pro bikes vs. level top tubes vs. trek

[fierte_poser]

Watching the ToC last night, I was surprised to notice that Trek seems to be the only pro bike sponsor that has stuck with the level top tube.

This realization shocked me and... if I were a betting man 10 years ago, I would have bet that Trek would be the *first* to abandon the level top tube in search of more 'race on Sunday, sell on Monday' sales.

And, yet, here we are in 2007, with Trek having one of the more (if not the most) classy looking bikes on the pro tour.

Anyone else have thoughts on this topic?

Kent

[saab2000]

Lance is supposed to have nixed the idea of a sloping TT a few years ago saying he didn't want to ride a "girl's bike" in the Tour.

I also think the Trek Madone is a sharp bike though the Paint scheme and labeling are too busy. I would love to ride Basso's bike cuz it is my size. He is exactly the same size as I am ('cept weight and I used to be that weight too).

[coylifut]

top tube question aside, Treks look like Chryslers just before Iococca took over.

[Grant McLean]

Trek has a sloper bike coming....
there are spy photos of an all carbon black bike around on the 'net


g

[coylifut]

yeah, that slopper with the isp

[shinomaster]

Is that Obtuse? I think he glued his hand to his bike. :confused:

[swoop]

if 'pros' got to chose their frames, geo, and materials... what do you think would be the most popular choices?

i'd say that we'd be seeing more stiff/light aluminum bikes and no lollipop pedals.

we have it better than most pros.. we get to chose what we roll.....

[Dave B]

if 'pros' got to chose their frames, geo, and materials... what do you think would be the most popular choices?

i'd say that we'd be seeing more stiff/light aluminum bikes and no lollipop pedals.

we have it better than most pros.. we get to chose what we roll.....


Do you think it would depend on the type of race? Cobbles would probably warrant carbon to take away soem of the punishment!

That new trek is horrible looking! Some sloping TT's look decent, but not that one!

[davids]

if 'pros' got to chose their frames, geo, and materials... what do you think would be the most popular choices?

i'd say that we'd be seeing more stiff/light aluminum bikes and no lollipop pedals.

we have it better than most pros.. we get to chose what we roll.....
Yeah, but we pay more. At least, most of us do...

[Fat Robert]

Lance is supposed to have nixed the idea of a sloping TT a few years ago saying he didn't want to ride a "girl's bike" in the Tour.

I also think the Trek Madone is a sharp bike though the Paint scheme and labeling are too busy. I would love to ride Basso's bike cuz it is my size. He is exactly the same size as I am ('cept weight and I used to be that weight too).


yeah

i noticed that sucker is all of 1cm shorter than i am, and our fit points are within 5mm...move the saddle forward a little, up a little, drop the bars, and we're there

too bad i have no genetic gifts....


all the same, i like level tts.

[Too Tall]

I saw this bumper sticker on the back of a beat farm truck about 15 yrs. ago seems apropo "***** Happens".

[EDS]

Watching the ToC last night, I was surprised to notice that Trek seems to be the only pro bike sponsor that has stuck with the level top tube.

This realization shocked me and... if I were a betting man 10 years ago, I would have bet that Trek would be the *first* to abandon the level top tube in search of more 'race on Sunday, sell on Monday' sales.

And, yet, here we are in 2007, with Trek having one of the more (if not the most) classy looking bikes on the pro tour.

Anyone else have thoughts on this topic?

Kent

Pinarello still has a level top tube on the Paris Carbon used by Valverde and co. That said, I admittedly prefer the looks of sloping top tubes.

[J.Greene]

Do you think it would depend on the type of race? Cobbles would probably warrant carbon to take away soem of the punishment!

That new trek is horrible looking! Some sloping TT's look decent, but not that one!

I don't have a carbon frame, I never have....But I keep hearing that Carbon frames are stiff and also that carbon frames are compliant. So I'm curious, which is it? Can it be both?

JG

[Tom Kellogg]

I've been riding and racing on slopers almost exclusively for over ten years now. while I am getting more used to them, I still think that my bike looks like a BMX bike and that road bikes should have level top tubes. So why do I ride compacts? They work better. Ugly as they are, and as much as a poser as I am, I go for the function in this case.

Boy am I inconsistent. Call me a hypocrite, you're right. :cool:

[coylifut]

the Colnagos have a level tube as well. most of em anyway.

[coylifut]

I've been riding and racing on slopers almost exclusively for over ten years now. while I am getting more used to them, I still think that my bike looks like a BMX bike and that road bikes should have level top tubes. So why do I ride compacts? They work better. Ugly as they are, and as much as a poser as I am, I go for the function in this case.

Boy am I inconsistent. Call me a hypocrite, you're right. :cool:

Tom, that's the closest thing to "fiting words" I've ever heard from you.

[obtuse]

Do you think it would depend on the type of race? Cobbles would probably warrant carbon to take away soem of the punishment!

That new trek is horrible looking! Some sloping TT's look decent, but not that one!


cobbles/paris-roubaix style courses are one place where you want the stiffest bike you can get. if the bike is flexing all over the place like a noodle it makes it difficult to control and put the power down. you may want a geometry that allows for a little more mud clearance and slightly fatter tubs depending on the conditions.....but a whippy flexible bike is not going to be your pal on cobblestones.

get the right tires on the stiffest bike you can find. "the ride quality" is going to suck regardless of what you ride on a torn up dirt road with baby heads poking up all over the place; double wrap the bars; push the seat back a bit; put some bigger chainrings on your race bike and make appointments at the dentist and the masseuse for the next day.

obtuse

[Too Tall]

I feel the same about my sloper and sorta "went with it" when T.K. designed a race bike...don't love the look but boy can it GO :) Regardless, I can barely get out of the house without some positive comment about the bike...go figure?

Senor' if you have insight / details about mud clearance / geo for cobblebound bikes I'm all ears. Intersting.

[coylifut]

cobbles/paris-roubaix style courses are one place where you want the stiffest bike you can get. if the bike is flexing all over the place like a noodle it makes it difficult to control and put the power down. you may want a geometry that allows for a little more mud clearance and slightly fatter tubs depending on the conditions.....but a whippy flexible bike is not going to be your pal on cobblestones.

get the right tires on the stiffest bike you can find. "the ride quality" is going to suck regardless of what you ride on a torn up dirt road with baby heads poking up all over the place; double wrap the bars; push the seat back a bit; put some bigger chainrings on your race bike and make appointments at the dentist and the masseuse for the next day.

obtuse

that explains why they gave up on those mountain bike forks they used in the 90s.

[obtuse]

that explains why they gave up on those mountain bike forks they used in the 90s.


they gave up on them because no one bought them.

obtuse

[swoop]

i think 7 degrees is the magic number.

[Dave B]

ok I need some schooling. I was "educated" by a fitter that a stiff bike is going to absorb more road vibrations then a less stiff bike. He then told me that carbon bikes are the stiffest made bikes, and even further compact geo and sloping top tube carbon bikes are the stiffest. Is this too general of statements made by the fella?

So if this is true a sloping tt carbon bike is going to be the stiffest bike 9absorbing the most road vibrations) then it makes sense that most riders would prefer that.

But would the size of the bike make any difference in absorbing vibrations? For example would a 60cm carbon bike absorb better then a 50cm carbon bike as there is more distance for the vibration to travel?

[coylifut]

they gave up on them because no one bought them.

obtuse

they weren't pretty, that's for sure.

[RPS]

I don't have a carbon frame, I never have....But I keep hearing that Carbon frames are stiff and also that carbon frames are compliant. So I'm curious, which is it? Can it be both?

JGYes, it can be both IMO. The stiff can apply to torsion, tension, and perhaps bending, but in compression it "may" give more, therefore more compliant.

[Climb01742]

i know this is a minority position but...i love how sloping TTs look. level TTs look odd to me. can't explain it. just sayin'.

[Jack Brunk]

Climb is the man.

++1

[swoop]

first, define stiff?

torsional, vertical, or rotational? what about flex and return of energy?

oy, i'm not getting suckered into this one.. this is why guys that make frames tend to be smart, industrious, curious folks.

[RPS]

ok I need some schooling. I was "educated" by a fitter that a stiff bike is going to absorb more road vibrations then a less stiff bike. He then told me that carbon bikes are the stiffest made bikes, and even further compact geo and sloping top tube carbon bikes are the stiffest. Is this too general of statements made by the fella?

So if this is true a sloping tt carbon bike is going to be the stiffest bike 9absorbing the most road vibrations) then it makes sense that most riders would prefer that.

But would the size of the bike make any difference in absorbing vibrations? For example would a 60cm carbon bike absorb better then a 50cm carbon bike as there is more distance for the vibration to travel?Mr. President, I'm not sure what he meant by absorbing vibration, since the frame doesn't really do much of that at all. The issue is about isolating the rider from the road, and stiffness can work both for you or against you; depending on how much stiffness, weight, road conditions, bike speed, etc...

[J.Greene]

first, define stiff?

torsional, vertical, or rotational? what about flex and return of energy?
oy, i'm not getting suckered into this one.. this is why guys that make frames tend to be smart, industrious, curious folks.

swoop has it right, this is a dead end debate.. In simple terms I just wonder when the average weekend poser says his xyz bike is the stiffest in the peloton cause some canadian bike manufacturer can afford comercials to tell him so, then he tells me how it soaks up the bumps better than anything he has ridden. I just have to wonder, because I have never seen a product where you can have it all.

JG

[cpg]

i know this is a minority position but...i love how sloping TTs look. level TTs look odd to me. can't explain it. just sayin'.


That works for me. Just like I love the look of level tt's. To me sloping tt's look odd. There's no right or wrong answer. It's just about connecting the dots. I don't see any physics to support one over the other in regards to performance. It's a fashion thing. That's not meant as a rip. It's the truth. Sloping is the current fashion just like level was the current fashion. Both work. Pick what you like to look at.

Curt

[fierte_poser]

So why do I ride compacts? They work better. Ugly as they are, and as much as a poser as I am, I go for the function in this case.

Tom,

Pray tell, define 'better'. Curious to hear your thoughts.

Kent

[RPS]

swoop has it right, this is a dead end debate.. In simple terms I just wonder when the average weekend poser says his xyz bike is the stiffest in the peloton cause some canadian bike manufacturer can afford comercials to tell him so, then he tells me how it soaks up the bumps better than anything he has ridden. I just have to wonder, because I have never seen a product where you can have it all.

JGRelative to what? Isn't that what progress is all about?

Obviously compromise is part of all design, but change based on sound science, engineering, etc... can make products better. I'd agree you can't have it all relative to other competitive products, but progress gives you a lot more with less compromise.

Doesn't a Ford truck today ride far better than a Model T? And while also being more affordable, reliable, higher payload, etc......? Pretty much "all" IMHO.

[Fat Robert]

my favorite bike of all time (my pacenti) has a level tt, as will its geo twin the lugged and box-forked rock lobster

my second favorite bike of all time was a sloping AL monstrosity made in Taiwan.


what i care about it how it corners in a crit. at 95% of your HR, you don't notice much else. bikes are bikes. and my lobsta is going to be a pimpin bike.

[J.Greene]

You are taking this much further than what I was implying. My only question is can something be extra stiff and extra absorbing of road bumps.
JG
Relative to what? Isn't that what progress is all about?

Obviously compromise is part of all design, but change based on sound science, engineering, etc... can make products better. I'd agree you can't have it all relative to other competitive products, but progress gives you a lot more with less compromise.

Doesn't a Ford truck today ride far better than a Model T? And while also being more affordable, reliable, higher payload, etc......? Pretty much "all"IMHO.

[Archibald]

You are taking this much further than what I was implying. My only question is can something be extra stiff and extra absorbing of road bumps.
JG
No, because bikes frames don't work that way unless they have some sort of suspension system. Anything done to the frame that the rider will perceive as "stiff" will make the frame that way REGARDLESS of where the load is coming from, i.e., rider input or ground input. People constantly confuse stiffness issues with NVH issues.

[Matt Barkley]

Agreed with swoop - I think Pros would be riding ALU machines - the small guys would be riding slightly slopers and the medium guys no slopers and the big guys some slopers some not.
As for stifness and cobbles I don't quite follow obtuse - guys have been riding strong yet more forgiving bikes with longer geos, etc on cobbles. My fav is the Mercx ALU Team SC :beer: - matt

[Climb01742]

Agreed with swoop - I think Pros would be riding ALU machines - the small guys would be riding slightly slopers and the medium guys no slopers and the big guys some slopers some not.

yo matt or swoop, to expand on your point...putting aside team sponsorships, what alu frames do you think pro's would pick? not arguing at all; sincerely curious.

[atmo]

yo matt or swoop, to expand on your point...putting aside team sponsorships, what alu frames do you think pro's would pick? not arguing at all; sincerely curious.
atmo if i bought one it'd be a cannondale.

[Grant McLean]

atmo if i bought one it'd be a cannondale.

but it would be red. :)

g

[Big Dan]

If I had a pro mechanic taking care of my bike and keeping it quiet I would ride a Cannondale fer sure.


:D

[chrisroph]

My TK sloper rides great. That's how TK wanted to build it so I agreed. My TK level works great. That's how TK wanted to build it so I agreed.

The theory with slopers is that the triangle is smaller hence stiffer, and that there is a little less weight focused at the virtual seat cluster hence the bike rocks side to side easier when standing. My TK sloper is plenty stiff and it rocks nicely. It makes a great rough road bike. And, I for one think that it looks just fine. In addition, mine wears a 31.6 seatpost to negate some of the potential seatpost flex issues when using a long 27.2.

Function is more important than looks. I don't mind slopers at all. They work. Its all about the feeling when I'm pounding the pedals. I couldn't care less whether somebody thinks it looks unbalanced leaning against the garage door.

[coylifut]

I have both level tt and sloping tt bikes. I don't look at em that much, but I do ride em a lot. separately, slopping doesn't work for me in a cx bike. i don't see how Trebon gets that little triange over his shoulder.

[swoop]

whatever is ungodly stiff and light and fits right.

[obtuse]

yo matt or swoop, to expand on your point...putting aside team sponsorships, what alu frames do you think pro's would pick? not arguing at all; sincerely curious.

stiffness-
i never had an issue with stiffness or a pro bike not being torsionally rigid enough before they started making pro-bikes out of carbon. a steel or aluminum frame in my size always had adequate stiffness; pipes that would create a whippy noodle were never used to make bikes that fit me so i never really got a chance to try'em.

all this being said, there are plenty of carbon frames which do not exhibit adequate torsional rigidity many of which are raced at the pro level. almost without exception; these bikes have plenty of drivetrain stiffness in all sizes even the bigger ones; but they seem to use the same top tube for everybike regardless of whether its 60cms long or 52cms long.

i don't think stiffness has anything to do with ride quality or a bike being more or less forgiving than something else. i'm too much of a lug to care or notice but i do know that while different bikes have different feels; i don't notice one material being more or less comfortable over dirt roads and cobbles than another.

re: matt's quote: a team sc is a stiff bike. its nice on bad roads because of its geometry. a max tubed bike of the same geometry is equally nice on that terrain because of its geometry. both bikes exhibit fine torsional stiffness. if you built a super light carbon noodle with the same geometry it would suck because it'd be all over the place even though it'd have nice geometry.

re:climb90210's post: if the pros had to "choose" what they rode; most would pick a frame based on less information than we have. now what would be the ideal race bike? something like a merckx premium or colnago c50 methinks.

[Jason E]

Sloper Lemond (http://www.trekdealer.com/NEWS/ENG/IMAGES/07LM_TETE_PRESS_KITVSMALL.PDF)

[Tom Kellogg]

Tom,

Pray tell, define 'better'. Curious to hear your thoughts.

Kent

This is the last post on this thread I will make, so please read carefully. We've done a LOT of research and testing on this issue.
I am not going to be sucked into counting angels on pin heads, but for what it is worth ...

If you have two IDENTICAL bikes except that bike "B" has a ten degree sloping top tube and bike "A" has a level top tube, Bike "B" will feel and work as though it were lighter when the rider is standing. OK, now for the disclaimers;
1) In fact, a sloper frame only averages 2-4 ounces lighter than a traditional frame after factoring in the seat post length.
2) In the real world, slopers are NOT stiffer, all other things being equal. We have been able to measure an increase in torsional stiffness in the front triangle with slopers, but it is so slight, that it really isn't there for practical purposes.
3) Note that I said "standing." The trick here is that as soon as the rider sits down, all that cool feel goes away.
4) The reason that they feel noticeably lighter when you stand up is that the bike's center of gravity (the bike structure itself) is enough lower that there is less inertia to the bike as you move it back and forth.

Simple as that. Does that make the bike better, or faster, or cooler? Generally not. BUT, it does make it more fun for most people to ride.

Finally, I have put a bunch of qualifiers into this little essay, so don't jump to any conclusions about my thoughts here and don't put any words in my mouth that aren't there already. :no: Gawd, this is such fun, isn't it? :p

[stevep]

kellogg hates level tt bikes!
sachs and kellogg square off at handbuilt show.
4pm sat...atmo with his torch...kellogg w/ his bridgeport.

tickets available...
email stevep at swindlers international... $10 a head. $15 at the door.

[coylifut]

stiffness-
now what would be the ideal race bike? something like a merckx premium or colnago c50 methinks.

I've always coveted the merckx premium and team SC. However, I have one of those tk slopers and the practical man in me says i don't need anything else.

[atmo]

kellogg hates level tt bikes!
sachs and kellogg square off at handbuilt show.
4pm sat...atmo with his torch...kellogg w/ his bridgeport.

tickets available...
email stevep at swindlers international... $10 a head. $15 at the door.

atmo -

http://www.t-shirtjunkies.com/images/uploads/cerealkiller.gif

[swoop]

when bald dudes attack.

[chrisroph]

I've always coveted the merckx premium and team SC. However, I have one of those tk slopers and the practical man in me says i don't need anything else.

Terry, you are so practical that you are sometimes a good influence on me. As you know, I love my TK sloper and my serotta ti and my merckx aluminum race. They are all capable of winning any race if the knucklehead operator steers them in the right place at the right time with sufficient velocity. Heck, I would go so far as to say that I could even do so with chincher K's mounted! There would really be no need to have carbon wheels with $100 sew ups.

[Simon Q]

i think 7 degrees is the magic number.

Me too.

[vaxn8r]

....

i don't think stiffness has anything to do with ride quality or a bike being more or less forgiving than something else. i'm too much of a lug to care or notice but i do know that while different bikes have different feels; i don't notice one material being more or less comfortable over dirt roads and cobbles than another...
Interesting comment and I would have thought the same except for my experience with my Atlanta which some of you may rememeber. The bike felt fairly efficient (if that is what stiff means) but something about it made it super uncomfortable on longer rides. It wasn't bike fit and it wasn't wheels or tires. Maybe the fork or the tubeset.

I've never before run into that feeling on the bike like I did with the Atlanta and I'd kill to know what made it ride that way. Most of my riding over the years has been on steel with steel forks so I know it isn't materials.

I guess my point is if you can make a bike be uncomfortable, you can surely make one be more comfortable, What is that thing? Tubing gauge, where the butts are placed? Tubing weight? This assumes a fairly typical race geometry, or in other words, all else being equal.

[fstrthnu]

... and if I could ride anything I wanted to it would be a custom steel lugged road bike with Record and a varied assortment of exotic componentry that has been proven to work. Install some deep dish carbon wheels (the ones with high flanges I am partial to). As long as it weighed 16-17 pounds, I would be happy.

This is not a lame plug or anything... it is just a summary of the equipment I would love to race on.

This is to say of course if money was no object and I had no equipment contractual agreements.

Justin

[RPS]

You are taking this much further than what I was implying. My only question is can something be extra stiff and extra absorbing of road bumps.
JGThe simple answer is absolutely. No doubt about it. Period.

In simple terms almost everyone here doesn’t want to consider that vertical and torsional/horizontal stiffness can be -- and often are – different animals. And engineer, if he knows what he is doing, can make a bike “stiffer” where it does good and make it “softer” where it does good. We are not talking about breaking the laws of physics here – it’s not rocket science. You may not like the way it looks, but that’s a different issue.

Note that what Archibald stated has one caveat (which in highlight in bold). As an example only (because I don’t want to get into it here again), my rear passive suspension design makes a bike stiffer in torsion, horizontally, at the BBKT, etc… and also “softer” in the up-down direction to yield greater comfort. And I’m not talking about some mystical perception; but real numbers that can be measured and quantified. And there are other designs as well that take a similar approach.

No, because bikes frames don't work that way unless they have some sort of suspension system. Anything done to the frame that the rider will perceive as "stiff" will make the frame that way REGARDLESS of where the load is coming from, i.e., rider input or ground input. People constantly confuse stiffness issues with NVH issues.

[Climb01742]

As long as it weighed 16 pounds, I would be happy.

interesting. is it possible? hypothetically, could an e-richie with enough weightweenie stuff hit 16lbs?

paging jack brunk! :p

[Archibald]

interesting. is it possible? hypothetically, could an e-richie with enough weightweenie stuff hit 16lbs?

paging jack brunk! :p
Oh, hell yes. No problem.

I could build an MXL that weighed 16 pounds.

[fstrthnu]

interesting. is it possible? hypothetically, could an e-richie with enough weightweenie stuff hit 16lbs?

paging jack brunk! :p

Yes. I believe it is possible with the right tubing and lugs. Hopefully I can have some proof of this in the months to come.

;)

Justin

[Big Dan]

Crap, there goes my savings account................

:rolleyes:

[swoop]

i race a sachs in a heartbeat.

[Climb01742]

Yes. I believe it is possible with the right tubing and lugs. Hopefully I can have some proof of this in the months to come.

;)

Justin

that would be killer. to pull it off, you'd need LW-esque wheels, no?

[atmo]

interesting. is it possible? hypothetically, could an e-richie with enough weightweenie stuff hit 16lbs?

paging jack brunk! :p
i'm back from the book and golf tour. man, it's tough out
there when ya' play the links at saint andrews. but i digress.

this weight thing - here's the deal. take yer favorite featherweight
radcycle. transfer the parts package onto something red. it'll weigh
about a pound more because that is the average difference between
a useable, rideable non-ferrous whateva and an rs steel frame these
days atmo.

now, i gotta run for the borders atmo. see you.

[J.Greene]

No, because bikes frames don't work that way unless they have some sort of suspension system. Anything done to the frame that the rider will perceive as "stiff" will make the frame that way REGARDLESS of where the load is coming from, i.e., rider input or ground input. People constantly confuse stiffness issues with NVH issues.


Thanks for agreeing, with my limited knowledge of materials(thermodynamics forced me into business school) I didn't think the marketing stuff was true.

JG

[J.Greene]

interesting. is it possible? hypothetically, could an e-richie with enough weightweenie stuff hit 16lbs?

paging jack brunk! :p

Mine is close. It's about 16.5 lbs. Basically a 54cm frame with the new pegorichie tubeset. I could drop a pound easy.

JG

[Too Tall]

... and if I could ride anything I wanted to it would be a custom steel lugged road bike with Record and a varied assortment of exotic componentry that has been proven to work. Install some deep dish carbon wheels (the ones with high flanges I am partial to). As long as it weighed 16-17 pounds, I would be happy.

This is not a lame plug or anything... it is just a summary of the equipment I would love to race on.

This is to say of course if money was no object and I had no equipment contractual agreements.

Justin

(Gasp) THAT'S HOT.

[ejh]

i know this is a minority position but...i love how sloping TTs look. level TTs look odd to me. can't explain it. just sayin'.
Me too I like the way my sloping tube bike rides better then my level. Eric

[fstrthnu]

that would be killer. to pull it off, you'd need LW-esque wheels, no?

Need? No. But they will make the bike SOLID and legit, not to mention fast.

AT this point I am just trying to nail exactly what I want for componentry.

...

Justin

[obtuse]

Need? No. But they will make the bike SOLID and legit, not to mention fast.

AT this point I am just trying to nail exactly what I want for componentry.

...

Justin


you know what you want:

lightweight wheels
zero gravity brakes
dura-ace shifters, derailleurs, chain and cassette
pmp crank, post, headset and seatpost
ax lightness saddle
deda zero stem
deda newton hbar
dugast tubulars.

16 pounds; no problem

obtuse

[Jack Brunk]

My steel Kirk weighed 15.7 lbs and I could have shaved off more. Maybe below 15 with a little more money.

[Grant McLean]

there's somthing wrong with the way this level frame rides,
but i just can't put my finger on why....


g

[Archibald]

you know what you want:

lightweight wheels
zero gravity brakes
dura-ace shifters, derailleurs, chain and cassette
pmp crank, post, headset and seatpost
ax lightness saddle
deda zero stem
deda newton hbar
dugast tubulars.

16 pounds; no problem

obtuse
That'd be less than 16 right there. One of Atmo's F&Fs should come in just under 5-pounds in a 56. Less if he puts some light tubes in it...which I wouldn't do for a "real" race bike would get pounded all season. The rest is all componentry.

[pdxmech13]

slopers are good.

as long as they

don't have gay bars

[swoop]

slopers are good.

as long as they

don't have gay bars

ouch. i'm going to hug my bike to protect it from the bad man on the internet. and then maybe take my shirt off and put on some wham and grab a wine cooler with it.

[pdxmech13]

I'm buying

bartles & james

or

boones farm

[obtuse]

i want a 22 pound gewiss-ballan de rosa with a steel fork, a threaded headset, 8 speed record, gay bars, silver and pink shamal wheels and one of those record seatposts that were all aero and sketchy and prone to breaking.

heavy is the new light imho bro...and pro bikes never got any heavier than this.

obtuse

[Ray]

My TK sloper rides great. That's how TK wanted to build it so I agreed. My TK level works great. That's how TK wanted to build it so I agreed.

The theory with slopers is that the triangle is smaller hence stiffer, and that there is a little less weight focused at the virtual seat cluster hence the bike rocks side to side easier when standing. My TK sloper is plenty stiff and it rocks nicely. It makes a great rough road bike. And, I for one think that it looks just fine. In addition, mine wears a 31.6 seatpost to negate some of the potential seatpost flex issues when using a long 27.2.

Function is more important than looks. I don't mind slopers at all. They work. Its all about the feeling when I'm pounding the pedals. I couldn't care less whether somebody thinks it looks unbalanced leaning against the garage door.
I couldn't feel more similarly than this. About my TK sloper. When I bought it, TK explained the trade-offs EXACTLY as he has here, and I went with a sloper primarily because, first, all of my other bikes were level(ish) and, this bike was gonna be ti and ugly(ish) anyway, so why not go all the way and try it. It rides incredibly, which I don't attribute to the slope-ish-ness of it, but it surely doesn't hurt the ride. I could probably notice the difference out of the saddle, but not more than a little - I had level tt steel bikes that felt similarly light and airy out of the saddle. And I have another TK sloper now that's a big 'ol bag of tradeoffs out of the saddle, so it's way more about the functional parts of the geometry than the slope-iosity.

Ironically, I get at least as many positive comments about the looks of the sloping ti Spectrums as i do about my purty lugged steel. It rankles me, but there you go. I've come to accept the looks of the slopers (particularly with a sloping stem that mimics the angle of the top tube - that makes it look better to me for some reason), but I'll never love 'em as much as the looks of a classic lugged frame. I guess it's all about what you loved when you first loved stuff. Music will never get any better than 68-72 Stones either.

-Ray

[fstrthnu]

you know what you want:

lightweight wheels
zero gravity brakes
dura-ace shifters, derailleurs, chain and cassette
pmp crank, post, headset and seatpost
ax lightness saddle
deda zero stem
deda newton hbar
dugast tubulars.

16 pounds; no problem

obtuse

LW's
ZG or M5's
Record
Tune bb/crank/sp/saddle
dugast's most likely
easton ec90 bar
CK headset
some GdT drivetrain bits would be hot...

That would be my dream build anyways.

Justin

[fstrthnu]

i want a 22 pound gewiss-ballan de rosa with a steel fork, a threaded headset, 8 speed record, gay bars, silver and pink shamal wheels and one of those record seatposts that were all aero and sketchy and prone to breaking.

heavy is the new light imho bro...and pro bikes never got any heavier than this.

obtuse

Yeah... or that. Either would be cool.

Justin

[Archibald]

LW's
ZG or M5's
Record
Tune bb/crank/sp/saddle
dugast's most likely
easton ec90 bar
CK headset
some GdT bits drivetrain bits would be hot...

That would be my dream build anyways.

Justin
Would you really want to build it up with exotic kit just to do 16? Why not just straight CR10, throw some light but proven wheels on it, and sprinkle with some fairy dust in the way of saddle, bars, etc. and call it a day. Seems that on a real race bike, a little easy to find, standardized kit, would be a help. Seriously, making this bike hit 16 ain't going to be hard. 3.3-3.5 for the frame, 1.4-1.5 for the steel fork. The rest is gravy. White gravy. Spread all over a chicken friend steak. With two eggs on the side, some hash browns and a little tabasco sauce. Damn, is it breakfast time yet?

[Too Tall]

"it's way more about the functional parts of the geometry than the slope-iosity" The Ray 2007

Ray, you crack me up ;)

Zipp is doing nice things with bars Justin, they'll hook you up . It is pretty funny to see the looks on people's faces after they criticise my B2 bars and I show them how the tops are the same profile as a Nitto Noddle bar....OH NO IT CAN'T Beeeee noooooooo ;) Light as a feather too.

[Grant McLean]

i want a 22 pound gewiss-ballan de rosa with a steel fork, a threaded headset, 8 speed record, gay bars, silver and pink shamal wheels and one of those record seatposts that were all aero and sketchy and prone to breaking.

heavy is the new light imho bro...and pro bikes never got any heavier than this.

obtuse

sorry dude, light is the new light again. heavy is like so last season.

g

[sspielman]

sorry dude, light is the new light again. heavy is like so last season.

g

The A&S team DeRosa's are great....uh...deRosa'a are great...I am really beginning to develop a serious case of bike lust for a Protos.....

[ergott]

Al = Cannondale (I'd try to find a CAAD 5 in 52, maybe another for backup)
Steel = Lugged and by a good builder (Zank is on my very short list (of about 2))
Carbon = C50 Extreme Power
Other = My current Ottrott (feels damn good)

Chorus 10 (my hands like it, remember this is coming out of my posket)
Aspide saddle
bar/stem/seatpost = whatever gets me into the right position (Ram and Alien seem to be doing it right now)
Powertap C-set (I'm surprised this hasn't been on other lists, data is good)
Wheels = Stuff built by a good builder I know (for the price of LW, I'll have 3 different sets (one carbon) for different occasions (not all my eggs in one basket, I am paying for this, remember))

The Zank would be my first choice. You also have to remember that you should have another bike waiting in the wings in the case of unfortunate events. Mike would have to work on a tight schedule as I wouldn't want to be without a spare for very long. Maybe a 'dale off of ebay with Centaur for good measure. You can't race without a bike and duplicates get expensive. I'm a big fan of "race what you can replace". If I'm on a pro team, it doesn't mean I'm rich so I'd rather not spend twice as much for 1/100 the improvement. I want stuff that works and fits.

[zap]

you know what you want:

lightweight wheels
zero gravity brakes
dura-ace shifters, derailleurs, chain and cassette
pmp crank, post, headset and seatpost
ax lightness saddle
deda zero stem
deda newton hbar
dugast tubulars.

16 pounds; no problem

obtuse

I have to say, I'm stunned obtuse.

Dura-Ace ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????

Regarding light steel bikes, isn't there a 12lb rig floating around.

[fstrthnu]

Would you really want to build it up with exotic kit just to do 16? Why not just straight CR10, throw some light but proven wheels on it, and sprinkle with some fairy dust in the way of saddle, bars, etc. and call it a day. Seems that on a real race bike, a little easy to find, standardized kit, would be a help. Seriously, making this bike hit 16 ain't going to be hard. 3.3-3.5 for the frame, 1.4-1.5 for the steel fork. The rest is gravy. White gravy. Spread all over a chicken friend steak. With two eggs on the side, some hash browns and a little tabasco sauce. Damn, is it breakfast time yet?


Archi,

To clarify

If I do wind up building with these specs, the bike will be for a photo shoot not to race on. Chances are all the gucci stuff, with the exception of the Tune saddle, post, stem and easton bars, will be replaced with parts I can actually afford. It I COULD race the complete build I would... just not realistic for me right now.

The bike will be a Zanconato to be completed this spring some time. As much as I would like to, I wont' be able to race it... not this season anyways.

I would like to keep it at around 16 just for the sake of it so I am thinking of using some Chorus(as you suggested), Tune? handbuilts by Ergott or Jeremy and some nice clincher tires/tubes to boot. Maybe some nice DT wheels? dunno... They will have to be cheap and awesome. If I win some big races I will hold on to the LW's.

Justin

[fstrthnu]

I have to say, I'm stunned obtuse.

Dura-Ace ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????

Regarding light steel bikes, isn't there a 12lb rig floating around.

I wouldn't call that 12 pound thing a steel bike imho. It's a bit of a monstrosity if we are thinking of the same bicycle(?).

Justin

[chrisroph]

Didn't some character named page win a big race on a red steel bike a couple years ago? And didn't some guy named justin do ok on a similar rig this year?

If you want to reduce weight where it really matters make sure you have a nice big salad with some vegetables the night before a big ride/race and get up early enough to ...well you know....

[atmo]

chrisroph gets it atmo.

[swoop]

nothing reduces the weight of a bike like a good strong cup of coffee. you can drop a pound if you're good.

[atmo]

nothing reduces the weight of a bike like a good strong cup of coffee. you can drop a pound if you're good.
alt.bicycles.training atmo...

[zank]

With a 2007 Record kit, it's almost hard to build a bike OVER 16#. Here is a very conservative build kit that comes in at 11.58# without frame and fork.

Rear mech - Record short
Front mech - Record braze-on
Ergopower - Record QS
Cable set- Campagnolo
Calipers - Record skeleton
BB - Record UT cups
Crankset - Record UT
Cassette - Record 12/23 (4 ti, 6 steel)
Chain - Record Ultra-Narrow
Bar - Ritchey Classic Shallow 42
Stem - Ritchey WCS 12 cm
Seat Post - Thomson Masterpiece 27.2 x 240
Saddle - SLR
Wheels - DT 240s laced to NOS Reflex Ceramics with Sapim Laser spokes 32/3x, DT skewers
Tires - Dugast Silks
Headset - 1" king nothreadset
Spacers - 4, 2.5 mm al spacers
Pedals - Speedplay X1
Tape - Deda

All weights verified with no tuning. Things like the tape, cable set and chain are uncut, full kit, right out of the box.

So that leaves 4.42# for a frame and fork to get to 16#. And this kit has some pretty porky (in WW land) wheels at 1472g. ZG brakes would lop off another good chunk. Tune skewers, ti bolts, lighter cassette...the WW possibilites are endless. But my point is Record, Dura-Ace and Force are all so freakin light now, it's very easy to build a 16# bike with modest supporting components.

[Climb01742]

The A&S team DeRosa's are great....uh...deRosa'a are great...I am really beginning to develop a serious case of bike lust for a Protos.....

i heard that A&S was riding the idol, with maybe garzelli riding a king xl or protos. regardless of the model, it's cool that derosas are made in italy, in a factory with a bunch of folks actually named derosa running things.

[vaxn8r]

nothing reduces the weight of a bike like a good strong cup of coffee. you can drop a pound if you're good.
Don't forget the bran muffin...

[atmo]

ultimate weight loss atmo -
http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b393/troywatts/PiCS/colonblow_2.png

[coylifut]

Didn't some character named page win a big race on a red steel bike a couple years ago? And didn't some guy named justin do ok on a similar rig this year?

If you want to reduce weight where it really matters make sure you have a nice big salad with some vegetables the night before a big ride/race and get up early enough to ...well you know....

I'm no JP or justin, but i won a couple of races on red steel bikes w/o carbon wheels this year. so if i can do it, anyone can. oh, and a dailey 1 cup serving of yogurt does it for me.

[cadence90]

Regarding light steel bikes, isn't there a 12lb rig floating around.
This thing??? (http://www.sandsmachine.com/a_rob_r5.htm)

Come on.... :rolleyes: :no:

[coylifut]

This thing??? (http://www.sandsmachine.com/a_rob_r5.htm)

Come on.... :rolleyes: :no:

hey, it's a folding bike. maybe in many ways.

[zap]

This thing??? (http://www.sandsmachine.com/a_rob_r5.htm)

Come on.... :rolleyes: :no:

I saw the title the other day and took a look at it for the first time this morning.

It's cool no.

It's a sloper.

It comes apart.

Square bb.

The height of fashion some say.

[chrisroph]

I'm no JP or justin, but i won a couple of races on red steel bikes w/o carbon wheels this year. so if i can do it, anyone can. oh, and a dailey 1 cup serving of yogurt does it for me.

page, spinelli, keele, I could go on but the list grows thin after these three. ;)

[fstrthnu]

I'm flattered.

Thank You.

The purpose behind my post was just to state publicly and for the record (n.p.i) that I would prefer to race any race (save a tt) on a steel lugged bike. Record would be nice, as would Chorus. LW's, ADA's, dare I say Boras, would only compliment the ride that much more.

In the real world of racing Chorus would be adequate and the CF bits would be left out. Any deep dish carbon wheel that was reliable would suffice.

Racing on the AC's last season was a nightmare as I broke them at some very inoportune moments. I would never want to race a gimmiky wheel as such again...very happy to be on Bontragers this season. (side note my CC's from Team ATMO never failed me...ever).

All this fantsy build stuff to get a WW bike is no longer fanstasy imho. The "weight weenie" equipment is no longer sketchy if you select the proper brands. If you have the means it is only a matter of aesthetic preferences.

Justin

[obtuse]

i don't care what the bike is made out of as long as it is straight and was designed by someone who knows what they are doing.

there's a lot of awful lugged steel out there just as there is alot of awful carbon, aluminum and titanium bikes as well.

the design is what makes the bike work well or not. i'd rather pos giordana than 90% of the bikes out there; because it fits and it handles right.

if i could "race" any bike? i wouldn't pick a material or a method of construction because to me those are just minor details. i'd pick a builder.

obtuse

[Tom Kellogg]

i don't care what the bike is made out of as long as it is straight and was designed by someone who knows what they are doing.

there's a lot of awful lugged steel out there just as there is alot of awful carbon, aluminum and titanium bikes as well.

the design is what makes the bike work well or not. i'd rather pos giordana than 90% of the bikes out there; because it fits and it handles right.

if i could "race" any bike? i wouldn't pick a material or a method of construction because to me those are just minor details. i'd pick a builder.

obtuse

YEA! obtuse gets it, completely. :banana: :banana:

[fstrthnu]

Well yeah... that is all part of the package and I def agree. I remember the first custom Cannondales I was on when I rode amateur for Wheelworks... awful... by my second year on Saeco we finally figured out what worked... only took about 5 years!

Justin



i don't care what the bike is made out of as long as it is straight and was designed by someone who knows what they are doing.

there's a lot of awful lugged steel out there just as there is alot of awful carbon, aluminum and titanium bikes as well.

the design is what makes the bike work well or not. i'd rather pos giordana than 90% of the bikes out there; because it fits and it handles right.

if i could "race" any bike? i wouldn't pick a material or a method of construction because to me those are just minor details. i'd pick a builder.

obtuse

[iml]

My fave road bike is a steel thing built by some DWFreaky dude. It's built with an Easton SL fork (not the spindly SLX), a SRAM Rival/Durah-Ce build, real man Time pedals, and sorta light clinchers. It's about 17.5 lbs without even trying for light, and the frame is, for my 1.85m and 69kg, a brick scheisse house. When I find batteries, I might even take and post a pic.

It's rad. I've ridden and raced the crap out of it since 2002 as a lame professional amateur Cat 2. Despite some dalliances with some other short-termers, I can't really imagine riding anything else except another DWFrame, but last I heard the bastige was in rehab with BSpears or partying in the Caymans or something...

[Avispa]

...And, yet, here we are in 2007, with Trek having one of the more (if not the most) classy looking bikes on the pro tour.
Anyone else have thoughts on this topic?

Bro,

A bike with no slope is like a woman with no curves! :rolleyes:
Not that a curveless woman has to be ugly, you know...

Anyway, back to the bike thing... I don't think those Treks are that hot looking. That head tube is huge and all those spacers... sheesh!

I used to like straight tube bikes, but they are a thing of the past, atmo. Again, nothing wrong with that either. It's all a matter of taste.

[atmo]

I used to like straight tube bikes, but they are a thing of the past, atmo.
odd -
now the tubes are curved, but the forks are straight atmo.
less filling...

[davids]

odd -
now the tubes are curved, but the forks are straight atmo.
less filling...
All is in balance, atmo.

http://home.tiscalinet.ch/hiram/images/yin-yang.jpg

[Matt Barkley]

I am not a pro(biker)

I'd want Dario to build me another U2 - Casati a d.79 thing with a SC6110A seatube so I can have 2 water bottles - or a DeRosa would be nice - yep - all out of a newer alu vs. the carbon - though I do like some carbon out there. Hey Steel IS my favorite materisl - we are talking flat out race bikes here though.... (Climbos question)

dig' the Gewiss quote from Obtuse

I don't need a 15 or 16 lb bike.

I do (would) need to ride abit more to stay happy - ride nice tubulars with alu rims of high quality - and steel spokes (I liek how they feel - make me tingly inside.)

Frames need to be built by someone making them ride well (Thank You master frame builders.) Wheels need to be straight - I like Campys - lightweights are crazy - all parts need to be strong. This WW stuff is interesting - but only applicable going up 1 hill (o=OK maybe seceral climbs - and uphill tts OK all tts)- not bombing and I mean BOMBING down the other side of technical descents OR crits for that matter - :beer: where sometimes you have to use the brakes. I will use Campy (brakes for sure and everything else they make, Auto Mags wheels too, gracious. Cheers :beer: - Matt

Slopers look strange and - my knees brush those lower top tubes and I think the bike is sinking underneath me...

[fogrider]

I don't have a carbon frame, I never have....But I keep hearing that Carbon frames are stiff and also that carbon frames are compliant. So I'm curious, which is it? Can it be both?

JG

jg, do you ride with a steel fork or carbon? carbon is stiff, light and compliant!

[OldDog]

page, spinelli, keele, I could go on but the list grows thin after these three. ;)


Include me in the list of red bike winners...routinely I grab the sprint to the local Dairy Queen on our old geezers ride. Just dangle an Oreo Blizzard in front of me...

[Dekonick]

Do you think it would depend on the type of race? Cobbles would probably warrant carbon to take away soem of the punishment!

That new trek is horrible looking! Some sloping TT's look decent, but not that one!

Hors Categorie. Works great, looks different.

[A.L.Breguet]

nothing reduces the weight of a bike like a good strong cup of coffee. you can drop a pound if you're good.
Yeah, what he said.
The cheapest way to save weight is eat less and ride more. Plus maybe a little extra bran and coffee.

[classic1]

All is in balance, atmo.

http://home.tiscalinet.ch/hiram/images/yin-yang.jpg

Tadpole porn????

[Steelhead]

My new CDA will have a 1 degree slope - so horizontal as far as I am concerned....where does that leave me? Top Tube Pergatory?? :D

[J.Greene]

jg, do you ride with a steel fork or carbon? carbon is stiff, light and compliant!


I have ridden both with a steel fork and carbon. I'm not sure I can tell a difference in a meaningful way. My race bike is a Legend Ti with carbon fork and my favorite and best ridingbike is a Sachs with of couse a steel fork.

JG

[Grant McLean]

odd -
now the tubes are curved, but the forks are straight atmo.


POTM !!!

g

[frenk]

Copied & pasted from http://www.colnago.com/en/mycolnago/index.php

What is the difference between Sloping and Traditional frame sizes?
Frames using traditional sizes are considered the best by Ernesto Colnago. In fact, sloping sizes were born from , Mountain Bikes where all the sizes were covered with 4 standard sizes. Personally sloping sizes are exclusively for commercial reasons.

[RPS]

Assuming it’s all for commercial reasons, what’s wrong with four frame sizes covering the vast majority of riders if it lowers costs, inventories, etc….?

A quick look at some manufacturers’ specifications shows that the range of top tube lengths from small 50 CM frames up to very large 60 CM frames is only about 6 CM. Of greater interest is that the approximate wheelbase range for these most common sizes is only about 3 CM (and as expected most of that is from the BBKT forward since chainstay lengths vary very little by frame size for a given manufacturer’s model).

Given those numbers, four frame sizes (S, M, L, XL) that cover the range of 50 to 60 CM would only need increments of 2 CM in top tube lengths (like 52, 54, 56, and 58 as examples only) and wheelbase in 1-CM increments (like 97, 98, 99 and 100 also as examples only). And if standover is not a limitation due to sloping top tube, then most riders could be fit on one of these four sizes with the aid of post setback, saddle rail adjustment, and common 10-13 CM stems.

Obviously it wouldn’t be what Colnago, Serotta, or Calfee high-end buyers expect, but what’s wrong with four or even five sizes covering the vast majority of riders?

[atmo]

Assuming it’s all for commercial reasons, what’s wrong with four frame sizes covering the vast majority of riders if it lowers costs, inventories, etc….?
nothing atmo.
that is why compact was invented.
the step-child to this story is that the look took a while to enter
the mainstream and then slopers (a different animal) were also
slowly intro-ed into the marketplace and sold for entirely different
reasons. there is no longer a convention to adhere to (wrt aesthetics).
ps what many need to comprehend in all this is that frame designers
also need to make up to design real estate that is affected when headsets,
saddles, stems, and other components change in shape.

ps atmo.

[Grant McLean]

Given those numbers, four frame sizes (S, M, L, XL) that cover the range of 50 to 60 CM would only need increments of 2 CM in top tube lengths (like 52, 54, 56, and 58 as examples only) ... but what’s wrong with four or even five sizes covering the vast majority of riders?

what if shoes came in size 6, 8, 10, 12 ?

Nothing wrong with that if the shoe fits, but if it doesn't?

I use the shoe example, becuase what really is more important than fit?
oh wait, people buy things by price, colour, brand, style, marketing, and
trends... so sure let them make only 4 sizes. :rolleyes:

if the frame doesn't fit you must acquit! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewbacca_Defense)

But seriously, the problem with four sizes is that it's really two. The bell curve
of sales is in the middle, and statistically, it would be better if there were 5
sizes, with 3 in the middle.

g

[Archibald]

nothing atmo.
that is why compact was invented.
the step-child to this story is that the look took a while to enter
the mainstream and then slopers (a different animal) were also
slowly intro-ed into the marketplace and sold for entirely different
reasons. there is no longer a convention to adhere to (wrt aesthetics).
ps what many need to comprehend in all this is that frame designers
also need to make up to design real estate that is affected when headsets,
saddles, stems, and other components change in shape.

ps atmo.
Why does Colnago use a straight blade fork design?
Colnago’s straight blade fork was born in 1987 in collaboration with Ferrari engineers during a discussion about cold setting fork curvature. Ernesto Colnago and the Ferrari engineers discovered that while the curved fork didn’t absorb road vibrations and shocks, while the straight bladed fork did. From that testing, Colnago’s PRECISA fork was born, and subsequently, many of Colnago’s competitors adopted a straight blade fork.

[cpg]

Why does Colnago use a straight blade fork design?
Colnago’s straight blade fork was born in 1987 in collaboration with Ferrari engineers during a discussion about cold setting fork curvature. Ernesto Colnago and the Ferrari engineers discovered that while the curved fork didn’t absorb road vibrations and shocks, while the straight bladed fork did. From that testing, Colnago’s PRECISA fork was born, and subsequently, many of Colnago’s competitors adopted a straight blade fork.


Puuulease! I'm laughing so hard while trying to eat my California rolls I've got wasabi coming out of my nose. Well I think it's wasabi. It's green anyway. Whatever. That's too funny. Never let the facts get in the way of a good theory.

Curt

[manet]

crotchless panties

[RPS]

what if shoes came in size 6, 8, 10, 12 ?

Nothing wrong with that if the shoe fits, but if it doesn't?

I use the shoe example, becuase what really is more important than fit?
oh wait, people buy things by price, colour, brand, style, marketing, and
trends... so sure let them make only 4 sizes. :rolleyes:

if the frame doesn't fit you must acquit! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewbacca_Defense)

But seriously, the problem with four sizes is that it's really two. The bell curve
of sales is in the middle, and statistically, it would be better if there were 5
sizes, with 3 in the middle.

gGrant, I know what you are saying and I agree that fit is all-important, but what makes a person not fit a frame? Seriously!

Assuming a rider’s position is known – starting from the BBKT as reference – and that an optimum weight distribution is desired, what keeps the vast majority of riders from being properly fit on one of four frame sizes?

The most a person would be off from the ideal center-of-gravity versus wheelbase is ½ of one centimeter (less than a ¼ inch). Are most people really that sensitive that they can’t be fit by use of proper stem and seat post on one of four sizes?

I know what you are saying about fit but help me understand it by quantifying the “why it won’t work”.

[tulli]

Grant, I know what you are saying and I agree that fit is all-important, but what makes a person not fit a frame? Seriously!

Assuming a rider’s position is known – starting from the BBKT as reference – and that an optimum weight distribution is desired, what keeps the vast majority of riders from being properly fit on one of four frame sizes?

The most a person would be off from the ideal center-of-gravity versus wheelbase is ½ of one centimeter (less than a ¼ inch). Are most people really that sensitive that they can’t be fit by use of proper stem and seat post on one of four sizes?

I know what you are saying about fit but help me understand it by quantifying the “why it won’t work”.

IMO part of the reason it doesn't work is that it's UGLY. There is nothing worse than a bike with a foot of spacers under the stem and the saddle slammed all the way forward on the rails etc.

Lets face it the average high end bike isn't cheap. We wouldnt buy a $1000 suit and roll up the sleeves because they were a foot too long. Why should we do the equivalent with a $1000 bike let alone a $10 000 bike.

Cheers

[frenk]

Puuulease! I'm laughing so hard while trying to eat my California rolls I've got wasabi coming out of my nose. Well I think it's wasabi. It's green anyway. Whatever. That's too funny. Never let the facts get in the way of a good theory.

Curt
Well in fact on the website it's not translated 100% correctly. Still may be BS but it says

Per quale motivo Colnago utilizza la force diritta?
La forcella diritta è nata nel 1987 in collaborazione con gli ingegneri Ferrari durante una discussione sulla curvatura a freddo delle forcelle in acciaio. Ernesto Colnago e i tecnici Ferrari hanno smontato così la tesi della forca curva in quanto non ammortizzava i colpi stradali mentre la forcella diritta ammortizzava le vibrazioni per l’intero fodero e offre una migliore guidabilità.
Ecco come è nata la forcella PRECISA, da tutti i concorrenti criticata ma eguagliata successivamente.

which should stand for "while a straight fork absorbed vibrations over its full length and gives better handling".

[Archibald]

Puuulease! I'm laughing so hard while trying to eat my California rolls I've got wasabi coming out of my nose. Well I think it's wasabi. It's green anyway. Whatever. That's too funny. Never let the facts get in the way of a good theory.

Curt
Fork blades and crown: $75
Fork blade bender: $350

wait for it...

Having Ferrari engineers say curved forks suck: Priceless!

:banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana:

[cpg]

Reminds me of the match days. The Schwinn product manager for the Paramounts looked me straight in the eye and said "straight blade forks steer more precisely because the fork blades are shorter due to the lack of curve. The fork blades take a straight path to the drops." Well after I stopped laughing at him I said "You're nuts!"

By my translation the Ferrari engineers are saying Archibald sucks!

To be clear, I'm not saying curved fork blades ride better. I'm saying the ONLY difference is aesthetics. There is no difference in ride. Straight blades were born out of product differentiation combined with ease of production.

Curt

[Archibald]

Reminds me of the match days. The Schwinn product manager for the Paramounts looked me straight in the eye and said "straight blade forks steer more precisely because the fork blades are shorter due to the lack of curve. The fork blades take a straight path to the drops." Well after I stopped laughing at him I said "You're nuts!"

By my translation the Ferrari engineers are saying Archibald sucks!

To be clear, I'm not saying curved fork blades ride better. I'm saying the ONLY difference is aesthetics. There is no difference in ride. Straight blades were born out of product differentiation combined with ease of production.

Curt
But they're *Ferrari* engineers....

:banana: :banana: :banana: :banana:

[saab2000]

Some dude from Twelvepakistan made the fork for this bike (http://forums.thepaceline.net/showthread.php?t=20657&highlight=croll) . It is straight, steers fine and the bike was repainted like a Ferrari.

I shoulda told DWF to make it curved 'cuz most of the pundits don't think straight forks belong on lugged steel bikes. They are prolly right. But at least this fork is good.

[cpg]

Some dude from Twelvepakistan made the fork for this bike (http://forums.thepaceline.net/showthread.php?t=20657&highlight=croll) . It is straight, steers fine and the bike was repainted like a Ferrari.

I shoulda told DWF to make it curved 'cuz most of the pundits don't think straight forks belong on lugged steel bikes. They are prolly right. But at least this fork is good.


ANY fork that's not popped out of a mold is fine by me. :) Even if THAT guy had something to do with it.

Curt

[RPS]

IMO part of the reason it doesn't work is that it's UGLY. There is nothing worse than a bike with a foot of spacers under the stem and the saddle slammed all the way forward on the rails etc.

Lets face it the average high end bike isn't cheap. We wouldnt buy a $1000 suit and roll up the sleeves because they were a foot too long. Why should we do the equivalent with a $1000 bike let alone a $10 000 bike.

CheersIsn’t "ugliness" sidestepping the question?

I’m asking about a company that may – for economic reasons -- reduce the number of frames by every other size at most. In reality, if we quantify dimensions it comes down to less than 1 CM of adjustment at the saddle and/or stem due to eliminated frame-sizes.

What’s so ugly about that? Are you saying that a 12 CM stem looks great but that an 11 or 13 looks ugly? Or that a -17 degrees looks cool but a -6 looks dumb? And if you needed to adjust a saddle by 1 CM by adjusting the rails and/or using a different seat post, are you saying it can’t be done without looking ugly?

I’m not questioning high-end buyers’ desire to have a custom bike since I have a few myself. I’m just asking why manufacturers shouldn’t reduce the number of frame sizes when dimensional variations between adjoining sizes are often small compared to variations in commonly-used stems and seat posts.

[tulli]

Isn’t "ugliness" sidestepping the question?

I’m asking about a company that may – for economic reasons -- reduce the number of frames by every other size at most. In reality, if we quantify dimensions it comes down to less than 1 CM of adjustment at the saddle and/or stem due to eliminated frame-sizes.

What’s so ugly about that? Are you saying that a 12 CM stem looks great but that an 11 or 13 looks ugly? Or that a -17 degrees looks cool but a -6 looks dumb? And if you needed to adjust a saddle by 1 CM by adjusting the rails and/or using a different seat post, are you saying it can’t be done without looking ugly?

I’m not questioning high-end buyers’ desire to have a custom bike since I have a few myself. I’m just asking why manufacturers shouldn’t reduce the number of frame sizes when dimensional variations between adjoining sizes are often small compared to variations in commonly-used stems and seat posts.

I undersatand where you're coming from. But who will benefit from the cost reductions? Not the consumer. If I'm going to fork out the big bucks, I want as many options as possible.

[michael white]

Reminds me of the match days. The Schwinn product manager for the Paramounts looked me straight in the eye and said "straight blade forks steer more precisely because the fork blades are shorter due to the lack of curve. The fork blades take a straight path to the drops." Well after I stopped laughing at him I said "You're nuts!"

By my translation the Ferrari engineers are saying Archibald sucks!

To be clear, I'm not saying curved fork blades ride better. I'm saying the ONLY difference is aesthetics. There is no difference in ride. Straight blades were born out of product differentiation combined with ease of production.

Curt


Curt,
I have one of those bikes and one of my favorite things about it is the supple ride of the fork. My first and only straight blade fork, btw. . . Whether the straight blades have any merit or not, they must be made of something good, that's all I can say . . .

[vaxn8r]

I undersatand where you're coming from. But who will benefit from the cost reductions? Not the consumer. If I'm going to fork out the big bucks, I want as many options as possible.
It could be the consumer who benefits. Why not?

[Matt Barkley]

Quote:
Originally Posted by RPS
Assuming it’s all for commercial reasons, what’s wrong with four frame sizes covering the vast majority of riders if it lowers costs, inventories, etc….?

IMHO - everything. Lower costs good? Less inventory good? These modele are inevitable - but I think not good! Hey - let's not have jobs/work for anyone....anywhere!

- Few people entering cycling now (or the past few years with Compact) ever ride a bike properly sized cycle. For them, there is a confused reference point for what is a better bike as their choices were/are Small, Small Medium and Large, XL. Especially the larger riders find more real "fit" and balance issues coming into play with these Tawianese compacts regardless of where they are made. (Not talking about slopers) - :beer: Matt

[iml]

The energy directed at this subject is fascinating. My steel roadie is a sloper. Or maybe it's compact. The bars, saddle, and everything else are in the right place, but the seat tube is short and the top tube slopes.

I do feel a difference, compared to a level TT bike, when I get out of the saddle and climb, which is often. More than I should, but that's another thread. Yes, it really does feel like the bike loses weight when I stand and motor. I feel a difference, and I like it. And it looks good, to me. Level TT bikes look good too.

Marketing? For some, I guess it is. Then again, I can also feel the difference when the water bottle is full or empty, so what do I know? I didn't say it makes a difference, but I can feel the difference.

[RPS]

I undersatand where you're coming from. But who will benefit from the cost reductions? Not the consumer. If I'm going to fork out the big bucks, I want as many options as possible.In a competitive free market, the consumer should benefit the most due to the added efficiency. IMHO if the process is made more efficient and bikes become more affordable, more people will be able to ride and with greater quality bikes.

And I seriously doubt it would adversely affect the high-end or custom manufacturers. Their clientele is far more affluent and will pay a little more for what they want.

[Grant McLean]

I do feel a difference, compared to a level TT bike, when I get out of the saddle and climb, which is often. More than I should, but that's another thread. Yes, it really does feel like the bike loses weight when I stand and motor. I feel a difference, and I like it. And it looks good, to me. Level TT bikes look good too.

Marketing? For some, I guess it is. Then again, I can also feel the difference when the water bottle is full or empty, so what do I know? I didn't say it makes a difference, but I can feel the difference.

Please don't take this comment personally, i don't mean to direct it at you.

This sloper "lower weight" thing is a bunch of BS. Have you held a top tube
bare tube in your hand? It weighs about 100 grams.(1/4 of a bottle) Lowering the tube a
couple of inches is supposed to do what??! Change your saddle from a
125gram SLR to a 270gram arione or a 400 gram rolls ti, and there still is
no difference, and that's at the end of the pendulum.

I take it you've ridden two different bikes, one with a level tube, and another
with a slope. It's not the same thing.

Sorry if this sounds harsh, but if you're thinking about the swing weight of
your seat tube while you're riding, you need to get a life.

g

[iml]

I think about the swing weight of my seat tube, but only on weekends.

No offense taken. Seriously, I don't think about this stuff much at all. My Anvil sloping TT bike feels spiffier climbing out of the saddle than other, lighter bikes with level TTs I've ridden, wheels and everything else being more or less equal. I don't think about it, because it's true that I feel a difference on my bike. I find it interesting that someone would tell me that simply isn't true.

I can't say it's a general thing or faster or better or the same on other bikes with sloped TTs. Just talking 'bout my bike, man. Could it be something about the frame design or construction OTHER than the sloping TT? Of course. Just sayin'.

[obtuse]

Quote:
Originally Posted by RPS
Assuming it’s all for commercial reasons, what’s wrong with four frame sizes covering the vast majority of riders if it lowers costs, inventories, etc….?

IMHO - everything. Lower costs good? Less inventory good? These modele are inevitable - but I think not good! Hey - let's not have jobs/work for anyone....anywhere!

- Few people entering cycling now (or the past few years with Compact) ever ride a bike properly sized cycle. For them, there is a confused reference point for what is a better bike as their choices were/are Small, Small Medium and Large, XL. Especially the larger riders find more real "fit" and balance issues coming into play with these Tawianese compacts regardless of where they are made. (Not talking about slopers) - :beer: Matt


few people ever entering cycling ever rode a properly sized bike. twenty years ago you couldn't walk into the average bike store and get a suitable race bike...you almost had to go to a custom builder.....now you can walk into the worst bike shop in the world and get a production bike capable of winning any race in the world...looking at the world with rose tinted glasses is awesome....but lets face some facts here....an extra large giant tcr is a million times more bike than the production "road" bikes availble back then.

obtuse

[coylifut]

Please don't take this comment personally, i don't mean to direct it at you.

This sloper "lower weight" thing is a bunch of BS. Have you held a top tube
bare tube in your hand? It weighs about 100 grams.(1/4 of a bottle) Lowering the tube a
couple of inches is supposed to do what??! Change your saddle from a
125gram SLR to a 270gram arione or a 400 gram rolls ti, and there still is
no difference, and that's at the end of the pendulum.

I take it you've ridden two different bikes, one with a level tube, and another
with a slope. It's not the same thing.

Sorry if this sounds harsh, but if you're thinking about the swing weight of
your seat tube while you're riding, you need to get a life.

g

So Grant, basically what you are saying is that Kellog's post is BS and he needs to get a life?

[RPS]

I take it you've ridden two different bikes, one with a level tube, and another with a slope. It's not the same thing.Grant, that's an excellent point we should all keep in mind -- whether for frames, forks, wheels, tires, etc... Variables should be reduced to one to be significant.

I personally addressed this issue by first buying a used bike, riding it, testing it for stiffness, then having it modified and testing again. That way I could be assured I was actually testing differences associated with the change I had made, not different tubesets, geometries, components, etc...

[Serpico]

...

the swing weight of

...
G-Unit,

Every thread on this forum is about "the swing weight of... blah... blah... blah" which is fun sometimes (but that thread about trail/rake was painful) and why internet forums exist. I don't think the poster you addressed was doing anything that isn't done on this forum--he was just doing it in a different way. I think people here are interested in more "traditionally designed" frames AND they're interested in aesthetics--two things that I appreciate as well, but also two "strikes" against the sloping design. Again, I can't comment on the relative merits of that design (nor does it personally interest me). Sloping top tubes look lame sometimes, sometimes they don't. I just don't care. :)
.

[Serpico]

All said and done, I think nice looking bicycles usually ride well. People in the "industry" part of the cycling world tend to consider aesthetics last, and only if they "get it" with regard to other considerations (performance, comfort, design). What does this mean? It means a well designed bicycle is a good sign the other factors have been met--and it's just plain nice to have a pretty bike! (so many goofy looking bikes are sold, most look like Nascar autos). So if it slopes or not, whatever--as long as the angles are good and everything looks balanced. You can tell a nice bike by looking at it. I'm sure there's some exceptions, but I think it's a decent general rule. I think dbrk has said this (about a million times more coherently) before. Nice looking bikes are usually nice bikes in general.

pretty objects = good

[Grant McLean]

So Grant, basically what you are saying is that Kellog's post is BS and he needs to get a life?

It's Kellogg.

I bet Tom has a great life, and doesn't stay awake thinking about it.
But yes, I don't get why he thinks it's "better", but hey, the Ferrari engineers
think straight forks are "better" aparently, so I guess without defining what
all these terms actually mean, maybe we can just smile and nod.

g

[Grant McLean]

G-Unit,

Every thread on this forum is about "the swing weight of... blah... blah... blah" which is fun sometimes (but that thread about trail/rake was painful) and why internet forums exist. I don't think the poster you addressed was doing anything that isn't done on this forum--he was just doing it in a different way. I think people here are interested in more "traditionally designed" frames AND they're interested in aesthetics--two things that I appreciate as well, but also two "strikes" against the sloping design. Again, I can't comment on the relative merits of that design (nor does it personally interest me). Sloping top tubes look lame sometimes, sometimes they don't. I just don't care. :)
.

It sticks in my craw when people just attribute some "feature" to a random
example. There's so much misinformation and old wives' tales in cycling
(perhaps life) that I enjoy trying to get people to examine what they are
actually saying, maybe getting someone to think about what they 'know'.
Sorry if that is painful. I always find a little pain to be good sport. :)

g

[ericson]

Pardon my ignorance, but whats the difference between a compact frame and a "sloper" frame? I thought they are one and the same?

[swoop]

matching feelings and sensations to quantifiable facts is tricky. i tend to give more faith to my subjective experiences because i can locate things within a lifetime of personal reference points... that go from competitive skiing to fun rides to racing.

numbers to me always support an agenda conscious or otherwise. i suppose that makes me more a mystic than scientist. and feelings for me support an agenda too.. its just the feeling agenda is more clear to me....

for me.... the more compact the frame (level or not) the better it feels (within reason.. i am making apoint after all).. so i aim for a frame that feels small, has slope, yet isn't too ugly. like i said .. 7 dergrees seems to work for me.

i've ridden 10, 3, 14 and 7 degree sloped frames and if i did a level top tube i'd go dario style and drop it low on the head tube... because it feels better to me when i want to throw the frame around and climb.

i'm sure there arent any numbers to back it up.... but the science of what i like takes me there.

and so i go back to what i always say in these threads... that we are in the golden age of choice. i don't know that there's been this latitiude to chose materials and geo's including custom. it's a good time to be a bike rider.


regardless of slope.. some bike setups look better than others. we are the world. tk is right. i'm right. you're right. no one is wrong. and putting this frame vs. another frame is silly. the point is to ride as many as you can until you can see it through your own experiences.... and then you're talking.

if you can cash in enough to get in the game and ride and sell a few... you get some mileage on a few different philosophies and you start to see which road takes you to rome.

it's like that. atmo.

[Jack Brunk]

matching feelings and sensations to quantifiable facts is tricky. i tend to give more faith to my subjective experiences because i can locate things within a lifetime of personal reference points... that go from competitive skiing to fun rides to racing.

numbers to me always support an agenda conscious or otherwise. i suppose that makes me more a mystic than scientist. and feelings for me support an agenda too.. its just the feeling agenda is more clear to me....

for me.... the more compact the frame (level or not) the better it feels (within reason.. i am making apoint after all).. so i aim for a frame that feels small, has slope, yet isn't too ugly. like i said .. 7 dergrees seems to work for me.

i've ridden 10, 3, 14 and 7 degree sloped frames and if i did a level top tube i'd go dario style and drop it low on the head tube... because it feels better to me when i want to throw the frame around and climb.

i'm sure there arent any numbers to back it up.... but the science of what i like takes me there.

and so i go back to what i always say in these threads... that we are in the golden age of choice. i don't know that there's been this latitiude to chose materials and geo's including custom. it's a good time to be a bike rider.


regardless of slope.. some bike setups look better than others. we are the world. tk is right. i'm right. you're right. no one is wrong. and putting this frame vs. another frame is silly. the point is to ride as many as you can until you can see it through your own experiences.... and then you're talking.

if you can cash in enough to get in the game and ride and sell a few... you get some mileage on a few different philosophies and you start to see which road takes you to rome.

it's like that. atmo.


Post of the year

[dave thompson]

Post of the year
Agreed!

[RPS]

matching feelings and sensations to quantifiable facts is tricky. i tend to give more faith to my subjective experiences because i can locate things within a lifetime of personal reference points... that go from competitive skiing to fun rides to racing.

numbers to me always support an agenda conscious or otherwise. i suppose that makes me more a mystic than scientist. and feelings for me support an agenda too.. its just the feeling agenda is more clear to me....

for me.... the more compact the frame (level or not) the better it feels (within reason.. i am making apoint after all).. so i aim for a frame that feels small, has slope, yet isn't too ugly. like i said .. 7 dergrees seems to work for me.

i've ridden 10, 3, 14 and 7 degree sloped frames and if i did a level top tube i'd go dario style and drop it low on the head tube... because it feels better to me when i want to throw the frame around and climb.

i'm sure there arent any numbers to back it up.... but the science of what i like takes me there.

and so i go back to what i always say in these threads... that we are in the golden age of choice. i don't know that there's been this latitiude to chose materials and geo's including custom. it's a good time to be a bike rider.


regardless of slope.. some bike setups look better than others. we are the world. tk is right. i'm right. you're right. no one is wrong. and putting this frame vs. another frame is silly. the point is to ride as many as you can until you can see it through your own experiences.... and then you're talking.

if you can cash in enough to get in the game and ride and sell a few... you get some mileage on a few different philosophies and you start to see which road takes you to rome.

it's like that. atmo.With all due respect I can’t disagree with you more; but I guess that’s the engineer/scientist in me, since I don’t have a drop of “mystic” anything in my essence. For me it’s mostly about the numbers; the real problem is not being able to apply or account for variations correctly – which is way too often the case in cycling.

The astonishment I felt seeing the Space Shuttle take off for the first time is hard to describe. And it wasn’t because of the magnitude of the event itself, it was mostly because everything about the lift-off was based on science, engineering, analysis, etc… and had not been tested before – at least not as a completed entity.

For me there is no mystic magic; just our inability to account for facts correctly.

[Too Tall]

RPS - same said of the common bee?

[93legendti]

matching feelings and sensations to quantifiable facts is tricky. i tend to give more faith to my subjective experiences because i can locate things within a lifetime of personal reference points... that go from competitive skiing to fun rides to racing.

numbers to me always support an agenda conscious or otherwise. i suppose that makes me more a mystic than scientist. and feelings for me support an agenda too.. its just the feeling agenda is more clear to me....

for me.... the more compact the frame (level or not) the better it feels (within reason.. i am making apoint after all).. so i aim for a frame that feels small, has slope, yet isn't too ugly. like i said .. 7 dergrees seems to work for me.

i've ridden 10, 3, 14 and 7 degree sloped frames and if i did a level top tube i'd go dario style and drop it low on the head tube... because it feels better to me when i want to throw the frame around and climb.

i'm sure there arent any numbers to back it up.... but the science of what i like takes me there.

and so i go back to what i always say in these threads... that we are in the golden age of choice. i don't know that there's been this latitiude to chose materials and geo's including custom. it's a good time to be a bike rider.


regardless of slope.. some bike setups look better than others. we are the world. tk is right. i'm right. you're right. no one is wrong. and putting this frame vs. another frame is silly. the point is to ride as many as you can until you can see it through your own experiences.... and then you're talking.

if you can cash in enough to get in the game and ride and sell a few... you get some mileage on a few different philosophies and you start to see which road takes you to rome.

it's like that. atmo.

Well said. ATMO agrees with you...

[Climb01742]

once you combine a bike with a rider you enter a subjective realm. i'm no scientist but i doubt it's possible to have an objective fact/truth/reality that could cover all rider/bike combos.

it's a consistent bewilderment to me why, on the forum, people dismiss other people's experiences, sensations, feelings. you can't say what someone else senses on a bike isn't what they sense. it may not be what_you_feel, but it is what they feel.

i respect grant's opinions on many many things but to say that what TK has tested/experienced about compacts isn't, or can't be, true is, well, whacky. first, it's TK. and second, if it's what TK, or anyone, senses, then for them it's "real".

it's like trying to come up with an objective definition of love. there isn't one. just 6 billion personal ones. i'm not saying there isn't science involved in how a frame "works" or "performs". but once you add a person to the equation, it's much more subjective than objective.

[swoop]

for me the feel dictates the numbers. the numbers are a way to quantify the feel after the fact.
but the thing that makes a bike a special thing is how well it transcends numbers.

i trust numbers for geometry.. especially front center.. geometry is the langauge of numbers for sure.....but ride quality is the domain of something more reliable and internal.
i arrived at the trust of numbers for geometry from following feel. because of all the bikes i've ridden i can look at geo numbers and have a sese of feel that will be insanely accurate. so the numbers can communicate a dimension of feeling.

and that's the essencee of what i'm saying.. you ride enough you have experiences that you can relate to geo numbers enough to know what numbers are right for you... and what playing with the numbers does to
the feel.

you can reduce aspects of a bike to numbers.. but if you can't apply those numbers to a catalogue of sensations and a personal narrative.. then its just numbers.
i know my numbers... but i got them through a lot of different sensations...

so when a frame builder has the stuff.. the stuff is the ability to imbue (sic) numbers with sensations and translate sensations into numbers.

..

in the end, im just trying to kill this thread because something about it annoys me.

[michael white]

I've been through all this before: when buying a Merlin a few years ago, I went to TK's site and read what he had to say about this issue, which he has addressed at great length. The feeling he is describing when out of the saddle is real, and anyone who has ridden a mtn bike has probably felt it. It's a nice feeling. I appreciated what he had to say, thought about it, then bought a level Merlin. That's just me, and I feel I made the right choice. But there's plenty of merit in the other side, too.

[RPS]

once you combine a bike with a rider you enter a subjective realm. i'm no scientist but i doubt it's possible to have an objective fact/truth/reality that could cover all rider/bike combos.

it's a consistent bewilderment to me why, on the forum, people dismiss other people's experiences, sensations, feelings. you can't say what someone else senses on a bike isn't what they sense. it may not be what_you_feel, but it is what they feel.

i respect grant's opinions on many many things but to say that what TK has tested/experienced about compacts isn't, or can't be, true is, well, whacky. first, it's TK. and second, if it's what TK, or anyone, senses, then for them it's "real".

it's like trying to come up with an objective definition of love. there isn't one. just 6 billion personal ones. i'm not saying there isn't science involved in how a frame "works" or "performs". but once you add a person to the equation, it's much more subjective than objective.I think what was implied is that we can't make a determination about differences in one area when numerous things were different. I happen to agree. No one is saying that the experience was not real or correct, just that it wasn't meaningful as a comparison between compact and level because way too many other differences existed in the comparison.

[Grant McLean]

I think what was implied is that we can't make a determination about differences in one area when numerous things were different. I happen to agree. No one is saying that the experience was not real or correct, just that it wasn't meaningful as a comparison between compact and level because way too many other differences existed in the comparison.

gold star for RPS.

-g

[Len J]

for me the feel dictates the numbers. the numbers are a way to quantify the feel after the fact.
but the thing that makes a bike a special thing is how well it transcends numbers.

i trust numbers for geometry.. especially front center.. geometry is the langauge of numbers for sure.....but ride quality is the domain of something more reliable and internal.
i arrived at the trust of numbers for geometry from following feel. because of all the bikes i've ridden i can look at geo numbers and have a sese of feel that will be insanely accurate. so the numbers can communicate a dimension of feeling.

and that's the essencee of what i'm saying.. you ride enough you have experiences that you can relate to geo numbers enough to know what numbers are right for you... and what playing with the numbers does to
the feel.

you can reduce aspects of a bike to numbers.. but if you can't apply those numbers to a catalogue of sensations and a personal narrative.. then its just numbers.
i know my numbers... but i got them through a lot of different sensations...

so when a frame builder has the stuff.. the stuff is the ability to imbue (sic) numbers with sensations and translate sensations into numbers.

..

in the end, im just trying to kill this thread because something about it annoys me.

but to take it one step further, some things just can't be quantified........or in the quantification some true essence is lost.

-That feeling of freedom that overwhelmed me the first time I rode a 2 wheeler of my street when I was 7 years old. Rusty old hand me down junker, but I have rarely felt that alive. Was that geometry?

Ride what you like.....like what you ride.....it's all good. Just because I may not like the aestetics of your bike should have nothing to do with how you enjoy your ride......it's not an either or game.

Len

[Serpico]

http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=523054

[Samster]

there's somthing wrong with the way this level frame rides,
but i just can't put my finger on why....
ghopefully the rider fared better.

[J.Greene]

My experience leads me to be skeptical that feel has anything to do with how fast I can go from point A to point B. Not that I'd ride a bike that didn't "feel" good, I just don't think it matters much if kept in the margins.

JG

[Samster]

crotchless pantiescome on now. is it really crotchless? isn't it more along the lines of "split-crotch"?

[swoop]

the top tube has a function. how it get's there is secondary to fulfiling its function(s). once the seat tube and head tube are mated in plane by the top tube it opens up a series of possibilites... and the question: where to put the ends of the top tube.

it can be level. this seems the obvious choice. at what point you join the ends is then determined by standover height and is limited by the length of the headtube. so.. standover height is farily arbitrary.

but then there is room to play.... if i lower the top tube within the headtube does it affect the personality of the bike (still level, think pegoretti), what then?

if i lower the top tube where it joins the seat tube does it affect the bike?

i would argue that you can't find a statistical variance large enought to support any change in the bike.

and riding seated in a straight line i can't feel a difference.

but i feel one when i'm sprinting and climbing and throwing the bike around (racing situations). and in this case... that feeling influences what i like more than the lack of numbers.

i like a level top tube as much as a sloping one. but given the choice i like to maximize clearance in standover within reason. i like a bike that feels a few sizes too small.

if you give me two identical bikes side by side and one has 2cm lower toptube.. i'll take that one.

but that's not my point.. my point is that i arrived at this after having ridden a ton of bikes.. radicaly sloping, barely sloping, and level. the point i'm making is that bikes do this thing.. the force a colision between numbers and the subjective experience.

but by the time i type this.. its so overstated it becomes ridiculous. and we havent adressed the other kind of sloping bike.... the ones that slope because of a tall head tube that have to accommodate standover.. that still make for a larger feeling frame (i don't like those).

and then there is the aesthetic experience....
and i think at seven degrees i look hot. and being hot looking trumps all numbers :banana:
being fast would trump looking hot.. but since i'm not fast....

[RPS]

RPS - same said of the common bee?Too Tall, I’m not sure how to take this comment, but I’ll give it a shot.

If I were to start a new bike-related thread that was highly technical and analytical in nature with the intent to share information and to be critiqued by others, what do you think would be the initial reaction from the non-technical crowd? Beyond ignoring it, would they ridicule it, throw stones at it, accuse me of being self-serving, or all of the above?

It seems like a great way to curtail progress. Blame technical guys and their hidden agendas? Is that what you are saying?

[catulle]

TT is a wise man. Who wants to be fast when you look this good, atmo...?

[swoop]

distrust technical as much as subjective because both serve a master.
understand where to listen to technical and where to listen to your a88 in the saddle.

my point is that one develops the capacity to know when to listen to the technical and when to listen to the subjective and at what point to not listen to one or the other.. by riding a lot of bikes and understanding where the technical and the subjective are saying the same things.

3 words come to mind: gestalt, balance, langauge.

[obtuse]

all my bikes have a stupid amount of exposed post showing. i can't get the front end of the bike low enough otherwise. my track bike has the most exposed post of any bike i've ever ridden. it measures 50cm c-c and looks really whacked with an 83-84cm saddle height....but it rides fine.

obtuse

[Serpico]

all my bikes have a stupid amount of exposed post showing. i can't get the front end of the bike low enough otherwise. my track bike has the most exposed post of any bike i've ever ridden. it measures 50cm c-c and looks really whacked with an 83-84cm saddle height....but it rides fine.

obtuse

but the "swing weight" is aces, no?

[iml]

Many of these posts are expressing what I was trying to say better than I did, apparently. I've been racing bikes for quite a few years. Racing a lot, from February through November, on all sorts of different bikes: MTBs, 'cross bikes, and different road bikes. This isn't a "I rode two bikes and liked the sloper better" situation. All those years, all those bikes, all those miles, and I've learned to trust my gut.

One certain bike of mine, with a sloping TT, feels especially sweet going up or rocking the bike. I #feel# the sloping TT has something to do with it.

[RPS]

"The Subject-expectancy effect, in science, is a cognitive bias that occurs in science when a subject expects a given result and therefore unconsciously manipulates an experiment or reports the expected result. Because it can skew the results of experiments (especially on human subjects), double-blind methodology is used to eliminate the effect."

"The observer-expectancy effect, in science, is a cognitive bias that occurs when a researcher expects a given result and therefore unconsciously manipulates an experiment in order to find it. Because it can skew the results of experiments (especially on human subjects), double-blind methodology is used to eliminate the effect."

When testing bikes and associated equipment, what can we expect when we are both the subject and observer? A huge amount of bias?

[Climb01742]

i'll see your placebo effect and raise you a heisenberg uncertainty principle! :)

[RPS]

i'll see your placebo effect and raise you a heisenberg uncertainty principle! :)Climb, blind testing may sound funny, but I had an unexpected and interesting experience recently when I temporarily assembled a bike using parts from various bikes.

I never intended to ride it very far, so to same time I ended up with the drive-side crank from my tandem (170 MM) and the non-drive from a different bike (172.5 MM).

After letting many very-experienced riders test the bikes (the second bike had normal 172.5 cranks) to solicit their feedback, I asked them if they had noticed anything odd about the bikes. Not a single rider mentioned the crank difference. After I told them they scratched their heads and laughed in disbelief that they hadn’t noticed it.

To me it was funny and educational.

[iml]

We all understand placebo effect and the scientific method. Well enough, anyway. If that ****e mattered, we wouldn't be riding many of the bikes we discuss on this forum. This ain't about the science - that's the point.

[sspielman]

Climb, blind testing may sound funny, but I had an unexpected and interesting experience recently when I temporarily assembled a bike using parts from various bikes.

I never intended to ride it very far, so to same time I ended up with the drive-side crank from my tandem (170 MM) and the non-drive from a different bike (172.5 MM).

After letting many very-experienced riders test the bikes (the second bike had normal 172.5 cranks) to solicit their feedback, I asked them if they had noticed anything odd about the bikes. Not a single rider mentioned the crank difference. After I told them they scratched their heads and laughed in disbelief that they hadn’t noticed it.

To me it was funny and educational.

Thus the universally accepted margin of error +/- 3 mm....

[RPS]

We all understand placebo effect and the scientific method. Well enough, anyway. If that ****e mattered, we wouldn't be riding many of the bikes we discuss on this forum. This ain't about the science - that's the point.iml, if you took it as criticism, I apologize – it was not meant that way at all.

I deal with subjectivity all the time so it’s very important to me, just as important as science. When I went for a long ride yesterday, I ended up riding over some rough roads that made me “feel” like most all the vibration I was experiencing was coming from the front. To test it for myself, I rode about 100 yards with hands off the bar so I could isolate and focus on what I was feeling through the saddle and not the hands.

As I was ridding back home, I questioned how much of what I had just experienced was real and how much was bias (i.e. -- wishful thinking). I question myself as much as anyone. And that’s why I prefer to rely on numbers and measurements. It helps to eliminate my personal bias.

[swoop]

here's the thing.. although a bike frame is a static element.. the rider is dynamic. it's not placebo... and you can't tell me that desire doesn't effect numbers and correlations aren't often based on weak assumptons (so many bad stats.. so little time).

so much of what makes one fast is psychological... and the feel of the bike is a contributing factor. but at the same time the body on the bike is dynamic and when you look at the bike and body as one unified object.. things aren't so easily quantified by just numbers.

otherwise.. there's no point in racing.. you just give the podium to t he guy with the best numbers.

numbers can be concrete... but frankly.. there often just as subjective as feelings. the numbers may be real.. but the translation gets murky.

atmo.


but like i said, we're overtalking this one. its not the bike, its not the body.. it's the mind, the bike, and the body. and most importantly its the freedom to chose what works for you.

[RPS]

We could argue this till the cows come home and it won’t make any difference. Scientist normally want some form of proof, others don’t.

I want theory (concept), measurements (quantitative), and experience (feel) to agree. If they don’t, something is not right, complete.

[93legendti]

I like TT's that are level and sloped. My bikes are divided --about 1/2 sloped and 1/2 level TT's. My ideal fit requires a slope, so even if I didn't prefer a sloper for climbing, my new Ottrott will be a sloper.

BTW, Swoop's sloper is gorgeous.

Ride what you like.

[manet]

We could argue this till the cows come home and it won’t make any difference. Scientist normally want some form of proof, others don’t.

I want theory (concept), measurements (quantitative), and experience (feel) to agree. If they don’t, something is not right, complete.

careful...

[fierte_poser]

I don't have anything useful to add, just:

"In theory, practice and theory are the same. In practice, they are not."

And, what do I receive for starting a thread that has reached 13 pages?

Finally, does David Kirk build slopers?

Kent

[93legendti]

Finally, does David Kirk build slopers?

Kent


Yes, he does...

http://www.kirkframeworks.com/photogallery2.htm

http://www.kirkframeworks.com/PeterB%20400.jpg

http://www.kirkframeworks.com/BenKirk_400.jpg