rpeterson

I'm looking for a frame for road races and crits so I can try my hand at some racing this summer and fall, but don't know too much about the kinds of frames and geometries I should be looking at.

So what are the typical race frames out there, and what makes them different? Like what makes a frame aggressive and quick handling, or what makes a frame a great climber and stable descender? And what frames would fit each distinction? Or does it not even matter in the long run?

And is doing something like getting the smaller frame and a longer stem going to feel a lot different from a bigger frame and shorter stem?

I've been researching all this, but I want to hear some experienced opinions rather than just the technical answers and marketing crap that don't mean too much.

Menel

Race frames generally have shorter wheelbases, shorter head tubes, and steeper head tube angles.

Gives them quicker steering.

Both race and more comfort oriented frames should be perfectly stable in a descent.

Classic examples of road/race: Specialized Tarmac, Felt F, Giant TCR.
Classic examples of road/comfort: Specialized Roubaix, Felt Z, Giant Defy.

Doesn't mean a road/comfort bike can't be raced, plenty have been podium finishers.

rpeterson

Are road race and crit frames basically the same? And realistically would a comfort and race frame handle equally well on a technical course?

njkayaker

You should look at something cheap (something that you can afford to wreak).

It won't matter for the short run! (You'll likely change your mind about what you prefer for the long run.)

rpeterson

So, tell me about some cheap frames that would qualify as crit/race frames, and explain what you mean by I'll likely change my mind.

pdedes

a dedicated crit bike usually has a higher bb which gives you a bit of pedal clearance through the corners and shorter chainstays.

a dedicated stage racer might be a bit longer in back to help in high speed descending and a lower bb to get you through those high speed downhill corners.

rpeterson

Ah, now that's what I'm looking for, thanks.

Menel

Yes, generally, but depends on the venue. E.G. the Tour is mostly ridden with road/race bikes, Paris-Roubaix is often ridden on road/comfort bikes.

And no, see my previous post.

oldbobcat

Yes to the first and depends on the bike for the second. Years ago builders made special criterium designs with steep angles, short fork rakes, and high bottom brackets (for pedaling through corners), but these fell out of fashion by the late '70s or early '80s. As for handling, some of the comfort designs are definitely not nimble. They handle well, but they require a bit of foreplay.

My recommendations for a cheap all-arounder road bike would be a felt F85 or a Gary Fisher (Trek) Ion. There are others, of course.

max power

the truth? for a beginner racer, the amount of power your legs can produce are what you should be focusing on.
nobody finishes their first race thinking, "man the outcome would have been different if i weren't lacking a shorter head tube and steeper tube angles"

pgjackson

Worry about the engine before getting all concerned about the technical differences between various frames. You can ride all frames fast.

rpeterson

My engine is pretty good, I'm doing 40k TTs in < 58 minutes and Olympic triathlons in around 2:10. I do lots of racing already, I just want to try some crits and RRs, that's why I'm asking.

rat fink

To answer some of your questions:

Are road race and crit frames basically the same? And realistically would a comfort and race frame handle equally well on a technical course?

These days, they often are. Builders know enough about geometry now that they can make a frame that is at home in both environments. The Specialized Tarmac is a good example of this:

- High enough BB that you can maneuver the bike easily, but still feel good out of the saddle, and it does feel like a high chair on wheels either. You are not likely to have a pedal strike with a bike like this at lean angles you would see in most racing conditions.
- The amount of trail (head tube angle/fork rake relationship) gives the rider excellent agility while being stable enough for century rides, lots of climbing, riding with no hands, etc.
- The head tube length is a medium length, so most people on a given frame size have the option of going with a lower cockpit (aggressive position), or a more "comfort" oriented setup
- Good stiff feel, while still having a smooth enough ride for centuries, Le Tour, etc.

is doing something like getting the smaller frame and a longer stem going to feel a lot different from a bigger frame and shorter stem?

It can. One major thing to consider is that the proportion changes as frames get smaller. Some race bikes gain as much a 2.5cm of head tube length on the next size up. That gives you considerably less room to play with. If you are at one fit extreme or the other, small differences can be crucial at limit your ability to be comfortable on the bike as fitness waxes and wanes. An example of this: At (near) peak riding fitness, I am most comfortable with a certain amount of saddle to bar drop that I get with with about a 56.5cm stack height and a -17 degree stem with no spacers. If I lose some flexibility, I have a lot of room to move up. However, if I needed to move down further, I’d be SOL (though there’s always track stems).

As for the feel, the smaller frame/longer stem versus larger frame/shorter stem doesn’t have a lot of a effect on feel in normal riding conditions, but it does have a more noticeable effect on handling under more demanding riding conditions. In general (geometry dependent), moving the cockpit further forward, moves the weight distribution further forward. This puts more weight on the front wheel which gives more traction, can feel much more connected in corners, and lessens the likelihood of pulling unnecessary wheelies on steep climbs.

rpeterson

Good info, thanks.