Asking for a custom that's basically a big-3 redux...

[Clean39T]

The other thread running right now on "would you buy a copy of your custom..." got me thinking about something else I've been mulling over...and I imagine to some of you, it'll be a stupid question, but I'll ask anyway cuz I like getting other perspectives.

tl;dr -- would you ever go to a custom frame builder and say "build me a Trek Domane out of steel (or Ti)"?

I really love the way my Emonda SLR fits and rides; and I really like the similar geometry in the Domane SLR RSL (aka, H1 fit) that brings a bit more clearance and discs to the table - and all things being equal think that would be the best next bike for me as far as design goes and matching up with the riding I'm doing this year. The problem is that those Domane SLR RSL framesets are needles in the hay in the secondary market, especially in the 62cm I'd be looking for; and getting one new from Trek is $3K+ for the frame, if you can even get the frame only - you may have to buy the full bike build at $7K+. The thing is, if I was going to spend that much on a frame, I'd overwhelmingly rather have a steel or titanium machine with custom styling and paint than a carbon one with the gizmos (which work phenomenally, just aren't critical to me since I think a builder could accomplish similar with tubing choice and I care more about the geometry than the gizmos). In fact, I don't think I'd want to spend over $1500 for a production carbon frameset, no matter how perfect it is, but that's another story. Back on topic...so, if I really like the Domane and finally feel like I've found a size/spec that really works for me, would it make sense and not be a major faux-pas to just take the geometry specs to my builder of choice and say "gimme that, with more style, and built with your hands"?? I guess I'm just asking if it's fine to just skip the body-measurements and go straight to "I know what I want and it's this" as far as the sizing goes...with the only question being tuning the tubing choice, braze-ons, etc. Or would that be insulting the builder's craft? Like I said, probably a silly question - but it's Friday, so ignore it if that's you're thing...

[batman1425]

I don't think that's unreasonable. You have a great starting point for where your contact points need to be and where they are with respect to a stock bike. The builder should be able to interpret all that pretty readily and make small adjustments as necessary to suit the material choice, intended use, and rider weight.

It's your bike after all. If you sign off on the build sheet, they should make it.

[carpediemracing]

If you're willing to wait for a custom frame, can't you just wait for the right frame to come along? Or even make friends with the local Trek dealer and have him keep an eye out for one?

I'm assuming the fit is perfect, but wouldn't those measurements be available from other manufacturers? There's definitely a database out there where you can input what you want and it'll spit out what frames are offered by what manufacturers in that exact spec.

Fianlly it's the ride that makes it better, then, right? Because the geometry has got to be available in other models. It'll be hard for a small volume frame builder to replicate that ride for that weight for that price.

[NYCfixie]

This is exactly what the shop manager did at my old LBS in NJ. He had this Cannondale cross bike that he loved the fit but wanted it in Ti. He called Serotta or Seven and said, "Please copy exactly as-is in Titanium". He rode the heck out of that thing.

[Gummee]

If you're willing to wait for a custom frame, can't you just wait for the right frame to come along? Or even make friends with the local Trek dealer and have him keep an eye out for one?

I'm assuming the fit is perfect, but wouldn't those measurements be available from other manufacturers? There's definitely a database out there where you can input what you want and it'll spit out what frames are offered by what manufacturers in that exact spec.

Fianlly it's the ride that makes it better, then, right? Because the geometry has got to be available in other models. It'll be hard for a small volume frame builder to replicate that ride for that weight for that price.
In my case, it's 'I like the geo of bike X, but have started my own 'bike brand' and want to ride my own bikes.'

So I'm likely to have a pair of AL CX TA disc bikes made with the geo of a famous brand because they work well for me.

M

[john903]

I think sure why not can you imagine a Kirk built to the specs of your Trek that would be a great bike. I have a Curtlo built frame and Doug did the fitting and measuring and I have to say nothing beats a custom fit and built bike for you and your body proportions and your riding style intentions. My Curtlo is my cross/commuter/ and now gravel bike. Fit is the number one importance in my book as along as the fit is good and you are comfortable any frame is your favorite. When I have my next custom made it will be made similar to my Hampsten's geometry because the fit is perfect for long fast road rides. Anyway that is my .2 cents.

[chiasticon]

I'm sure it happens more often than you think. you don't have to be an oddball size to get a custom frame. and I've definitely seen used bikes that said: "geometry is the same as frame size X from manufacturer Y, so go look at their charts to see if this will fit you."

[54ny77]

totally. i have 3 custom bikes that largely mimic my former parlee z4. i had him add about a half cm or so to the top tube on each.

other than that, it's just about spot on the same.

builder used his expertise in choosing the right tubes and fork for what i wanted out of the bike. lots of good communication.

[Clean39T]

If you're willing to wait for a custom frame, can't you just wait for the right frame to come along? Or even make friends with the local Trek dealer and have him keep an eye out for one?

I'm assuming the fit is perfect, but wouldn't those measurements be available from other manufacturers? There's definitely a database out there where you can input what you want and it'll spit out what frames are offered by what manufacturers in that exact spec.

Fianlly it's the ride that makes it better, then, right? Because the geometry has got to be available in other models. It'll be hard for a small volume frame builder to replicate that ride for that weight for that price.

Ultimately it would be because I put a higher value on aesthetics and artistry in the finished product than on the lightest weight - and am surmising that a steel or ti bike could be tuned to produce 95% of the ride quality (or more) of the Domane even when copying the measurements/angles, etc.

[djg21]

I don’t see an issue. God knows how many road bikes have 73/73.5 tube angles and similar geometries. If you have a bike that you know fits and you want to have a frame builder duplicate the geometry, there’s nothing stopping you.

[Clean39T]

Seems I've asked a silly question.. I appreciate those who've humoured me :banana:

Now I need to go get some proper therapy to deal with my commitment phobia so I can plunk down a deposit on a "custom" :eek::rolleyes::eek:

/thread

[type2sam]

Not a problem at all. I toy with the idea of asking the builder of someone else's custom that I'm currently riding to build me another with just a bit more top tube.

[bicycletricycle]

I think it is a perfectly good idea and it would be fun to feel the differences.

The other thread running right now on "would you buy a copy of your custom..." got me thinking about something else I've been mulling over...and I imagine to some of you, it'll be a stupid question, but I'll ask anyway cuz I like getting other perspectives.

tl;dr -- would you ever go to a custom frame builder and say "build me a Trek Domane out of steel (or Ti)"?

I really love the way my Emonda SLR fits and rides; and I really like the similar geometry in the Domane SLR RSL (aka, H1 fit) that brings a bit more clearance and discs to the table - and all things being equal think that would be the best next bike for me as far as design goes and matching up with the riding I'm doing this year. The problem is that those Domane SLR RSL framesets are needles in the hay in the secondary market, especially in the 62cm I'd be looking for; and getting one new from Trek is $3K+ for the frame, if you can even get the frame only - you may have to buy the full bike build at $7K+. The thing is, if I was going to spend that much on a frame, I'd overwhelmingly rather have a steel or titanium machine with custom styling and paint than a carbon one with the gizmos (which work phenomenally, just aren't critical to me since I think a builder could accomplish similar with tubing choice and I care more about the geometry than the gizmos). In fact, I don't think I'd want to spend over $1500 for a production carbon frameset, no matter how perfect it is, but that's another story. Back on topic...so, if I really like the Domane and finally feel like I've found a size/spec that really works for me, would it make sense and not be a major faux-pas to just take the geometry specs to my builder of choice and say "gimme that, with more style, and built with your hands"?? I guess I'm just asking if it's fine to just skip the body-measurements and go straight to "I know what I want and it's this" as far as the sizing goes...with the only question being tuning the tubing choice, braze-ons, etc. Or would that be insulting the builder's craft? Like I said, probably a silly question - but it's Friday, so ignore it if that's you're thing...

[mhespenheide]

I'm not in the position to do it myself right now, but if I were to go for a custom today, I'd probably walk in to a builder and say that I want the geometry of a 2011 Cervelo R3 in 61cm, with a little more bottom bracket drop, that can fit 32mm road tires, and fit a Whisky #7 fork.

Then: "What do you think about that?"

I'm pretty sure some builders would be completely fine with that. Others would want to take some measurements and begin a discussion back-and-forth from there. JP Weigle or Richard Sachs would (rightfully) tell me that I'd be better off working with a different builder.

[Clean39T]

..

[FlashUNC]

For each custom I've had built, the conversation has always come around to "what bikes fit you well, what did you like about them, what did you not like, and why?"

Roland even asked me specifically if I had basic geo numbers for the bike I liked the most that I had ridden to that point (a Trek 5200) as a baseline so he could understand where I was coming from. And he built a frame that has some tweaks to fit his philosophy on geometry, but is pretty darn similar.

So a couple thoughts: If a framebuilder isn't asking you about bikes you liked and why, and you're not bringing up "I love the Domane geo for X,Y,Z" that's a sign it might be time to pick up the phone to call someone else.

Knowing your numbers can be important. When I spoke to Paul about my Rock Lobster (again, basing the data off my Della Santa and former Trek), he asked specifically about stack/reach/setback etc. We talked about what I wanted in the frame from a characteristics standpoint that differed from the Della Santa, and what that meant for the actual numbers -- less drop, more reach, etc etc. -- and it was a deeper convo because I had those numbers handy and we were both speaking the same language.

But conversely, the numbers don't necessarily matter. Roland and I talked, of all things, about seat tube angle and how that changes the ideal number for setback for a rider. And while seattube angle certainly matters to get the fit right, a one degree change is something you can easily account for elsewhere in the build, so he was more concerned about getting the weight balance for me on the bike right than any idea of the "right" angles.

I'm sure you can find a builder who'd take the geo chart of a Domane down to the Nth degree, but fwiw I've had better bikes come as a result of a discussion with the builder about what I liked, and what bike I was wanting out of the end of the build process.

I mean, cmon, there's gotta be something about the Domane you hate. You end up disliking all your bikes if the last year is any guide.

[Clean39T]

For each custom I've had built, the conversation has always come around to "what bikes fit you well, what did you like about them, what did you not like, and why?"

Roland even asked me specifically if I had basic geo numbers for the bike I liked the most that I had ridden to that point (a Trek 5200) as a baseline so he could understand where I was coming from. And he built a frame that has some tweaks to fit his philosophy on geometry, but is pretty darn similar.

So a couple thoughts: If a framebuilder isn't asking you about bikes you liked and why, and you're not bringing up "I love the Domane geo for X,Y,Z" that's a sign it might be time to pick up the phone to call someone else.

Knowing your numbers can be important. When I spoke to Paul about my Rock Lobster (again, basing the data off my Della Santa and former Trek), he asked specifically about stack/reach/setback etc. We talked about what I wanted in the frame from a characteristics standpoint that differed from the Della Santa, and what that meant for the actual numbers -- less drop, more reach, etc etc. -- and it was a deeper convo because I had those numbers handy and we were both speaking the same language.

But conversely, the numbers don't necessarily matter. Roland and I talked, of all things, about seat tube angle and how that changes the ideal number for setback for a rider. And while seattube angle certainly matters to get the fit right, a one degree change is something you can easily account for elsewhere in the build, so he was more concerned about getting the weight balance for me on the bike right than any idea of the "right" angles.

I'm sure you can find a builder who'd take the geo chart of a Domane down to the Nth degree, but fwiw I've had better bikes come as a result of a discussion with the builder about what I liked, and what bike I was wanting out of the end of the build process.

I mean, cmon, there's gotta be something about the Domane you hate. You end up disliking all your bikes if the last year is any guide.

That all feels like sound advice.

I haven't hated (or strongly disliked) any of the bikes I rode last year - and every single one of them (the ones I got for me anyway) I could still be riding and generally be okay with...

I just love bikes - and trying a bunch was a hoot, not a frustration - at least in hindsight.

But when I finally do a custom, it'll be to lock in with one for at least a few years.

And if I'm doing that, I think taking the approach you suggested of working with a builder who can take what I think I like and tease a bit more out and make some more suggestions is the route I'd go down. And that's probably going to be either Kirk, Hampco, Potts, Holland, or Sadoff - because ultimately I'd like to meet with them in person to get this done and I'd certainly enjoy a trip out to any of their hoods late this Spring.

Cheers :beer:

[andrewsuzuki]

the gizmos (which work phenomenally, just aren't critical to me since I think a builder could accomplish similar with tubing choice and I care more about the geometry than the gizmos)

Just so you know...rear vertical compliance is mostly a myth. Normal bike frames are so stiff vertically that any changes towards more vertical compliance are incredibly trivial. Even Rob English, who probably uses the thinnest seat stays in the business states it's a myth (http://www.englishcycles.com/design-philosophy/). Your best best to mimic Trek's IsoSpeed Decoupler is probably a flexy seatpost like the Ergon CF3 :)

[cadence90]

.... ..
.

[mhespenheide]

That's probably going to be either Kirk, Hampco, Potts, Holland, or Sadoff - because ultimately I'd like to meet with them in person to get this done and I'd certainly enjoy a trip out to any of their hoods late this Spring.

Don't forget DeSalvo.

[beeatnik]

As an architect, I cannot state enough how annoying and even insulting it can be to have a potential client come with a bunch of magazine images, etc., and then ask me to "just make it like this." There is really no useful discourse there at all.

So, I think the idea of asking a framebuilder to replicate a known bicycle is perfectly acceptable, but I also think that that would be most effective for you if it was the a) part of the request.

The b) part of the request would be to be informed and respectful enough of the specific builder's philosophy and process to be able to describe what characteristics of their work brought you to them, beyond just their name, so that then a positive dialogue can emerge and develop.

As FlashUNC stated, having someone simply replicate geo x-y-z is likely to be a pretty unfulfilling relationship and result.

But you know all of this already.
.

T, not sure who you insult more by comparing architects to framebuilders. :p

[Clean39T]

Just so you know...rear vertical compliance is mostly a myth. Normal bike frames are so stiff vertically that any changes towards more vertical compliance are incredibly trivial. Even Rob English, who probably uses the thinnest seat stays in the business states it's a myth (http://www.englishcycles.com/design-philosophy/). Your best best to mimic Trek's IsoSpeed Decoupler is probably a flexy seatpost like the Ergon CF3 :)

Myth or not, I have definitely noticed a difference in how some frames react to hard-edge bumps - could be a bunch of factors at play there of course - one of the best I've felt was the Legend Ti, which certainly wasn't a wimpy back end..and didn't have enough post out to matter.

[chazzwazzer]

Funny you bring this up, OP. I’ve been thinking of the exact same thing, because I can’t otherwise afford an H1 Domane. Haven’t decided who I would go with, and there are some changes I’d make, but otherwise the goal would be a very similar geo sheet. ENVE makes their disc road fork in a 50mm offset which is close enough for me to the 53mm on the Domane geo sheet I’ve seen. Really looking forward to some longer chainstays since I ride with a lot of setback.

[Clean39T]

Don't forget DeSalvo.

I imagine he does great work, I guess I just haven't been exposed enough - and honestly have been turned off in the past by his logo choice - though I think that has changed..

Anyway, the others were in my list for specific reasons, and not because of their "names":

Kirk - because I think the Terreplane stays would be perfect for me, and I've loved every bike of his I've seen posted on here; plus respect his knowledge and interest in sharing; just seems like a great guy..

Sadoff - because I had a Lobster back in the day that really played a pivotal role in my life and I've long had nostalgia for that bike, those logos, etc.; and I love the no-nonsense vibe of his operation and everything of his I see is great; and he seems to be very responsive to customers and thoroughly enjoy seeing them get what they're after.

Potts - because his titanium work is amazing; and I lusted after WTB stuff back in the early 90s; and same superlatives as for the others above

Hampsten - because of all the same too; plus he's in Seattle and is easy to get to for me; and have you ever heard a bad thing from one of his customers or anyone who isn't happy riding theirs? it seems he knows how to match the bike to the rider; and I dig the logos and entire vibe of what he's doing

Holland - because I've never seen a titanium frame look better than the one I briefly had; the welds, just everything; so meticulous; and between him and the other folks in his shop, they just have such a great thing going; I can't imagine I'd be disappointed with a bare-titanium ride from him; hell, I'd love to have one of his carbon ones, but that's a level of investment I haven't gotten to yet

I'm sure there are a ton of other great builders, even on the west coast, but those are the ones that I've been exposed to or had reason to have interest in and so that's what's in my list right now.

[joosttx]

No not a faux pas at all. As others have said its an excellent way to start the conversation. I would mention the bike name too so he/she understands the bike you really like. With that said I would shell out the extra dough for the bike you love. Even if it is production carbon.

[cadence90]

.... ..
.

[cachagua]

I need to go get some proper therapy to deal with my commitment phobia so I can plunk down a deposit on a "custom"...

That therapy is available in numerous vintages, red or white, or if you prefer, distilled from a variety of grains. After a "session", position your cursor over the "PAY" button, close your eyes, and click.

You won't regret it. Seriously, the benefits of getting a hand-built bike so far overshadow the costs, it's ridiculous. In another item, we were discussing a Basquiat painting, and someone said no work of art is worth as much as it recently sold for... but a hand-built bike is no less a work of art, and realistically, they cost PEANUTS. And what can you do with a painting? Sit and look at it. Stand and look at it. Lie down flat and look at it. I love paintings, but the mode, the activity of appreciating bike-art is, frankly, a more enjoyable activity.

[cadence90]

.... ..
.

[sparky33]

I'm not in the position to do it myself right now, but if I were to go for a custom today, I'd probably walk in to a builder and say that I want the geometry of a 2011 Cervelo R3 in 61cm, with a little more bottom bracket drop, that can fit 32mm road tires, and fit a Whisky #7 fork.



Then: "What do you think about that?"



I'm pretty sure some builders would be completely fine with that. Others would want to take some measurements and begin a discussion back-and-forth from there. JP Weigle or Richard Sachs would (rightfully) tell me that I'd be better off working with a different builder.


I like this distinction.
There is custom as in ....tell me what you would like me to build ....or I will build one of my bikes for you. There are merits of this spectrum. Be aware of what the arrangement is.

fwiw every builder I’ve ever worked with has asked for a reference bike and asked what I like and and dislike about it. JPW used my Kirk as a reference. He spent a lot of time inspecting and a little time measuring it, definitely taking it all in and enjoying it. [emoji3]

[Tickdoc]

Seems I've asked a silly question.. I appreciate those who've humoured me :banana:

Now I need to go get some proper therapy to deal with my commitment phobia so I can plunk down a deposit on a "custom" :eek::rolleyes::eek:

/thread

Not silly at all. After reading your post and seeing some of the bikes that have passed through your recent stable (oh, the bikes!) Id say English is the answer.

[NHAero]

In his book How Buildings Learn (which I can't lay my hands on this moment, think it's at work) Stewart Brand quotes the architecture critic Herbert Muschamp as saying (my paraphrase follows) "buildings would be much better if architects saw their work as craft not art" and goes on to make the distinction that craft is an beautiful object that has a functional purpose, whereas art doesn't need one. When I look at my Dave Anderson frame, I see someone at the pinnacle of his craft, rather than someone who is an artist. Custom frames are craft objects.

I had a custom frame once, built for me by a well-known and well-respected US builder. The HT angle was off by a few degrees, so it was really a complete POS. I certainly regretted every minute of it. So, custom per se is not necessarily the bee's pajamas....


To paraphrase beeatnik a few posts up, "...not sure who you insult more by comparing a Basquiat painting to a hand-built bicycle." ;)

But, in any case, bicycles are not art.
.

[cadence90]

.... ..
.

[Gummee]

I went to VA Tech's Architecture school for a 'get into the program' summer program my freshman year.

They'r'e definitely artists. I don't/didn't quite draw 'big' enough 'designs' for them.

I think if I'd gone to another school that was more nuts-n-bolts, I may have become an architect. As it is. I've had to figure out the rest of my life over the last 30 years after the dream died.

I get the craft vs art discussion.

M

[NHAero]

Thanks for pointing out that Calthorpe was the original source of that quote.

The most useful aspect of Brand's book was his characterization of the six layers of a building, that age and change at increasingly quicker rates. Site, Structure, Skin, Services, Space Plan, and Stuff. As we alter older buildings, or make new ones, I've found this framing to be useful.

I spent a lot of time in one of Brand's exemplary "Low Road" buildings - buildings that are easily adaptable by their users to new functions. Building 20 at MIT was a large wooden building built to be temporary in WWII and by the time I got there in 1971 it was a backwater where a lot of cool experimentation occurred. It was finally demolished to build Frank Gehry's Stata Center, a building that exists on the opposite end of the spectrum.

Apologize for the thread drift...


I agree entirely with your view of and relationship with your Anderson frame. I am sure it is beautiful.

I do not agree with that Brand book, and found his notions on architecture too general, simplistic, and, ironically, limiting to no real purpose.

Perhaps Muschamp re-interpreted, I don't know, but the actual Brand quote, afaik, was provided by the SF/Berkeley architect/planner Peter Calthorpe, who stated that, "many of the follies of my profession would be avoided if architects simply decided that what they do is craft instead of art." Better stated, but I still do not entirely agree. Also, that Brand book was published way back in the early 90s, and it was very hip then to jump on the "regionalism", "architecture as craft", and similar agenda trains.
.

[cadence90]

.... ..
.