serotta ottrott chainstays

[pdmtong]

my ottrott has ovalized stays near the bb while the stays on my friend's ottrott are round in the same place

what kind of stays do you have? we both have a window in the bb shell.

[laupsi]

mine are oval too. circa 2011

[93legendti]

My 2007 Ottrott ST has oval stays...53cm TT, fwiw.

[dekindy]

Was it ordered custom? Tube selection for individual needs?

[laupsi]

custom SE. I weigh in at around 158 lbs.

[David Kirk]

Typically larger bikes got the single bend oval stays and smaller got the round S bend stays.

The oval stays are much thicker and a bit stiffer to work better with bigger riders on larger bikes.

dave

[SPOKE]

Oval-single bend stays are really stiff!!! The ST seat stay helps minimize the harshness.
These same stays can turn a legend into an a$$-hatchet for rider under about 165lbs.

[sparky33]

an a$$-hatchet

efficient, colorful and clear. I like it. I will put this expression in my pocket and pull it out again some time soon.

What would you call the opposite of it?

[pdmtong]

Typically larger bikes got the single bend oval stays and smaller got the round S bend stays.

The oval stays are much thicker and a bit stiffer to work better with bigger riders on larger bikes.

dave

thanks dave. your input is always appreciated by me.
My ottrott has a eTT 56.0 and is built with 8.5 pipes and a 8.5 F3 fork. I'm 170-175 and it feels good all day long - like 100/9,000 kind of all day long. certainly no a$$-hatchet. BTW I thought that term was used mainly for arione haters.

[ergott]

Typically larger bikes got the single bend oval stays and smaller got the round S bend stays.

The oval stays are much thicker and a bit stiffer to work better with bigger riders on larger bikes.

dave

Kind of wish I got the stiffer stays. I get chainstay rub with wider rims/tires when sprinting or out of the saddle climbing. I solved it by using narrower, tubular rimmed wheels. Best I can do is 25mm tubulars with GP4 rims or similar. I also have Enve 65 rear rim with 23mm tire.

[SPOKE]

efficient, colorful and clear. I like it. I will put this expression in my pocket and pull it out again some time soon.

What would you call the opposite of it?

.....hammock

[SPOKE]

If I remember correctly Serotta offered 2 different stiffness S-Bend stays that were round at the BB. The stiffer of the two generally worked well for strong riders that typically weighed 150-180lbs or so. If the frame was large and/or the rider was north of 180lbs the single-bend oval stay was the choice. These three choices were used with the ST seat stay or could be used on a frame with Ti seat stays.
I have one of the very first Ottrott frames that was built for me that has the Single-bend stays and Ti seat stays. Yes, it is an a$$-hatchet but I like it for short, fast rides on the generally smooth roads here in central NC.

[93legendti]

My Ottrott is smoothhhhhhh...6.5 in the tubes...I guess I will have to post a pic. The stays sure look oval to me, but they are not too stiff...:confused:

[pdmtong]

Here's the underside. Check out the joinery at the BB shell

[Brian Smith]

I may be able to help confuse matters here with some more facts and opinion.

The first frame pictured has an old style "oversized" chainstay. They were made from larger diameter round tubing which was squashed into an oval shape.

The frame below it identified as a 2011 has the new style "undersized" (my term, Serotta called them standard although they were not usually used at the time) chainstay, made also from round tubing which is not round where they have been deformed for tire clearance, but for the most of their length are round and not oval. The more common chainstay of the period was made similarly to these, but started with larger diameter tubing and were squashed into an oval-like shape for the first few inches near the bottom bracket. They were not created from appreciably thicker-walled material, although in Dave Kirk's day with the 'S' company they were. These designs were perhaps part of the look for the brand, despite the compromises created. In my experience of riding frames of all 3 chainstay variants, the earlier thicker and single bent chainstays which weren't deformed at the tire for clearance produced a small but detectable difference in the ride, at a substantial weight penalty against the lighter titanium chainstays but not against the more-rigid-yet steel stays they attempted to approximate. The ride between the other stays is very similar, belying the visual differences.

The carbon fiber chainstays of the period from the company were substantially lighter, detectably more rigid in bench tests, had fewer clearance issues (though some,) and were never identified as causing a rider discomfort in a frame. In my opinion, their employ reformed one of the brand's worst tubes (speaking, perhaps, in rare air terms) into one of their best - one worthy of their position coming from their heritage steel variants.

[Ahneida Ride]

Typically larger bikes got the single bend oval stays and smaller got the round S bend stays.

The oval stays are much thicker and a bit stiffer to work better with bigger riders on larger bikes.

dave


My 64 Legend Ti (Rapid Tour) has the oval stays.

[laupsi]

I may be able to help confuse matters here with some more facts and opinion.

The first frame pictured has an old style "oversized" chainstay. They were made from larger diameter round tubing which was squashed into an oval shape.

The frame below it identified as a 2011 has the new style "undersized" (my term, Serotta called them standard although they were not usually used at the time) chainstay, made also from round tubing which is not round where they have been deformed for tire clearance, but for the most of their length are round and not oval. The more common chainstay of the period was made similarly to these, but started with larger diameter tubing and were squashed into an oval-like shape for the first few inches near the bottom bracket. They were not created from appreciably thicker-walled material, although in Dave Kirk's day with the 'S' company they were. These designs were perhaps part of the look for the brand, despite the compromises created. In my experience of riding frames of all 3 chainstay variants, the earlier thicker and single bent chainstays which weren't deformed at the tire for clearance produced a small but detectable difference in the ride, at a substantial weight penalty against the lighter titanium chainstays but not against the more-rigid-yet steel stays they attempted to approximate. The ride between the other stays is very similar, belying the visual differences.

The carbon fiber chainstays of the period from the company were substantially lighter, detectably more rigid in bench tests, had fewer clearance issues (though some,) and were never identified as causing a rider discomfort in a frame. In my opinion, their employ reformed one of the brand's worst tubes (speaking, perhaps, in rare air terms) into one of their best - one worthy of their position coming from their heritage steel variants.

great feedback and information, thanks!