compact geometry hell
Callistus Valerius
at the stoplight, how do you rest your leg on the top bar? We have some
really long red lights around here. It's too bad, now I wouldn't even
consider buying a LeMond bike.
The only thing in favor of it, is that you give the bike to a relative
or as a hand me down, because all you do is raise or lower the seat to fit
them.
Cipher
Whiner...
--
Mike S.
"Callistus Valerius" <jazz...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:CWu0c.15545$aT1....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
compact frames are a godsend. Now I can actually straddle the TT AND have
the right length at the same time.
I haven't wanted a Lemond since the Lemond/Mitsubishi Rayon frame/fork I saw
in Adams Ave. bikes. Think Calfee and you have the right idea.
Oh, and straddling the TT still works, you just have to bend the other leg a
bit more.
Mike
Who loves my pair of compact frames...
Evan Evans
Qui si parla Campagnolo
Those that believe the marketing hype or are really small riders do.
Compact, like a lot of things 'bike' is being foisted onto the consumer. Most
of these things do nothing to put people on bikes and keep them there. Mostly
it is about the bike biz saving money cuz, like it or believe it or not, the
bike biz has been in trouble for years.
Peter Chisholm
Vecchio's Bicicletteria
1833 Pearl St.
Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535
http://www.vecchios.com
"Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"
Bruce Gilbert
Ferrari.
Seriously though, the compact geometry frames represent a great savings to
the dealer and manufacturer. It means you have to stock a smaller range of
sizes for each bike model. Has your new fit-'em kit arrived yet? We saw it
at Interbike. It was developed by an orthopedic surgeon and an insurance
adjuster team. It has the ability to stretch or contract bone lengths to
accommodate almost anyone to any frame. This is going to be a great boon to
the bike biz. Why we can even sell it to the shoe stores too....
One thing we really should work on is a prop from Sleeper, you know the
Woody Allen film. They had a closet that was called the Orgasmatron. This
thing needs to be built into the new pro team issue seats. We'll get those
demographic numbers up there where they need to be in a year. You watch!
Between Berman & Berman, FashionTV and MTV, this thing is going to fly....
Bruce
"Qui si parla Campagnolo " <vecc...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040301085428...@mb-m28.aol.com...
BaCardi
Some frames aren't as compact as others. Seems like the Litespeeds,
Merlins, & other US brands have a tendency to have really extreme
sloping top tubes. And the Merckx, Pinarellos, and other Euro brands
seems to have less slope to the top tubes.
Maybe there should be a new category called "semi-compact"?
--
Dion Dock
How many brands of $200 shorts could you buy in 2000? Asssos.
How many brands of $200 shorts can you buy in 2004? Assos, Pearl Izumi,
Castelli, ...
How many brands of $350+ cranksets could you buy in 2000? Sweet Wings
How many brands of $350+ cranksets can you buy in 2004? Shimano, Campy,
Colnago, FSA, ...
They have given up on finding new customers and decided to milk the existing
ones.
-Dion
"Qui si parla Campagnolo " <vecc...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040301085428...@mb-m28.aol.com...
...
Chris Zacho The Wheelman
voice is too low...
"May you have the wind at your back.
And a really low gear for the hills!"
Chris Zacho ~ "Your Friendly Neighborhood Wheelman"
Chris'Z Corner
http://www.geocities.com/czcorner
Peter Cole
news:4043a164$1...@solnews.wv.mentorg.com...
> There is a reason they're in trouble.
>
> How many brands of $200 shorts could you buy in 2000? Asssos.
> How many brands of $200 shorts can you buy in 2004? Assos, Pearl Izumi,
> Castelli, ...
>
> How many brands of $350+ cranksets could you buy in 2000? Sweet Wings
> How many brands of $350+ cranksets can you buy in 2004? Shimano, Campy,
> Colnago, FSA, ...
>
> They have given up on finding new customers and decided to milk the existing
> ones.
Good point. Overheard a sales clerk mutter as he walked by to fetch a chi-chi
gee-gaw for a well heeled, clueless customer: "People have way too much f@$#%^
money".
Qui si parla Campagnolo
How many brands of $200 shorts can you buy in 2004? Assos, Pearl Izumi,
But there are still well made and inexpensive shorts and bibs out there, like
Giordana and Descente.
Dion<< How many brands of $350+ cranksets could you buy in 2000? Sweet Wings
How many brands of $350+ cranksets can you buy in 2004? Shimano, Campy,
Colnago, FSA, ...
>><BR><BR>
But there are still well made and inexpensive cranksets out there from FSA,
Campagnolo, shimano.
Dion<< They have given up on finding new customers and decided to milk the
existing ones>><BR><BR>
Agree. The bike biz needs to put NEW people on bikes and keep them there.
Relaible, well made and ASSEMBLED bicycles that do what are promised.
Along with well maintained BIKE LANES, not multi-use paths, to make cycling
safer and more enjoyable. A $2 per gallon gas tax wouldn't hurt.
BUT NOT threadless and stoopid things like disc brakes on road bikes or
oversized hbars or crappy wheels outta boxes or carbon butt ends..etc..
Rick Onanian
<jazz...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Do people really like these ugly compact geometry bikes? When you stop
I have one and don't particularly like or dislike the compact
geometry. The bike fits.
>at the stoplight, how do you rest your leg on the top bar? We have some
I don't. How do you? I have one foot clicked into the pedal, and the
other on the ground, regardless of whether I'm riding my compact or
a standard frame.
> The only thing in favor of it, is that you give the bike to a relative
>or as a hand me down, because all you do is raise or lower the seat to fit
>them.
You also need to adjust the handlebar for reach and height. Both are
pretty easy to do with threadless stems, and height is reasonably
easy with threaded. Of course, that bit qualifies this as both a
response to a troll and troll in and of itself...
--
Rick Onanian
Richard Chan
> On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 23:52:02 GMT, "Callistus Valerius"
> .. Do people really like these ugly compact geometry bikes? When you stop...>
I think the compact geometry works for some people but here is a very
bad (or ugly) fit example: take a look at the current
T-Mobile/Telekom's Giants. Ullrich bike has ~2" headset spacers. Zabel
I think expressed (in one interview)that the off the shelve frame
doesn't fit him ... I hope T-Mobile doesn't have a bad season riding
those. DA10 seems to be doing well in functionality.
Ted Bennett
Way to go Peter! That's all great stuff. Almost makes me forgive you
for the no-grease-on-crank spindle tapers-thing.
Just kidding; I know it's not much more than a religious disagreement.
But there is a battle raging at this moment on the fixed-gear list.
--
Ted Bennett
Portland OR
Carl Fogel
>
> How many brands of $200 shorts could you buy in 2000? Asssos.
> How many brands of $200 shorts can you buy in 2004? Assos, Pearl Izumi,
> Castelli, ...
>
> How many brands of $350+ cranksets could you buy in 2000? Sweet Wings
> How many brands of $350+ cranksets can you buy in 2004? Shimano, Campy,
> Colnago, FSA, ...
>
> They have given up on finding new customers and decided to milk the existing
> ones.
>
> -Dion
Dear Dion,
Actually, given the law of supply and demand, don't rising
prices suggest that the manfacturers are not in trouble?
The flourishing market for $200 riding shorts and $350 cranks
suggests that so many people are willing to pay that much for
such wonderful items that more manufacturers are providing
exactly what the teeming masses are demanding.
Besides, it works both ways. WalMart's 18-speed mountain bike
is dipping dangerously close to the under-$50 price at which
I've sworn to buy one and ride it for at least a week.
Take heart,
Carl Fogel
Peter Storey
> Way to go Peter! That's all great stuff. Almost makes me forgive you
> for the no-grease-on-crank spindle tapers-thing.
>
> Just kidding; I know it's not much more than a religious disagreement.
> But there is a battle raging at this moment on the fixed-gear list.
Well of course. If those bikes only had more parts, the list could
move on to more important matters like front derailleur
compatibilities.
Peter Storey
dvt
> WalMart's 18-speed mountain bike
> is dipping dangerously close to the under-$50 price at which
> I've sworn to buy one and ride it for at least a week.
According to Wal-Mart (http://tinyurl.com/kiro), the bike is 15-speed
(not 18). It has a 5-speed 14-28 freewheel with a triple crank (no
indication of chainring sizes). I didn't know freewheel bikes were still
available!
I'll send you the extra $3.73 + tax if you buy it and ride it for 1000
miles. At the average speeds you've claimed before, that means less than
50 hours on that bike. Of course this bike will be slightly slower.
1000 miles is certainly not a good test of durability, since a bike
should last *much* longer than that. But I'd dare to bet that you'd be
pretty sick of that bike by the end of that time. And I wouldn't be
surprised if a few durability issues came up during that period.
Full URL for the tinyurl haters:
http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.gsp?product_id=2073249&cat=4183&type=5&dept=4125&path=0%3A4125%3A4178%3A4180%3A4183
--
Dave
dvt at psu dot edu
Dion Dock
ads) but does that mean there is demand?
I get the feeling one manufacturer sells an expensive product and the other
companies all figure there must be a big demand for it. They also feel
compelled to sell such a product for their image: how good can X be if they
don't have an expensive product like Y.
I forgot Look's $600 no-chainring crankset as shown in the latest
Bicycling....
Now where did I put my $699 Easton aero bars?
-Dion
"Carl Fogel" <carl...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:8bbde8fc.04030...@posting.google.com...
carlfogel
> Is there really demand for such things? Sure, there is supply (or at
> least ads) but does that mean there is demand?
> I get the feeling one manufacturer sells an expensive product and the
> other companies all figure there must be a big demand for it. They also
> feel compelled to sell such a product for their image: how good can X be
> if they don't have an expensive product like Y.
> I forgot Look's $600 no-chainring crankset as shown in the latest
> Bicycling....
> Now where did I put my $699 Easton aero bars?
> -Dion
> 3021750....@posting.google.comnews:8bbde8fc.0403021750.5aaa1d32@po-
> sting.google.com...
> > "Dion Dock" <inv...@bounce.com> wrote in message
> news:<4043a164$1...@solnews.wv.mentorg.com>...
> > > There is a reason they're in trouble.
> > >
> > > How many brands of $200 shorts could you buy in 2000? Asssos. How
> > > many brands of $200 shorts can you buy in 2004? Assos, Pearl Izumi,
> > > Castelli, ...
> > >
> > > How many brands of $350+ cranksets could you buy in 2000? Sweet
> > > Wings How many brands of $350+ cranksets can you buy in 2004?
> > > Shimano, Campy, Colnago, FSA, ...
> > >
> > > They have given up on finding new customers and decided to milk the
> existing
> > > ones.
> > >
> > > -Dion
> >
> > Dear Dion,
> >
> > Actually, given the law of supply and demand, don't rising prices
> > suggest that the manfacturers are not in trouble?
> >
> > The flourishing market for $200 riding shorts and $350 cranks suggests
> > that so many people are willing to pay that much for such wonderful
> > items that more manufacturers are providing exactly what the teeming
> > masses are demanding.
> >
> > Besides, it works both ways. WalMart's 18-speed mountain bike is
> > dipping dangerously close to the under-$50 price at which I've sworn
> > to buy one and ride it for at least a week.
Dear Dion,
Actually, supply can't even keep up with demand for overpriced parts!
They can't keep them in stock! (Or so they claim. Surely mail order
firms wouldn't practice upon my innocent creduilty.)
I tend to side with P.T. Barnum's theory of population increase. It fits
the facts better than Malthus.
That $400 titanium chain that's causing eyes to bug out in the current
"Do people really buy these?" thread has been out of stock at
Performance for two weeks.
Oh, whatever shall I do until they can ship me one?
Carl Fogel
--
Carl Fogel
Dear Dave,
The things I'll do for $3.73!
I suppose that I can't complain if it's only 15 speeds.
My touring bike only has 14.
Carl Fogel
Tom Sherman
> ...
> I suppose that I can't complain if it's only 15 speeds.
> My touring bike only has 14.
Dear Carl,
Does your touring bike have a single chainring and Rohloff hub?
Tom Sherman - Quad Cities (Illinois Side)
Tom Sherman
I have always wanted a bike with a "high-tensity steel frame and fork". ;)
If the frame is handcrafted, I want to know the name of the person who
did the handcrafting (as I do for my trike and lowracer).
(Pete Cresswell)
>Good point. Overheard a sales clerk mutter as he walked by to fetch a chi-chi
>gee-gaw for a well heeled, clueless customer: "People have way too much f@$#%^
>money".
My neighbor's comment after seeing people down the shore impulse-buying $250
sunglasses on the boardwalk: "Just goes to show that taxes are too low in this
country."
--
PeteCresswell
carlfogel
Dear Tom,
Which touring bike do you mean?
I am now [modest cough] the owner and operator of two bicycles.
My faithful old 53/39 Schwinn LeTour with seven rear sprockets?
Or my brand-new triple-front-ring, five-rear-cogs Fury Roadmaster from
MalWart, $53.73 plus $3.98 tax, complete with kickstand--yes, a
kickstand is included!--and tires now inflated to 55 sizzling psi?
Ostentatiously,
Carl Fogel Fury Roadmaster owner since 03-03-2004 4:36pm MST
--
Kevin Cullen
>
> I am now [modest cough] the owner and operator of two bicycles.
>
> My faithful old 53/39 Schwinn LeTour with seven rear sprockets?
>
> Or my brand-new triple-front-ring, five-rear-cogs Fury Roadmaster from
> MalWart, $53.73 plus $3.98 tax, complete with kickstand--yes, a
> kickstand is included!--and tires now inflated to 55 sizzling psi?
>
> Ostentatiously,
>
> Carl Fogel Fury Roadmaster owner since 03-03-2004 4:36pm MST
I'm terribly impressed. Please provide us with stories of how you
"overcome any obstacles in your way and make it to the top".
--Kevin
Carl Fogel
Dear Kevin,
I have a working title: "It's Not About the Bike."
(The editor has expressed vague reservations.)
However, despite my scorn for technology, I have already
removed both spoke-reflectors, having been advised that
the extra rotating mass might cost me precious seconds
during acceleration.
The spoke-reflectors almost escaped my notice, lurking
down there under the mammoth mountain-bike tire-knobs.
Why, I wonder, does my new contraption have such huge,
fierce treads sticking out on the side? Are these
triceratops-like projections a mating signal to female
mountain-bikes and a challenge to male mountain-bikes,
like the antlers on moose or the ears on basset hounds?
Carl Fogel
Appkiller
> Compact, like a lot of things 'bike' is being foisted onto the consumer.
So, you're implying that there is something WRONG with compact bikes -
other than aesthetics. Specifically, what is it?
Do the frames fall apart? Are they physically less comfortable than
standard geometry bikes? Is the exposed length of seatpost a failure
danger?
I understand the sizing issues - but when almost all bikes are already
only manufactured in essentially symmetrical sizing (e.g., 56 TT, 56
ST) this kinda goes away as issue that sets standard geometry apart
from compact. ALL non-custom frames will present fit issues for one
segment of the market or another.
I have had discussions with many riders of compact frames and have
examined bike setup on their bikes. My totally unscientific findings
are that the compact frame actually allows for a wider variety of
position, especially in light of one of the other favorite gripes of
the retro grouch, the dreaded threadless headset, which limits bar
position.
I know that many think compact frames are "ugly", especially fans of
classic steel, but if they represent value to the customer, and minor
salvation for the bike industry, what's wrong with that?
App
Qui si parla Campagnolo
other than aesthetics. Specifically, what is it? >><BR><BR>
Nothing 'wrong' but no probelm is being solved, no question being answered by
compact for the middle of the bell curve rider, size wise. BUT when reading
their marketing drivel, they are lighter, stiffer, faster, more complient, etc
type of drivel.
Remember who and why compact was first made, by Giant and 4 sizes. Like
threadless it was to save money, but painted as a performance enhancing
feature.
PETE-<< Are they physically less comfortable than
standard geometry bikes? >><BR><BR>
Some with only a few sizes do not fit tall riders well. I saw a extra large
frameset for a guy 6 ft tall that needed a 400mm seatpost and 140mm stem.
Pete<< Is the exposed length of seatpost a failure
danger? >><BR><BR>
For light seatposts, absolutely and for some framesets, a split seattube.
Pete<< ALL non-custom frames will present fit issues for one
segment of the market or another. >><BR><BR>
Far fewer problems when the sizes are 46cm to 64cm with 1 cm increments with
varying top tube lengths and seat tube angles.
pete-<< I have had discussions with many riders of compact frames and have
examined bike setup on their bikes. My totally unscientific findings
are that the compact frame actually allows for a wider variety of
position, >><BR><BR>
this makes no sense. This is like saying shoes in whole sizes only fit more
people, than whole and half sizes...just add a little tissue papaer in the toe.
See my post about WHY these things were made(to save money) and HOW they were
portaryed, is my point. If ya want to believe threadless, compact, carbon ass
ends, oversized handlebars, 1 1/8 inch integrated road HS', wheels outta boxes
and disc brakes make ya faster, go ahead...I don't.
Pete-<< I know that many think compact frames are "ugly", especially fans of
classic steel, but if they represent value to the customer, and minor
salvation for the bike industry, what's wrong with that? >><BR><BR>
The $ savings are not passed onto the rider. If you want to reward a poorly
performing industry, go ahead but I prefer to reward an industry that does it
right, with the customer, not the board members, in mind.
Would you buy a car with the same motivations in mind? Or a washing machine or
a watch or anything else?
David Damerell
>So, you're implying that there is something WRONG with compact bikes -
>other than aesthetics. Specifically, what is it?
You can't mount as large a frame pump, which makes pumping up tyres more
prolonged a process.
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> flcl?
David Damerell
>Carl Fogel wrote:
>>I suppose that I can't complain if it's only 15 speeds.
>>My touring bike only has 14.
I dunno about him, but mine has 14 speeds as a 52/34 x 13/34; which I
suspect is still more useful than the 15 speeds on a gaspipe job... :-)
dvt
> Fury Roadmaster owner since 03-03-2004 4:36pm MST
Kudos! Is it faster than greased frog snot? Does it stop on a dime? Does
it clear giant obstacles in a single effortless bound? Is it stiff yet
compliant?
Do you plan to use it for some short-distance errands, like the 2-mile
commuter that made you start thinking of this? Or will this be your
do-it-all bike?
I'm eagerly awaiting the initial report and (hopefully) long-term reports.
Per Löwdin
> at the stoplight, how do you rest your leg on the top bar?
I practice my trackstand.
Per
http://lowdin.nu
Appkiller
> pete-<< So, you're implying that there is something WRONG with compact bikes -
> other than aesthetics. Specifically, what is it? >><BR><BR>
>
> Nothing 'wrong' but no probelm is being solved, no question being answered by
> compact for the middle of the bell curve rider, size wise. BUT when reading
> their marketing drivel, they are lighter, stiffer, faster, more complient, etc
> type of drivel.
Okey, yah marketing = lies. We all knew that.
>
> Remember who and why compact was first made, by Giant and 4 sizes. Like
> threadless it was to save money, but painted as a performance enhancing
> feature.
Yah, marketing again.
>
> PETE-<< Are they physically less comfortable than
> standard geometry bikes? >><BR><BR>
>
> Some with only a few sizes do not fit tall riders well. I saw a extra large
> frameset for a guy 6 ft tall that needed a 400mm seatpost and 140mm stem.
Yah, you make my point. Not custom = not good for everyone, compact
or not. And you are right, this is a particularly egregious example.
Kinda like a 56 cc ST Klein Stage with a 59 cc TT (I had it and dumped
it). Just wrong for those who would expect to be able to ride it.
>
> Pete<< Is the exposed length of seatpost a failure
> danger? >><BR><BR>
>
> For light seatposts, absolutely and for some framesets, a split seattube.
>
> Pete<< ALL non-custom frames will present fit issues for one
> segment of the market or another. >><BR><BR>
>
>
> Far fewer problems when the sizes are 46cm to 64cm with 1 cm increments with
> varying top tube lengths and seat tube angles.
How many mfr's make them in these increments at compact frame prices?
Most compact frames are mid to consumer grade alu. The only mfr's
making that many sizes are high end. Usually 2 cm increments, up to
59 or 60, with a min of 50 or 49.
>
> pete-<< I have had discussions with many riders of compact frames and have
> examined bike setup on their bikes. My totally unscientific findings
> are that the compact frame actually allows for a wider variety of
> position, >><BR><BR>
>
> this makes no sense. This is like saying shoes in whole sizes only fit more
> people, than whole and half sizes...just add a little tissue papaer in the >toe.
If just adding "a little tissue paper" resulted in a perfectly
comfortable shoe, then why not?
>
> See my post about WHY these things were made(to save money) and HOW they were
> portaryed, is my point. If ya want to believe threadless, compact, carbon ass
> ends, oversized handlebars, 1 1/8 inch integrated road HS', wheels outta boxes
> and disc brakes make ya faster, go ahead...I don't.
>
> Pete-<< I know that many think compact frames are "ugly", especially fans of
> classic steel, but if they represent value to the customer, and minor
> salvation for the bike industry, what's wrong with that? >><BR><BR>
>
> The $ savings are not passed onto the rider. If you want to reward a poorly
> performing industry, go ahead but I prefer to reward an industry that does it
> right, with the customer, not the board members, in mind.
>
Examples of high quality cheap compact frames: Gunnar, Schwinn (prior
to buyout), Specialized,etc... Which manufacturers of high end normal
geometry bikes are producing affordable high quality frames? Which
mfr's are thinking about the customer, not revenue?
> Would you buy a car with the same motivations in mind? Or a washing machine or
> a watch or anything else?
>
We are forced into it - $1500 dollar non-repairable car bumpers,
Shimano non-repairable components, etc... Everything we buy has been
engineered for maximized profit (whether the engineering was
successful is another story).
>
> Peter Chisholm
> Vecchio's Bicicletteria
> 1833 Pearl St.
> Boulder, CO, 80302
> (303)440-3535
> http://www.vecchios.com
> "Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"
App
Carl Fogel
Dear Tom,
My newsgroup indexing gods broke the following replies
off into another thread, so I reproduce them below, lest
you miss vital technical details, and then reveal the
results of the first ride.
Carl Fogel
[First, my reply to your wide-eyed innocence.]
Dear Tom,
Which touring bike do you mean?
I am now [modest cough] the owner and operator of two bicycles.
My faithful old 53/39 Schwinn LeTour with seven rear sprockets?
Or my brand-new triple-front-ring, five-rear-cogs Fury Roadmaster from
MalWart, $53.73 plus $3.98 tax, complete with kickstand--yes, a
kickstand is included!--and tires now inflated to 55 sizzling psi?
Ostentatiously,
Carl Fogel, Fury Roadmaster owner since 03-03-2004 4:36pm MST
[Next, Kevin Cullen confessed to helpless admiration,
but stopped short of requesting a signed photograph.]
> I'm terribly impressed. Please provide us with stories of how you
> "overcome any obstacles in your way and make it to the top".
>
> --Kevin
Dear Kevin,
I have a working title: "It's Not About the Bike."
(The editor has expressed vague reservations.)
However, despite my scorn for technology, I have already
removed both spoke-reflectors, having been advised that
the extra rotating mass might cost me precious seconds
during acceleration.
The spoke-reflectors almost escaped my notice, lurking
down there under the mammoth mountain-bike tire-knobs.
Why, I wonder, does my new contraption have such huge,
fierce treads sticking out on the side? Are these
triceratops-like projections a mating signal to female
mountain-bikes and a challenge to male mountain-bikes,
like the antlers on moose or the ears on basset hounds?
Carl Fogel
[Now for the results of the first test ride.]
Since none of my neighbors complained about a 48-year-old
man riding back and forth on the street at midnight while
getting a spare speedometer to work and raising the seat
post and handlebar stem, I sallied forth after lunch,
feeling much like Sancho Panza.
The gearshifts are clicky friction doo-dads mounted on
either handlebar and confuse me easily, but I'm used to
down-tube shifters (which also confuse me some days, but
that's another story).
The cranks are shorter than usual. Peter Chisholm would
wince at the riding position, but I'll probably get used
to it. The silly thing is sold for gentlemen aged 10-17
who are still pursuing their education, not for someone
just over six feet tall, around 195 pounds, and consumed
by insatiable curiosity.
The fork legs are as thick as my touring bike's main tubes,
so mounting the speedometer involved larger-than-normal
zip ties and a section of thorn-resistant inner tube to
pad the sensor out to within hailing distance of the
spoke magnet. Sears best measuring tape indicated a front
tire unashamed of an 81.5-inch circumference, so I set the
$13 speedometer that I had lying around to 2070mm.
Sitting bolt upright in the approved MTB fashion, I
was surprised to find the speedometer creeping up to
almost respectable levels. For my trial run, I pedalled
over to the city park and did two slightly different
laps, hoping for about four miles. While a bowling ball
might not roll around this route, I doubt that there's
ten feet of elevation change, including going up and
down over the four six-inch-high speed humps.
I assume that soulless rec.bicycles.tech readers care
nothing for scenic description, so here's the raw data:
13:42 elapsed time, 4.06 miles, 17.8 mph average speed,
and 22.2 mph maximum speed (which startled me, but I
think a brief tailwind on the backstretch past the zoo
was responsible). The original thread that started all
this involved a college student who wanted to buy something
to pedal two miles to school and two miles back, so four
miles seems reasonable.
Afterward, I counted teeth and found a 48-tooth front
sprocket with elegant shifting ramps powering a 14-tooth
rear cog. (I neglected to pick the bike with the owner's
manual at MalWart. The fully-equipped bike had a funny bump
when its front tire rolled, so I rejected it while gazing
longingly at the $64 model that, alas, was out of my price
range.)
Only 996 more miles and Dave Van Tol's check for $7.71
is mine! This must be how Lance feels as he rolls off
the starting line in France, already thinking about
spending his prize money on Sheryl Crowe CD's.
Carl Fogel
Qui si parla Campagnolo
or not. >><BR><BR>
Nope, you miss my point. He had the largest frameset offered, didn't fit him.
The largest frameset offered by most other manufacturers was 7-8cm LARGER than
he needed.
Pete<< How many mfr's make them in these increments at compact frame prices?
>><BR><BR>
'Compact frameset prices? You imply they are somehow cheaper as compact, they
are not and in some instances, like Litespeed, are lost more.
pete<< If just adding "a little tissue paper" resulted in a perfectly
comfortable shoe, then why not? >><BR><BR>
C'mon, a little reality please. Yes a size 10 shoe will fit 9.5 to 10.5
but.....
pete<< Which manufacturers of high end normal
geometry bikes are producing affordable high quality frames? Which
mfr's are thinking about the customer, not revenue? >><BR><BR>
Any manufacturer that sees compact for what it is, a fad, and not following
alomg like a lemming...
Calfee, Waterford, Torelli to name a few, BTW-
pete-<< We are forced into it - $1500 dollar non-repairable car bumpers,
Shimano non-repairable components, etc. >><BR><BR>
But you are not forced into it with bicycles and equipment-
Jesse Thompson
> pete-<< So, you're implying that there is something WRONG with compact bikes -
> other than aesthetics. Specifically, what is it? >><BR><BR>
>
> Nothing 'wrong' but no probelm is being solved, no question being answered by
> compact for the middle of the bell curve rider, size wise. BUT when reading
> their marketing drivel, they are lighter, stiffer, faster, more complient, etc
> type of drivel.
That "middle of the bell curve" line was a total cop-out Peter.
There IS a problem being solved with a compact frame. As Mike S has
said, and you have dodged over and over again, people with short legs
and long torsos (like me!) can fit a standard compact frame but not a
"classic" square frame.
I can go buy an affordable, off the shelf, compact frame that will fit
both me and the average guy. Without compact, I would have to go
custom, and that's silly.
> Remember who and why compact was first made, by Giant and 4 sizes. Like
> threadless it was to save money, but painted as a performance enhancing
> feature.
This is a dodge. Giant got all the attention for their compact road
frame in only 4 sizes, but we all know that was stupid, and plenty of
manufacturers make compact frames in 2cm increments. Specialized,
Cervelo, and many others. These frames fit MORE of the population than
a standard square frame.
> PETE-<< Are they physically less comfortable than
> standard geometry bikes? >><BR><BR>
>
> Some with only a few sizes do not fit tall riders well. I saw a extra large
> frameset for a guy 6 ft tall that needed a 400mm seatpost and 140mm stem.
Well, of course. A bad fitting frame is a bad fitting frame, no matter
the geometry. You see the same kind of thing with standard frames too,
all the time. Admit it...
And on and on.
If you would just admit up front you really just think compact frames
are ugly, we would understand why you keep stretching to find other
reasons not to like them.
Some people like me have decided that having more money in our wallet to
pay the mortgage looks better than the style of frame we are riding...
jesse
Tom Sherman
> Tom Sherman wrote:
> > Carl Fogel wrote:
> > > ... I suppose that I can't complain if it's only 15 speeds. My touring
> > > bike only has 14.
> > Dear Carl,
> > Does your touring bike have a single chainring and Rohloff hub?
> > Tom Sherman - Quad Cities (Illinois Side)
>
> Dear Tom,
>
> Which touring bike do you mean?
>
> I am now [modest cough] the owner and operator of two bicycles.
>
> My faithful old 53/39 Schwinn LeTour with seven rear sprockets?
>
> Or my brand-new triple-front-ring, five-rear-cogs Fury Roadmaster from
> MalWart, $53.73 plus $3.98 tax, complete with kickstand--yes, a
> kickstand is included!--and tires now inflated to 55 sizzling psi?...
Dear Carl,
I believe that the "MalWart" bicycle shaped object would be improved
with the addition of a Schlumpf two-speed BB and a Rohloff hub for a
28-speed drivetrain. ;)
Tom Sherman
> ...
> If you would just admit up front you really just think compact frames
> are ugly, we would understand why you keep stretching to find other
> reasons not to like them.
>
> Some people like me have decided that having more money in our wallet to
> pay the mortgage looks better than the style of frame we are riding...
A quality, "classic" design steel frame will easily last for 20+ years,
so the annual cost is very low. Of course, this requires that one forgo
the constant need to upgrade mentality.
And yes, compact frames are unconscionably ugly. Even recumbent riders
think so. :)
Rick Onanian
>> Or my brand-new triple-front-ring, five-rear-cogs Fury Roadmaster from
>> MalWart, $53.73 plus $3.98 tax, complete with kickstand--yes, a
>> kickstand is included!--and tires now inflated to 55 sizzling psi?...
<tshe...@qconline.com> wrote:
>I believe that the "MalWart" bicycle shaped object would be improved
>with the addition of a Schlumpf two-speed BB and a Rohloff hub for a
>28-speed drivetrain. ;)
Adding those items would result in a 420 speed drivetrain. Replacing
the existing drivetrain with them would result in the 28-speed.
Of course, nobody should ever use a hub that's worth more than 10x
the price of the bike.
--
Rick Onanian
Derk
> said, and you have dodged over and over again, people with short legs
> and long torsos (like me!) can fit a standard compact frame but not a
> "classic" square frame.
I have noticed this too: especially italian frames, but also Look frames are
very short. a 58 c-c frame typically has 57.5cm top tube, which forces me
to mount a 13cm stem. This makes a bike "nervous".
I saw that a L compact has a 58cm top tube. Still .5cm less than my custom
built frames, but it fits me better.
Greets, Derk
Peter Serjeant
OT Fabulous Website!
Peter Serjeant
Carl Fogel
Dear Dave,
For reasons known only to my news server's indexing gods,
everything has moved over to the "there's-a-reason-why"
thread.
Errands, as Leona might say, are for little people. I propose
to continue my far-from-rigorous and utterly pointless daily
ride on my long-standing Rocinante, while adding a daily
four-mile level stint on my version of Sancho Panza's ass.
Apart from glory (and your money), I expect to attract even
greater numbers of admiring glances from the opposite sex
by two brisk laps through the city park.
("Look at that bearded weirdo in the silly costume, Sally.
Do you think he stole that bicycle from some poor child?")
Carl Fogel
BaCardi
than compact frames. However, I do think that there are some
traditionalists on this thread that merely want to dismiss compact
frames under the assumption that its all a smoke & mirrors marketing
thing. Usually, that's the last line of defense for an old fart to claim
that new technology is all marketing.
--
Carl Fogel
Dear Tom,
My MawlRat bicycle needs no over-elaborate Teutonic
machinery, with onomatopoeic names:
"Schlumpf! goes the front transmission, collapsing
and causing the rear hub to perform a disastrous
rohl-off."
You might as well be a famous bicyclist immodestly
named for the wrong part of the body and enamoured
of a singer named after a croaking bird.
Schlumpf? Humph!
Carl Fogel
SMMB
news:8bbde8fc.04030...@posting.google.com...
> Dear Tom,
>
> My MawlRat bicycle needs no over-elaborate Teutonic
> machinery, with onomatopoeic names:
>
> "Schlumpf! goes the front transmission, collapsing
> and causing the rear hub to perform a disastrous
> rohl-off."
>
I'd be curious to know how badly or how well the initial preparation was.
What did you have to adjust, etc., to feel secure before really taking it
out.
--
Bonne route,
Sandy
Paris FR
Jesse Thompson
No need to limit yourself to brands that size in letters.
Here is a Cervelo with a 59.2 / 73deg top tube:
http://www.cervelo.com/bikes/SLTeam.html#Geometry
Specialized makes a "62" with a 60.cm/72.5deg:
http://www.specialized.com/SBCGeometryPopup.jsp?sizechart=04sworks2&bike
model=04%20S-Works%20E5%20Road%20Frameset
K2 makes a 60cm/72deg frame:
http://www.k2bike.com/04products/road/mod5.asp
There are some really long bikes out there these days, things are much
better for people like us now...
Jesse
Qui si parla Campagnolo
traditionalists on this thread that merely want to dismiss compact
frames under the assumption that its all a smoke & mirrors marketing
thing. Usually, that's the last line of defense for an old fart to claim
clue-less.............
Qui si parla Campagnolo
said, and you have dodged over and over again, people with short legs
and long torsos (like me!) can fit a standard compact frame but not a
The framesets we sell are not 'square'..many have steep seattubes and longish
top tubes. many framesets, like Lemond do too. Compact may solve the fit issue
for you but many 'standard' framesets do too. To paint compact as some sort of
cycling phenomenum is not true.
jesse<< I can go buy an affordable, off the shelf, compact frame that will fit
both me and the average guy. Without compact, I would have to go
custom, and that's silly. >><BR><BR>
If the manufacturers would make more sizes, you could do the same. You just
would have to find a manufacturer that did that, with frameset dimensions that
fit you. NOTHING about sizing is standard. To imply that frame makers ALL
follow some sort of guidelines or standardss as to frameset dimansions is
folly.
DeRosa/Merckx and Colnago are at opposite ends of the dimension spectrum, for
say a '56cm', both say their dimensions are proper.
We fit people everyday and sell a lot of bikes and have only twice needed a
'compact' frameset.
<jesse< This is a dodge. Giant got all the attention for their compact road
frame in only 4 sizes, but we all know that was stupid, and plenty of
manufacturers make compact frames in 2cm increments. Specialized,
Cervelo, and many others. >><BR><BR>
If lots of sizes, then why compact? They are not steep/long, in their
dimensions. They are just a standard frameset, with the top tube dropped, the
stays shorter. 'Stiffer, faster, more comfy'???
jesse<< These frames fit MORE of the population than
a standard square frame. >><BR><BR>
See above. The sizing isn't revolutionary. Look at the 'effective' top tube
length and seat tube angle and you will see they are the same as a standard
frameset.
jesse<< If you would just admit up front you really just think compact frames
are ugly, we would understand why you keep stretching to find other
reasons not to like them. >><BR><BR>
I have said numerous times I think they look stoopid but once again, you ignore
my point. They were and continue to be marketing driven, predominently. They
were and are made by some to save money, not to help the fit process. If they
work for you, groovy. Many standard framesets out there that do not cost a
fortune...many.
David Damerell
>There IS a problem being solved with a compact frame. As Mike S has
>said, and you have dodged over and over again, people with short legs
>and long torsos (like me!) can fit a standard compact frame but not a
>"classic" square frame.
That certainly comes as news to me; I just use a stem with plenty of
forward extension.
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Distortion Field!
Jay Beattie
"David Damerell" <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in
message news:JVg*hr...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
> Jesse Thompson <jesseth@removethis_gwi.net> wrote:
> >There IS a problem being solved with a compact frame. As Mike
S has
> >said, and you have dodged over and over again, people with
short legs
> >and long torsos (like me!) can fit a standard compact frame
but not a
> >"classic" square frame.
>
> That certainly comes as news to me; I just use a stem with
plenty of
> forward extension.
The compact frame is more of a problem for tall riders who get
stuck with a short frame, a long seat post and a long threadless
steerer and a long stem. The whole bike turns into a creaking
extension ladder. And depending on the effective length of the
TT, a tall rider ends up with his weight too far over the front
wheel, which gives the bike poor handling, IMO. -- Jay Beattie.
Carl Fogel
Dear Sandy,
My initial preparation began with calling WatMarl and
asking the lady who answered for the bicycle department,
which flummoxed her. She was relieved when I suggested
trying the sporting goods department, whose stalwart
clerk assured me that there were $50 15-speed bicycles
for sale and seemed puzzled when I asked how long it
would take to put one together--ya just roll 'em up
to the checkout stand, they're already assembled.
At the store, I found three fine examples of China's
answer to the Trek OCLV posing shyly on the upper
rack. Only one had a manual attached, so I heaved
it down, rolled it around, and found that the front
tire went bump, possibly because the soggy chunk of
thick rubber had been resting and deforming against
the rack for too long.
Rejecting it like a beauty queen with a pimple on
the end of her nose, I stuck a pitchfork into the
next bike and hoisted it down from the upper reaches
of the barn. This one's seat was noticeably dusty,
indicating an even longer sojourn on the display rack,
but its tires so rolled smoothly that I forgave it for
still having one of those round plastic shipping tabs
on one side of its rear axle (I'm not sure whether
"Consumer Reports" would call this a sample defect.)
At home, I introduced the gigantic Schrrader valve tires
to Mr. Air Compressor and settled for 55 harsh psi, favoring
ease of pedalling over the comfort offered by 40 psi.
While stuffing air into the tires, I gave the axle bolts
a tug and found them nicely snugged down.
Then I got on it and rode off. The silly thing surprised
me by how easily it pedalled, but it felt much smaller than
my touring bike, despite its impressive weight.
A sensible fellow would have promptly turned around,
returned to the garage, and continued with pre-ride
preparations, but instead I rode two blocks over to
where a narrow road descends a short, steep s-bend
gully to the Arkansas river and rolled down it to the
river, hitting what felt like 30 mph, a bit slower
than the usual 35 mph on my touring bike.
I figured out how to work handle-bar mounted shifters,
put it in low gear, trudged back up the hill, and
went back to pre-race preparation.
The chief problem was that the bike is really meant
for boys about the size that I was at fourteen (the
range is 10-17 years of age). An allen key loosened
the handlebar stem and let me raise it a few inches.
An adjustable wrench let me slide the seat further
back on its rails. The seat post is the old-fashioned
necked-down kind, so I pulled it out and compared it
to ancient seat posts in a box of odds and ends. One
of my old posts was the same size (from God knows what),
but several inches longer, so I popped it into the bike
after slathering grease on it, raised it to the limit
mark, and put the seat back on it.
Then I played on it for half an hour under the streetlight.
It's much easier to balance standing still than my touring
bike, but not as easy as my fondly remembered 5-speed
Schwinn from 1968, partly because I'm old and out of
practice and partly because of the narrow little
handlebars.
While balancing, I noticed that the raised stem seemed
to flex a bit when I strained on it. I expect that Chalo
Colina notices structural flex like this if he presses
the buttons on his speedometer carelessly.
Adding the speedometer was the biggest chore. I used a
spare that I keep ready to replace the speedometer on
my touring bike (they cost about $13 and die every few
years). The elephantine front forks (think of a pair
of tusks) required the biggest zip ties that I had
handy, crude padding, and mounting the sensor magnet
on the inside of the spoke-crossing, next to the hub.
Propping it upside down on a pair of 2x4's, I admired
its wheels. The rims are much narrower than the tires.
Using a KMart spoke wrench, I pretended to true the
rims, soothing them with half-remembered passages from
"The Bicycle Wheel." There was perhaps an eighth of an
inch of side wobble before I started, and arguably
less when I finished. The trick is to concentrate on
the rim and to ignore the fearsome rubber treads,
which project sideways and may well be staggered,
much like the teeth on a well-set saw.
While there's no actual data supporting the spoke
squeezing stress-relief theory, I gave all the
spokes a friendly grope. None of them broke or
seemed to resent the familiarity.
Given my size, I feel that the seat-post substitution
is within UCI rules. The effect of my wheel-truing is
notoriously open to question. By evil coincidence, I'd
broken my second drive-side spoke of the year on my
touring bike that afternoon, something that I didn't
mention to my new bicycle. (Doctors aren't required
to mention that the previous patient died, so I feel
reasonably ethical.)
The first real ride went fine yesterday. Unfortunately,
it began to rain last night, turned to snow, and is now
a few inches deep, so I may not go riding today. On the
other hand, I rode to school as a boy on days like this,
so I may sneak off, since the roads are just wet.
Carl Fogel
Dan Brussee
On 05 Mar 2004 14:03:12 GMT, vecc...@aol.com (Qui si parla
Brad Behm
"Callistus Valerius" <jazz...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:CWu0c.15545$aT1....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Do people really like these ugly compact geometry bikes? When you stop
> at the stoplight, how do you rest your leg on the top bar? We have some
> really long red lights around here. It's too bad, now I wouldn't even
> consider buying a LeMond bike.
>
> The only thing in favor of it, is that you give the bike to a relative
> or as a hand me down, because all you do is raise or lower the seat to fit
> them.
>
>
Jeff Starr
> Is compact geometry good for a riders with long legs and a short upper body?
>
Hi, what is good for the above mentioned "long legs and a short upper
body" is the WSD frames offered by some manufacturers. Both Trek and
LeMond offer WSD frames and I would think that there are others.
Life is Good!
Jeff
Ryan Cousineau
jst...@peoplepc.com (Jeff Starr) wrote:
Yeah, but you have to ride a girl's bike. You don't ride a girl's bike,
do you?
The Pinarello was previously owned by a girl (she put a kickstand on it),
--
Ryan Cousineau, rcou...@sfu.ca http://www.sfu.ca/~rcousine/wiredcola/
President, Fabrizio Mazzoleni Fan Club
David Reuteler
> The Pinarello was previously owned by a girl (she put a kickstand on it),
hey, you've done much worse than put a kickstand on it. say, why isn't the
kickstand still on it?
--
david reuteler
reut...@visi.com
Mike Latondresse
news:404a0799$0$184$a186...@newsreader.visi.com:
> Ryan Cousineau <rcou...@sfu.ca> wrote:
>> The Pinarello was previously owned by a girl (she put a kickstand
>> on it),
>
> hey, you've done much worse than put a kickstand on it. say, why
> isn't the kickstand still on it?
You think it is not? He is the only guy in the Tues nite crits with a
kick-stand.
David Reuteler
> You think it is not? He is the only guy in the Tues nite crits with a
> kick-stand.
ack .. my bad. naturally i just assumed ...
hey, there's really no way he can hold the presidency of fab's fan club and
ride crits with a kickstand is there? purple forks, orange seats ok .. but
this is beyond bad aesthetics. this weighs down the bike and costs time.
it's time to stringly consider impeaching ryan.
--
david reuteler
reut...@visi.com
Mike Latondresse
No, no, no, he is Fabs alter ego.
Ryan Cousineau
Mike Latondresse <mikelat@no_spamshaw.ca> wrote:
Lies, all lies! None of my bikes have kick-stands.
Though the Pinarello does have a bell.
Which I used in last weekend's race,
David Reuteler
> Lies, all lies! None of my bikes have kick-stands.
ok.
> Though the Pinarello does have a bell.
>
> Which I used in last weekend's race,
ok, that's funny. i can guess the context. was it well received?
--
david reuteler
reut...@visi.com
Ryan Cousineau
David Reuteler <reut...@visi.com> wrote:
> Ryan Cousineau <rcou...@sfu.ca> wrote:
> > Lies, all lies! None of my bikes have kick-stands.
>
> ok.
>
> > Though the Pinarello does have a bell.
> >
> > Which I used in last weekend's race,
>
> ok, that's funny. i can guess the context. was it well received?
In that particular race, I used it twice: once when we were overtaking a
pair of dropped B-group riders (so everyone else is yelling "riders up!"
as we pass, and I ring my bell. Everyone laughs).
The other time was when I passed by my parents, who were out watching me
race.
-RjC.
Brian S
> pete-<< So, you're implying that there is something WRONG with compact bikes -
> other than aesthetics. Specifically, what is it? >><BR><BR>
>
> Nothing 'wrong' but no probelm is being solved, no question being answered by
> compact for the middle of the bell curve rider, size wise. BUT when reading
> their marketing drivel, they are lighter, stiffer, faster, more complient, >
> The $ savings are not passed onto the rider. If you want to reward a poorly
> performing industry, go ahead but I prefer to reward an industry that does it
> right, with the customer, not the board members, in mind.
>
> Peter Chisholm
> Vecchio's Bicicletteria
> 1833 Pearl St.
> Boulder, CO, 80302
> (303)440-3535
> http://www.vecchios.com
> "Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"
Compact frames perform better than standard frames when my extended
carbon seat post eliminates more road buzz simply because the distance
from seat tube to saddle is longer. I also appreciate the additional
stand-over height. Because form follows function, these are more
important to me than buying a classic frame with a horizontal TT.
BTW, since the bike industry is in trouble, isn't it a good thing to
reduce costs and boost margins? In a competitive industry, you can
bet that these costs ARE being passed through (if not in price
reductions then in a slowing of the pace at which retail prices keep
rising). Aren't these three good reasons for a newbie (or a
veteran)to get interested in biking, select a compact frame, and keep
interested in it?
Derk
> BTW, since the bike industry is in trouble, isn't it a good thing to
> reduce costs and boost margins? In a competitive industry, you can
> bet that these costs ARE being passed through (if not in price
> reductions then in a slowing of the pace at which retail prices keep
> rising).
You obviously haven't suffered the enormous increase in prices we witnessed
here. A few years ago frames would cost half of what we pay now. I know of
very few other products that went up in price as fast as bike frames.
Greets, Derk
Steven M. Scharf
news:CWu0c.15545$aT1....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Do people really like these ugly compact geometry bikes?
It's not what people like that's important. It's that the compact frames
save the manufacturer money. If every mass market manufacturer has only
compact frames, then they've essentially forced you to either buy a compact
frame, or move up-market to someone like Rivendell, or go to customs.
David Reuteler
> It's not what people like that's important. It's that the compact frames
> save the manufacturer money. If every mass market manufacturer has only
> compact frames, then they've essentially forced you to either buy a compact
> frame, or move up-market to someone like Rivendell, or go to customs.
errr, of course it's about what people like. if enuf people don't like
compact frames enuf to pay some extra (most likely small) amount someone
will step in to fill the niche. and that someone need not be rivendell
or any other $$$ custom manufacturer. they're not saving that *MUCH* money
by selling compact frames.
but if no one cares .. then no one cares.
manufacturers can't force choices down your throat. imagine, ohh, say,
ford only selling one model with one paint job. that may be cheaper but
only lasts as long as, say, buick isn't around.
--
david reuteler
reut...@visi.com
Robert Brown
David Reuteler wrote:
---8<----cut
>
> manufacturers can't force choices down your throat. imagine, ohh, say,
> ford only selling one model with one paint job. that may be cheaper but
> only lasts as long as, say, buick isn't around.
(David, pls excuse me for diverting your thread a bit ...)
Maybe someone can help me understand one of the rumoured advantages with compact
geometry frames - that they allow retailers to stock a lesser number of frame
sizes, thus reducing inventory, capital bound up in stock, etc.
This I do not understand.
If we move a rider from a "regular" frame to a compact frame, preserving seat
height, handlebar height, seat post angle, and top tube length, then assuming
that same safety and aesthetic constraints apply re distance of handlebar stem
from headset (1 - 3cm), then the only practical difference for the compact frame
case is that a longer seat post is used.
If we now put, say, a significantly shorter rider on this same bike, then this
frame will not fit him/her. Sure, we can move the seat post down but we still
need to move the handlebars down correspondingly, and this is not any more
possible on a compact frame compared with a regular frame.
So, even in the compact frame case, we have to find a smaller frame for our
rider.
This would mean that retailers still have to stock just as many frames as before,
right?
What gives?
/Robert
Mark Hickey
>Compact frames perform better than standard frames when my extended
>carbon seat post eliminates more road buzz simply because the distance
>from seat tube to saddle is longer.
I'd ask you to come up with some sort of logical explanation for this.
Namely:
1) how a thick-walled carbon fiber tube has enough compliance to
2) be detected when filtered by a saddle.
Clearly there's no doubt that 1 is true - but only to a vanishingly
small degree. The magnitude of #1 will be utterly buried by the
compliance of #2.
> I also appreciate the additional
>stand-over height. Because form follows function, these are more
>important to me than buying a classic frame with a horizontal TT.
>BTW, since the bike industry is in trouble, isn't it a good thing to
>reduce costs and boost margins? In a competitive industry, you can
>bet that these costs ARE being passed through (if not in price
>reductions then in a slowing of the pace at which retail prices keep
>rising). Aren't these three good reasons for a newbie (or a
>veteran)to get interested in biking, select a compact frame, and keep
>interested in it?
No one has argued that there's anything inherently evil about a
compact frame (lots of my customs are "compact" BTW). Some take
exception to the aesthetics, but beauty IS in the eye of the
bikeholder. The issue that those posting "against" compacts have is
that there are those who ascribe unsubstantiated magical qualities to
them - faster, smoother, lighter, etc. It just ain't true.
Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame
Tom Sherman
> ...
> Maybe someone can help me understand one of the rumoured advantages with compact
> geometry frames - that they allow retailers to stock a lesser number of frame
> sizes, thus reducing inventory, capital bound up in stock, etc.
>
> This I do not understand.
>
> If we move a rider from a "regular" frame to a compact frame, preserving seat
> height, handlebar height, seat post angle, and top tube length, then assuming
> that same safety and aesthetic constraints apply re distance of handlebar stem
> from headset (1 - 3cm), then the only practical difference for the compact frame
> case is that a longer seat post is used.
>
> If we now put, say, a significantly shorter rider on this same bike, then this
> frame will not fit him/her. Sure, we can move the seat post down but we still
> need to move the handlebars down correspondingly, and this is not any more
> possible on a compact frame compared with a regular frame.
>
> So, even in the compact frame case, we have to find a smaller frame for our
> rider.
>
> This would mean that retailers still have to stock just as many frames as before,
> right?
>
> What gives?
The comfort of the rider when the inferior LBS sells him or her a bike
with an incorrect distance between the saddle and handlebars?
Benjamin Lewis
>>> Though the Pinarello does have a bell.
>>>
>>> Which I used in last weekend's race,
>>
>> ok, that's funny. i can guess the context. was it well received?
>
> In that particular race, I used it twice: once when we were overtaking a
> pair of dropped B-group riders (so everyone else is yelling "riders up!"
> as we pass, and I ring my bell. Everyone laughs).
>
> The other time was when I passed by my parents, who were out watching me
> race.
I'll try to come out and cheer you on too, if you put that kick-stand back
on.
--
Benjamin Lewis
On a paper submitted by a physicist colleague:
"This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." -- Wolfgang Pauli
Jesse Thompson
>
> The framesets we sell are not 'square'..many have steep seattubes and longish
> top tubes. many framesets, like Lemond do too. Compact may solve the fit issue
> for you but many 'standard' framesets do too. To paint compact as some sort of
> cycling phenomenum is not true.
>
> jesse<< I can go buy an affordable, off the shelf, compact frame that will fit
> both me and the average guy. Without compact, I would have to go
> custom, and that's silly. >><BR><BR>
>
> If the manufacturers would make more sizes, you could do the same. You just
> would have to find a manufacturer that did that, with frameset dimensions that
> fit you. NOTHING about sizing is standard. To imply that frame makers ALL
> follow some sort of guidelines or standardss as to frameset dimansions is
> folly.
>
> DeRosa/Merckx and Colnago are at opposite ends of the dimension spectrum, for
> say a '56cm', both say their dimensions are proper.
But this is what I don't get. If these two brands are the opposite of
the spectrum, why are the differences so tiny? .5 deg in seat tube
angle, a cm or two in TT length, all with ST lengths within a cm of TT
length.
A 60cm ST DeRosa has a 73 deg ST/58.5 TT. A 60cm Colnago (57cm c-c) has
a 73deg/57.7 TT. This is only a difference of .7cm, which is tiny.
> <jesse< This is a dodge. Giant got all the attention for their compact road
> frame in only 4 sizes, but we all know that was stupid, and plenty of
> manufacturers make compact frames in 2cm increments. Specialized,
> Cervelo, and many others. >><BR><BR>
>
> If lots of sizes, then why compact? They are not steep/long, in their
> dimensions. They are just a standard frameset, with the top tube dropped, the
> stays shorter. 'Stiffer, faster, more comfy'???
Well, we all know the shorter stays thing doesn't add up to anything.
And comfort is in the mind of the beholder (carbon stays, etc.).
> jesse<< These frames fit MORE of the population than
> a standard square frame. >><BR><BR>
>
> See above. The sizing isn't revolutionary. Look at the 'effective' top tube
> length and seat tube angle and you will see they are the same as a standard
> frameset.
Of course. Except they have more standover clearance. I am currently
riding an Independent Fab, which I bought used because they are talked
about for having long (LeMond-ish) geometry. So I'm riding a 57 c-c
seat tube, and 58 top tube, 72.5deg seat angle, and a 140mm stem.
If I want to ride a 120mm stem like the rest of the world, I would need
a 60 TT @72.5 deg. What 60cm toptube frame could I possibly find with
enough standover clearance that is not a compact frame or a custom?
A Colnago with a 59.2 TT @ 73deg has a 60cm ST c-c! A DeRosa with a 59cm
TT @ 73 deg has a 61 ST! What is someone like me (only 5'11") supposed
to do? I can't be the only one out there with a body like mine, in
fact, I bet there are a lot of people like me scrunched up on a 56 or
57TT classic frame. I know I was for 4 years when I first started
riding...
So that's what I am saying. Sloping top tubes let a certain TT length
fit MORE of the population. Everything else bike makers are using to
sell sloping is baloney (weight, comfort, "responsiveness", etc). But
fit flexability is not. It's simple geometry.
An ugly is another issue.
BaCardi
traditionalists make a big deal about that?
--
Benjamin Lewis
> Why aren't there non-compact mountain bikes?
I imagine because most people want to have the saddle very low when
mountain biking.
> Why don't the traditionalists make a big deal about that?
Mountain bikes are already non-traditional.
Jeff Starr
> (David, pls excuse me for diverting your thread a bit ...)
>
> Maybe someone can help me understand one of the rumoured advantages with compact
> geometry frames - that they allow retailers to stock a lesser number of frame
> sizes, thus reducing inventory, capital bound up in stock, etc.
>
> This I do not understand.
>
> If we move a rider from a "regular" frame to a compact frame, preserving seat
> height, handlebar height, seat post angle, and top tube length, then assuming
> that same safety and aesthetic constraints apply re distance of handlebar stem
> from headset (1 - 3cm), then the only practical difference for the compact frame
> case is that a longer seat post is used.
>
> If we now put, say, a significantly shorter rider on this same bike, then this
> frame will not fit him/her. Sure, we can move the seat post down but we still
> need to move the handlebars down correspondingly, and this is not any more
> possible on a compact frame compared with a regular frame.
>
> So, even in the compact frame case, we have to find a smaller frame for our
> rider.
>
> This would mean that retailers still have to stock just as many frames as before,
> right?
>
> What gives?
>
> /Robert
Hi, my guess is that someone with more expertise will give you a
technical explanation. But, that said, the rest is just common sense.
If a manufacturer offers a particular model in four sizes [S,M,L,XL],
then no matter what your body size, one of those four sizes has to be
made to fit you. They do this, with a variety of stem sizes, heights,
and angles. Along with seat posts of different setback, or even
forward angle.
If they only make four sizes, no matter what, the dealer can only
stock four sizes. If the rider is too small for the smallest size
frame, he is out of luck. In that case, he has to buy a different
model and/or brand. You can't stock something that doesn't exist,
right? right!
As far as I can tell, nothing gives.
Life is Good!
Jeff
Qui si parla Campagnolo
Nope but they can 'stretch' the truth, make promises it can't
keep...->marketing is what it's called.
Qui si parla Campagnolo
to do? >><BR><BR>
Ride a compact frame if it works for you. I said that some people not in the
center of the bell curve benefit from compact but to paint compact as a panacea
for ALL fit and performance issues with a road frame is not accurate.
jesse<< I can't be the only one out there with a body like mine, in
fact, I bet there are a lot of people like me scrunched up on a 56 or
57TT classic frame. >><BR><BR>
Nope but see above. If it works for you, keeps you on a bike, great.
Qui si parla Campagnolo
traditionalists make a big deal about that? >><BR><BR>
Coming unglued on a MTB while in the dirt is common and ya want to hit the
ground with your feet before you hit the top tube...pretty simple.
SMMB
news:20040308085302...@mb-m27.aol.com...
Pete -
A real question - since the "ideal" position for a rider's setup is
something hanging in the air (three points of contact, completely
interdependent, yet independent of any frame), why the problem with compacts
?
It seems to me that with proper seatpost extension, saddle set-back, and
stem length and height properly fit out, there are lots of frames which will
satisfy, including compacts.
If the esthetics of compact (spacer stacking, sloping top tube, compressed
rear triangle) are at issue, OK. But it seems to me much more important
that the rider is also properly situated over the bottom bracket, has good
weight distribution front to rear, and is neither overextended nor squeezed
into place. The feel of a custom bike can be ruined by the three areas of
adjustment I mention, too.
My new LOOK 461 is "semi-sloping", and I can't identify any particular new
sensation from its predecessor Kestrel. In fact, I am happier with it
(could be the new bike syndrome).
Am I missing something in your commentary ? Besides the limited size
choices or the marketing newspeak.
--
Bonne route,
Sandy
Paris FR
ajames54
> somebody-<< Why aren't there non-compact mountain bikes? Why don't the
> traditionalists make a big deal about that? >><BR><BR>
>
> Coming unglued on a MTB while in the dirt is common and ya want to hit the
> ground with your feet before you hit the top tube...pretty simple.
Even so when mountain bikes first went to a slopeing top tube design
they were still measured in the standard way... only to the effective
top tube rather than the actual.
In recent years they have become S M L XL there are a number of
reasons, but one of the reasons was that the customer who fit one 18"
frame did not necessarily fit another, the other dimensions varied so
much.
To make it easier on the shops the manufacturors swapped to the Letter
sizes. It does not really affect the knowledgable customer or the good
shops .. but there are a lot of both customers and shops that are not
these things...
The "you fit what we have in stock" attitude is very common.
Ted Bennett
There are non-compact mountain bikes. I have one, made by Fat Chance,
with a horizontal top tube. I haven't seen a mountain bike like it in
some time. It's about 15 years old.
--
Ted Bennett
Portland OR
Robert Brown
> Robert Brown <robert...@tripnet.se> wrote in message news:<404BA7B2...@txripnet.se>...
>
> > (David, pls excuse me for diverting your thread a bit ...)
> >
> > Maybe someone can help me understand one of the rumoured advantages with compact
> > geometry frames - that they allow retailers to stock a lesser number of frame
> > sizes, thus reducing inventory, capital bound up in stock, etc.
> >
> > This I do not understand.
> >
> > If we move a rider from a "regular" frame to a compact frame, preserving seat
> > height, handlebar height, seat post angle, and top tube length, then assuming
> > that same safety and aesthetic constraints apply re distance of handlebar stem
> > from headset (1 - 3cm), then the only practical difference for the compact frame
> > case is that a longer seat post is used.
> >
> > If we now put, say, a significantly shorter rider on this same bike, then this
> > frame will not fit him/her. Sure, we can move the seat post down but we still
> > need to move the handlebars down correspondingly, and this is not any more
> > possible on a compact frame compared with a regular frame.
> >
> > So, even in the compact frame case, we have to find a smaller frame for our
> > rider.
> >
> > This would mean that retailers still have to stock just as many frames as before,
> > right?
> >
> > What gives?
> >
> > /Robert
>
> Hi, my guess is that someone with more expertise will give you a
> technical explanation. But, that said, the rest is just common sense.
?
>
> If a manufacturer offers a particular model in four sizes [S,M,L,XL],
> then no matter what your body size, one of those four sizes has to be
> made to fit you. They do this, with a variety of stem sizes, heights,
> and angles.
Stem heights? On an a-head? Hello . . .
> Along with seat posts of different setback, or even
> forward angle.
Kind of pointless. If you think that the best compensation for an incorrect top tube height is to
move the seat back or forward, then you haven't ever experimented to see what effect this has on
pedalling.
>
> If they only make four sizes, no matter what, the dealer can only
> stock four sizes.
Well then, problem solved.
> If the rider is too small for the smallest size
> frame, he is out of luck. In that case, he has to buy a different
> model and/or brand. You can't stock something that doesn't exist,
> right? right!
. . . thus absolving dealer of all blame, even if he/she sells an ill-fitting frame?
>
> As far as I can tell, nothing gives.
Do you ever _ride_ bicycles or do you just watch?
According to your reasoning, frame manufacturers could have given us four sizes, even back when
conventional geometry was "in". Why not 48, 52, 56, and 60 cm?
I could have understood your line of reasoning if it had been applied to std geometry and the old
quill stem technology. With quill stems, it was possible, up to a point, to compensate for a
too-small frame by using a taller quill stem with greater extension forward, and moving the seat
back to decrease the effective seat tube angle. But these kinds of actions were regarded as making
the most of a bad situation [badly-fitting frame] at best.
Nowadays, the a-head stems restrict somewhat the amount of up-down adjustment for handlebars. This
makes it all the more critical that the right frame size is chosen, so that the handlebars are the
right height, in relation to the seat height. This is true regardless of whether top tube is
horizontal (traditional) or sloping (compact).
As I said in my previous post, the only practical difference that the compact geometry gives is a
longer seat post (plus greater straddle-over and _possibly_ increased rigidity). But the same frame
fitting issues still apply just the same.
/Robert
Chalo
> Do people really like these ugly compact geometry bikes? When you stop
> at the stoplight, how do you rest your leg on the top bar? We have some
> really long red lights around here. It's too bad, now I wouldn't even
> consider buying a LeMond bike.
I bought my first steeply sloped top tube bike in the spring of '88.
It was a lavender Cannondale MTB, and it was the coolest bike I had
ever seen (I think it still is). I put approximately 35,000 road
miles on it before it went into retirement. During that time it
served as my car, my bike, and my shoes. It almost always wore slicks
and 53/12 high gearing, and I chuckled to myself as I breezed by
poseur roadies wheezing over 18mm tires and aero bars.
I'd be willing to bet that you never rode as *rad* a bike as that in
your life, and in those days I bet I'd have left you sucking wind if
you tried to draft me.
As far as resting your leg on the top tube, uhh... what the heck are
you talking about?
And with a level top tube, how do you drop off the side of the bike to
ride under an obstruction barely higher than your saddle, like I used
to on my sloping frame? That's a useful trick my level-top-tube bikes
won't do.
Anyway, many new road bikes look cheesy and declassé because they
_are_ cheesy and declassé, not because of the angles of their top
tubes.
Yum:
http://www.wundel.com/frankys.pic/frankys.jpg/manitou1_grossbild.jpg
Yuck:
http://www.cyclesdeoro.com/images/Interbike%20Shows/InterBike00/Colnag5L.gif
Chalo Colina
Jeff Starr
> > >
> > > This would mean that retailers still have to stock just as many frames as before,
> > > right?
> > >
> > > What gives?
> > >
> > > /Robert
> >
> > Hi, my guess is that someone with more expertise will give you a
> > technical explanation. But, that said, the rest is just common sense.
>
> ?
>
> >
> > If a manufacturer offers a particular model in four sizes [S,M,L,XL],
> > then no matter what your body size, one of those four sizes has to be
> > made to fit you. They do this, with a variety of stem sizes, heights,
> > and angles.
>
> Stem heights? On an a-head? Hello . . .
Hello to you, pardon me, I meant rise. More rise will give you more
height.
>
> > Along with seat posts of different setback, or even
> > forward angle.
>
> Kind of pointless. If you think that the best compensation for an incorrect top tube height is to
> move the seat back or forward, then you haven't ever experimented to see what effect this has on
> pedalling.
I don't think that.
>
> >
> > If they only make four sizes, no matter what, the dealer can only
> > stock four sizes.
>
> Well then, problem solved.
Yup, there you have it;-)
>
> > If the rider is too small for the smallest size
> > frame, he is out of luck. In that case, he has to buy a different
> > model and/or brand. You can't stock something that doesn't exist,
> > right? right!
>
> . . . thus absolving dealer of all blame, even if he/she sells an ill-fitting frame?
Not in my opinion.
The main gist of your first post, seemed to be that you didn't
understand that they can only stock the number of sizes made of that
model. With compact it is often limited. From all the technical points
you have made in your second post, I'm kind of surprised you didn't
understand that inventory is limited to available sizes. Whether they
fit or not. I'm certainly not defending the compact frame and the
above is just the way it is. They obviously have their limitations.
>
> >
> > As far as I can tell, nothing gives.
>
> Do you ever _ride_ bicycles or do you just watch?
Watch what? If I didn't ride, it would still have nothing to do with
the limitations of compact frames. Believe me, it is not my idea that
the dealer should be forced to use extreme measures to somewhat fit a
bike.
>
> According to your reasoning, frame manufacturers could have given us four sizes, even back when
> conventional geometry was "in". Why not 48, 52, 56, and 60 cm?
Once again, it is not my reasoning.
>
> I could have understood your line of reasoning if it had been applied to std geometry and the old
> quill stem technology. With quill stems, it was possible, up to a point, to compensate for a
> too-small frame by using a taller quill stem with greater extension forward, and moving the seat
> back to decrease the effective seat tube angle. But these kinds of actions were regarded as making
> the most of a bad situation [badly-fitting frame] at best.
It is not my reasoning, and I certainly don't disagee with you.
>
> Nowadays, the a-head stems restrict somewhat the amount of up-down adjustment for handlebars. This
> makes it all the more critical that the right frame size is chosen, so that the handlebars are the
> right height, in relation to the seat height. This is true regardless of whether top tube is
> horizontal (traditional) or sloping (compact).
>
> As I said in my previous post, the only practical difference that the compact geometry gives is a
> longer seat post (plus greater straddle-over and _possibly_ increased rigidity). But the same frame
> fitting issues still apply just the same.
>
The supposed benefits of compact frames have been mentioned throughout
this thread. The main one seeming to be lower standover height. I
prefer a traditional frame with all the size options they usually
offer.
When you asked: "This would mean that retailers still have to stock
just as many frames as before, right?" I got the impression that you
didn't know or understand that often the manufacturer only offered
four or five sizes and that was the limiting factor. It seems to me,
that you know quite a bit about frame geometry and proper fit. For me
personally, there is no benefit to buying/riding a compact frame.
Life is Good!
Jeff
Ryan Cousineau
Benjamin Lewis <bcl...@cs.sfu.ca> wrote:
> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
>
> >>> Though the Pinarello does have a bell.
> >>>
> >>> Which I used in last weekend's race,
> >>
> >> ok, that's funny. i can guess the context. was it well received?
> >
> > In that particular race, I used it twice: once when we were overtaking a
> > pair of dropped B-group riders (so everyone else is yelling "riders up!"
> > as we pass, and I ring my bell. Everyone laughs).
> >
> > The other time was when I passed by my parents, who were out watching me
> > race.
>
> I'll try to come out and cheer you on too, if you put that kick-stand back
> on.
No, and I'm pretty sure I'd be DQ'd for a safety (taste) violation if I
tried.
David Damerell
>And with a level top tube, how do you drop off the side of the bike to
>ride under an obstruction barely higher than your saddle, like I used
>to on my sloping frame? That's a useful trick my level-top-tube bikes
>won't do.
Please describe this in more detail - I cannot envisage what is involved.
The lowest I can get is to fold my torso down onto the handlebars...
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Kill the tomato!
Qui si parla Campagnolo
something hanging in the air (three points of contact, completely
interdependent, yet independent of any frame), why the problem with compacts
Once again, I DON'T have a PROBLEM with compact framesets...I have a problem
with the marketing of them that paint them as some sort of fit and performance
'revolution' that fixes all the ills of the bicycle.
Much like things like threadless and integrated and 1 1/8in. I get tired of
reading how these things are somehow better performing. I like to view them for
what they are and state so when talking abut things 'bikes'.
SMMB<< Am I missing something in your commentary ? Besides the limited size
choices or the marketing newspeak. >><BR><BR>
Nope you see it.
Robert Brown
---8<---- cutting earlier exchange
> The supposed benefits of compact frames have been mentioned throughout
> this thread. The main one seeming to be lower standover height. I
> prefer a traditional frame with all the size options they usually
> offer.
> When you asked: "This would mean that retailers still have to stock
> just as many frames as before, right?" I got the impression that you
> didn't know or understand that often the manufacturer only offered
> four or five sizes and that was the limiting factor. It seems to me,
> that you know quite a bit about frame geometry and proper fit. For me
> personally, there is no benefit to buying/riding a compact frame.
OK - then I believe that our views converge a lot more than we both first might have thought. Thanks for
explaining your view; I understand it better now and I agree with it.
But you are right, I have _not_ looked at the sizes of compact frames generally on offer because I too
find them so damned ug-leee.
/Robert
Ryan Cousineau
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> Chalo <chump...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >And with a level top tube, how do you drop off the side of the bike to
> >ride under an obstruction barely higher than your saddle, like I used
> >to on my sloping frame? That's a useful trick my level-top-tube bikes
> >won't do.
>
> Please describe this in more detail - I cannot envisage what is involved.
> The lowest I can get is to fold my torso down onto the handlebars...
Imagine a typical compact bike: as you approach the obstacle, you slide
off the seat forward and to one side of the bike. Crouch down low so one
leg is touching the top tube, and drop your head so it's down around the
level of your handlebars.
You are now riding really low. For me, this is not an obstacle ride I
get to do much, as I am short already. Chalo probably has to do this
maneuver when entering some parkades, riding under telephone wires, etc.
Derk
> But you are right, I have _not_ looked at the sizes of compact frames
> generally on offer because I too find them so damned ug-leee.
I needed a bike I can leave in France instead of dragging one with me every
holiday. I was offered a compact frame for 1000 Euros in stead of the 1400
it cost last year, because there was a new model out. I compared, but was
unable to find anything else in the 1000 Euros price range, so I bought a
very lightweight compact frame that I'll use a few weeks a year in France.
About sizes of normal geometry frames: LOOK for example offered a reasobly
priced frameset only in 57 or 59 size in stead of the 58 I need.....
Greets, Derk
Mike S.
"Derk" <I_hat...@invalid.org> wrote in message
news:404e017c$0$561$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
Y'all keep overlooking the Big S who offers their S-Works compact frames in
the same 1-2cm increments as all their other bikes...
I know they off at least a 52, 53, 54 'cause I was looking at a 52. Decided
it was too short. Looked between 53 and 54. Chose the 53, but shoulda
bought the 54. Oh well.
Mike
Carl Fogel
[snip]
>
> Yum:
> http://www.wundel.com/frankys.pic/frankys.jpg/manitou1_grossbild.jpg
>
> Yuck:
> http://www.cyclesdeoro.com/images/Interbike%20Shows/InterBike00/Colnag5L.gif
>
> Chalo Colina
Dear Chalo,
Are those square tubes on the first bike's chain and
seat stays?
If so, do you know what's going on? Stronger, cheaper,
easier to manufacture, just cosmetic?
And are they going to spread eventually to the rest of
future bicycle frames?
Carl Fogel
Robert Brown
"Mike S." wrote:
---8<----- cutting middle bit
>
> I know they off at least a 52, 53, 54 'cause I was looking at a 52. Decided
> it was too short. Looked between 53 and 54. Chose the 53, but shoulda
> bought the 54. Oh well.
>
Join the club. Many racers I've known do that on purpose - they go for a shorter
frame. I should ideally ride a 55 or 56, based on my total height, but I like my
53 (Colnago have the gall to call it a 54 but that's another discussion) since
my legs are long for my height and I thus require a shorter top tube.
The sacrifice I make is having 3 cm of spacers between top of headset and bottom
of handlebar stem. Of course I could saw down the steerer and flip the stem to
point it upwards, but then it wouldn't look like a "real" bicycle.
In this config, top of handlebars is 15 cm (ca. 6 in) below saddle tip (level
saddle). Fits me perfectly.
/Robert
Rick Onanian
<rxobert...@txripnet.se> wrote:
>The sacrifice I make is having 3 cm of spacers between top of headset and bottom
>of handlebar stem. Of course I could saw down the steerer and flip the stem to
>point it upwards, but then it wouldn't look like a "real" bicycle.
So, you could shave a few grams, but your vanity exceeds your
gram-weenie-ity?
>In this config, top of handlebars is 15 cm (ca. 6 in) below saddle tip (level
>saddle). Fits me perfectly.
Sounds torturous. Is that your race bike or just for training?
--
Rick Onanian
Chalo
> > http://www.wundel.com/frankys.pic/frankys.jpg/manitou1_grossbild.jpg
> >
> Are those square tubes on the first bike's chain and
> seat stays?
Yes.
> If so, do you know what's going on? Stronger, cheaper,
> easier to manufacture, just cosmetic?
Stronger? Not really. (Only to bending loads on-axis.)
Cheaper? Possibly. Depends on whether they streamline production
somehow.
Easier to manufacture? Sometimes. I like square tubes for the fact
that they align well to reference surfaces.
Cosmetic? Could be. They looked new and cool at one time (mid '80s-
early '90s). Kleins used to have them, as well as the tasteful Doug
Bradbury-built Manitou in the picture. Those were both bike marques
with some glamor attached.
I believe the main reason square stays were used on early aluminum
bike frames was to maximize both tube cross-section and tire clearance
within a given external width constraint. (That is the same reason
they are used now on downhill-type MTB swingarms.) At that time,
tapered and fancy shaped bike-specific aluminum tubes were as yet
unavailable, and common cranks and BBs imposed limitations on the
permissible widths and curvatures of chainstays.
At that time, one of the bragging points of aluminum was that an
aluminum frame could be made both stiffer and lighter than a
comparable steel frame, and those few makers who built aluminum frames
were making them *actually stiffer* than steel frames. That meant no
skimping on the tubing sizes, which in turn made square tubes a good
choice when tube width was limited by clearance issues.
Of course, thanks to those early aluminum builders, everybody came to
know that aluminum frames are all incredibly stiff and harsh riding,
no matter the specifics of the tubing in the frame. After this shift
in bike consumer consciousness, there was no longer a need to put
quite so much structure in tight areas like the chainstay-BB joint.
:D
Chalo Colina
Tom Sherman
> ...
> Imagine a typical compact bike: as you approach the obstacle, you slide
> off the seat forward and to one side of the bike. Crouch down low so one
> leg is touching the top tube, and drop your head so it's down around the
> level of your handlebars.
>
> You are now riding really low....
Really low is being able to touch the ground with both hands while
seated on the bike.
Tom Sherman - Quad Cities (Illinois Side)
G.T.
> chump...@hotmail.com (Chalo) wrote in message news:<8b4b7de4.04030...@posting.google.com>...
>
> [snip]
>
>
>>Yum:
>>http://www.wundel.com/frankys.pic/frankys.jpg/manitou1_grossbild.jpg
>>
>>Yuck:
>>http://www.cyclesdeoro.com/images/Interbike%20Shows/InterBike00/Colnag5L.gif
>>
>>Chalo Colina
>
>
> Dear Chalo,
>
> Are those square tubes on the first bike's chain and
> seat stays?
>
Yes, I had a later model Answer-made Manitou.
> If so, do you know what's going on? Stronger, cheaper,
> easier to manufacture, just cosmetic?
Who knows?
>
> And are they going to spread eventually to the rest of
> future bicycle frames?
>
My current Turner also has square stays.
Greg
Derk
> Really low is being able to touch the ground with both hands while
> seated on the bike.
Can't be that hard: monkeys do that without any problem!
Greets, Derk
Robert Brown
> On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 23:16:02 +0100, Robert Brown
> <rxobert...@txripnet.se> wrote:
> >The sacrifice I make is having 3 cm of spacers between top of headset and bottom
> >of handlebar stem. Of course I could saw down the steerer and flip the stem to
> >point it upwards, but then it wouldn't look like a "real" bicycle.
>
> So, you could shave a few grams, but your vanity exceeds your
> gram-weenie-ity?
Absolutely . . . I'll gladly pay some extra weight in the name of style . . .
>
>
> >In this config, top of handlebars is 15 cm (ca. 6 in) below saddle tip (level
> >saddle). Fits me perfectly.
>
> Sounds torturous. Is that your race bike or just for training?
< grin > This is the way I also train, so that when I race, I'm already used to it.
My hamstrings are still a bit too short, so this position also encourages me to do
the proper stretching exercises afterwards.
/Robert
Matt O'Toole
> Even so when mountain bikes first went to a slopeing top tube design
> they were still measured in the standard way... only to the effective
> top tube rather than the actual.
> In recent years they have become S M L XL there are a number of
> reasons, but one of the reasons was that the customer who fit one 18"
> frame did not necessarily fit another, the other dimensions varied so
> much.
> To make it easier on the shops the manufacturors swapped to the Letter
> sizes. It does not really affect the knowledgable customer or the good
> shops .. but there are a lot of both customers and shops that are not
> these things...
There are so many different ways of measuring frames, plus they have different
proportions. So the numbers are only nominal anyway. And if they're only
nominal, one might as well just use names, not numbers.
I see nothing wrong with this. It's actually easier to understand for most
people, making fitting a bike like buying clothes (which it sort of is).
> The "you fit what we have in stock" attitude is very common.
Unfortunately.
Matt O.
Matt O'Toole
> BaCardi <usenet...@cyclingforums.com> wrote:
I had an old Bontrager with a level top tube, and geometry designed for a
suspension fork (a Rockshox Mag 10). Sloped top tubes became popular around
1990 or so, when suspension forks became popular. But there were still some
level tube holdouts for awhile after that. Ritchey was one of the last to get
sloped, IIRC.
I don't see what the big deal is.
Matt O.