Interesting RKP article on 'Italian' geometry

[Climb01742]

I wonder what folks think of this? Particularly curious what builders think.

http://redkiteprayer.com/2016/01/anachronistic/

My favorite bike was a mid-90s MXL. Loved how it rode and handled. Is part of the puzzle explained by the article? Wish I knew enough to know.

[christian]

1) It's fantastically overbroad on traditional geometry. It refers to slow-steering geometry as "Italian" when in fact, it was really Colnago and Eddy Merckx that used it primarily. Gios, for instance, always had steeper head angles and faster steering. So did Pinarellos.

2) It generalizes way too much about modern bikes. While it may be true for mid-level monocoque bikes (though I haven't confirmed), a C50/C59/Extreme Power/EPS doesn't have the same geo as a Tarmac. In fact, they have lower bbs, longer chainstays, and slower steering. Hmm, if I were a bit of an overgeneralizer, I guess I'd call that Italian geometry.

I'd want evidence that the geometry of certain Italian marques changed as they went to Asian sourcing. Is Colnago M10 geo different from C59? This wouldn't be hard to determine - just look at historical geo charts. The fact that no such evidence is presented makes me doubtful that it exists to prove any systematic change.

Basically, I think it's a fun little theory and generalization, but I don't think facts actually bear it out. But hey, I don't need to fill up column inches for advertising space.

[christian]

BTW, didn't Merckx's De Rosa have like a 73.5 or 74d HTA? That alone seems to puncture the idea that there was some uniform Italian geometry.

[thwart]

Yeah, that is an interesting article.

A very rough summary: Euro/Italian bike geo influenced to a great degree by rough roads and mountain descents, and American bike geo moreso by racing crits.

[fuzzalow]

Some of his conjectures are plausible. But who can really know if the evolution of frame geometries would or would not have converged towards a more uniform geometry solution over the course of time?

As early as the 1970's Cinelli had suggested a reduction in wheel diameter to advantage what they thought was improved road conditions over the state of roads that were during the time a 700c wheel diameter was standardized upon. There would always be a melting pot of ideas and trends that with an increasingly worldwide mode of product manufacturing, design and distribution would have blurred the natural boundaries of country and local markets in evidence and effect during the post WWII economies.

I don't agree about losing control of geometry by the "business executives" who were purported to be ignorant and didn't know ding about bike geometries - so they just let it happen with carry-forward of American geos to asian sourced frames. IMO not likely at all.

With the possible exception of Bianchi who didn't have a singular figurehead as Reparto Corse authoritarian, most of the famous and revered Italian bike companies were family-owned small businesses in light industrial manufacturing: Masi, Cinelli, Colnago, Pinarello, DeRosa and the like. There were other makers that were less patriarchal as business entities, such as Gios Torino or the Bottecchia/Atala line that might have fit the mold as suggested in the RKP piece but these two makers, by example, were even smaller and less influential than the aforementioned names as pinnacles of Italian cycling. So it would be unlikely that their asian-sourced bikes would set the standard going forwards in the vacuum of what might have existed in the market at that time.

Ugo DeRosa has forgotten more about geometry than most anyone would know that would give manufacturing specs to an asian factory for a run of bicycle frames. That he, or Ernesto, or Nani would be flippant on a haphazard geometry used on their bikes that would be churned out in the thousands, is highly unlikely. However, and in fairness, the sometimes inexplicable senselessness of how Italian companies have been managed and run doesn't put anything outside the realm of possibility.

Some of this patina falls into the realm of cycling folklore from the halcyon days as romanticized in a Rapha advert. Italian bikes for me will always be the pinnacle and for many, many more reasons than simply geometry. I honestly don't know and don't care about how the millimeter differences in geometry may effect something. I never presume to know more than the guy whose name is on the downtube of my racing bike.

What I do know is the bike can only get me halfway. I gotta know how to fit and balance into it and I gotta know how to pedal it and use it.

I am not a fan of the RKP author but, in fairness, it is not easy to write for a general audience. I give him credit for trying 'cos I know I couldn't do it.

[Gummee]

I briefly rode a KG181 and 'got it.' That bike was what was being discussed in the article mentioned in the OP

My Battaglins at the time weren't as 'all day' comfy like that Look despite being Italian. Ditto with my Concorde.

That's as much knowledge as I have on this topic. Where's the popcorn?

M

[FlashUNC]

A lot of generalizing there, methinks.

[soulspinner]

Ya. My Colnago had a head angle less than 72 degrees. I am/ was used to 5.6 trail and 73 degree headtubes. Bought my Cervelo RS after getting rid of the Colnago and it had 72 / 73 angles. I find turn in slow on these bikes but I could see how a low bb and lots of trail could make a mountain descent more comfortable, especially in a pack. My Strong and my previous custom were built with a 73 head 45 rake fork. This seems perfect to me with 410 chainstays. YMMV.

[velomonkey]

First, read what fuzz wrote above. Way better than what I got.

Second, my respect of RKP dropped when RKP said things in absolute: The handlebar is higher so more power, Lance had a massive calf means he doped, specialized frames with no paint are stiffer (you do the search).

I've got frames that are as close to one another as possible - I'm faster on the "Italian" one - it aint the geo and you're an idiot if you think that's the only reason why - then again I am not selling advertising.

[false_Aest]

Craig has a great response on FB regarding the post. Mods, please delete this if copying/pasting from FB is frowned on.

"Craig Gaulzetti i think the evolution of "italian" race bike geometry is a bit more niuanced and representative of deliberate choices. the above merckx geometry represents one of dozens perhaps hundreds of geometries merckx tried and competed on over the years. while i don't think that whomever designed say, petacchi's dogma or bartoli's C40 or ullrich's paris or more recently, Voeckler's C50/60 were infallible, they certainly were not parroting anything american. integrated shifters changed the primary riding positions on racing bikes but didn't change fundamental biomechanics. hoods got higher on the bars and became the primary riding position so bars got shorter reaches and shallower drops for most folks. saddle offsets also changed since merckx's time which meant the frame angles underneath them had to change. quill stems gave way to threadless setups which meant that the lengths of the tubes underneath them needed to change too. road conditions also improved and while cino cinelli's prediction that improved tarmac would lead to adoption of smaller wheels didn't come about- nominally shorter chainstays and ever so slightly decreased bb drop did happen. for the most part, "trail" has always been a widely ignored measurement in italian race bike design. while misleading to look at in isolation, the measurements that determine trail have always been far more important in driving and determining handling traits and proper weight distribution of a rider between two wheels of a fixed diameter than the resulting trail measurement. i think modern italian stage race geometry is an evolution of what worked in the 1970s refined and optimized for modern materials, components and the morphology of elite cyclists. is it perfect? not in a world where the pro-tour bicycle must be a saleable commodity first and a sporting good second for sure. most bike racers would be better off on made to measure bikes- but in the increasingly rare instances where custom frames are provided, they don't differ much in terms of handling geometry from what we can buy in the bike shop. to me, the american companies like trek, cannondale and specialized have adopted european stage race bike design ideas far more than the europeans have adopted whatever passed as american crit bike geometry in the 1980s, i look at Wiggo or Fabian on their bikes in Paris-Roubaix last year and I see positionals that are nearly identical to what pros of similar morphology were using in the 1970s. Any differences in geometry owe far more to changes in where the shifters are now and what constitutes the primary riding position on the handlebars than any significant changes in the handling traits of the bikes used at an elite level. A brand new off the shelf Dogma is a better riding bike than a 1976 De Rosa- and i dare say a custom race bike designed specifically for the individual athlete is better than either. Good discussion Patrick and thanks for bringing it up! This stuff is fun to think about."

[Climb01742]

Two points that stood out for me were: lower BB and 'slower'/more stable front end. I've always found Colnago steering to my liking. It felt more solid and stable. It's interesting that for years, Ernesto didn't readily give out the HTA of his frames.

I don't believe any of this is magic, but it does seem logical that as bikes went from handmade one-offs to match a specific rider to mass-made attempts to please the most people, well, something was lost. Something about how a bike handles 'best' does feel like it should be enduring. What felt good in 1950, 1970, 1990 and today probable share more than lots of bike marketing might lead you to believe.

[moose8]

I don't know enough to really judge what the author wrote but I do have a 1996ish steel Ciocc (it's got Atlanta olympics badging on the campy wheels) and of all my bikes I find I need to pay more attention when riding it. I don't know why that is but if I don't feel on my game I don't ride it. It seems more twitchy or responsive - no idea if it's traditional Italian geometry though. It's also way sexier than my other bikes and draws complements in the way the others do not even though it's pretty old and beat up at this point.

[JonB]

Patrick has been declaring his love of "classic Italian stage-race geometry" for over 20 years. I recall the same theme to his writing back in the old Bicycle Guide magazine from the mid-late 90s.

[texbike]

Interesting article. Not sure that I agree 100% with it, but I get the basic idea.

I've been a fan of Italian bikes since my 1st Cinelli almost 25 years ago. I had been riding Cannondales primarily up until then and my eyes were opened on the first ride of the Cinelli. Over the years, I continued to be amazed by how nicely it and other Italian bikes rode. Almost without exception, every Italian (or Italian-inspired - Merckx) bike that I've owned has been a wonderful riding bike. Recently I built up a 25-year-old, SLX-tubed Colnago and it's served as a reminder of how great Italian bikes are. The bike simultaneously feels alive/nimble, smooth, stable, and responsive. It's a tank (21 lbs) but feels just about perfect from a ride perspective.

Texbike

[Aaron O]

To follow up what Christian said, the article was so broad as to be meaningless; italian bikes are all different, and they are different within brands by model, or by what/ for who the builder wanted to make the frame for. A De Rosa does not handle like a Cinelli. Really what he seems to say is a few larger, mass produced us bikes cannondale'd the industry.

I do trend towards liking lower BBs... Probably explaining my fondness for Mr. Kellogg.