Posts, posts, posts (sung to Spam, spam...)

[William]

Ok,
This may sound like a stupid question, but I'm going to ask anyway.

Why does it seem to be ok for a LOT of post to be showing on a MT bike, but not on a road bike? A lot of frames that have sloping top tubes are showing a lot. Many of the riders in the Tour seemed to be riding bikes with long stems and many had had lots of post showing as well. What gives? Is the move to so called "compact " frames shifting the tide?

The things I think about when I'm out riding (Oh yeah, and the Jerks Hoochie). :eek: :D

William

[dirtdigger88]

Only my take...

The pros ride what they are told to ride by the sponsors. Many of the larger bike companies are pushing the compact frames so they only have to make four sizes of frame versus what something like 13- 15 sizes with standard geo.? Average joe wants to rides what he sees the pros ride, if the bike companies want to sell compact frame- the pros need to be on them.

The compact geo. makes since on MTB because stand over height is so important when off road. How often do you jump/fall/get tossed off your road bike- hopefully not very often. If I go out on my MTB and don't jump/fall/get tossed off at least three time, I did not ride hard enough.

Again, only my opinion- feel free to tell me I am wrong- but I am not.

Jason

[93legendti]

There are a few more considerations, but the issue is so ripe for flame wars I don't have the energy to bother...just think about lighter weight, tighter main triangles, longer posts and the effect that may have on effeciency and rider comfort. My Strong 6/4 is a compact and I ride the same 250 mm length post as I do on my Ottrott.

[Peter]

Longer posts are necessary on mountain bikes to provide a measure of safety when bailing out in dicey terrain.

On road frames, it's a gimmick, pure and simple. You may be told the smaller tubes are "stiffer" and the bike lighter, but the resultant seatpost is longer which offsets any weight savings. As for the stiffness issue, know that stiffness is over-rated and comfort is a good quality to have. As long as you don't get chain rub and the bike tracks a straight line under severe pedalling forces, it's stiff enough.

One benefit of "compact" frames is you can lower the seat tube and elevate the head tube end of the top tube, thus providing more comfortable handlebar height, without losing standover clearance.

If you ask me, it was a solution in search of a problem...

[dirtdigger88]

There are a few more considerations, but the issue is so ripe for flame wars I don't have the energy to bother...just think about lighter weight, tighter main triangles, longer posts and the effect that may have on effeciency and rider comfort. My Strong 6/4 is a compact and I ride the same 250 mm length post as I do on my Ottrott.

I have thougt about all of those- and I still hold my origingal position. Please don't get me wrong- I am not saying there is anything wrong with compact geo. if you like them- great enjoy. HOwever, they are not lighter, tighter, or more comfortable. It is all about VISUAL. I have read some articles where there has been talk about a perceived "lightening" of the bike. In other words the bike is in reality not lighter- but it felt lighter when rocking the bike side to side on a hard sprint. Bottom line is this- in manufacturing, the less variables the less cost. think back to Henry Ford and his all black model T.

Jason

[Smiley]

well said Peter .

[george]

My Serotta Couer d'Acier is much "smaller" than my Rock Lobster. I am 6'8" weigh 210 pounds. When I was measured for my Rock Lobster, it basicly involved height, weight, inseam, arm lenth, and how far I can touch my toes! As opposed to the Serotta professional fit. Here are the specs for my two giant green road machines...(my serotta I named my giant green extravagant road racing machine!) Ksyrium Elite wheels with full Dura Ace. :)




SEROTTA Rock Lobster
seat tube lenth 60.00 67.00
top tube lenth 59.70 62.50
seat tube angle 72.00 72.00
top tube downslope 7.00 none
head tube 24.20 26.00
wheelbase 101.89 105.5
crank lenth 180.00 175.00
stem lenth 130.00 120.00
handle bar width 42.00 44.00

[93legendti]

I have thougt about all of those- and I still hold my origingal position. Please don't get me wrong- I am not saying there is anything wrong with compact geo. if you like them- great enjoy. HOwever, they are not lighter, tighter, or more comfortable. It is all about VISUAL. I have read some articles where there has been talk about a perceived "lightening" of the bike. In other words the bike is in reality not lighter- but it felt lighter when rocking the bike side to side on a hard sprint. Bottom line is this- in manufacturing, the less variables the less cost. think back to Henry Ford and his all black model T.

Jason

Have you ridden a compact? My Strong Compact 6/4 DB Reynolds ti bike is the best bike I have ridden. Fastest and most comfortable bike I have.

[dirtdigger88]

Yes I have ridden a compact. I had access to a Seven for a couple hundred miles- yes it was a nice bike. I am not saying that a compact can't be a nice bike. I just don't think they are superior to a standard frame but I don't think a standard frame frame is superior. You can get your dream ride in any shape you want- in the end- it is all about how the bike looks. You either like the compact look or you don't. The original question was why do you see more compact frames in the pro ranks- my answer was because that is what the bike companies want the pros on. They want the pro on them so the weekend warrior will go out and by one. Now the companies can make four sizes of frame to fit everyone. That lowers manufacturing cost- and the companies make more money. I re read my prior posts- I did not pass judgement on how compact frames rode- did I? :confused: In the end they are only bicycles after all

jason

[93legendti]

I agree!

[William]

The original question was why do you see more compact frames in the pro ranks- my answer was because that is what the bike companies want the pros on.

(Playing the devils advocate here) :)

But do they? We all know that no one in the tour was riding Huffy's. There are many instances of riders/teams riding disguised frames. Are you sure they are riding what the "companies" want?


William

[Dr. Doofus]

Dear William:

Yes, indeed they are. For example, look at the Pego...someone's AL frames Mssrs Ulrich and Zabel were on earlier this year. The Jerk could, perhaps, inform us as to what teams were on frames made by the Billato brothers in the last few years. The board is well aware of the "Specialized" bikes Cipo rode in his great MSR year, and how they could pass for the sponsor's unless you were very close.... If your Doctor were a framebuilder worthy of such a request, he would love the challenge of building a frame that did things the way he and his client wanted it to, but kept the visual cues of the sponsor's product...not counterfeit, but "cloaked revision"...as in "here is how you *should* have done it, if you knew how to build a frame like me...."

And, after all that shopping around, your Doctor will not be getting an Orbea, or the jerk's "Flandria"...nope, now that he has the chance to work with someone who knows more about training than anyone your Doc has ever met, here or elsewhere, that bike money is going into said mystery man's pocket...the Corsa will remain the race bike of choice.


Your Humble servant,


Dr. D. Doofus, Esq.

[Dr. Doofus]

Dear Serottans:

A useless point: your Doctor strongly suspects that the Billatos have made every bike that carried a "Decathlon" label in the pro peloton. Mr. Jerk, any ideas? Perhaps they also made the "Ridleys" for Mr. Bookmaker?

At any rate, the steel and alloy Marin road bikes were made by Billato, and they are fine...the AL is awfully stiff, but they are good bikes....


Your Trivial Servant,


Dr. D. Doofus, Esq.