Koogar

Thanks for your interest! I'll start by noting that the website should be up within the next couple of weeks and will have content related to our design philosophy and what we're up to currently.

As for production availability, we won't start until we're confident that we've got the geometry dialed. Right now, we're on round one of prototyping, with three frames of varying geometry in a single size. In terms of ride testing schedule, we'd like to get the bulk done on the outdoor 250m track here (BVV) before winter and test under the dome at the OTC track, too. Colby and I were both on the frames just yesterday and after juggling frames and forks into a new combination, he came across some really unexpected results with his setup. Like nothing you've read about how track frame geometry is supposed to work. So I do think there's still worthwhile research to be done. All that said, we will try not to get so close to next season that people like yourself are left on the fence trying to decide whether to wait for our product.

We're designing the frame to accommodate up to 56T; I haven't physically checked anything beyond a 53T yet on the prototypes, but there's definitely some forming of the right chainstay.

The tubing we're using right now comes from Dedacciai, selected from a few different tube sets of theirs for the potential to build a stiff frame for mass start racing. We're not wedded to it, but we've been really pleasantly surprised and gotten positive reactions about the stiffness of the frame from others who have asked to take one of the bikes for a spin. So, I'm not too worried about being able to meet our design goals with off the shelf tubing. Also, I would add that I've come to give claims about "proprietary tubing drawn to our specifications" less weight as we've gone through this process, unless it's someone like Giant making the claim. It's very expensive to draw tubing to custom specifications, the minimum quantities are huge, and the Asian producers already offer a pretty large selection. There are some gaps in the offerings, sure, but I can't see how it would make sense for a small builder to be having custom tube sets drawn.

The seat tube on the first three protos are 31.6. I'm not sure what you mean about a fairing, but that description generally suggests things that may run afoul of the UCI rules and we're planning to get UCI frame approval.

carleton

FYI: Some of the "big gear" nuts are riding 60t. The reason I know is because they've asked me to make sizes that big in the settings for my apps.

It's not the norm, but they are out there.

jfiveeight

Nice, hard to see 27.2 vs 31.6 in digital pictures from the 90's. Fairing is the wrong word, i was referring to the contemporary "aero" style seat tube shape: teardrop shape with a wheel cutout.

Bummer about the dinner plates! I'm hoping to serve meals on a something a bit larger next year. Should be right around 252mm from the center to the edge of the teeth.

Koogar

Makes me wonder what cog they're running in back. Even a 14T would put their gearing higher than I've ever seen reported for Hoy or Wiggo. Sugino only makes Zen chainrings up to 58T. If the need is to hit a specific gear inch number with a larger cog in back, I'd wonder what the point of going so unusually big-big is.

Koogar

Aero ST with cutout is a possibility.... Colby is much more of a freak about teeny tiny aerodynamic gains from frames than I am - I'd say I'm more of an aerodynamics realist - and he'd like it. But then again, he goes fast and his form is perfect. Colby has also pointed out to me examples of rear wheel cutouts that don't actually match the rear wheel. And we've both seen plenty of examples of bad seatpost binder implementations. We'd have to find something we really like or be able to fabricate it at scale without adding hundreds of dollars to the manufacturing cost. It's on the wish list for an aluminum frame, especially a timed event version, but not at the top because of these considerations.

carleton

Here's how one conversation went:

[customer] "Could you please add a 65T chainring to the time trial simulator :-) "
[me] (thinking that he was full of it) "Show me a photo of a 65t chainring on a bike and I’ll add it "
[customer] (promptly emails me a pic of his BT Edge with a dinner plate on the side of it) "Haha hey mate, that's a 65T chainring on my bike right now on my rollers. I only own 55-57-58-60-65T chainrings ;-) "
[me]

I immediately made the update to my apps


So, yeah, they are out there.

Maybe it's over-gear work. Not sure about the training methodology in play.

dunderhi

IIRC, there's a Master at Ttown that runs a 63. I think he made it himself.

Koogar

It's not over gearing if he's on rollers, you just get to listen to your wheels spin at a million kph while you put out 175W.
And I at least can't think of anything productive I'd do on the track with 130+ gear inches, which wouldn't be better accomplished with a squat rack. If he's on the track, he's doing over 71kph with a pretty mediocre sprint cadence of 130rpm using his SMALLEST chainring and a 13T in back. You really took this guy seriously?!

carleton

The pic was his bike sitting on the rollers. Who's to say that he doesn't also use the 65 on the track. I didn't ask him how he uses the 65. I'm pretty sure he knows that riding a 65t/13t on rollers is like a roadie riding 53/10 on rollers (that doesn't keep them from doing it, hahaha).


Yes. Totally...and I think you should, too.

The guy is a customer and he obviously has invested a good deal of money in his equipment (BT Edge, custom chainrings, etc...) so he takes himself seriously at least. Why shouldn't I? It was trivial amount of work on my part that made him happy.

To speculate on training methods, I firmly believe in low-cadence strength work on the bike. The kind of very slow grinding where you feel each muscle big and small in the system slowly and deliberately. At higher cadences, these muscles get overlooked because the next big muscle takes over before they can activate and engage with any significance. But guess where that deficiency shows up? During standing starts.

It seems like every year when newbies start on the track and there's a clinic with standing starts involved, SOMEONE pulls a muscle. One of those small muscles that I mentioned above

Koogar

You highlight an important distinction. It was a trivial addition for you and costs other customers nothing. But on a production frame, it could require more deformation of a chainstay, which compromises the frame to some greater extent than necessary for the vast majority of the potential population. If it was common, accepted training practice, I'd find a way to make it work well. Weaken every frame to accommodate a few super edge cases using a chainring size that's not even in regular production? No. And I'm happy for people who can afford to buy expensive gear, but that doesn't on its face make their judgment carry any more weight with me.

carleton

Well, here's the thing: If you keep ignoring the super edge cases, then you are only left with a middle-of-the-road product.

There are enough all-around, middle-of-the-road track bikes out there. Probably too many. Just like there are enough "stopwatch" apps and "fixie gear calculator" apps in the app store...too many. Mine are different because I made them especially for track racers and I solve problems for them that only my apps solve.

Without solving the edge cases, it's really difficult to get someone to stop using their current gear calculator, stopwatch, or frame and buy yours

A great selling point is, "Hey, you know that thing you've always wanted to do but couldn't? Well my product will allow you to do that!"

You know as well as I do that putting big chainrings on bike is as old as bikes themselves. Don't act like this is new and uncharted territory for bike builders

Banchad

Built this up in November last year and have only been able to ride it in anger once. Curse whoever thought outdoor velodromes in rainy countries were a good idea.

dunderhi

In all practicality, 56T should be more than plenty. With a 12T cog you have a 125" gear. If anyone wants to push more than that, their frame choices should be limited just like their chain ring choices. I suspect they would be in the 0.1% fringe.

dunderhi

That's nice!

jfiveeight

Yes, fringe for now. But just as people are slowing climbing up in gear inches for sprints at elite levels to keep pace, i suspect it will become more common place in several years. Rio was a great example.

Koogar

Carleton, I'm trying to tell you that we have a different design philosophy than what you're pushing. The basis for our priorities are:

1) Colby's belief and mine that better handling and fitting track frames are possible compared to what's out there, especially in the mid-market,
2) The feedback of an athlete (Colby) who has competed and coached at a very high level of the sport, based on real testing of geometries and materials, and
3) Our observations of and discussions with people that occur through riding and racing.

We want to be best in class at the things we're focused on and to stay focused on what we think is important - there's nothing middle of the road about it. You are erring by conflating the goal of improving on aspects that would be important to many people with creating a product that doesn't excel at anything. I agree that there are plenty of examples of the latter.

Focus implies that some people might not get what they want on a production frame. In this case those disappointed may include the guy whose smallest(!) chainring is a 57T, the other (long dead) guy whose wooden rims probably won't fit on our frame anyway, and the (road TT - not even track) guy who smirks at your envy of his custom carbon fiber pizza pan.

jfiveeight

The pizza pan comment got me, hahah. I double checked my math and I gave you the diameter. 130mm from center should be a 64t.

8bits

here's mine

Koogar

Very nice - sprinterly!

I like what I've seen of the DF4 a lot. And the Wing rides great. Weird question, but what top cap do you have above the stem? I've found that the Wing steerer is so thick that a 1" plug is required instead of 1 1/8", which then leads to gymnastics matching the rest of the headset parts.

8bits

Thanks Koogar!

Regarding the topcap, my frameset came with one so I'm using the original I guess, but it seems to be a normal 1 1/8" topcap.

brawlo

I think I know who you are talking about here, and if it is that person, he has unfortunately had to retire due to injury.

You can ignore emerging trends at your peril. If you put your ear to the ground you may hear of such training methods that are firmly grounded in science and evidence taking track sprinters to the fastest times ever (both masters and elite). Strength training on a bike is a real thing, and more and more people are doing it because it works! Never neglect the fact that you don't necessarily race on a gear that you train on.

For me personally, I specified my new Duratec frame to be able to accommodate a 65t chainring. I don't have one, but for reasons of on bike strength training, I would like to have the option in the future. Why do you think that you need to accommodate every frame with an indented chainstay. I would attempt to accommodate anything up to 55T, and from there perhaps have some modified stays for those that request it. It is also possible to space out a chainring to make it fit. I have a friend who does that with a 65T.

Koogar

Brawlo, I'm not saying I would refuse to build such a frame on a custom basis, only that it does not make sense for our production frame now. If it happens to work based on the tubes and angles, fine. If we foresee it becoming a more mainstream desire/need, then it would become a production specification ahead of that. As of today - well, how many people do you know own a 65T chainring? Where are the places you could easily get one?

carleton

Year: 2005
[customer] Hey, can you custom make me some 33, 35, and 37cm carbon sprint bars?
[builder] hahaha wut?
[customer] 33, 35, 37cm. I want to try something.
[builder] Hey, don't you know that standard road and enduro track bars are 44cm. Track sprint bars are 40cm and maybe 38cm for narrow ones. Are these 37cm bars for you kid or something? hahahaha
[customer] Are you gonna build them or not?
[builder] No. Not worth it. No one uses them and never will. I think Nitto makes some 36cm as a joke or something.
[customer] (Walks out dejected)

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

This didn't happen to me, but conversations like that did take place.

Seriously, up until 2011 people thought that anything under 38cm was nuts. Now, for sprinters, 37cm is "wide" and 38cm is unheard of.

2016 Olympics:



Here's the thing...there were a few early adopters of narrow bars, even though they weren't carbon:

2007:


2006:


We know what those two crazy kids went on to do with their crazy ideas


Do not ignore people who are thinking outside of the box...and winning.

brawlo

@Koogar I only know 2 people that have them. As for getting one, there are a number of different manufacturers making rings on a regular basis up to 70T that I hear of on the grapevine. For more local to me, GR8 Designs make them and I have their rings in 58T & 60T. I know someone over in the USA who purchased a 60T from them for about $60. Modern machining techniques mean that just about any well equipped modern machine shop should be able to produce one for you. I could also get one for you made from carbon fibre. Apparently very well wearing and much lighter than alloy. The number of enduro riders working with larger gears are few but they are out there. Within sprinter ranks the numbers are growing as the knowledge gets out there, and so many people begin to let go of their old ideas and embrace new ones that are making people faster

Koogar

Carleton: re-read what I wrote immediately above.