Road Test/Bike Review (1991) DAVIDSON Stiletto
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Central Florida, USA
Posts: 2,011
Bikes: Litespeed (9); Slingshot (9); Specialized (3); Kestrel (2); Cervelo (1); FELT (1); Trek (2)
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 431 Post(s)
Liked 3,397 Times
in
983 Posts
Road Test/Bike Review (1991) DAVIDSON Stiletto
__________________
WTB: Slingshot bicycle promotional documents (catalog, pamphlets, etc).
WTB: American Cycling May - Aug, Oct, Dec 1966.
WTB: Bicycle Guide issues 1984 (any); Jun 1987; Jul, Nov/Dec 1992; Apr 1994; 1996 -1998 (any)
WTB: Bike World issue Jun 1974.
WTB: Slingshot bicycle promotional documents (catalog, pamphlets, etc).
WTB: American Cycling May - Aug, Oct, Dec 1966.
WTB: Bicycle Guide issues 1984 (any); Jun 1987; Jul, Nov/Dec 1992; Apr 1994; 1996 -1998 (any)
WTB: Bike World issue Jun 1974.
Likes For SpeedofLite:
#2
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Peoria, IL
Posts: 4,450
Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1820 Post(s)
Liked 3,330 Times
in
1,564 Posts
kind of a shame that the review is spending so much time on STI instead of what makes the bike unique... the frame!
The 0.8-0.5-0.8 downtube sounds pretty nice. Might have been good to hear about the other tubes, how the frame stiffness measures, what the ride is like, etc. Maybe it's just the historical perspective that causes me to not be excited about STI, but I'm more interested in the heart of the bike.
a side note: checking my collection of articles clipped from Bicycling, I see that I saved this review. I wonder if I was motivated more by the bike or the STI?? I hope it was the bike.
Steve in Peoria
The 0.8-0.5-0.8 downtube sounds pretty nice. Might have been good to hear about the other tubes, how the frame stiffness measures, what the ride is like, etc. Maybe it's just the historical perspective that causes me to not be excited about STI, but I'm more interested in the heart of the bike.
a side note: checking my collection of articles clipped from Bicycling, I see that I saved this review. I wonder if I was motivated more by the bike or the STI?? I hope it was the bike.
Steve in Peoria
#3
blahblahblah chrome moly
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Seattle
Posts: 1,977
Mentioned: 92 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1162 Post(s)
Liked 2,542 Times
in
1,065 Posts
Good article. Geoff Drake is a cool guy, didn't know him well but he's a mensch.
Slight quibble with stating specs like the wall thickness or the headtube angle without mentioning that those vary, depending on the frame size. I worked there when the Stiletto was being developed and I helped design it. (I designed the lugs.) I don't have a record of what tube thicknesses went with each framesize, but different thicknesses were used.
Head angles varied from 73.5° on the smallest frame to 75.5° on the largest, with fork rakes variying as well to match the frame they went on, less rake on the larger frames. Such steep angles definitely put more emphasis on quick handling, less on comfort, but they aren't uncomfortable to ride. I wouldn't choose it for a century, but for spirited shorter rides or a 1-hour criterium, it's the bees knees.
Another quibble with attributing the idea for oversized tubes to Gary Klein. They go back way further, before Gary was born. A 30 mm downtube in steel (only slightly oversized, actually kinda small by today's standards) was used by French constructeurs for Campeur singles, as well as tandems, going back to the 50s at least, probably earlier. Reynolds made 30 mm downtubes in 531 DB — I used them in the late '70s and early '80s, still have one unused 30 mm downtube. They were never listed in the English-language catalogs, but we were able to get them through Reynolds's French distributor.
Even further back, a friend of mine has a tandem from the late 1800s that used 1-3/8" (35 mm) tubes for all the main triangle. Ahead of its time.
Mark B in Seattle
Slight quibble with stating specs like the wall thickness or the headtube angle without mentioning that those vary, depending on the frame size. I worked there when the Stiletto was being developed and I helped design it. (I designed the lugs.) I don't have a record of what tube thicknesses went with each framesize, but different thicknesses were used.
Head angles varied from 73.5° on the smallest frame to 75.5° on the largest, with fork rakes variying as well to match the frame they went on, less rake on the larger frames. Such steep angles definitely put more emphasis on quick handling, less on comfort, but they aren't uncomfortable to ride. I wouldn't choose it for a century, but for spirited shorter rides or a 1-hour criterium, it's the bees knees.
Another quibble with attributing the idea for oversized tubes to Gary Klein. They go back way further, before Gary was born. A 30 mm downtube in steel (only slightly oversized, actually kinda small by today's standards) was used by French constructeurs for Campeur singles, as well as tandems, going back to the 50s at least, probably earlier. Reynolds made 30 mm downtubes in 531 DB — I used them in the late '70s and early '80s, still have one unused 30 mm downtube. They were never listed in the English-language catalogs, but we were able to get them through Reynolds's French distributor.
Even further back, a friend of mine has a tandem from the late 1800s that used 1-3/8" (35 mm) tubes for all the main triangle. Ahead of its time.
Mark B in Seattle
Last edited by bulgie; 09-18-21 at 04:56 PM.
Likes For bulgie: