Nessism

One of my early frames had 7.7 cm of drop and I managed to hit the pedal a time or two going through corners. I'm sure a more diciplined rider than I could manage just fine with 8 cm of drop, but people like me get along better with a little more clearance.

Road Fan

Two of mine are pretty high, 7.0cm (Trek 610) and 6.5 cm (Woodrup Giro). I really don't get why either design needed to do that, neither one was ever marketed as an aggressive racing bike, and they are both sort of flexy. I feel that both of them get a little teetery at low speeds, but that could also be trail.

Road Fan

Thylacine

It's really simple mate. You listen to people with more experience than you.

I mean, for example Richo has been building bikes since I was born, and if there was ever a question regarding lugged framebuilding and processes, or heck even custom road bikes in general you'd be the dumbest person on earth not to at least listen.

People don't - I'm afraid to tell you - have some god given right to singlemindedly defend their opinions just because they're theirs. Someone can have an opinion and can still be 100% wrong, and if they're that closed minded and not open to change their opinions based on making a judgment call regarding people with more experience than them, then they're the most dangerous type of idiot.

I don't really care what the OP's experience was 'back in the day' because as I've said it's clouded with so many 'unknowns' to be of little value to a frame designer. I haven't seen any arguments as yet from him or anyone else that would lead me to believe there is such a thing as 'crit geometry' and that if you went to any custom frameshop worth their salt they would sell you one.

Now in terms of 'delivery style'.....well I'm sorry if you don't like it. What can I say, I'm a no BS Aussie. But like you I get riled when people insist on something that isn't true, and it's especially annoying if it's towing some marketing wank that ever worked but apparently worked for the OP and they're keen on 'reliving it' some 25+ years later.

It's patently obvious to me : nobody makes or sells 'crit geometry', you can't go into a bike store and buy 'crit geometry', you can't go to any decent road framebuilder and order one, and if you went to ANY crit anywhere in the World and told your fellow racers you have special 'crit geometry' they'd look at you like you were an idiot.

End of (long and boring) story.

Thylacine

Awesome. So now we're over that, let's get back to the OP's questions!

Timmi

Hey, I'd just like to thank everyone who has put their time and enthusiasm into this so far.
I'd like to take a post to explain where I'm coming from, because some of the posts have made me feel like I need to defend/explain myself a bit more than I wanted to. When I was a teen, I read a book called Cycling or Bicycling... I can't remember... at the time it was considered THE cycling bible, written by the great Cinelli himself, circa 1972 or so. In that book he explains ergonomics and frame geometry philosophies, what is done different and why for the european cobblestone and country roads versus nicely paved north american roads, criteriums, long road races, track racing, touring, etc... the whole gamut in other words. I no longer have that book, but I do distinctly remember him explaining that one of the reasons for the angles to lean more towards the 72.5-73.5 degrees, is to help a bit in road vibration aborption because of the bad roads, but if the roads were better, this compromise would no longer be in the bike and the angles would be steeper. Today, they still make bikes this way, and pouring over manifacturers' websites' specs tells me they have never readjusted the geometry for our modern roads. I get the impression that today's bikes are more of a general purpose, well handling bike, rather than something more nervous and efficient as would be allowed by today's road conditions.

Cinelli references aside, let me share an anecdote with you. I owned an italian hand crafted racing bike - my first after a few bikes that weren't really for racing. I sprinted down our little mountain we have in the middle of the city here, Mount Royal, and in one of the curves, I went right into the retainer wall... the cement took off all my skin on one side... taking the curve at speed was asking just too much of that bike. A year later, with my Cambio Rino, I passed a Suzuki Katana in the same curve, I had become stronger and faster and I was going all out. The guy on the motorcycle, at the bottom of the hill, came up behind me, started beeping his horn like crazy. In those days, I was used to motorists honking at me to tell me to get off the road... and I was energized for a good fight! I put on the brakes (burning smoking rubber from my Modolo Speedy's), turned around and met him where he had just pulled over on the side. When I got in front of him, he took off his full helmet, and I saw he looked shaken. He yelled at me, that I could have killed myself. He said he was doing 95km/h (about 60mph) after he put on the brakes to take the curve, and he was still frightened, and I just flew right by him. And this was immensely faster than I had crashed just a year ago on my previous italian built racing bike. It was so fast that I was SPINNING in a 52x12 gear coming out of the curve. (they didn't have x11 yet back then).
I love the speed, the feeling of power. Always did, and today, despite back and knee problems, I still get the same rush. It's like a need, a drug that always brings euphoria. And a "standard road racing bike that will do just fine" just doesn't cut it for me!

And just so you all know... there never was any shop floor marketing hype... after crashing that first racing frame, I shopped around on the phone, found a 18 lb racing bike that was half the price and slightly lighter than top-of-the-like $2000 Colnagos at the time (pre-taiwan days), and that was just too good to pass up (in the early 80's $2k was about the max you could pay for a bike, and the light ones were 21 lbs and lightest were 19, like a Tomassini or Vicini (which I also owned later). I just went over and bought it. No one ever convinced me of anything, or gave me any hype... I didn't know enough at the time, only going on the weight/dollar equation. What luck I had! I learned later it was their criterium model. And the chance my ignorance had me take turned out to be the best purchase I had ever made.

In the years that followed, I read up more on framebuilding, nutrition, training, raced a lot, became team trainer for 3 racing teams after that... so today, I can confidently say that I am a knowledgeable person. And when I refused to buy a Marinoni that had the same "standard" frame-building philosophy as almost all other bikes made in the world, I fully understood and knew why. He was just as stubborn as the rest of them. Does ego close the mind to change, or is it self-preservation that instills fear of change into humans?

Yesterday, I ran into a guy who had bought a Cambio Rino at an auction... and it wasn't at all the same ride/handling as the one I had owned. So I checked, and sure enough, there were many differences: "77" above to serial number on the bottom bracket, older components, (mine had been circa 1980), there was no toe overlap (which I remember getting used to), more space between the rear tire and seat tube. It's ride was rather disappointing actually. But then again, it's not just a question of model year: I later joined their racing team, and remember seeing in the showroom, where we'd all meet up, different models with different geometries.

So my search continues... for the criterium frame geometry that never existed. LOL

NoReg

"I mean, for example Richo has been building bikes since I was born, and if there was ever a question regarding lugged framebuilding and processes, or heck even custom road bikes in general you'd be the dumbest person on earth not to at least listen."

+1

On the other hand sometimes I do hear stuff that is at odds with my 30 years experience somewhere else. I know lots of people with 30 years experience at something.

The irony in this case, is that in general terms, the "lugsters", are coming here and saying a type of bike that you can find googled on the internet from no further back then 10 years ago, doesn't exist, possibly never existed. That's amusing because on the same basis of scarcity lugged racing bikes are a complete anachronism from the same period. Hey they may be wonderful, and some of us may look back to a time 20 years ago and say:

"I am trying to re-create the feel of my second racing bike I had a very long time ago and lost in a crash.
Never had anything as nimble and well behaved since. <

Does anyone have any internet links, to a primer or framebuilder data on frame joinery? More specifically, covering the difference between lugged steel bikes, Tigged bikes, and carbon bikes?"

I'm surprised they don't have crit bikes, heck they have bikes for cobble stones. Funny world.

NoReg

I always like riding through Montreal and Quebec on my tours. There is a good bike scene there, which is fun to ride into after days in the countryside.

pacificaslim

Yes, that is indeed the funny thing, that throws the supposed expertise of these guys into question for an outsider like me. It takes me no more than 5 seconds on google to find a current custom frame builder operating right now, a guy who has also done thousands of frames, and has a "criterium geometry" frame right now and has diagrams showing the exact differences it has from his road racing frame, touring frame etc. Steeper angles, a tiny bit higher bottom bracket, etc.

But yet...these frames don't exist and were merely "marketing" gimmicks from big labels of the past?

Timmi

Sounds like you're better at googling than I am... any interesting links you've uncovered that you might share with us, or if you prefer, send me in email? Thanks! :-)

pacificaslim

Here's one: https://www.tetcycles.com/Frames/Road...criterium.html

NoReg

"TIG welded oversized steel or aluminum"

There's the problem, that bike doesn't exist.

By the way, my romp in #56 above is not in any way a coment on their basic point that such a bike is not needed. That could well be true, and is a consideration vastly beyond my pay scale.

pacificaslim

Doesn't exist? I'm confused: Are you saying Teesdale puts it on his website but has never built one and has no intention of building one? I really doubt that. He also must see the differences in geometry to be significant enough to distinguish it by name from his other frames.

Timmi

It is refreshing to see that some are able to nuance road, criterium, time trial, stage race, etc... very refreshing indeed. Thanks for that link. That guy looks like he knows what he's doing, fine-tuning the geometry for different applications, not settling for "good enough". Very appealing, his philosophy!
Feel free to give more links if you have any.
Cheers!

Timmi

Don't be confused.

Steel can be brazed (with internal or external lugs, and some have even done lugless), and it can be welded, using a number of techniques... steel isn't fussy, however, different types of tubing (steel alloys) are specifically designed for different welding techniques.
However, aluminum needs to be stripped of it's oxydized layer where to be joined, and then protected against oxygen during the welding itself, by methods, such as, for example, an inert gas shielding (MIG and TIG are popular methods) or flux shielding.

That was a bit off topic though... however, it's not the first time we've strayed now is it? ;-)

Nessism

You guys sound vindicated because you found a builder that has an option for "criterium geometry", but what does this mean? Steepen the head angle by 1 degree and raise the bottom bracket by 5 mm? Fairly minor changes. Do we need a seperate frame category for this kind of frame?

High bottom bracket frames are nice for pedaling through corners but they don't turn as nice as a low bottom bracket frame because the CG is higher.

I still don't understand what the goal of this thread is anyway? Prove their is something called "criterium geometry" or design a frame that turns and handles well?

Timmi

LOL I was wondering how long it would take for you show up with that old argument again. But why must I repeat myself, AGAIN? We never set out to "prove" anything. You are the one who was splitting hairs and punishing us for employing terms that do not fit with your one-design-fits-all framebuilding philosophy. We were here just talking about finding a sweet ride, nothing more. But since you mentioned it, again, the "criterium frame", although not a category but a philosophy (I just hate having to repeat myself over and over again), is not new, as it has been around for quite some time. I'm starting to find more framebuilders who seem to have knowledge of this as well. (I'm getting better with google LOL).

Following your reasoning, since there are only "minute differences" between a stage race bike and a "sporting bike", and between that and a "touring bike", for that matter... while we're at it, why make separate categories for those? Why not make something along the median of everyting, as one of your posts suggested? A one-design-fits-all sort of bike. Remember "hybrids"? They are a great example of a "median" bike! They make a POOR mountainbike, and they make POOR road bike! In fact, they're pretty crappy at everything, but then again, if you've never tried better, how would you know?
That "little one degree difference" you mention is what separates a road racing bike from a touring bike. Ditto for bottom bracket height. So do you also reason that we may as well give racers touring bike angles and bb heights from now on? After all, it's the same "minor difference" between a standard road racing bike and either of them (touring or criterium), just not in the same direction!

Now regarding the CG height... you're leaning at the same angle, for a given speed and arc, no matter what the height of your bottom bracket. CG height affects vehicles like cars that do not lean and will tip over if the CG is too high! But we lean at a given angle depending on speed and arc, so we don't have that issue on a bike. The book "Bicycle Science" gives more information on this topic.

Your repeated insistence on trying to kill the term "criterium geometry", hammering it to death and threatening anyone who uses it of ridicule, is starting to look very much like a closed minded framebuilder who came here for some free exposure and publicity, but now has painted himself into a corner. You've made statements you won't back away from for obvious reasons, and you look concerned about your reputation. No one asked for, nor needed, your permission to use the term "criterium geometry", nor to have it recognized by you. It was used in the past, is being used again, and will be used in the future, whether you like it or not.

NoReg

"Doesn't exist? I'm confused:"

My tongue is firmly in cheek. If it's metal but not lugged it doesn't exist. If it's aluminum, it could be lugged and still not exist.

"Steepen the head angle by 1 degree and raise the bottom bracket by 5 mm? Fairly minor changes. Do we need a seperate frame category for this kind of frame?"

"Oh reason not the need", to quote King Lear. Sorta like why we need all those 700C cyclo cross bikes, and couldn't live without 29ers, or 69ers, or...

It's fair to ask if the bike ends up within the parameters of another bike is it a different bike. It would in part depend on what the intention of the designer is. I find it hard to believe, that if you put the objective of crit bike down on a piece of paper, there wouldn't end up being a whole series of minor optimizations that might actually be tried. In tubing, design, layout of some parts, and so forth. Just as any two designers might not come to the exact same formula when preparing a given design for anything. If there can be quite different approaches to the same task. If indeed they take 30 years of professional slogging to get right. It is hard to believe that with a modified objective nothing new could be added or subtracted. Now whether there is any real difference, who knows, but that's the kind of thinking where you may as well turn out the lights. The business of custom bikes is not the business of zero distinctions.

I do wonder whether the reason micro differences like this aren't there any more is that it is more expensive to do them with some processes like all carbon molded frames, or whatever people win with at the highest level. Or perhaps there isn't an advantage to a world class athlete who like Lance, went through a whole development program tailored to his needs, to do that all over again for a "minute change". Maybe the hyper-perfected bike is a better deal than spending the time on several less well optimized frames. On the other hand. In the steel world many of us occupy, in the weekend warrior class, were some folks don't have a whole development program for each bike. Maybe it makes sense to get a bike built to the only style of race you actually participate in. Steel can make these adjustments easily. Maybe we (or really, all you all) have an interested in hanging onto minute differences.

Nessism

Do you work in Marketing? People in that profession love to "label" things and create categories for different types of products in order to create product differentiation.

Since you have made this personal...I'm not a professional frambuilder, just a garage builder. Most of the frames I've made have been for myself. The nice thing about being able to build frames is that it's easy and cheap to experiment with different geometry's and such...something I've done quite a bit of. I have personal experience with high/low BB's, long/short top tube, long/short trail, etc.

In my experience, changes in these frame characteristics are noticeable in subtle ways but are not worthy of creating a new frame classification for.

As a builder, if someone came to me and wanted a frame to race crits on, I'd tweak the geometry slightly to accommodate them. The changes would be small but I'd do it because that's what custom builders do (at least many of them do). If you want to label a frame like this a "Crit" frame, go ahead. What ever makes you happy. I can tell you that a frame like this will only be slightly different from a general road use frame I would build for that same person - guy most likely wouldn't even notice the difference.

Timmi

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nessism

Do you work in Marketing? People in that profession love to "label" things and create categories for different types of products in order to create product differentiation.

Since you have made this personal...I'm not a professional frambuilder, just a garage builder. Most of the frames I've made have been for myself. The nice thing about being able to build frames is that it's easy and cheap to experiment with different geometry's and such...something I've done quite a bit of. I have personal experience with high/low BB's, long/short top tube, long/short trail, etc.

In my experience, changes in these frame characteristics are noticeable in subtle ways but are not worthy of creating a new frame classification for.

As a builder, if someone came to me and wanted a frame to race crits on, I'd tweak the geometry slightly to accommodate them. The changes would be small but I'd do it because that's what custom builders do (at least many of them do). If you want to label a frame like this a "Crit" frame, go ahead. What ever makes you happy. I can tell you that a frame like this will only be slightly different from a general road use frame I would build for that same person - guy most likely wouldn't even notice the difference.

As I thought. Oh, and I didn't want it to be personal, but I've repeatedly been assailed with attacks and ridicule regarding the matter of a criterium bike - so I'm not accepting 100% blame nor any complaints right now.

You know, a professional (lets take Lance for example) could, without the shadow of a doubt, win a Tour de France, or any race for that matter, on a touring frame. But it doesn't mean he'll be happy about it!
And he'd have to work a little harder (as if racing isn't demanding already), and be more careful in the turns. He'd also literally be putting his life in danger in some of the passes and turns they ride through. "it works" doesn't mean it can't work better, and doesn't mean an experienced racer won't feel the difference. Yes, the average person doesn't ride a bike hard enough, fast enough, through testing courses like racers do, and thus will probably not fully feel the difference. But I do. Any I'm betting that any experienced racer does as well. All you have to do is try in a race, or at least in hard training pushing the limits (ie: not just making circles in the parking lot at regular speed).

BTW, the two things I find are true marketing hype (since it's been referred to so often), are aero downtubes and dual pivot road racing brakes. Why would you want to make the one tube, that is referred to as the "backbone of the bike", easily twist when a round shape keeps it nice and rigid. It already "looks" oval to the wind (think of it's horizontal cross-section - not at right angle to the tube, but parallel to the ground). And why wold one want a brake that has a different mechanical advantage with one lever than with the other? THAT is marketing BS at work. (remember Shimano's dura-ace AX brakes? I inherited a pair... nothing works worse than those, and they're heavier, all that for a doubtful aero advantage). But fine-tuning a frame geometry is no hype. It's needed as the results are very real.

Nessism

Everyone is different in terms of what they prefer, and that goes for framebuilders as well.

- Colnago frames have a lot of trail and steer slowly relative to many other frames. Does this mean they handle poorly?

-Serotta uses a lot of bottom bracket drop – 8 cm (most frames have approx 7.0 cm). Does this mean his frames handle better/worse than the competition?

Both Serotta and Colnago are highly respected brands, yet their frames are different from the norm in subtle ways. Riders are different as well; some people may like a bike that steers fast but others do not. There is no right and wrong answer here.

Framebuilders shoot for the middle ground because they know what works. As I said before, a frame built right on the median of the popular geometry range will work wonderfully for both general road usage and crits as well. Somebody may prefer something that steers a little faster/slower but that does not mean that the general purpose frame is not great for most riders.

The quandary of what is best could possibly be best explored in terms of bottom bracket height; a low bottom bracket frame turns easier since the CG is lower, yet a low BB is ripe for a pedal strike. What is “best”? Most builders shoot for a compromise of roughly 7.0 cm because this works for most riders, under most conditions.

I think you are hung up on the fact that you like a frame that steers fast, and you assume this is best for all aggressive riders. Colnago apparently begs to differ. Personally, I’m not a Colnago fan, just using the brand an example. There is no reason to get hung up on all these subtle differences. Just get a frame that feels the way you like and don’t generalize as to whether or not this frame should have its own category, or whether or not this frame is best for people other than you.

This horse is flogged.


PS: Dual pivot brakes are one of the most positive improvements in road components in the last 20 years. They are industry standard for a reason. Your singling them out as bad clearly puts the spotlight on yourself as the outlier.

tuz

That was a nice read

tigrrrtamer, I'd perhaps look into a Gios Compact frame. It has 74 deg ST and 39.5cm chain stays (with funky sliding dropouts... there is about 1cm of adjustement), a 26.6cm BB heigh (~7.8 drop). They don't specify the head angle but the fork has a 4.5cm offset, so I'd guess 74-73 deg for a 5-5.5 cm trail.

link

I just got a used 57cm one. Can't comment much on it since I did not ride it much yet, but I love it . I have tried other road bikes (a 54cm Marinoni and a 55cm Ryffranck), and can't honestly say I felt an obvious difference. But I'm rather inexperienced, i.e. don't ride enough, only in TO and Ontario, and usually quietly . It's the best fitting one so far though.

Timmi

The marketing argument used at the time (notice the term "marketing" and not "engineering"), was that there was a misconception that standard road brakes pulled more on one side than on the other. Often they touched on one side first (spring inconsistencies, an ever slight resistance from the cable housing that tended to keep the brake more in one opsition until the forces got bigger), and because they saw the the two arms are on one side... people put this all together and thought they saw evidence that one brake shoe pushes on the rim more than the other. This is totally false. Do the geometry, make the calculations, or get a geometry/trigonometry tutor to help you with it (I had a final mark of 100% in college, I can help you if you like). And of course, from a manufacturer's standpoint, since most people aren't that good at physics and geometry, why argue with them when you can come out with a new product and great marketing hype. There are two big reasons why dual bolts aren't the best, uneven pad alignment through the pressure application arc (one side pivots downwards while it's extention moves the pivot on the other side upwards as it closes in), and uneven mechanical advantage (leverage) on each side, plus a third but very small reason which is more total bolt length than if it had a single center pivot, hence a little bit of extra weight. I probably lost you there... read carefully, you'll see the light.

Now, regarding your kicking a dead horse... NO ONE IN THIS THREAD WAS SAYING A CRIT BIKE WAS BETTER. IN FACT, WE DON'T EVEN CARE WHICH IS BETTER. THAT WAS NOT THE POINT OF THIS THREAD. IF YOU READ THE ORIGINAL POST, THIS IS ABOUT FINDING A RIDE SIMILAR TO WHAT I ONCE HAD. A BIKE DESIGNED FOR CRITERIUMS. A CALL FOR HELP. PERIOD. Not a request for ridicule, not a request to be told it never existed, not a request for a self-righteous amateur framebuilder's permission to use a given term, none of that! You can argue all you want about your personal garage design philosophy, this thread doesn't care about that. We're talking about finding a criterium-specific bike. Why is that so hard to understand? I'm sure you can find some other threads where they embrace your philosophy and where it's the proper place to debate it's merits, where you'll get plenty of warm and fuzzy handholding telling you how right you are, and novices in awe telling you how brialliant and good you are. You have been way off topic for quite some time. All you've been doing is wanting a little publicity for your homebuilt frames but stumbled in the process. I don't want a bike made like every other bike from China. I want something different and better. It baffles me that someone is masochistic enough to make something ordinary and average. Why go through all that trouble, when you can find plenty of ordinary chinese frames for less than it costs you to buy the tubing and lugs. I mean, what's your point, why even bother? You're not bringing anything useful to mankind.

Nessism

Your argument is lacking logical progression.

You claim to want something “better” than a common Chinese frame but you have not defined what is wrong with the Chinese frame and what characteristics you want to improve upon.

If you want to build a path forward you need to know where you are.

Define the geometry of the bike you are currently riding, or have experience with, and then explain what you like and don’t like about it. From there, a logical step can be taken to alter the geometry to more closely align with your desires.

Waxing poetic about some frame you had 20 or 30 years ago is not productive unless the geometry is known.

Regarding me, I don’t build frames for profit, only for myself and friends. I’m not here to "promote" my frames as you claim – just share my hard earned knowledge.

As far as brakes are concern, dual pivot is the standard for a good reason; they are a superior design. All the major manufacturers have made the switch which speaks for itself. Nuff said.

e-RICHIE

what is a criterium-specific bike?

in all my years of racing and building, the ones designed as such had characteristics
that were contrary (as in 180 degrees from being good for...) for the handling and
usefulness that one would want for a four corner race (or similar) atmo. whether it
be steering, or turning, or cornering, or sprinting whilst in the apex of an angle, or
comfort, or position, etcetera, increasing angles and shortening rakes (and front
centres), and raising the CG, and decreasing the c'stay length each (and all together)
fkcu with what is known to be good design. caveat emptor to those who ignore it.
ps i spelled centres the british way to show that i have a proper public school edu.

Timmi

I HEAR YOU! I still have my Cambio Rino track bike, and the reason I don't use it as a singlespeed, is the frame geometry is exactly what you say. It pushes these limits too far, and is not well suited for the road. However, the reason I created this call for help, was because the road version was an amazing ride that I couldn't get in anything else I've ever ridden. I've owned bikes that are more of a standard road racing bike, such as my Vicini, a 1980's 19 lb wonder... but compared to the Cambio Rino Corsa, although a near perfect racing geometry, it was boring to ride.

You see, it's not flawlessness that awakes our senses... it is the idiosyncraties that awaken the passion, when the fit is right.

Thanks very much for your help and participation.