Frame Geometry
09-29-08, 07:09 AM
#26
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Thylacine, your comments seem a bit myopic... to me it is like saying that a cyclo-cross bike will do on a mountain bike course just fine instead of a mountainbike, or a road bike will do just fine on a track.
Of course "criterium bike" refers to a design philosophy, not an ISO standard or anything of the sort. Of course it's not a "standard"!!! LOL I was talking about a road racing bike optimized for criteriums... you did understand that didn't you? Why are you splitting hairs over a term?
BTW, perhaps in your country, there were mostly road races back in the 80's, I don't recall... but where I live, in Canada, it was mostly just criteriums period. The organizers were hoping this would help the sport gain in popularity with spectators, and help to justify sponsorship, hence only organized criteriums. But we were far behind the US and even farther than Europe before the sport started to get a little sponsorship and more road races. So there actually was an entire decade here - when I was racing - that it was extremely rare to see a real road race... you could count the road race events in a season on one hand - the rest were criteriums. (which was very disappointing to me who excelled on the long distances and hills) And it made sense back then to buy a bike optimized for crits.
And I can tell you, that a bike more designed for criteriums did much better than standard road race bikes which did VERY POORLY in handling on such courses as they still do today as compared to a "criterium design philosophy road race bike" (there is that better now for you?). Like you, many believed a road bike will do just fine... and they all looked like wusses everyting they went around a turn, cowardly putting on the brakes, rather than racing right through them... and that was most of the pack! I could take the whole course leisurely and in every turn move right back to the front and pass the whole pack, because so many had the same point of view as yours.
Of course "criterium bike" refers to a design philosophy, not an ISO standard or anything of the sort. Of course it's not a "standard"!!! LOL I was talking about a road racing bike optimized for criteriums... you did understand that didn't you? Why are you splitting hairs over a term?
BTW, perhaps in your country, there were mostly road races back in the 80's, I don't recall... but where I live, in Canada, it was mostly just criteriums period. The organizers were hoping this would help the sport gain in popularity with spectators, and help to justify sponsorship, hence only organized criteriums. But we were far behind the US and even farther than Europe before the sport started to get a little sponsorship and more road races. So there actually was an entire decade here - when I was racing - that it was extremely rare to see a real road race... you could count the road race events in a season on one hand - the rest were criteriums. (which was very disappointing to me who excelled on the long distances and hills) And it made sense back then to buy a bike optimized for crits.
And I can tell you, that a bike more designed for criteriums did much better than standard road race bikes which did VERY POORLY in handling on such courses as they still do today as compared to a "criterium design philosophy road race bike" (there is that better now for you?). Like you, many believed a road bike will do just fine... and they all looked like wusses everyting they went around a turn, cowardly putting on the brakes, rather than racing right through them... and that was most of the pack! I could take the whole course leisurely and in every turn move right back to the front and pass the whole pack, because so many had the same point of view as yours.
09-29-08, 07:26 AM
#27
Banned.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Torrance, CA
Posts: 3,061
Bikes: Homebuilt steel
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2193 Post(s)
Liked 425 Times
in
337 Posts
LOL I was talking about a road racing bike optimized for criteriums... you did understand that didn't you? Why are you splitting hairs over a term?
BTW, perhaps in your country, there were mostly road races back in the 80's, I don't recall... but where I live, in Canada, it was mostly just criteriums period. The organizers were hoping this would help the sport gain in popularity with spectators, and help to justify sponsorship, hence only organized criteriums. But we were far behind the US and even farther than Europe before the sport started to get a little sponsorship and more road races. So there actually was an entire decade here - when I was racing - that it was extremely rare to see a real road race... you could count the road race events in a season on one hand - the rest were criteriums. (which was very disappointing to me who excelled on the long distances and hills) And it made sense back then to buy a bike optimized for crits.
And I can tell you, that a bike more designed for criteriums did much better than standard road race bikes which did VERY POORLY in handling on such courses as they still do today as compared to a "criterium design philosophy road race bike" (there is that better now for you?). Like you, many believed a road bike will do just fine... and they all looked like wusses everyting they went around a turn, cowardly putting on the brakes, rather than racing right through them... and that was most of the pack! I could take the whole course leisurely and in every turn move right back to the front and pass the whole pack, because so many had the same point of view as yours.
BTW, perhaps in your country, there were mostly road races back in the 80's, I don't recall... but where I live, in Canada, it was mostly just criteriums period. The organizers were hoping this would help the sport gain in popularity with spectators, and help to justify sponsorship, hence only organized criteriums. But we were far behind the US and even farther than Europe before the sport started to get a little sponsorship and more road races. So there actually was an entire decade here - when I was racing - that it was extremely rare to see a real road race... you could count the road race events in a season on one hand - the rest were criteriums. (which was very disappointing to me who excelled on the long distances and hills) And it made sense back then to buy a bike optimized for crits.
And I can tell you, that a bike more designed for criteriums did much better than standard road race bikes which did VERY POORLY in handling on such courses as they still do today as compared to a "criterium design philosophy road race bike" (there is that better now for you?). Like you, many believed a road bike will do just fine... and they all looked like wusses everyting they went around a turn, cowardly putting on the brakes, rather than racing right through them... and that was most of the pack! I could take the whole course leisurely and in every turn move right back to the front and pass the whole pack, because so many had the same point of view as yours.
10-04-08, 02:43 PM
#28
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 16,874
Bikes: 1980 Masi, 1984 Mondonico, 1984 Trek 610, 1980 Woodrup Giro, 2005 Mondonico Futura Leggera ELOS, 1967 PX10E, 1971 Peugeot UO-8
Mentioned: 49 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1856 Post(s)
Liked 664 Times
in
506 Posts
Not trying to get into an argument but here in the States, where criteriums are the norm, there are basically NO CRITERIUM specific bikes being sold. The reason is simple, there is no such thing as criterium geometry. Geometry that works for general purpose riding works for criteriums as well so there is no need for anything special. You are just splitting hairs and theorizing. Even Colnago's, that have more trail than just about any other bikes, are all over the criterium fields I've seen and they do just fine. So again, we are right back at the top of this thread; the reason bike geometry is what it is in the marketplace is because it works. Straying off the norm is not needed and accomplishes very little other than make some technical people feel better and feed their heads (and yes, I can be one of those people sometimes so I'm not throwing stones).
The term "crit" bike was common at least among the bike salesmen in the shops I haunted in the early '70s, when frames were starting to get shorter, steeper, and quicker steering. Salesmen steered me away from certain bikes because they were thought to be too quick-response for normal riding. What I notice as a veteran is that few bikes today have the length of the common bikes in the late '60s and early '70s. So more bikes today at least meet TT's short wheelbase criterion. Toe overlap seems to be avoided by design today, so that limits the head angle steepness and fork offset. Reading bike reviews mainly in Cycling Plus, I notice a lot of trail numbers near 6 cm on road bikes. I don't know how this compares to the concept TT is talking about or to his now-gone bike.
10-06-08, 03:18 AM
#29
Industry Maven
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Wherever good bikes are sold
Posts: 2,936
Bikes: Thylacines...only Thylacines.
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Thylacine, your comments seem a bit myopic... to me it is like saying that a cyclo-cross bike will do on a mountain bike course just fine instead of a mountainbike, or a road bike will do just fine on a track.
Of course "criterium bike" refers to a design philosophy, not an ISO standard or anything of the sort. Of course it's not a "standard"!!! LOL I was talking about a road racing bike optimized for criteriums... you did understand that didn't you? Why are you splitting hairs over a term?
BTW, perhaps in your country, there were mostly road races back in the 80's, I don't recall... but where I live, in Canada, it was mostly just criteriums period. The organizers were hoping this would help the sport gain in popularity with spectators, and help to justify sponsorship, hence only organized criteriums. But we were far behind the US and even farther than Europe before the sport started to get a little sponsorship and more road races. So there actually was an entire decade here - when I was racing - that it was extremely rare to see a real road race... you could count the road race events in a season on one hand - the rest were criteriums. (which was very disappointing to me who excelled on the long distances and hills) And it made sense back then to buy a bike optimized for crits.
And I can tell you, that a bike more designed for criteriums did much better than standard road race bikes which did VERY POORLY in handling on such courses as they still do today as compared to a "criterium design philosophy road race bike" (there is that better now for you?). Like you, many believed a road bike will do just fine... and they all looked like wusses everyting they went around a turn, cowardly putting on the brakes, rather than racing right through them... and that was most of the pack! I could take the whole course leisurely and in every turn move right back to the front and pass the whole pack, because so many had the same point of view as yours.
Of course "criterium bike" refers to a design philosophy, not an ISO standard or anything of the sort. Of course it's not a "standard"!!! LOL I was talking about a road racing bike optimized for criteriums... you did understand that didn't you? Why are you splitting hairs over a term?
BTW, perhaps in your country, there were mostly road races back in the 80's, I don't recall... but where I live, in Canada, it was mostly just criteriums period. The organizers were hoping this would help the sport gain in popularity with spectators, and help to justify sponsorship, hence only organized criteriums. But we were far behind the US and even farther than Europe before the sport started to get a little sponsorship and more road races. So there actually was an entire decade here - when I was racing - that it was extremely rare to see a real road race... you could count the road race events in a season on one hand - the rest were criteriums. (which was very disappointing to me who excelled on the long distances and hills) And it made sense back then to buy a bike optimized for crits.
And I can tell you, that a bike more designed for criteriums did much better than standard road race bikes which did VERY POORLY in handling on such courses as they still do today as compared to a "criterium design philosophy road race bike" (there is that better now for you?). Like you, many believed a road bike will do just fine... and they all looked like wusses everyting they went around a turn, cowardly putting on the brakes, rather than racing right through them... and that was most of the pack! I could take the whole course leisurely and in every turn move right back to the front and pass the whole pack, because so many had the same point of view as yours.
For as long as I've riding road bikes (20 years) there has been (road) criteriums in Australia every week. In fact, in Melbourne you could probably even now race a crit every night of the week in Summer, so Mr.Assumption, you are wrong. You can also race a 'normal' road race almost every weekend...we are as you can probably guess, a nation of cyclists.
Now as my background as a frame designer, I can tell you unequivocally there is no such thing as criterium geometry. No bike company in the world makes one, and no custom builder since 1988 has ever been asked to make one. Why? Because there is no such thing, and a 'garden variety' modern road bike will do the job just fine.
Your 'cross bike analogy' is rubbish because it's a bike designed around certain rules, and as far as I can see, "turning a few corners" isn't exactly what I would call a 'set of rules', nor is it an insurmountable design feat to design a bike that can do that.
Your "I could take the whole pack in the corners" story while cute is also anecdotal and of little relevance today, especially when referenced to my comments above. Could it possibly be you were better in the corners than the rest of the pack, or more 'courageous' than those brake wielding 'wusses' you obviously had to lower your standards to race against?
What you're saying is just crap, plain and simple, and you think you can respond to my comments like I'm some errant child? "ISO standard"? WTF? When did I ever refer to anything in this thread as a documented standard?
If you're in the market for a 'crit specific' custom frame maybe raise your bottom bracket 5-10mm, but do we need a whole ******** thread where you wax nostalgic about something you've romaticised through the mist of time that has virtually no design relevance in a modern context whatsoever?
10-06-08, 01:43 PM
#30
Senior Member
Thread Starter
LOL Looks like I ruffled a few feathers there. I'm not going to stoop down to the level of Thiamine's prose, because he'll only beat me with experience I think. Now Thylamine, you said we didn't need a thread for this... then WHY ARE YOU PARTICIPATING IN IT???
I'm referring to back in the mid to late 80's, there were criterium-specific geometries available. They were somewhere between a road and a track frame.
Now what we all need to distinguish here, is between a normal discussion, and a framebuilder who is getting all defensive about HIS personal framebuilding philosophy. Just because YOU decide to impose YOUR philosophy on your customers, and you intimidate them with your experience, doesn't mean you can just manhandle your way around here and intimidate everyone by flaunting your closed-minded experience at us. A little less arrogance and a little more civility and open-mindedness might do you good, and make this a more pleasant place.
Now if we could get back on topic here...
BTW, I'm supposed to go see one of these vintage bikes and take measurements... I'll keep you posted as to how it goes.
Cheers!
I'm referring to back in the mid to late 80's, there were criterium-specific geometries available. They were somewhere between a road and a track frame.
Now what we all need to distinguish here, is between a normal discussion, and a framebuilder who is getting all defensive about HIS personal framebuilding philosophy. Just because YOU decide to impose YOUR philosophy on your customers, and you intimidate them with your experience, doesn't mean you can just manhandle your way around here and intimidate everyone by flaunting your closed-minded experience at us. A little less arrogance and a little more civility and open-mindedness might do you good, and make this a more pleasant place.
Now if we could get back on topic here...
BTW, I'm supposed to go see one of these vintage bikes and take measurements... I'll keep you posted as to how it goes.
Cheers!
Last edited by Timmi; 10-06-08 at 01:48 PM.
10-06-08, 04:11 PM
#31
Banned.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Torrance, CA
Posts: 3,061
Bikes: Homebuilt steel
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2193 Post(s)
Liked 425 Times
in
337 Posts
My opinion on this subject is more or less in alignment with Thylacines’s; regular road bike geometry is fine for crits. If one wanted to get cute, you could label a bike as having “criterium geometry” after you steepened the head and seat angles by 1 degree and limited the BB drop to 6.5 cm or so. Do we need to have a new frame type classification brought on by splitting hairs?
Eddy Merckx used to sell frames with two different geometry’s: Century geometry, and Corsa geometry. The Corsa geometry is what is being called “criterium geometry” in this thread. Merckx dropped the Corsa line presumably because the Century geometry frames got the job done and were more popular overall.
And speaking of riding in crits, who said a bike that steers fast is beneficial? I’ve been taken out by boneheads that couldn't hold a straight line in the pack. Put everyone on fast steering bikes with low trail and you could have pileups all over the place. No thanks.
Eddy Merckx used to sell frames with two different geometry’s: Century geometry, and Corsa geometry. The Corsa geometry is what is being called “criterium geometry” in this thread. Merckx dropped the Corsa line presumably because the Century geometry frames got the job done and were more popular overall.
And speaking of riding in crits, who said a bike that steers fast is beneficial? I’ve been taken out by boneheads that couldn't hold a straight line in the pack. Put everyone on fast steering bikes with low trail and you could have pileups all over the place. No thanks.
Last edited by Nessism; 10-07-08 at 02:07 PM.
10-06-08, 08:05 PM
#32
Full Member
Now as my background as a frame designer, I can tell you unequivocally there is no such thing as criterium geometry. No bike company in the world makes one, and no custom builder since 1988 has ever been asked to make one. Why? Because there is no such thing, and a 'garden variety' modern road bike will do the job just fine.
he gets it.
e-RICHIE©™®
www.richardsachs.com
https://rscyclocross.blogspot.com
10-06-08, 09:31 PM
#34
Industry Maven
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Wherever good bikes are sold
Posts: 2,936
Bikes: Thylacines...only Thylacines.
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
LOL Looks like I ruffled a few feathers there. Just because YOU decide to impose YOUR philosophy on your customers, and you intimidate them with your experience, doesn't mean you can just manhandle your way around here and intimidate everyone by flaunting your closed-minded experience at us. A little less arrogance and a little more civility and open-mindedness might do you good, and make this a more pleasant place.
How about actually listening to the experience of others, including those that don't have the same opinion as you?
You know, such as me.......Nessism......Road Fan.......Richard Sachs.......
10-07-08, 12:28 PM
#35
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 16,874
Bikes: 1980 Masi, 1984 Mondonico, 1984 Trek 610, 1980 Woodrup Giro, 2005 Mondonico Futura Leggera ELOS, 1967 PX10E, 1971 Peugeot UO-8
Mentioned: 49 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1856 Post(s)
Liked 664 Times
in
506 Posts
Wow, I'm mentioned in the same line as eRitchie!
Just to set straight, I'm not a frame builder. I've played with designign (see, I can't even spell it!) one for myself, and being an engineer, that becomes fun all by itself (yeah, I ride a bit, too, but no racing).
carry on!
Just to set straight, I'm not a frame builder. I've played with designign (see, I can't even spell it!) one for myself, and being an engineer, that becomes fun all by itself (yeah, I ride a bit, too, but no racing).
carry on!
10-07-08, 12:40 PM
#36
Le Crocodile
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Santa Barbara Calif.
Posts: 1,873
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 370 Post(s)
Liked 787 Times
in
311 Posts
I dabble in framebuilding, and have been cycling for 25+ years...........
Splitting hairs is the correct analogy, half the time on lugged framests the geometry varies up to a degree within the same lineup (handmade Italian steel 70's/80's) due to how the tubes ended up in the lugs for that particular frame. The "Masters" built by eye and feel, and produced sweethearts by the score.
Some framebuilder in the 70's stated that he wanted to make a museum of all the human freaks out there that supplied him with angles and tube lengths for custom builds that were submitted via mail.
Anyway..where was I?
Splitting hairs is the correct analogy, half the time on lugged framests the geometry varies up to a degree within the same lineup (handmade Italian steel 70's/80's) due to how the tubes ended up in the lugs for that particular frame. The "Masters" built by eye and feel, and produced sweethearts by the score.
Some framebuilder in the 70's stated that he wanted to make a museum of all the human freaks out there that supplied him with angles and tube lengths for custom builds that were submitted via mail.
Anyway..where was I?
10-07-08, 03:08 PM
#37
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 5,115
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
1 Post
He wants to recreate a bike from a long while ago, and people are telling him they didn't exist, except for a long long time ago... I found one with google search, and it wasn't lugged, and worse still was made of aluminum. Maybe that's the problem? Not lugged therefore doesn't exist.
10-07-08, 03:54 PM
#38
Full Member
i dunno -
whether they existed or didn't exist, the term "criterium geo" was a marketing this more than
anything atmo. all of the so-called details that would make a design morphe into a crit specific
animal (higher CG, steeper angles, shorter rake, shorter c'stays...) contributed to making a bicycle
exactly what one WOULDN'T want in a criterium, unless - that is - you were never at the front,
and in a cat 5 field at that. no self-respecting framebuilder would make these compromises unless
he was doing it expressly for the money, for the market, or for a pal. all are valid reasons to cave, i
suppose. but the truth is, the ride and the handling would be compromised atmo.
e-RICHIE©™®
www.richardsachs.com
https://rscyclocross.blogspot.com
10-07-08, 06:21 PM
#39
Surf Bum
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Pacifica, CA
Posts: 2,184
Bikes: Lapierre Pulsium 500 FdJ, Ritchey breakaway cyclocross, vintage trek mtb.
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 5 Times
in
3 Posts
As an impartial observer, I'm so glad you have it all figured out and are so sure of your views that you can post them as the one and only truth. God, we'd be so lost without the E-richies and Thylacines of the world to tell us that our own personal experience and viewpoints are flawed and should be tossed aside and theirs taken up as gospel instead.
(hey, you guys may be absolutely correct: but the way you express your views makes a simple guy like me hope you are wrong!)
(hey, you guys may be absolutely correct: but the way you express your views makes a simple guy like me hope you are wrong!)
Last edited by pacificaslim; 10-07-08 at 06:29 PM.
10-07-08, 07:07 PM
#41
Full Member
As an impartial observer, I'm so glad you have it all figured out and are so sure of your views that you can post them as the one and only truth. God, we'd be so lost without the E-richies and Thylacines of the world to tell us that our own personal experience and viewpoints are flawed and should be tossed aside and theirs taken up as gospel instead.
(hey, you guys may be absolutely correct: but the way you express your views makes a simple guy like me hope you are wrong!)
(hey, you guys may be absolutely correct: but the way you express your views makes a simple guy like me hope you are wrong!)
i don't post here alot so there ya' go.
35 years building. racing every weekend as a Cat 2 on the road.
dozens of national team cats queuing up here through the years.
i'm very comfortable opining. i can stand behind the reasoning
quite well. and i have never met a rider (at the top, at least)
nor anyone in the industry, who put any value in the term "crit
geometry". as i suggest (i believe some others here have as well)
it's a smoke and mirrors term atmo.
10-07-08, 07:22 PM
#42
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 16,874
Bikes: 1980 Masi, 1984 Mondonico, 1984 Trek 610, 1980 Woodrup Giro, 2005 Mondonico Futura Leggera ELOS, 1967 PX10E, 1971 Peugeot UO-8
Mentioned: 49 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1856 Post(s)
Liked 664 Times
in
506 Posts
i dunno -
whether they existed or didn't exist, the term "criterium geo" was a marketing this more than
anything atmo. all of the so-called details that would make a design morphe into a crit specific
animal (higher CG, steeper angles, shorter rake, shorter c'stays...) contributed to making a bicycle
exactly what one WOULDN'T want in a criterium, unless - that is - you were never at the front,
and in a cat 5 field at that. no self-respecting framebuilder would make these compromises unless
he was doing it expressly for the money, for the market, or for a pal. all are valid reasons to cave, i
suppose. but the truth is, the ride and the handling would be compromised atmo.
e-RICHIE©™®
www.richardsachs.com
https://rscyclocross.blogspot.com
whether they existed or didn't exist, the term "criterium geo" was a marketing this more than
anything atmo. all of the so-called details that would make a design morphe into a crit specific
animal (higher CG, steeper angles, shorter rake, shorter c'stays...) contributed to making a bicycle
exactly what one WOULDN'T want in a criterium, unless - that is - you were never at the front,
and in a cat 5 field at that. no self-respecting framebuilder would make these compromises unless
he was doing it expressly for the money, for the market, or for a pal. all are valid reasons to cave, i
suppose. but the truth is, the ride and the handling would be compromised atmo.
e-RICHIE©™®
www.richardsachs.com
https://rscyclocross.blogspot.com
10-07-08, 07:28 PM
#43
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 16,874
Bikes: 1980 Masi, 1984 Mondonico, 1984 Trek 610, 1980 Woodrup Giro, 2005 Mondonico Futura Leggera ELOS, 1967 PX10E, 1971 Peugeot UO-8
Mentioned: 49 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1856 Post(s)
Liked 664 Times
in
506 Posts
eh i dunno -
i don't post here alot so there ya' go.
35 years building. racing every weekend as a Cat 2 on the road.
dozens of national team cats queuing up here through the years.
i'm very comfortable opining. i can stand behind the reasoning
quite well. and i have never met a rider (at the top, at least)
nor anyone in the industry, who put any value in the term "crit
geometry". as i suggest (i believe some others here have as well)
it's a smoke and mirrors term atmo.
i don't post here alot so there ya' go.
35 years building. racing every weekend as a Cat 2 on the road.
dozens of national team cats queuing up here through the years.
i'm very comfortable opining. i can stand behind the reasoning
quite well. and i have never met a rider (at the top, at least)
nor anyone in the industry, who put any value in the term "crit
geometry". as i suggest (i believe some others here have as well)
it's a smoke and mirrors term atmo.
By the way, how would a 1980 Woodrup Giro be for crit racing? 103 cm wheelbase, flexy as hell, high BB, not much trail, needs a lot of bar force to flip into a turn but it stays on a line?
10-07-08, 07:34 PM
#44
Full Member
and they are connected to his feet, his hands, and his butt.
there are a myriad of ways to set up the "triangle" but very
few will also yield a well-handling bicycle once the rider's
position is dialed in above and between the two wheels. it's
as simple as that.
10-07-08, 07:44 PM
#45
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 16,874
Bikes: 1980 Masi, 1984 Mondonico, 1984 Trek 610, 1980 Woodrup Giro, 2005 Mondonico Futura Leggera ELOS, 1967 PX10E, 1971 Peugeot UO-8
Mentioned: 49 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1856 Post(s)
Liked 664 Times
in
506 Posts
there are three points that matter -
and they are connected to his feet, his hands, and his butt.
there are a myriad of ways to set up the "triangle" but very
few will also yield a well-handling bicycle once the rider's
position is dialed in above and between the two wheels. it's
as simple as that.
and they are connected to his feet, his hands, and his butt.
there are a myriad of ways to set up the "triangle" but very
few will also yield a well-handling bicycle once the rider's
position is dialed in above and between the two wheels. it's
as simple as that.
Road Fan
10-07-08, 07:48 PM
#46
Full Member
the rider's position overrides (no pun intended...) everything - always.
set contact points, and design a bicycle frame that works with them.
s.o.p. in most of the better shops atmo...
10-08-08, 01:27 AM
#47
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 5,115
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
1 Post
Ok, now we are totaly off topic and getting a Ritchie seminar. That's a good deal. As long as we aren't pretending to answer the OP's question, there is always lots of stuff to learn from those who know.
Just to be evil, I did detect at one point in the above the sense that maybe there is not only a criterium frame but actually one for people who are good and another for people that suck. For those of us far enough back there may even be types that provide sales space for popcorn and chessnuts. I'm confused (yeah, right) but nothing hangs on it for me.
Just to be evil, I did detect at one point in the above the sense that maybe there is not only a criterium frame but actually one for people who are good and another for people that suck. For those of us far enough back there may even be types that provide sales space for popcorn and chessnuts. I'm confused (yeah, right) but nothing hangs on it for me.
10-08-08, 06:38 AM
#48
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 16,874
Bikes: 1980 Masi, 1984 Mondonico, 1984 Trek 610, 1980 Woodrup Giro, 2005 Mondonico Futura Leggera ELOS, 1967 PX10E, 1971 Peugeot UO-8
Mentioned: 49 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1856 Post(s)
Liked 664 Times
in
506 Posts
Ok, now we are totaly off topic and getting a Ritchie seminar. That's a good deal. As long as we aren't pretending to answer the OP's question, there is always lots of stuff to learn from those who know.
Just to be evil, I did detect at one point in the above the sense that maybe there is not only a criterium frame but actually one for people who are good and another for people that suck. For those of us far enough back there may even be types that provide sales space for popcorn and chessnuts. I'm confused (yeah, right) but nothing hangs on it for me.
Just to be evil, I did detect at one point in the above the sense that maybe there is not only a criterium frame but actually one for people who are good and another for people that suck. For those of us far enough back there may even be types that provide sales space for popcorn and chessnuts. I'm confused (yeah, right) but nothing hangs on it for me.
Chestnuts for me!
Re the OP, he pops in and out of the thread every few days. yes, we're OT, but it's still mainly about frames.
Hmm would I get a good angel if I had someone here make me an audax frame.....
10-08-08, 10:56 AM
#49
Banned.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Torrance, CA
Posts: 3,061
Bikes: Homebuilt steel
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2193 Post(s)
Liked 425 Times
in
337 Posts
In support of what eRichie is saying, the main dimensions of the frame are dictated by the riders body: seat tube angle, seat tube length (effective), and top tube length (effective) are all set. Variables that are open include the amount of trail (head angle and fork offset), bottom bracket drop, and chain stay length.
Trail – common range is 5 – 6.5 cm – median of 5.5 cm
BB drop – common range is 6.5 – 8.0 cm – median of 7.0 cm
Chain stay length – common range of 40.5 – 42.5 cm – median of 41 cm
If a rider wants a frame that steers quickly (popular for crit racing) - shoot for the low end of the trail and CS length ranges.
If a rider wants to run long cranks and pedal through corners – shoot for the low end of the BB drop range.
A frame built right on the median for these three variables makes a competent crit frame. It also makes an excellent do-everything frame as well. Even when a frame is skewed to the end of the range of some of these variables, such as with a low bottom bracket (like e-Richie and Serotta advocate), or with lots of trail (like a Colnago), it will still function adequately as a crit race frame - no need for a special category to label frames for marketing purposes.
Trail – common range is 5 – 6.5 cm – median of 5.5 cm
BB drop – common range is 6.5 – 8.0 cm – median of 7.0 cm
Chain stay length – common range of 40.5 – 42.5 cm – median of 41 cm
If a rider wants a frame that steers quickly (popular for crit racing) - shoot for the low end of the trail and CS length ranges.
If a rider wants to run long cranks and pedal through corners – shoot for the low end of the BB drop range.
A frame built right on the median for these three variables makes a competent crit frame. It also makes an excellent do-everything frame as well. Even when a frame is skewed to the end of the range of some of these variables, such as with a low bottom bracket (like e-Richie and Serotta advocate), or with lots of trail (like a Colnago), it will still function adequately as a crit race frame - no need for a special category to label frames for marketing purposes.
Last edited by Nessism; 10-08-08 at 11:44 AM.
10-08-08, 12:59 PM
#50
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 5,115
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
1 Post
I have no problem with off topic at all, I usually am, sometimes even when I am trying hard to stick to the original point. Coments can have a different tone when they are said in one or another context.
I read somewhere that the proper BB drop range was 8.0 - 8.0 cm. Somewhere in that range anyway.
I read somewhere that the proper BB drop range was 8.0 - 8.0 cm. Somewhere in that range anyway.