattle
Posts: 292
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 41 Post(s)
Liked 16 Times in 12 Posts
Originally Posted by bikingman View Post
Wow, this is exactly what I had in mind. Thanks for pointing this out. Wonder how the info was gathered. I'll inspect the backend once I'm near a computer.

On a side note - when you say every frame is different. Is this down to every angle and tube length? I mean, are there no rules of thumb or windows of measure used on a given frame type you consider while designing a frame? For example, do headtube angles fall within 2 degrees of each other for 80% of road bikes?I imagine there are general rules, and that's what I wanted to look for in the data. But this approach might be short sighted!

Thanks again!
I think your theory is valid. The underlying reasoning might not be what you expect though.

You can see how bikes from the '60s compare to bikes from the early 2000's for a specific type of bike. Road racing bikes have gotten steeper because they are more specialized and roads are better. We used to ride road bikes on gravel before we had gravel bikes, they had to be more stable. We cared about comfort then so the bikes were longer (42-43cm CS) and ST/HT angles are shallower to provide some extra flex and room for (gasp!) fat tires like 27x1-1/4. Now race bikes can be short and steep and designers can add chunks of rubber or different carbon layups to provide compliance.

Road bikes can ride really well with head tube angles of 71* to 74*. They will ride differently but both can handle well. In nearly all cases, the same model of road bike from the same manufacturer will have, for example, a 72* HTA with 74* seat tube angle on their smallest bikes and 74* head tube angle and 73* seat tube angle on the largest bikes - not because of handling but because of safety and production process requirements. Chainstay lengths should increase for larger bikes as well. For the largest sizes, keeping chainstays short and HTA steep keeps the large sizes compact so the bike can still fit into the same box as the rest of the sizes - adding a new box to the inventory is costly. Also, they usually use the same fork which is the real compromise. However, the bikes ride predictably within those ranges so it's fine.

The point is that production geometry is as much a result of business and production decisions as bicycle design decisions.

Anyway, enjoy comparing bikes across types and eras!
__________________
https://www.flickr.com/photos/54319503@N05/
https://www.draper-cycles.com
duanedr is offline  
Old 12-08-19, 12:33 PM
  #7  
unterhausen
Randomhead
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Happy Valley, Pennsylvania
Posts: 19,900
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked 428 Times in 327 Posts
it's pretty interesting to see what has happened with mtb's in the last 5 years. Used to be less slack head tubes and 100mm travel forks. Now it seems like they all have slack head tubes and 120mm forks minimum. Pretty much all have the same amount of rake though, 45mm is sacrosanct.
unterhausen is offline  
Old 12-08-19, 04:39 PM
  #8  
duanedr 
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Seattle
Posts: 292
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 41 Post(s)
Liked 16 Times in 12 Posts
Originally Posted by unterhausen View Post
45mm is sacrosanct.
Not to mention that road/gravel bikes generally have around 45mm of offset as well.
__________________
https://www.flickr.com/photos/54319503@N05/
https://www.draper-cycles.com
duanedr is offline  
Old 12-08-19, 06:09 PM
  #9  
bikingman
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 129
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by duanedr View Post
I think your theory is valid. The underlying reasoning might not be what you expect though.

You can see how bikes from the '60s compare to bikes from the early 2000's for a specific type of bike. Road racing bikes have gotten steeper because they are more specialized and roads are better. We used to ride road bikes on gravel before we had gravel bikes, they had to be more stable. We cared about comfort then so the bikes were longer (42-43cm CS) and ST/HT angles are shallower to provide some extra flex and room for (gasp!) fat tires like 27x1-1/4. Now race bikes can be short and steep and designers can add chunks of rubber or different carbon layups to provide compliance.

Road bikes can ride really well with head tube angles of 71* to 74*. They will ride differently but both can handle well. In nearly all cases, the same model of road bike from the same manufacturer will have, for example, a 72* HTA with 74* seat tube angle on their smallest bikes and 74* head tube angle and 73* seat tube angle on the largest bikes - not because of handling but because of safety and production process requirements. Chainstay lengths should increase for larger bikes as well. For the largest sizes, keeping chainstays short and HTA steep keeps the large sizes compact so the bike can still fit into the same box as the rest of the sizes - adding a new box to the inventory is costly. Also, they usually use the same fork which is the real compromise. However, the bikes ride predictably within those ranges so it's fine.

The point is that production geometry is as much a result of business and production decisions as bicycle design decisions.

Anyway, enjoy comparing bikes across types and eras!
Now that's insight. This makes me feel dubious about mass produced bicycles, but real about the tension between perfection and continuity. "Why can't the company simply increase the box sizes when the design calls for dimensions larger than a standard box allows?" - "because we all need to eat and keep the lights on."

I'm less interested in the currently popular culture of frame design, than I am more interested in what makes a cross bike tick or a road bike glide. Sounds like I need to be careful with this approach. Thanks again for the insight!
bikingman is offline  
Old 12-09-19, 01:06 AM
  #10  
duanedr 
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Seattle
Posts: 292
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 41 Post(s)
Liked 16 Times in 12 Posts
Originally Posted by bikingman View Post
Now that's insight. This makes me feel dubious about mass produced bicycles
Don't get me wrong. A production Specialized/Trek/Giant in the $2-4000 range represents amazing value if a 54-58cm size range bike fits you. They are well designed and engineered and ride really well - they can be great bikes! And the folks who are designing, spec'ing and building them are great folks trying to do the best they can within the parameters they are given. I'm not putting them down at all. It's the same in EVERY industry from shoes to cars.

As the rider and their needs move further from center though, the production world has to introduce compromises. It pains me to see a 4' 8'' rider on a $8000 carbon road bike that I know could fit and handle much better AND be way more interesting.
__________________
https://www.flickr.com/photos/54319503@N05/
https://www.draper-cycles.com
duanedr is offline  
Likes For duanedr:
Old 12-09-19, 07:25 AM
  #11  
bikingman
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 129
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by duanedr View Post
Don't get me wrong. A production Specialized/Trek/Giant in the $2-4000 range represents amazing value if a 54-58cm size range bike fits you. They are well designed and engineered and ride really well - they can be great bikes! And the folks who are designing, spec'ing and building them are great folks trying to do the best they can within the parameters they are given. I'm not putting them down at all. It's the same in EVERY industry from shoes to cars.

As the rider and their needs move further from center though, the production world has to introduce compromises. It pains me to see a 4' 8'' rider on a $8000 carbon road bike that I know could fit and handle much better AND be way more interesting.

Totally agree that the good companies are generally doing a great job.
bikingman is offline  
Old 12-24-19, 01:54 AM
  #12  
ajerichos
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 10
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
i wish bikeinsights.com and geometrygeeks.bike considering to add what type of tubing the bike listed.
ajerichos is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.