PDA

View Full Version : What is "stage race geometry"?


caleb
12-03-2007, 06:21 PM
How is it different from other geometries?

e-RICHIE
12-03-2007, 06:28 PM
it's a mythical niche born out of the misinformed writings of
cyclojournalists for whom riding was a hobby at best atmo.
i feel better now.

jeffg
12-03-2007, 06:29 PM
it's a mythical niche born out of the misinformed writings of
cyclojournalists for whom riding was a hobby at best atmo.
i feel better now.

Can you do the same for crit geometry atmo?

avalonracing
12-03-2007, 06:30 PM
"Bike of all specialties, master of none"

Fat Robert
12-03-2007, 06:31 PM
stage race geo: early 90s marketing gobbledygook born out of taking greg lemond's comments about his own personal geo as universal wisdom

Fat Robert
12-03-2007, 06:32 PM
Can you do the same for crit geometry atmo?

crazy north american misinterpretation of bike design

FATBOY
12-03-2007, 06:37 PM
No no no, stage race geometry is the math required of team docs to keep blood values below that magical %50.

Fat Robert
12-03-2007, 06:38 PM
just cause i'm bored

and i know somebody will get fired up about it

both terms were advertising junk born out of an infant american bike market

the stage race bike: slacker sta, lower bb, longer stays, hta in the 73 degree range, medium/longer trail (5.5-6.0)

the crit bike: steeper sta, higher bb, short stays, steep hta, low trail (4.5-5.0)

the crit bike feels nervous and it is. ain't any faster in a crit. the stage race bike feels confident and relaxed.

if you had a gun to your head and had to buy one, get the "stage race" bike. really, its just a good bike with a neat-o marketing name.

conorb
12-03-2007, 06:38 PM
it's a mythical niche born out of the misinformed writings of
cyclojournalists for whom riding was a hobby at best atmo.
i feel better now.

Oh, so that's what it is. :cool:

conorb

zeroking17
12-03-2007, 06:40 PM
Just to piggyback on the previous responses, "stage race geometry" is defined as shallower seat and head angles, lower bottom brackets, and longer chainstays compared to the insane, cock-eyed, terminator-like "crit/tri" geometry of several US mass-production framebuilders.

jmewkill
12-03-2007, 06:42 PM
it's a mythical niche born out of the misinformed writings of
cyclojournalists for whom riding was a hobby at best atmo.
i feel better now.

those soy taco things make you grumpy

SPOKE
12-03-2007, 06:45 PM
it's a mythical niche born out of the misinformed writings of
cyclojournalists for whom riding was a hobby at best atmo.
i feel better now.

some body must have replaced your twizzlers with tofu :p

e-RICHIE
12-03-2007, 06:47 PM
so far we have a consensus atmo.
hang the cyclojournalists.

SPOKE
12-03-2007, 06:49 PM
so far we have a consensus atmo.
hang the cyclojournalists.

can i watch???
maybe a "made for TV" movie?? :cool:

David Kirk
12-03-2007, 06:51 PM
so far we have a consensus atmo.
hang the cyclojournalists.

Hanging is too good for those basstards. Make them ride a Scott.

Dave

zeroking17
12-03-2007, 06:53 PM
so far we have a consensus atmo.
hang the cyclojournalists.

They're selling postcards of the hanging?

rwsaunders
12-03-2007, 06:58 PM
Sounds like ERichie was issued a fatwa.

avalonracing
12-03-2007, 07:01 PM
Just to piggyback on the previous responses, "stage race geometry" is defined as shallower seat and head angles, lower bottom brackets, and longer chainstays compared to the insane, cock-eyed, terminator-like "crit/tri" geometry of several US mass-production framebuilders.

When racing crits I loved the 74 degree seat tube angle on my 57cm Klein and my 58cm Coppi. It made riding the rivet a hell of a lot easier to do. I wouldn't hesitate to buy a bike with a 74 degree STA again.

zeroking17
12-03-2007, 07:10 PM
When racing crits I loved the 74 degree seat tube angle on my 57cm Klein and my 58cm Coppi. It made riding the rivet a hell of a lot easier to do. I wouldn't hesitate to buy a bike with a 74 degree STA again.

That's because crits tend to favor riders who have insane, terminator-like urges during the race.

ps I'm not kidding -- much.

e-RICHIE
12-03-2007, 07:14 PM
When racing crits I loved the 74 degree seat tube angle on my 57cm Klein and my 58cm Coppi. It made riding the rivet a hell of a lot easier to do.
don't you ride the rivet in road races atmo?

stevep
12-03-2007, 07:15 PM
Make them ride a Scott.

Dave
anybody on here ride a scott?
just curious

saab2000
12-03-2007, 07:16 PM
My best racing bike is my Look. I would be happy to race it in a stage race or a criterium.

I don't know quite what the difference would be.

That said, my Serotta CIII would probably be more suited for road races than Criteriums and the diving into corners at high speed.

J.Greene
12-03-2007, 07:17 PM
When racing crits I loved the 74 degree seat tube angle on my 57cm Klein and my 58cm Coppi. It made riding the rivet a hell of a lot easier to do. I wouldn't hesitate to buy a bike with a 74 degree STA again.

I find I do best when I can get in and out of the corners smoothly. The more speed I carry in the less I have to make up coming out. For me crits are all about corners. Not sure how sta has much to do with that. I love crits, but I think I like cross now more.

JG

Fat Robert
12-03-2007, 07:18 PM
anybody on here ride a scott?
just curious

i had a CR1

my pacenti kicks the crap out of it

pacenti = makes me want to scream down descents

scott = makes me want to scream, down descents

Fat Robert
12-03-2007, 07:20 PM
My best racing bike is my Look. I would be happy to race it in a stage race or a criterium.

I don't know quite what the difference would be.

That said, my Serotta CIII would probably be more suited for road races than Criteriums and the diving into corners at high speed.

yeah

your look has a 72.5 sta, 74 sta...probably 5.0 of trail...and a very trad 7cm bb drop

fiamme red
12-03-2007, 07:21 PM
Didn't Serotta make a criterium frame? The Davis Phinney model, I think it was?

Fixed
12-03-2007, 07:28 PM
Didn't Serotta make a criterium frame? The Davis Phinney model, I think it was?
since i'm sad poor old cannondale he worked for them as well
cheers

avalonracing
12-03-2007, 08:15 PM
don't you ride the rivet in road races atmo?
Yeah, I do that too. I pretty much ride the rivet all the time. That's why I wouldn't hesitate to buy another frame with an 74 STA (although no one seems to make them, stock). Hmmm, I wonder if someone would build one?

e-RICHIE
12-03-2007, 08:21 PM
Yeah, I do that too. I pretty much ride the rivet all the time. That's why I wouldn't hesitate to buy another frame with an 74 STA (although no one seems to make them, stock). Hmmm, I wonder if someone would build one?
the angle has nothing to do with the intended
use of the frame atmo. all it does is position you.

Redturbo
12-03-2007, 08:26 PM
anybody on here ride a scott?
just curious

eye wood

Grant McLean
12-03-2007, 08:54 PM
the angle has nothing to do with the intended
use of the frame atmo. all it does is position you.


It's just an observation...
but these days I see a lot of bikes with the seat pretty far forward.
Some of the folks I've asked, how did they determine their saddle position?
...and several responded "that's where I installed the seat when I bought a new one"

How widely practiced is the idea of the fit starting with cleats and saddle set back ?
From the number of straight/no offset posts get purchased at our shop,
and the number of stems between 8 and 10 cm... It would make you think
that people are smaller than a generation of riders ago... Or do people just
move their seat forward to reduce the reach when their back hurts?

just askin'

-g

e-RICHIE
12-03-2007, 09:08 PM
It's just an observation...
but these days I see a lot of bikes with the seat pretty far forward.
Some of the folks I've asked, how did they determine their saddle position?
...and several responded "that's where I installed the seat when I bought a new one"
we all were new once atmo.
How widely practiced is the idea of the fit starting with cleats and saddle set back ?
around here it's a 4 lane highway atmo.
one direction, at that.
From the number of straight/no offset posts get purchased at our shop,
and the number of stems between 8 and 10 cm... It would make you think
that people are smaller than a generation of riders ago...
i am big.
it's the pictures that got small.
apologies to norma desmond.
Or do people just
move their seat forward to reduce the reach when their back hurts?
ackkkkkkk.
the universe is expanding. the universe is everything, and if
it's expanding, someday it will break apart and that will be
the end of everything atmo.
apologies to alvy singer.

DarrenCT
12-03-2007, 09:20 PM
rs,

that blonde youtube girl has been on my mind all day.

whoz fault is it!?!

I Want Sachs?
12-03-2007, 09:30 PM
http://www.steelmancycles.com/sr.html

Darrell
12-03-2007, 09:43 PM
it's a mythical niche born out of the misinformed writings of
cyclojournalists for whom riding was a hobby at best atmo.
i feel better now.

agreed

Chris
12-03-2007, 09:46 PM
It's just an observation...
but these days I see a lot of bikes with the seat pretty far forward.
Some of the folks I've asked, how did they determine their saddle position?
...and several responded "that's where I installed the seat when I bought a new one"

How widely practiced is the idea of the fit starting with cleats and saddle set back ?
From the number of straight/no offset posts get purchased at our shop,
and the number of stems between 8 and 10 cm... It would make you think
that people are smaller than a generation of riders ago... Or do people just
move their seat forward to reduce the reach when their back hurts?

just askin'

-g

Good question. I have played with my position a lot over the years. I am now the slightest bit forward from the center of the rails on a Thomson no set back post. This frustrates me, because I don't like the aesthetic. I have moved forward to get a little more knee over the pedal spindle and I have two Cannondales which have 72.5 degree seat angles which has caused me to have to come a little more forward on the rails compared to previous bikes that were more upright in their seat angles (73 - 73.5). I did a lot of looking at different frames today and it seems that in a 59 or 60, 72.5 is now the norm. I would love to edge the seat back ever so slightly though to get back that element of kewl. Someone please tell me that I should...

Darrell
12-03-2007, 09:51 PM
so far we have a consensus atmo.
hang the cyclojournalists.

NO

A public stoning is more fun
because we get to participate

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNeq2Utm0nU&feature=related

1centaur
12-03-2007, 10:12 PM
Despite the negativity to those cyclojournalists, the description earlier in this thread of angles and lengths is EXACTLY what comes to mind when I hear "stage race geometry" and is exactly what I like in a bike, so I'm happy there's a shorthand term for it, regardless of its origin.

taz-t
12-03-2007, 10:18 PM
.

e-RICHIE
12-03-2007, 10:20 PM
Despite the negativity to those cyclojournalists, the description earlier in this thread of angles and lengths is EXACTLY what comes to mind when I hear "stage race geometry" and is exactly what I like in a bike, so I'm happy there's a shorthand term for it, regardless of its origin.
if you are not comfortable or properly positioned,
you may not finish the race (and win). atmo, the
term should be appropriated to mean that said bicycle
with stage race geometry is the best design whenever
there is an event with a finish line and a prize list atmo.

manet
12-03-2007, 10:27 PM
.

Grant McLean
12-03-2007, 10:49 PM
Despite the negativity to those cyclojournalists, the description earlier in this thread of angles and lengths is EXACTLY what comes to mind when I hear "stage race geometry" and is exactly what I like in a bike, so I'm happy there's a shorthand term for it, regardless of its origin.

The negativity isn't aimed at the geo,
it's saved for those who want to put said geo in a box.
so called "Stage race geo" makes a great crit bike, imho,
it just makes a great bike - period.

If "stage race geo" was the classic european way to
set up a race bike, at some point a genius decided that
they could made a better bicycle for crits by making a
specialized geo for criteriums. they were wrong, imho.

-g

caleb
12-03-2007, 11:23 PM
a genius decided that
they could made a better bicycle for crits by making a
specialized geo for criteriums. they were wrong, imho.

-g

Like this?

swoop
12-03-2007, 11:47 PM
refrigerated saddle bags and a sharpie to make legible labels?

i think its shorthand for some one aspect of geo in isolation of the others centering around bb drop.. but who knows? blech.

RIHans
12-04-2007, 01:58 AM
the angle has nothing to do with the intended
use of the frame atmo. all it does is position you.


When are they gonna drink the cool-aid?

Folks, it's all about fit. Contact points. How You Feel around that nasty lefthander with a bump. Confident?

And good wheels don't hurt at all.

Edit.... The bike should be where I want it to be.

How to say, the bike goes where I look ahead.

1centaur
12-04-2007, 06:11 AM
Maybe we should have a contest to name that type of geometry using something other than a potential use (which I guess means "century geometry" is out as well).

I'll start: Slack-'n-low (SNL).

Crit geometry can be SNQ (steep-'n-quick).

stevep
12-04-2007, 07:39 AM
i was there when merlin developed the RSR ( road/stage race) designation for a new model.

they hoped to imply that it would edge toward more comfort and more stability for a dedicated recreational rider.

this rider ( like many here ) would admit no desire to race but they would like high performance.
hence stage race. fast but not quick handling.

the most hilarious thing about this frame is that i built one of the earliest models ( wishbone rear stay module to cut manufacturing cost ).
i built it w/ 23c michelin tires and they hit both sides on the chainstays...

funny phone call..
" hey, can someone go down to the shop and try to put a wheel into one of these frames and call me back..."

return call- 10 minutes.
" we designed it around 20c tires but we will adjust future production to accomodate 23c...'

get out the shovel.
lucky that first frame was free man...was used by a lot of racers and still is though so they got something right i guess.

merckx
12-04-2007, 08:33 AM
i was there when merlin developed the RSR ( road/stage race) designation for a new model.

they hoped to imply that it would edge toward more comfort and more stability for a dedicated recreational rider.

this rider ( like many here ) would admit no desire to race but they would like high performance.
hence stage race. fast but not quick handling.

the most hilarious thing about this frame is that i built one of the earliest models ( wishbone rear stay module to cut manufacturing cost ).
i built it w/ 23c michelin tires and they hit both sides on the chainstays...

funny phone call..
" hey, can someone go down to the shop and try to put a wheel into one of these frames and call me back..."

return call- 10 minutes.
" we designed it around 20c tires but we will adjust future production to accomodate 23c...'

get out the shovel.
lucky that first frame was free man...was used by a lot of racers and still is though so they got something right i guess.

Wasn't this frame also made from CP Ti?........to keep costs down. Lightspeed at the time was kicking Merlin's arse at that pricepoint with the Catalyst iirc.

stevep
12-04-2007, 08:41 AM
Wasn't this frame also made from CP Ti?........to keep costs down. Lightspeed at the time was kicking Merlin's arse at that pricepoint with the Catalyst iirc.

no, it was their regular alloy 3.25 ti but the thought was the rear triangles were pre built and uniform throughout the sizes. simpler.
they could never make stuff to compete w/ litespeed. their costs were much higher and their qc was better.

the original frame i spoke about was raced for 2 yrs by tim johnson, 2 years by paul mccormack, 1 yr by someone else and now its still being raced...so they held together ok.

e-RICHIE
12-04-2007, 08:47 AM
no, it was their regular alloy 3.25 ti but the thought was the rear triangles were pre built and uniform throughout the sizes. simpler.
they could never make stuff to compete w/ litespeed. their costs were much higher and their qc was better.

the original frame i spoke about was raced for 2 yrs by tim johnson, 2 years by paul mccormack, 1 yr by someone else and now its still being raced...so they held together ok.
this is an example of Puccipedia atmo.

Fixed
12-04-2007, 08:53 AM
one man quick handling bike is anothers responsive bike .


cheers imho

merckx
12-04-2007, 08:56 AM
no, it was their regular alloy 3.25 ti but the thought was the rear triangles were pre built and uniform throughout the sizes. simpler.
they could never make stuff to compete w/ litespeed. their costs were much higher and their qc was better.

the original frame i spoke about was raced for 2 yrs by tim johnson, 2 years by paul mccormack, 1 yr by someone else and now its still being raced...so they held together ok.

Agreed that qc at Merlin was in a different zipp code from Litespeed.

merckx
12-04-2007, 09:01 AM
The biggest marketing joke was the introduction of the "triathalon" bike in the early '80's. Many companies came up with a triathalon model to market to the emerging sport of triathalon. These machines were simply basement level road bikes that had the word "triathalon" somewhere on the top tube. A ton were sold.

e-RICHIE
12-04-2007, 09:14 AM
The biggest marketing joke was the introduction of the "triathalon" bike in the early '80's. Many companies came up with a triathalon model to market to the emerging sport of triathalon. These machines were simply basement level road bikes that had the word "triathalon" somewhere on the top tube. A ton were sold.
you never saw head tube pump pegs before tri.
cuzza there was no neutral support atmo.

Fixed
12-04-2007, 09:19 AM
The biggest marketing joke was the introduction of the "triathalon" bike in the early '80's. Many companies came up with a triathalon model to market to the emerging sport of triathalon. These machines were simply basement level road bikes that had the word "triathalon" somewhere on the top tube. A ton were sold.
bro the san diego tuesday ride in the early 80's i did it and it was full of tri cats and uscf cats they were all better than me . before scott bars
remember john howard he was pretty good
cheers

merckx
12-04-2007, 09:20 AM
you never saw head tube pump pegs before tri.
cuzza there was no neutral support atmo.

this is an example of atmopedia atmo.

soulspinner
12-04-2007, 10:11 AM
Scotts dont hold up with fat guys on em... :p

Dave
12-04-2007, 10:40 AM
Good question. I have played with my position a lot over the years. I am now the slightest bit forward from the center of the rails on a Thomson no set back post. This frustrates me, because I don't like the aesthetic. I have moved forward to get a little more knee over the pedal spindle and I have two Cannondales which have 72.5 degree seat angles which has caused me to have to come a little more forward on the rails compared to previous bikes that were more upright in their seat angles (73 - 73.5). I did a lot of looking at different frames today and it seems that in a 59 or 60, 72.5 is now the norm. I would love to edge the seat back ever so slightly though to get back that element of kewl. Someone please tell me that I should...

Forget about the element of kewl or get a custom frame with a steeper STA (and shorter TT if you want the same frame reach). The STA, as you have discovered, dictates a particular seatpost offset, to produce a given range of saddle setback. About the steepest stock STA in that size range is a 73 degree, which will only move the post forward about 6mm.

I assume you've found the more forward positon preferable? There are a lot of differing opinions about saddle fore/aft position. Some will argue that the knee position relative to the pedal is irrelevant and rider balance over the saddle much more important.

When I owned a 51cm LOOK with a 72.5 STA, I used a no-setback Thomson post to produce the same saddle setback that I got with a 74-74.5 STA and a 20-25mm setback post. The looks of it didn't bother me any. I prefer the steeper STA with the setback post, but fortunately, steeper STAs are the norm on smaller frames. LOOK no longer uses the laid back 72.5 degree STA on their frames. The largest model 585 has a 73 degree STA.

Chris
12-04-2007, 10:51 AM
Forget about the element of kewl or get a custom frame with a steeper STA (and shorter TT if you want the same frame reach). The STA, as you have discovered, dictates a particular seatpost offset, to produce a given range of saddle setback. About the steepest stock STA in that size range is a 73 degree, which will only move the post forward about 6mm.

I assume you've found the more forward positon preferable? There are a lot of differing opinions about saddle fore/aft position. Some will argue that the knee position relative to the pedal is irrelevant and rider balance over the saddle much more important.

When I owned a 51cm LOOK with a 72.5 STA, I used a no-setback Thomson post to produce the same saddle setback that I got with a 74-74.5 STA and a 20-25mm setback post. The looks of it didn't bother me any. I prefer the steeper STA with the setback post, but fortunately, steeper STAs are the norm on smaller frames. LOOK no longer uses the laid back 72.5 degree STA on their frames. The largest model 585 has a 73 degree STA.

I'm trying to find that sweet spot. I got wrapped up in "the proper position" and moved my seat forward because of that, despite having ridden a little further back for years. It's funny how you do just fine when you don't know any better, but once you hear that you aren't set up according to some mythological construct that is accepted as proper, all of a sudden you need to get that way as quickly as possible, despite the fact that things have been working okay before...

e-RICHIE
12-04-2007, 10:53 AM
...but once you hear that you aren't set up according to some mythological construct that is accepted as proper, all of a sudden you need to get that way as quickly as possible, despite the fact that things have been working okay before...
the lemond position atmo.
get the rope.

Dave
12-04-2007, 11:03 AM
I'm trying to find that sweet spot. I got wrapped up in "the proper position" and moved my seat forward because of that, despite having ridden a little further back for years. It's funny how you do just fine when you don't know any better, but once you hear that you aren't set up according to some mythological construct that is accepted as proper, all of a sudden you need to get that way as quickly as possible, despite the fact that things have been working okay before...

I've done the same thing, but I don't pay much attention to the wide variety of opinions I've read. Instead, I try things myself. I've moved the saddle over a 3-4cm range over the years. Real far back takes weight off your hands, and seems to to permit me to apply more torque to the pedals, but reduces my highest cadence. It may also lighten the front of the bike enough that cornering ability is compromised. Too far forward makes for a great spin, but may reduce the torque I can apply and weights the hands. Somewhere in between there is a sweetspot. For me it's on the further back side of the range.

davids
12-04-2007, 11:34 AM
I've done the same thing, but I don't pay much attention to the wide variety of opinions I've read. Instead, I try things myself. I've moved the saddle over a 3-4cm range over the years. Real far back takes weight off your hands, and seems to to permit me to apply more torque to the pedals, but reduces my highest cadence. It may also lighten the front of the bike enough that cornering ability is compromised. Too far forward makes for a great spin, but may reduce the torque I can apply and weights the hands. Somewhere in between there is a sweetspot. For me it's on the further back side of the range.
Balance between using the quads and glutes. I'm forward from where I was 2 years ago, but not by much - I want to stay between the wheels...

zeroking17
12-04-2007, 11:43 AM
the lemond position atmo.


I thought this was stage fright geometry.

Ti Designs
12-04-2007, 11:43 AM
the crit bike feels nervous and it is. ain't any faster in a crit. the stage race bike feels confident and relaxed.


Before they can call a bike a crit bike or a road race bike or a climbing bike, shouldn't they first qualify the rider?

I had two riders I coached on the same bike - same size, same model, same color. One would slow to a crawl at any bend in the road, the other would push it to the limits in corners. Is one a crit bike and the other not? I've always found that the best bike matches the skills and ability of the rider. Crit bikes (bikes with steep angles and less rake) don't feel nervous under the riders who have the reflexes to get the most out of them. My own bike is almost track geometry with road drop-outs, but I think of it as the all purpose bike.

Calling a bike crit geometry or stage geometry is just a marketing ploy to sell to those who the name appeals to, nothing more. Comfort comes from fit - why not say size 10 shoes are the most comfortable? They are for me! The only thing more common in the bike industry than chinese carbon fiber is marketing BS. Stage geometry - sounds like it should be on Broadway. Women's Specific Design - specificly doens't fit many women. Optimal geometry - for whom??? There's marketing and there's cycling - the two have very little in common.

Fixed
12-04-2007, 11:48 AM
but my wife teaches art in a local jr. college and her kids tell her they know how to paint and don't need advise the thing is they don't know how to paint but they think they do ..
cheers

e-RICHIE
12-04-2007, 11:48 AM
Calling a bike crit geometry or stage geometry is just a marketing ploy to sell to
those who the name appeals to, nothing more. <cut> There's marketing and
there's cycling - the two have very little in common.
atmo -

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/6304429703.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

djg
12-04-2007, 01:58 PM
but my wife teaches art in a local jr. college and her kids tell her they know how to paint and don't need advise the thing is they don't know how to paint but they think they do ..
cheers

That's ok fixed ... it's suboptimal day-to-day for your wife's teaching and the kids' learning, but it keeps them in the game. If they had a better sense of how hard and unlikely it is to be really good, and how easy it is to fail, they'd probably just quit. And they're too young to quit.

fiamme red
12-12-2007, 03:28 PM
http://www.belgiumkneewarmers.com/2007/12/guys-who-ride-stuff-they-sell.html

His bikes have never been the lightest on the planet, nor the very stiffest. What they do offer can be called all-day comfort, sufficient stiffness and handling so finely balanced you'd think the bike was designed with the aid of the Golden Mean. He describes it as stage-race geometry: bicycles meant to be ridden well by even the most fatigued legs. To ride a Torelli, fairly put, is to know what Bill believes to be a good time.

This paragraph is followed by a photo of e-RICHIE riding his bike, not getting the noose ready. Irony. :D

e-RICHIE
12-12-2007, 03:38 PM
http://www.belgiumkneewarmers.com/2007/12/guys-who-ride-stuff-they-sell.html

His bikes have never been the lightest on the planet, nor the very stiffest. What they do offer can be called all-day comfort, sufficient stiffness and handling so finely balanced you'd think the bike was designed with the aid of the Golden Mean. He describes it as stage-race geometry: bicycles meant to be ridden well by even the most fatigued legs. To ride a Torelli, fairly put, is to know what Bill believes to be a good time.

This paragraph is followed by a photo of e-RICHIE riding his bike, not getting the noose ready. Irony. :D
man i am one fit looking mutha effr atmo.

Ti Designs
12-12-2007, 03:52 PM
man i am one fit looking mutha effr atmo.

Look here, next year I get to race in the geezer catagory. I've been looking forward to this since I started in the senior catagory and had my legs ripped off and handed back to me. I feel I speak for all racers in their early 40's when I ask the fast guys to slow down and get old.

e-RICHIE
12-12-2007, 03:54 PM
Look here, next year I get to race in the geezer catagory. I've been looking forward to this since I started in the senior catagory and had my legs ripped off and handed back to me. I feel I speak for all racers in their early 40's when I ask the fast guys to slow down and get old.
i'm looking forward to giving you the look atmo.

Ti Designs
12-12-2007, 04:12 PM
i'm looking forward to giving you the look atmo.

I can just see it. 19 turns to the top, having spent all of his teammates setting the pace to this point, Sachs reaches back into his jersey pocket, pulls out his reading glasses so he can look into the eyes of...

swoop
12-12-2007, 08:04 PM
http://www.belgiumkneewarmers.com/2007/12/guys-who-ride-stuff-they-sell.html

His bikes have never been the lightest on the planet, nor the very stiffest. What they do offer can be called all-day comfort, sufficient stiffness and handling so finely balanced you'd think the bike was designed with the aid of the Golden Mean. He describes it as stage-race geometry: bicycles meant to be ridden well by even the most fatigued legs. To ride a Torelli, fairly put, is to know what Bill believes to be a good time.

This paragraph is followed by a photo of e-RICHIE riding his bike, not getting the noose ready. Irony. :D


trust me.. i'll be giving the writer of that bit of blogginess a dose next time i see him.

Oirad
12-12-2007, 08:27 PM
That's ok fixed ... it's suboptimal day-to-day for your wife's teaching and the kids' learning, but it keeps them in the game. If they had a better sense of how hard and unlikely it is to be really good, and how easy it is to fail, they'd probably just quit. And they're too young to quit.

djg gets it, imho.-- Oirad

1centaur
12-12-2007, 08:38 PM
Maybe we should have a contest to name that type of geometry using something other than a potential use (which I guess means "century geometry" is out as well).

I'll start: Slack-'n-low (SNL).

Crit geometry can be SNQ (steep-'n-quick).

How could I forget HSG? Of course, it IS possible to ride slowly on a bike with HSG.

Then there's ERG (e-Richie Geometry) which is hard to define but biomechanically optimal.

capybaras
12-12-2007, 08:59 PM
I think it is like this

boissy
12-12-2007, 09:24 PM
I think it is like this

or this. oh wait this is track