Ottrott test ride

[92degrees]

:eek:


I had a nice test ride on an Ottrott yesterday. Big, big mistake. I wanted some time on a bike with the ST stay before considering it for a Legend (my dream -- read "stretch!" -- bike). Now I'm bitten.

I had a fitful night's sleep punctuated by Ottrott dreams. Thought I'd share with some that might empathize!

Hard part is I'm not sure if I'm trying to talk myself into or out of the bike. :confused:

[Climb01742]

always trust your butt. but i'd go back for another test ride, if possible. try a different route, over different roads and terrain. for the price of an ottrott, be sure you love it. if you do, well, life is short...do it! ;)

[92degrees]

Good advice, thanks. Fortunately the shop is local so I was riding my "normal" roads. I tested an Elium for a couple weeks ( :D ) on the same roads so that's made for a nice comparison. I wish I could ride a Legend ST in my size out here but there isn't one available. The Ottrott was very close to my size and was adjusted by my Serotta fitter to come as close as possible.

It's tough to guestimate how different the Legend would be. Anyone own both?

[GONE4ARIDE]

FWIW, I have owned (3) Legends since they were introduced. Having had the opportunity to ride many other bikes over the years, I always considered the Legend to be the best all around race bike that I had ever owned /ridden. That was until this year - enter Ottrott ST. I must say that when I plunked down the $$$ for the Ottrott, I was skeptical that I would see much difference between the two. As I began to put miles on the Ottrott, it became quickly evident to me that this bike had all of the positive virtues of the Legend, but with extra snap (especially noticeable when sprinting and climbing out of the saddle) and a ride quality like no other. I know I am speaking somewhat in generalities here, but I make these comments having put many, many 1000 miles on both bikes (similarly equipped incl. identical wheel/tire combos).

Would I purchase another Legend Ti - absolutely in a heartbeat. Do I think the Ottrott ST offers something more in terms of perfomance and ride - yes. Is the Ottrott worth the extra $$$?? Only you can answer that question for yourself. For me, it is w/o question.

GONE4ASKI TODAY

[Climb01742]

As I began to put miles on the Ottrott, it became quickly evident to me that this bike had all of the positive virtues of the Legend, but with extra snap (especially noticeable when sprinting and climbing out of the saddle) and a ride quality like no other.

gone, that extra snap was exactly what i wanted in my ottrott but was missing...any idea what created it in yours? thanks.

[92degrees]

Thanks GONE4ARIDE, that's exactly the kind of opinion I'm seeking. Or, dreading. Which was it again? Thanks!

[GONE4ARIDE]

gone, that extra snap was exactly what i wanted in my ottrott but was missing...any idea what created it in yours? thanks.

Climbo,

I went with the firm flex tubes on the Ottrott + OS chainstays. My most recent Legend had the OS tubeset incl. OS c-stays. The Legend was plenty stiff, but the Ottrott just has more of that nice snappy response when you stomp on the pedals. Gotta be the extra torsional rigidity of carbon tubes I suspect.

I honestly couldn't be any happier with my Ottrott. It has greatly exceeded my expectations and I was definately skeptical that there would be much perceptible difference (from my Legend) when I took the plunge. Only problem with it from my perspective is that the investment is so great that I shy away from taking it out on race day.

[Dekonick]

2 words: OWNERS CLUB (crash insurance)

[GONE4ARIDE]

2 words: OWNERS CLUB (crash insurance)
Got it. But even with that, I still think twice . . . .

[93legendti]

I have both, but my '93 Legend is probably more like a Concours. My Ottrott doesn't have ST stays either, so I am not sure my opinion/experience will help you...

[Skrawny]

I know what you mean, 92. I am going to buy my first Serotta and made the mistake of riding the Legend ST. Best bike I've ever ridden (granted: there are a lot more people with more experience on this site, but I also rode a bunch of Sevens too). Now income opportunities have fizzled, however, and I'm going to test a Fierte instead of my dream Legend ST. I pray that the Fierte will represent, but fear that I will be left holding the torch for a Legend ST.

By the way, what do you guys think about buying Ultegra instead of DA and spending the money saved on wheels? A good trade off?

-s

[93legendti]

Sure, get Ultegra and get great wheels. Also the local LBS says the Fierte is one HELL of a bike...

[mikemets]

I know what you mean, 92. I am going to buy my first Serotta and made the mistake of riding the Legend ST. Best bike I've ever ridden (granted: there are a lot more people with more experience on this site, but I also rode a bunch of Sevens too). Now income opportunities have fizzled, however, and I'm going to test a Fierte instead of my dream Legend ST. I pray that the Fierte will represent, but fear that I will be left holding the torch for a Legend ST.

By the way, what do you guys think about buying Ultegra instead of DA and spending the money saved on wheels? A good trade off?

-s

thought I'd post this just in case it was of interst:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=7298&item=7122120314&rd=1

[jerk]

yo- 92 degrees. go buy the ****tiest steel frame that matches the geometry of the ottrot you liked. put some crappy parts on it and get some ada wheels and dugast tubulars and you'll be golden. as long as the frame is straight and made with a good geometry it'll be fine....good wheels and tires trump a whole lot....everything the jerk would suppose save a correct geometry...oh, and the nut on the seat.

jerk

[saab2000]

Mr. Jerk,

I hope that what you say is true. I have just received the fork for my Merckx Majestic Ti. This will be my first real Euro bike since a while. I have heard nothing but good about Merckxs and I am excited to try it out.

My last one was a Peugeot which I finally had to throw away. It truly was getting too rusty. But it was a pretty good bike otherwise. early 80s 531. Most people would smirk, but I had some fine results on that bike and it was the one I rode Corestates on in '91......

Those French actually do know something 'bout bikes.

Still, I am intrigued by an Ottrott. I am a bit tipsy tonight and even tho I lived in France and speak French pretty well, I cannot look at Ottrott and not say it without saying, "aht trott".... sorry Ben. :beer:

[jerk]

saab-
you'll like it. it's a solid decent bike. what fork did you put on it? how are you going to build it? you know it is awful, but there are so many awful looking custom ottrotts out there that the jerk is not intrigued at all by what is for all objective accounts a truly wonderful world class bike....the jerk is not trying to make a dig at anyone or their bikes but so many ottrots have super short top tubes...super long head tubes, super short stems and no exposed seat post and just look like awful riding bicycles.....the jerk probably deserves the abuse he's about to get. (yeah, the jerk knows a 54 cm frame with 58.5 cm top tube and a 19cm seat to bar drop with 140 stem would be equally awful and rtide horribly blah, blah, blah...) but at what point should the custom builder say, "no, we won't build that bike...." does anyone live under the illusion that the little bit "extra" a high end frame like an ottrot gives a rider can be maintained when the geometry it is produced in has nothing to do with the type of riding where that little bit "extra" would be felt? sorry kids, the jerk is really not trying to push any buttons here. the jerk is just speaking out of turn.
jerk

[Matt Barkley]

not to mention steeper than necessary seat-tube angles and too-much concern for that toe-overlap thing. Ready for the flak... - :beer: -Matt

[92degrees]

jerk, i'd gladly send you my geometry to weigh in on. see my other thread. :cool:

[dbrk]

I shouldn't say anything 'cause it's gonna get me in trouble too...but I am so with the jerk about this Ottrott thing and most of the examples I see I see just the same way. When I look at the fit solutions and the designs I think to myself "if they wanted less saddle/bar drop why not create a far better solution, like something that Rivendell does or those who actually _design_ non-race bikes (that list is actually not that long)...but why subject a race bike to something it is not?" Sure, Serottas are custom and that strikes me as about half the problem: goofy solutions to a relatively simple set of problems so long as you aren't working from racer traditions. If we go with stock examples then I realized this with my last C40 which I tried to fit to my own truest preferences. No go. I can ride a C40 like a race bike, with more saddle/bar drop, the way it's supposed to be ridden; I like race bikes and their fits but it's not a good idea to make a racerish bike into what is effectively a randonneur/audax and I _prefer_ a randonneur _most_ of the time. So what I see when I see many Ottrotts (like the jerk I mean to single out no one and no one's bike!) are bikes with angles, forks, dispositions that are would-be racers but then set up for fits that are essentially randonneur and in a style closer to the standard old French (these bikes had very slack angles, way more trail, and worked from the largest frame you can stand over as a starting point, none of which are part of the American traditions...). Folks will rave over their bikes and that's swell but the riser stems, spacers, etc are not only ugly, they are making something I just can't fathom as either beautiful or, honestly, all that correct. Of course, what do I know. 'Nough said. I will go away now...Don't yell at me, it's just another ranting opinion. Yours is just as good as mine.

dbrk

[dbrk]

not to mention steeper than necessary seat-tube angles and too-much concern for that toe-overlap thing. Ready for the flak... - :beer: -Matt

Yes indeed on the first point. Perhaps not on the second. No Singer or Herse, for example, would permit toe clip overlap (though I confess never to have seen a really tiny frame or the solution for one). Why? Because when you are riding really long distances and sometimes pretty slow when you pull up to a stop, the last thing you need is to touch your foot to the fender (yes, fenders...for if you ride in the wet without fenders then you never ride in front of me...) and spill over. I know my pal GP has written that TCO is over-rated, and on race bikes that rarely go slow, so it is. But on a true audax bike, the kind that routinely has a fit solution that allows less bar/saddle drop than we see on nearly any race bike (of any era), TCO must not exist; it's that simple.

I figure this comment is the least of my worries once I hear from those who love their steep angled bikes with short chainstays, piles of spacers, and riser stems...INCOMING!

oh well,

dbrk

[dirtdigger88]

this is gonna get interesting. . . I am willing to bet THIS becomes the most viewed post in a loooooong time- :beer:


jason

[Climb01742]

i don't disagree with the jerk or douglas. but kelly bedford is a very knowledgeable, talented guy. there must be another side to the argument, i'd imagine. i'd hate to think these ottrotts were being built simply to sell a frame. i'd guess (hope?) there is a design rationale arguing for such geo's.

[dirtdigger88]

Everybody join me in the Image Gallery!!!! Lets all take a look :D

jason

[slowgoing]

"i'd hate to think these ottrotts were being built simply to sell a frame"

Hey, we're a bunch of old fart, inflexible, non-racing but can afford racing frame kindsa people. Of course they look like hybrid racer-angled/comfort- fitted bikes -- that's what they are. Heck, that's what the Serotta fitting technicians tell us we need. Who said they have to be purty too?

It's not limited to otros either.

Wouldn't have it any other way.

[TriJim]

Since I see that frame fit and geometry are not controversial :rolleyes:;
what are the most popular / best looking color combinations for the Ottrott?

[Len J]

Senor Jerk:

Maybe I'm the dumb one in the group.....but I don't entirely get this.

Maybe I'm setting myself up here but I really want to understand this. I read your "generlizations" and am unable to make the leap and apply it to my own circumatnces.....and understand what exactly would change in the way the bike would handle.

I have an Ottrott. Dimensions are as follows:

St 57
TT 57.5
Slope 2 Degrees on TT
HT Length 18.56
SA 73 degrees
Seat to bar drop is 4 cm

I use a 110 stem with 10cm reach bars (which I think is an important measurement that is oft ignored in these discussions about stem length BTW)

I've attached a picture the only difference between this and what i described is that I've since changed out the bars from the wcs bars (9 cm reach) to Nitto bars with a 10 cm reach.

If I understand your point of view, you think that my geometry should have been something like:

TT of 55
Stem of 14 And instead of an 84 degree stem a 73 degree.
ST 55
No sloping TT and there fore a drop of around 9 CM

Please explain to me what handling differences I might expect if the bike was designed this way.

I've been riding for 30 years. Admitidly I've never raced. This is the best handling bike I've ever been on. Quick without being twitchy. Stable at speed. Incredibly confidence inspiring.

What specifically would change.

Thanks for the education.

Len

[dbrk]

Not for anything and who cares what I think but that's a good looking example. If the jerk thinks your stem is too short, I think your chainstays are too short but that's because I think everyone's chainstays (except racers) are too short.

I leave stems to the jerk, I'm a chainstays kinda' guy,

dbrk

[Andreu]

I am no "fit expert" but there are only three contact points (feet, hands, and a*se) I suspect that there are a myriad of ways to get these on a bike and Serotta choose their way. Its a kind of a "Mercedes 2+2 version" of a sports car. It's comfy. It works for some people. There are other ways to "skin the cat".

I would bet money that bikes with strange looking top tubes and stems could be set up in a slightly different way (alluded to in various posts by two or three other people) to give an equally comfortable fit. That is not to say Serotta is not comfy - it is just the way they do things there, it's their way & their culture. I am now not even sure being or having a strange body shape warrants some of the set-ups I have seen....which to me are not pleasing to the eye which is a completely different argument.

I have yet to read anything to disprove my halfbaked-tinpot theories on fit - some one purleeeeease put me out of my misery and disprove me.

Ta La,
A

[92degrees]

I would bet money that bikes with strange looking top tubes and stems could be set up in a slightly different way (alluded to in various posts by two or three other people) to give an equally comfortable fit. That is not to say Serotta is not comfy - it is just the way they do things there, it's their way & their culture. I am now not even sure being or having a strange body shape warrants some of the set-ups I have seen....which to me are not pleasing to the eye which is a completely different argument. A

This is exactly the impetus for my other thread -- I've had my fit, and if that fit is valid, based on the fitter's read of my flexibilty/optimal position, current ride, and how I looked/felt on the fit cycle -- then I still am left wondering if my needs are being met in the optimal way.

[Ray]

I am no "fit expert" but there are only three contact points (feet, hands, and a*se) I suspect that there are a myriad of ways to get these on a bike and Serotta choose their way. Its a kind of a "Mercedes 2+2 version" of a sports car. It's comfy. It works for some people. There are other ways to "skin the cat".

Well, yeah, there are three contact points and you can get yourself arranged for your optimal position relative to those three contact points on almost any bike if you're willing to go to extremes with the stem and seatpost. But that doesn't mean it'll RIDE well. For this, you need to worry about weight distribution over the wheels also. What I think the Jerk and Douglas are both saying in slightly different ways is that if you're gonna ride in a fairly upright, ***-back position (which a lot of us older non-racers tend to ride in), a race bike with short chainstays and bars that are high and close to you isn't generally gonna handle worth a rat's tuchus. For a short chainstayed race bike to handle well, the rider generally needs to be more forward on the bike, with a more forward and higher saddle and more forward (and perhaps lower) bars. This has certainly been my experience. I really like riding race bikes in a somewhat aggressive position, but I'm not strong enough to really pull it off for more than very short rides. For everyday riding, I seem to need something with slightly longer stays and higher bars so that the weight from my more upright than a racer body is well distributed between the two wheels. Something closer to a randonee bike than a racer.

-Ray

[Len J]

Not for anything and who cares what I think but that's a good looking example.

dbrk

Are you saying it's a good example of the bad designs Jerk was talking about or a good example of a good design?

Thanks for the clarification.

Len

[flydhest]

Len,

I agree with dbrk, except about the chainstays :). Yours is not exactly what the Jerk had in mind. If it were truly a "race" bike, presumably the stem would be longer and there'd be more drop, but on the same frame for you. It would only need to change if you were going to go out hammering at speed in a pack. I've seen your bike in person and with you on it and I think it is spot on.

I personally think that the Jerk somewhat overstated the case in terms of the numbers of Ottrotts and such that are hybridized, but I think the point is that there are race bikes that are made into non-race bikes. My personal view is ride what you want, but be aware that more often than not, a bike used for the purpose it was designed for will make you happier. Notable exception exist, usually due to pathologies of the rider. Case in point: I ride a fixed gear (essentially) track bike as a commuter. I also commute sometimes on my Legend. But then, I'm a freak and like to weave in and out of traffic and sprint for lights. If I was doing a real commute-type commute, I'd be better off on a commuter bike.

[Andreu]

As I said I am no fit expert (and I have read the other equally interesting thread you mentioned).
I have read several posts about the variability amongst people that have been fit by different fitters (i.e. the same people but different fitters) - well that is natural - fitters are human.
What is even more interesting to me is that I have been spec'd (ie by bike shop guys (not fitters!) that have looked me up and down and made a couple of rudimentary measurements - like inside leg, height and reach) and have come up with the same bike setup within a couple of mm's every time (I am a normal shape by the way nearly 6 foot at about 73 kgs fighting fit).

I guess if you are in the middle of or close to the middle of the distribution curve then "fit" is made so much easier.
just a thought.
A

[dbrk]

Are you saying it's a good example of the bad designs Jerk was talking about or a good example of a good design?

Thanks for the clarification.

Len
Good example of a good design because it's not a race bike and it is pleasing to the eye and, well, the chainstays might be too short but that's not the end of the world...:-)

dbrk

[Sandy]

I have no problem with the jerk in almost anything that he has to say, but you repetitiously have remarked on how unpleasingly so many of the modern day bicycles look, with ht extensions, stacks of spacers, positive rise stems,... The bikes could have better designed... In addition, you have repetitiously knocked the lack of value and high cost of the Ottrott, from the original Serotta forum to a milder criticism within the new forum. Then there has been the questioning of the value of the newer component groups, as compared to the older ones.

I have an Ottrott ST with Dura-Ace 10. I am just a recreational rider, and compared to many, I am slow. I do ok for a 64 year old 220 pound cyclist. I, undoubtedly, cannot ride like you or the Jerk, nor do I have much interest in the older bikes that you find such a joy, but I, in my own way, undoubtedly have as much a cycling passion, as you. Cycling makes me feel alive and has given me a great amount of happiness, physical and emotional health, and has given me friendships that are simply not replaceable. My passion is in the process of riding the bike, along with the people I ride with.

Now the Dura-Ace 10. I think that you and others have simply missed the point about Dura-Ace 10. I don't care about the 16 tooth cog that I have in the 10 speed, that was missing in the 9 speed. I KNOW that Dura-Ace 10 will not make me faster.But, Dura-Ace 10 IS very much worth it, to me, since it gives me additional pleasure on each and every ride, period. It stops much better, shifts easier and more precisely with a better feel, is ergonomically more pleasing and the group seems very solid. It is more fun, plain and simple.


Spacers, ht extensions, positive rise stems, exposed seat posts....

a. There is more than one way to skin a cat.
b. I am older, much less flexible than you or the Jerk, have on occasion a lower back problem, have tight hamstrings,... Hence I did not want a bicycle with a relatively high standover height. I also do not like the look of a bike with a large amount of slope. So my Ottrott has 2 degrees of slope, a ht extension, and spacers. The stem is 11 cm. Originally, it was used as a 96 degree stem, but over the year of so that I have had the bike, I flipped it and moved around some spacers, so now it is an 84 degree stem. My bike did not have the steerer tube cut, and still does not, as I have the flexibility to make changes now, and later as I get older. A lot of the "race bikes" that I see, have no spacer on top have had the steerer tube cut, and have lost so much flexibility in making wanted and/or needed changes in the future.

My bike has parallel 73 degree head tube and seat tube, so it would have been quite simple to have used a larger bike. My bike is a virtual 59. I am most satisfied with it, even how it looks. I do agree with you, in that how a bike descends at speed is critical in assessing a bike. My Ottrott is amazingly stable and solid feeling in descending in the 45 plus mph range. It gives a feeling of great confidence. The bike works quite well. Actually amazingly well, even with its 11 cm stem, ht extension, spacers.....

In 1998 I test rode some of the "race bikes" and did not find any as stable as the Serottas. In fact, the stability of the CSi and its efficient transfer of pedal input to forward motion were the two reasons I bought the bike.

I own 2 bikes, both Serottas. I find both bikes to ride amazingly well. My house is paid for, my daughter has 3 masters degrees, and I only spend my money on my passion of cycling. The extra several thousand dollars for the frame set over a period of say 5 or 10 years is basically meaningless, for me and most people, if you realize how little it is on a daily, or weekly, or even yearly basis. But the pleasure, not the speed, Jerk, that it gives me, is so much worth the expense, just like the collection of your bikes, dbrk, is to you.

If you see me on my funny looking bike, then just cover your eyes, until I ride by :) :) That is how some people think that I ride my bike. :)

I know that you, dbrk, will say that one should enjoy and ride what gives one pleasure, and you will sincerely mean that, as you are a most sincere, genuine, helpful, and caring person. But, I already know, that to you, my bike is ugly, too expensive, and would be just as good with Record minus 5. I have known that, about you, for a very long time. We all make choices and decisions from our own little perspective.

ST Shimano Serotta Sandy

[Ray]

One more thought on why a lot of people are OK with the handling of race bikes setup more like a randonee bike.

For most recreational riders, the importance of a bike's handling only REALLY kicks in on faster descents. For a true racer, particularly a criterium racer, you want the handling spot-on ALL the time, what with all of the high speed corners and jockeying for position in close quarters. So a race bike that doesn't handle all that well on moderate terrain may not be a problem for a recreational rider, as long as you can keep it moving in a straight line easily enough and as long as it handles well while descending.

On a fast descent, weight shifts to the front wheel regardless and most riders end up shifting their weight back somewhat to intuitively find the right weight distribution. I think this is true - I know I do it and it seems like I see a lot of people with their butts slightly off the saddle and further back while zipping downhill. Because of the way I move around on the bike while descending, I've found almost every bike I've ever ridden to be somewhere between a good and great descender. The only exceptions are really relaxed touring bikes that just can't turn in quickly enough to handle a really twisty descent at speed. Or bikes that are just way too noodly to hold a predictable line. Even bikes that are super stiff and would tend to chatter the rear wheel in downhill curves can overcome this with a bit less tire pressure.

If I'm right and the only time a recreational rider's bike really needs to handle extremely well is during descents, this would seem to greatly increase the range in the types of bikes that such a rider would be able to enjoy. Which might partially explain why a lot of people seem to greatly enjoy their race bikes setup like randonee bikes despite the limitations inherant to that setup.

Does this make any sense?

-Ray

[flydhest]

Ray,

I don't know if you're right, but it makes sense.

[bostondrunk]

my god...........holy crap......... i think <burp> I actually agree with both the jerk and dbrk. what is the world coming to???!?!?!

[Chief]

Good for you!! :argue:

[Smiley]

Ray , you get aces from me on your accurate assessment of the issues .

[coylifut]

my god...........holy crap......... i think <burp> I actually agree with both the jerk and dbrk. what is the world coming to???!?!?!

Burping whiskey and egg nog? You must hate this time of year.

[93legendti]

I have no problem with the jerk in almost anything that he has to say, but you repetitiously have remarked on how unpleasingly so many of the modern day bicycles look, with ht extensions, stacks of spacers, positive rise stems,... The bikes could have better designed... In addition, you have repetitiously knocked the lack of value and high cost of the Ottrott, from the original Serotta forum to a milder criticism within the new forum. Then there has been the questioning of the value of the newer component groups, as compared to the older ones.

I have an Ottrott ST with Dura-Ace 10. I am just a recreational rider, and compared to many, I am slow. I do ok for a 64 year old 220 pound cyclist. I, undoubtedly, cannot ride like you or the Jerk, nor do I have much interest in the older bikes that you find such a joy, but I, in my own way, undoubtedly have as much a cycling passion, as you. Cycling makes me feel alive and has given me a great amount of happiness, physical and emotional health, and has given me friendships that are simply not replaceable. My passion is in the process of riding the bike, along with the people I ride with.

Now the Dura-Ace 10. I think that you and others have simply missed the point about Dura-Ace 10. I don't care about the 16 tooth cog that I have in the 10 speed, that was missing in the 9 speed. I KNOW that Dura-Ace 10 will not make me faster.But, Dura-Ace 10 IS very much worth it, to me, since it gives me additional pleasure on each and every ride, period. It stops much better, shifts easier and more precisely with a better feel, is ergonomically more pleasing and the group seems very solid. It is more fun, plain and simple.


Spacers, ht extensions, positive rise stems, exposed seat posts....

a. There is more than one way to skin a cat.
b. I am older, much less flexible than you or the Jerk, have on occasion a lower back problem, have tight hamstrings,... Hence I did not want a bicycle with a relatively high standover height. I also do not like the look of a bike with a large amount of slope. So my Ottrott has 2 degrees of slope, a ht extension, and spacers. The stem is 11 cm. Originally, it was used as a 96 degree stem, but over the year of so that I have had the bike, I flipped it and moved around some spacers, so now it is an 84 degree stem. My bike did not have the steerer tube cut, and still does not, as I have the flexibility to make changes now, and later as I get older. A lot of the "race bikes" that I see, have no spacer on top have had the steerer tube cut, and have lost so much flexibility in making wanted and/or needed changes in the future.

My bike has parallel 73 degree head tube and seat tube, so it would have been quite simple to have used a larger bike. My bike is a virtual 59. I am most satisfied with it, even how it looks. I do agree with you, in that how a bike descends at speed is critical in assessing a bike. My Ottrott is amazingly stable and solid feeling in descending in the 45 plus mph range. It gives a feeling of great confidence. The bike works quite well. Actually amazingly well, even with its 11 cm stem, ht extension, spacers.....

In 1998 I test rode some of the "race bikes" and did not find any as stable as the Serottas. In fact, the stability of the CSi and its efficient transfer of pedal input to forward motion were the two reasons I bought the bike.

I own 2 bikes, both Serottas. I find both bikes to ride amazingly well. My house is paid for, my daughter has 3 masters degrees, and I only spend my money on my passion of cycling. The extra several thousand dollars for the frame set over a period of say 5 or 10 years is basically meaningless, for me and most people, if you realize how little it is on a daily, or weekly, or even yearly basis. But the pleasure, not the speed, Jerk, that it gives me, is so much worth the expense, just like the collection of your bikes, dbrk, is to you.

If you see me on my funny looking bike, then just cover your eyes, until I ride by :) :) That is how some people think that I ride my bike. :)

I know that you, dbrk, will say that one should enjoy and ride what gives one pleasure, and you will sincerely mean that, as you are a most sincere, genuine, helpful, and caring person. But, I already know, that to you, my bike is ugly, too expensive, and would be just as good with Record minus 5. I have known that, about you, for a very long time. We all make choices and decisions from our own little perspective.

ST Shimano Serotta Sandy

Well said! I was never more miserable than when I rode Marco Pantani's Carrera from the '95 Worlds in Majorca (I think they said ('95). Stephen Roche's coach from ACBB set me up on the bike--squirly up front and sluggish in the rear triangle/BB area. It was a terrible 3 hour ride. I was so glad when the airlines delivered my so called "non-race bike" the next day. (Wait, Lance won 6 TDF's on the same geometry as that non-race-bike---HOLY COW!! :) )

[flydhest]

Well said! I was never more miserable than when I rode Marco Pantani's Carrera from the '95 Worlds in Majorca (I think they said ('95). Stephen Roche's coach from ACBB set me up on the bike--squirly up front and sluggish in the rear triangle/BB area. It was a terrible 3 hour ride. I was so glad when the airlines delivered my so called "non-race bike" the next day. (Wait, Lance won 6 TDF's on the same geometry as that non-race-bike---HOLY COW!! :) )

don't quite see how this relates to what Sandy wrote . . . or the thread, since no one was calling into question the design of the OCLVs, but, given all the bikes you can write down in one place, it must be insightful. Care to explain more fully to the rest of us?

[Big Dan]

Quoting Clint Eastwood.... "a good man knows his limitations"...

I think it applies here..... :D

[93legendti]

don't quite see how this relates to what Sandy wrote . . . or the thread, since no one was calling into question the design of the OCLVs, but, given all the bikes you can write down in one place, it must be insightful. Care to explain more fully to the rest of us?

Sorry you were unable to undertsand my post. It was not a specific response to a specific OCLV criticism.

Does my list of bikes bother you?:)

[Andreu]

I am lost too.
A

[93legendti]

Good for you. :D

[flydhest]

Sorry you were unable to undertsand my post. It was not a specific response to a specific OCLV criticism.
I must not be very bright. The discussion was about race bikes, their geometries and handling. Then you mention a race bike on which races were won. some how the term non sequitur springs to mind. Of course, as noted earlier, I'm not so bright, and therefore, I assumed that I missed the relevance, particularly as you referred to Sandy's post which was, as far as I could tell, a defense of riding bikes that one likes because one likes them not because they meet someone else's criteria for a race bike. Could you help a brother our?

Does my list of bikes bother you?:)
Not especially, I just think it's cute.

[Len J]

A wise man once told me:

"The only things that happens when you get down in the mud and wrestle with the pigs is that you get dirty and the pigs get happy."

Happy holidays.

Len

[93legendti]

I must not be very bright. The discussion was about race bikes, their geometries and handling. Then you mention a race bike on which races were won. some how the term non sequitur springs to mind. Of course, as noted earlier, I'm not so bright, and therefore, I assumed that I missed the relevance, particularly as you referred to Sandy's post which was, as far as I could tell, a defense of riding bikes that one likes because one likes them not because they meet someone else's criteria for a race bike. Could you help a brother our?


Not especially, I just think it's cute.
Is the OCLV considered a race bike? Or a bike that USPS happened to race? I don't think the geometry of the OCLV, at least in my size, meet this forum's experts' definiton of a race bike. But, I could be wrong. Don't be too hard on yourself.

[dbrk]

Allow me to return for a minute to getting into trouble. Mind you, this is just for fun, I've no real axe to grind with how anyone likes their bike and lord knows the more folks out riding bikes the better, by a long shot.

I think LenJ's fit solution makes his Ottrott look right. Sure, it's not a race bike and I would have slackened that seattube angle, lengthened the chainstays particularly to make the bike more comfortable and stable but that would have caused no drastic changes. I mean, then it would be effectively a sport bike (let's use that term in contrast to race bike) but still lack any real versatility because the fork limits tires. It's a sport in racer clothing but the design suits me fine, the aesthetic is balanced, pleasing.
And what I am saying is that there is no excuse for things being otherwise. This is--- and while I do not at all presume to speak for the jerk, he being articulate and entirely capable of speaking well for himself---is precisely what gets me about so many Ottrott and other Serotta fit solutions. To wit, the bikes look goofy when they did not need to.

Spending a ton on an Ottrott is allll fine with me and DA10 or Rec10, I mean knock yerself out, life is short enough, and riding is more fun than anything but dogs and stuff that counts (love, family, the usual suspects). I suppose I get my head in a tizzy (not really) about this notion that the company that touts fit and "certified" fitters and all this sort of stuff comes up with solutions that, well, look like crap. Now that should get me in trouble. LenJ's bike is a fine contrast aesthetically to those I have in mind.

Sanford: You are soooo nice that I feel like a schmuck saying anything that would in the LEAST be taken as even indirectly hurting your feelings. So, NONE of this applies to YOUR bike, got that? I think the world of you, mon, no kidding.

dbrk
can't seem to give away that Legend or the CSi that is for sale...but thanks to those helping with the bidding, you are in no danger till you reach $1450 and then you'd still not be in any cause I would never hold anyone to anything they didn't want to do...

[Matt Barkley]

I see more custom bikes (some of which are Serottas - many of then 7s) which really are set-up butt-ugly. Sloping geometry with seatposts with no set-back, many times with steep seat-tube angles putting the rider forward (or their saddle is placed forward) - large headtubes WITH TONS of spacers, short stems and crazy anatomical bars (the bars are OK, I guess). The poor riders either end up looking like "football humping monkeys" or they are doing a super-man impression in an upright seated position.

A few things about my above stated observation: I feel bad for these riders - many of them new to the sport. They just plunked down a ton of dough on a custom bike they thought was the right choice and now I KNOW they are riding an aesetically unpleasing and down right poor handling.... thing. I feel many of these riders would benifit greatly from just being stuck on a stock geo race bike - OR if they require a more upright positon being set-up on an appropriate touring machine "sport bike." But placing a rider on a bike (frameset) where the fundamental design is not even a compromise of fundamantals - rather more really a bastardization of a race/touring bike and modern marketing-research-derived parts and materials.

A follow-up, dbrk - the whole toe-overlap thing - point taken for a touring bike, and maybe even for a sport bike. But talking about race bikes "competiton" bikes - toe overlap may be necessary for the desired handling bike. Minor point I know - but I originally really was adding to the jerks' comments and now your (if I may dbrks') of which I completely agree.

[Climb01742]

so, douglas, just out of curiosity, how does this serotta strike you? :rolleyes:

http://forums.thepaceline.net/showthread.php?t=3766

ps: i tried attaching the photo itself, but the attachment manager thingie wouldn't let me 'cause i had attached it to a different thread...so? :crap:

[Smiley]

Matt said :

A few things about my above stated observation: I feel bad for these riders - many of them new to the sport. They just plunked down a ton of dough on a custom bike they thought was the right choice and now I KNOW they are riding an aesetically unpleasing and down right poor handling.... thing. I feel many of these riders would benifit greatly from just being stuck on a stock geo race bike - OR if they require a more upright positon being set-up on an appropriate touring machine "sport bike." But placing a rider on a bike (frameset) where the fundamental design is not even a compromise of fundamantals - rather more really a bastardization of a race/touring bike and modern marketing-research-derived parts and materials.

Matt , some people know they want to ride a nice racing bike if that's what you want to call it and yes its basterdized to make it work for them , in the end they know what works for their bodies and they get the thrill of their life riding such a bastardized machine that still handles way better then their old bike . Where's the harm in all of this ? All you guys would have it so nobody could own a Porche cause they drive it to the grocery store . Is this not a free market at work and I would again venture to say that the bulk of the responses here have never ever been responsible for a bike sale for a Bastardized bike where the client was still very happy with the outcome. Ever ask a person riding such a rig if they feel ripped off ? I bet to a person they are extremely happy with their bikes and guess what they are all out riding these bikes which is what this is all about .

Is is form over function or function over form , please let me know .

I have sold some pretty crude design bikes so I know first hand that NOT everybody can look like George Hincappie on a bike . Not me anyway .

Good holidays to all , You'll see me riding my racing bike on Beach Drive .

[Matt Barkley]

:beer: Smiley,
Well said - but I guess I just think the design doesn't have to be so basterdized - or basterdized at all. Really. I have no problem with anyone owing a Porshce or racing bike. Poeple can learn to drive a Porsche and poeple can learn to ride a bike. Albeit the car is more easily adaptable (fitting around the body) than a stock bike. But you still need to learn how to use these machines. You don't modify a Porsche in bad ways like is being done with bikes in this arguement. I am saying instead of bastardizing the "racing" bike and supposedly getting a thrill from riding a bastardized-"racing" bike why not be set-up properly in the first place?

You are saying that some can only be comfortable on these "bastardized" bikes and that they are happy with them. ( Yes I have asked thenm if they are happy, etc) I would say too that - that they do not know how much more comfortable they could be and how much more of a thrill they would have on a better sounder set-up. Not to mention the damn bike would look better. Form FOLLOWS Function :) Cheers and Happy Holidays to all you bastards! - Matt

[bcm119]

Matt wrote-

Sloping geometry with seatposts with no set-back, many times with steep seat-tube angles putting the rider forward (or their saddle is placed forward)...

I found this interesting. I agree that seatposts with no setback (esp. Thomsons) look ugly. But what do you suggest for those of us with short femurs? I have a 73 sta and a 0-deg setback Thomson because its the only way I can achieve the right position over the pedals. I wish I could ride a normal post, but I'd have to slide the saddle all the way forward- and thats even uglier.

[Serotta PETE]

Sandy, I really enjoyed your comments. Key is to enjoy what you like and ride it for YOUR enjoyment.

Respect other's choices in their life!!! :cool:

Treat others how you would like to be treated :cool:

__________________________________________________ ______

Bottom line, enjoy the sport and each other .... :banana: :banana:

Opinions are like :butt: "EVERYONE HAS ONE"

[93legendti]

:beer: Smiley,
Well said - but I guess I just think the design doesn't have to be so basterdized - or basterdized at all. Really. I have no problem with anyone owing a Porshce or racing bike. Poeple can learn to drive a Porsche and poeple can learn to ride a bike. Albeit the car is more easily adaptable (fitting around the body) than a stock bike. But you still need to learn how to use these machines. You don't modify a Porsche in bad ways like is being done with bikes in this arguement. I am saying instead of bastardizing the "racing" bike and supposedly getting a thrill from riding a bastardized-"racing" bike why not be set-up properly in the first place?

You are saying that some can only be comfortable on these "bastardized" bikes and that they are happy with them. ( Yes I have asked thenm if they are happy, etc) I would say too that - that they do not know how much more comfortable they could be and how much more of a thrill they would have on a better sounder set-up. Not to mention the damn bike would look better. Form FOLLOWS Function :) Cheers and Happy Holidays to all you bastards! - Matt

http://forums.thepaceline.net/announcement.php?f=3

All this reverse elitism against people whose use of Ottrotts (or Legends, etc.) or whose set up on their bikes do not meet the criteria of a few experts here require strikes me as silly. This is the Serotta forum, for the pupose of discussing and promoting Serotta bikes, as set foth in the Announcements section.

"This forum is not:
...For members to try to discredit or otherwise intentionally steer others away from Serotta products."

If a member owns a bike set up by a certified Serotta fitter and it does not meet with the expert opinion of a forumite maybe the Serotta forum is not the best place to express that opinion. One of these experts telling me my bike is not a race bike, is set up wrong, looks "bad" or is bastardized is offensive. You're entitled to your opinion, but maybe this forum is not the place for your opinion to be stated. I came here to discuss Serotta bikes -- not to have my intelligence insulted, my Serotta Certified Fitter's ability demeaned or my set up ridiculed because it doesn't meet an internet jockey's expectations. Really, does it make you feel better putting down someone's Serotta or set up; saying it is not a race bike; saying it is set up wrong; looks "bad" or is bastardized?

End of rant.

[pale scotsman]

My .02 redneck is as follows... Why is it so bad to want a lighweight bike that fits? Sure you could buy a Riv or a Mariposa, Singer, et. al. but for some strange reason weight matters when it really shouldn't. I know, I know I could be happy with a rando type bike but what the heck is wrong with getting a custom "racing" bike that is comfortable, handles reasonably well, and makes me happy?

I've been back and forth between the racer boy look and what "makes sense" many a time. You can compromise.

It happens in every hobby, watches, hi-fi, wine, ad naseum... The purist has to get his or her say, but who says who is right and who is wrong.

Smiley and Super Smart Seriously all around Swell Sandy are realists and like them I'd rather see more people on bikes that will let them ride, and keep 'em riding. If it's a bastardized racing bike that gets 'em out of the house and into our hobby I say.. yay.

In the immortal words of Rodney King, "why can't we just all get along?"

[dbrk]

So we are not permitted in this Forum to express an aesthetic opinion or to comment on fit and style of Serottas because it is offensive to you personally, somehow to Serotta, and the promotion of their products? If this is, in fact, the case I shall absent myself from this and all future discussions. Apparently we are here merely to endorse a product rather than comment intelligently upon its appearance, performance, and the claims of those who sell that product? Critique, informed discourse, and dissent are prohibited?

Serotta can throw me off this Forum anytime they like and feel free to complain about my comments. If I think your bike, which happens to be a Serotta (or any other), is ugly or the fit solution provided by your putative "certified" expert might be placed in the context of, say, 50 years of cycling tradition and shown to be comparatively inept, then I may indeed say that. Serotta can toss me but, as far as I can figure, you can't.

As for how folks choose to ride or set up their bikes that's something we ordinarily do discuss, no? And so we are here to merely atta'boy ourselves into affirmation without an informed conversation about history, other ways of thinking, or what have you? Anyway anyone gets out to ride a bike is fine by me but taking your bike's fit or set up personally strikes me as, well, something like an incapacity to think critically (and instead see every critique as a personal affront. If that is the case our conversation, like our country, is indeed doomed to mediocrity.) So much for this topic or perhaps any other.

I think the Scotsman of Pale demeanor may be missing my point. It's not the brand of bike that is at all relevant, though the ones you mention often do a good job of bringing saddle and bar height into a kind of aesthetic consonance. Rather, it is the fit solution (for the millionth time) that has been commented upon here. I never once critiqued anyone for wanting an Ottrott. That would be silly. Instead I merely pointed out, as have some others, that certain bikes achieve their fit solution in ways that 1. some consider ugly (go ahead, take this personally...) and 2. could have been achieved in other ways (which apparently is offensive to those who spent money for someone to create this solution that has been critiqued). I'm not anyone's crony, by the way, and nothing I have said is ad hommenin. That is precisely the difference between the way I have expressed my opinion about ugly fit solutions and those who think such a comment is personally or "professionally" beyond the parameters of useful discourse.

dbrk

[dave thompson]

http://forums.thepaceline.net/announcement.php?f=3

All this reverse elitism against people whose use of Ottrotts (or Legends, etc.) or whose set up on their bikes do not meet the criteria of a few experts here require strikes me as silly. This is the Serotta forum, for the pupose of discussing and promoting Serotta bikes, as set foth in the Announcements section.

"This forum is not:
...For members to try to discredit or otherwise intentionally steer others away from Serotta products."

If a member owns a bike set up by a certified Serotta fitter and it does not meet with the expert opinion of a forumite maybe the Serotta forum is not the best place to express that opinion. One of these experts telling me my bike is not a race bike, is set up wrong, looks "bad" or is bastardized is offensive. You're entitled to your opinion, but maybe this forum is not the place for your opinion to be stated. I came here to discuss Serotta bikes -- not to have my intelligence insulted, my Serotta Certified Fitter's ability demeaned or my set up ridiculed because it doesn't meet an internet jockey's expectations. Really, does it make you feel better putting down someone's Serotta or set up; saying it is not a race bike; saying it is set up wrong; looks "bad" or is bastardized?

End of rant.
Easy big guy, just take the opinions of others as just that: opinions. And of course opinions are like elbows, everyone has two about the same thing.

For some reason it's real easy to take offence at something on the 'net, lord knows I've been guilty of it. However as I go back and read the opinions that have offended me, often I find some little kernel in there that may slightly alter mine. Sometimes not.

[Serotta PETE]

:beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer:

Enjoy the season and your bike.....

[93legendti]

Easy big guy, just take the opinions of others as just that: opinions. And of course opinions are like elbows, everyone has two about the same thing.

For some reason it's real easy to take offence at something on the 'net, lord knows I've been guilty of it. However as I go back and read the opinions that have offended me, often I find some little kernel in there that may slightly alter mine. Sometimes not.

:)

[pale scotsman]

I think the Scotsman of Pale demeanor may be missing my point. It's not the brand of bike that is at all relevant, though the ones you mention often do a good job of bringing saddle and bar height into a kind of aesthetic consonance. Rather, it is the fit solution (for the millionth time) that has been commented upon here. I never once critiqued anyone for wanting an Ottrott. That would be silly. Instead I merely pointed out, as have some others, that certain bikes achieve their fit solution in ways that 1. some consider ugly (go ahead, take this personally...) and 2. could have been achieved in other ways (which apparently is offensive to those who spent money for someone to create this solution that has been critiqued). I'm not anyone's crony, by the way, and nothing I have said is ad hommenin. That is precisely the difference between the way I have expressed my opinion about ugly fit solutions and those who think such a comment is personally or "professionally" beyond the parameters of useful discourse.

dbrk

Pale demeanor, moi? Maybe in the post, but not really... I promise. Believe me I can appreciate the aesthetics of a classic bike. Not too long ago, and if it wasn't for this forum and a few other sites, I probably would have never noticed. It's just that ugly is such a strong word for a fit solution that someone spent a lot of dinero on. Alot of us, at least me and my evil twin, are humbly plodding away on the path to cycling nirvana and sometimes constructive criticism on the net can be taken the wrong way.

[dbrk]

It's just that ugly is such a strong word for a fit solution that someone spent a lot of dinero on. Alot of us, at least me and my evil twin, are humbly plodding away on the path to cycling nirvana and sometimes constructive criticism on the net can be taken the wrong way.

And you are quite right. My using such a word was overstated, inflammatory, and unwarranted. For this I apologize. Let us not take these matters too seriously, after all. We are a small band of enthusiasts and enthusiasm can be infectious in commendable and discreditable ways. In this medium a strong word can be misconstrued; apologies to any who may have taken umbrage.

dbrk

[coylifut]

so, douglas, just out of curiosity, how does this serotta strike you? :rolleyes:

http://forums.thepaceline.net/showthread.php?t=3766

ps: i tried attaching the photo itself, but the attachment manager thingie wouldn't let me 'cause i had attached it to a different thread...so? :crap:

that's a well balanced wonderful looking bike and one that begs to be ridden. No, it's not set up for a 22 yr old euro pro, but it'll do nicely for a Cat A masters hack in any region. I remember 25 years ago when I first raced as a junior and recall that bikes were often set up like this (absent the compact geo). Many of the guys who started when I did, have not changed their position that much over the years and have their current rides set up like the one shown. Are they fast? You bettcha. Would this bike look better with more saddle to bar drop? No! Does it need a longer stem? Why? Is it a race bike? Absolutely! If you go to Park City UT this summer and watch a few of the USCF age group races, you'll see scores of bikes set up just like the one above. I'm here to tell you, these guys are racers and they are fast.

With that said, I don’t think this is representative of the “ugly” bikes that are being discussed. When I see these fugli bikes I say to my self, why didn’t the guy get a Riv. Then I remember, because he wanted a Serotta or a 7.…

[soulspinner]

I just plain love that bike, Climb. My fave....I have a Strong Foco compact that looks very much like it geo wise. Sweet paint job on your ride!!!

[Matt Barkley]

Believe it or not I would absolutely love to own an OTTROTT. Its cost is a bit out of reach at the moment.

One of the best riding bikes I have ever owned was a custom Serotta.

My first cycling coach and best friend road one of the first (I am talking single digit serial # Legend Tis)

I currently ride a bike with a 110mm stem (Will be switching soon to a 115mm - usual set-up on other rides has been a 120mm)

Just my opinion that many (riders) are placed (by "fitters") too far forward in the saddle. Hey, if you have short femurs, you have short femurs...

Ugly was just a funny word - I make no apologies - unless I expressed myself wrongly. Just expressing my opinion.

I haven't made one negative comment about a forumite's Custom Serotta ride that may fit this thread. Just making comments about riders I see on the road. (Road with one today on a Specialized)

To repeat: I believe - "Forum Follows Function."

The more people riding the better. 'nuff said. (All - Do take many of my comments with a grain of salt, please):beer: - "Apparent Internet Jockey Extrordinaire" - Matt

[Climb01742]

i kinda like hearing opinions that challenge my view of things. i think serottas come in all shapes and sizes...like the folks who ride 'em. i don't always agree with douglas, for instance, but i always find his posts thought provoking. and i appreciate all here who provoke thought. what a drag if we all agreed all the time. finally, and personally, i'm not experienced enough to judge whether someone else's frame is right or wrong...jeez, at moments, i can barely tell if MY frames are right or wrong. peace...one and all.

[lithiapark]

Since the rest of my family is out of town I've had time to spare to read this entire thread. I don't understand the theme of this thread. I don't care to judge this thread a good thread or a bad thread from an aesthetic standpoint. There isn't anything of value in this thread for me, but that is OK because I don't there to be value for me in everything I read, see, hear, or do. Maybe my thinking is gray tonight, and I just don't get it. :confused:

I've also spent time tonight on the Mtbr.com mountain bike forum, as I spend about half of my time on dirt roads and singletrack. I cannot remember an entire thread there being devoted to aesthetics except a recent one on "sexiest bike?". Don't know what that was all about nor the conclusion as I didn't read it. Is that a sign of old age? :eek:

I just realized that this is a pointless rambling reply to what appears to be the thread with no theme. My apologies. I would like to thank all of you that have discussed the many technical aspects of road bikes and biking over the past year. I value the collective experience greatly.

At least this has been an opportunity to use more smilies. :D At first I found them annoying, but they kinda grew on me. My wife says I should smile more. :banana: :banana: :banana:

Happy Holidays, or whatever, to all. Paul

[93legendti]

And you are quite right. My using such a word was overstated, inflammatory, and unwarranted. For this I apologize. Let us not take these matters too seriously, after all. We are a small band of enthusiasts and enthusiasm can be infectious in commendable and discreditable ways. In this medium a strong word can be misconstrued; apologies to any who may have taken umbrage.

dbrk

cool. :)

[slowgoing]

Sheez. After this, no way I'm posting pics of my fugly bikes.

I love them though, comfy fitting, short riser stemmed, head tube extensioned, short chainstayed racing bikes that they are.

[nick0137]

This thread raises an issue that I have been thinking about quite a bit recently - assuming that it is possible, is it sensible to try to turn a race bike like an Ottrot into something other than that? Ever since I spoke to Ben Serotta on his visit to London about whether Serotta could build a randonneur P-B-P friendly Ottrot (longer chainstays, more tyre clearance, relaxed angles, steel fork) I have been mulling the issue over in my head. Seems like it can be done but, since I am in basic agreement with the dbrk "right tool for the job" approach, I am far frm convinced that it should be done (making the huge assumption that it can be afforded, of course.) What do you think?

[marle]

I am reminded of the old expression -- 'win on sunday sell on monday'. I believe that is why there is a market for race bikes and not one for randonneurs.

[Climb01742]

This thread raises an issue that I have been thinking about quite a bit recently - assuming that it is possible, is it sensible to try to turn a race bike like an Ottrot into something other than that? Ever since I spoke to Ben Serotta on his visit to London about whether Serotta could build a randonneur P-B-P friendly Ottrot (longer chainstays, more tyre clearance, relaxed angles, steel fork) I have been mulling the issue over in my head. Seems like it can be done but, since I am in basic agreement with the dbrk "right tool for the job" approach, I am far frm convinced that it should be done (making the huge assumption that it can be afforded, of course.) What do you think?

nick, maybe i'm wrong, but it seems like a frame has two sides: the geometry and the materials. part of what makes an ottrott special are the materials...the way carbons tubes do their job well and the way ti tubes do theirs. that materials synergy would benefit, i think, many different geometries. for a race bike, that materials synergy creates one set of benefits. for a bike like you're thinking of, the synergy would create another set of benefits...different, yes, but no less valuable. an ottrott is the smoothest riding frame i've ever thrown a leg over. (for me, smooth wasn't my primary goals.) but for your proposed needs, extraordinary smoothness, very efficient energy transfer, all day (and night!) comfort are all huge benefits. to say that only race geometries can fully exploit an ottrott's promise is, i think, unfair. actually, i'd say an ottrott might be as PBP-friendly of a frame as you could find. but consider the source...i once drove a 911 to the grocery store. would dr porsche ever forgive me? :D

[dbrk]

It is a shame--- and call me a "purist" for this---but PBP no longer requires mudguards. You can ride any bike for long distances, I suppose, but it would occur to me that the bike you rode for PBP would be the bike on which you qualified for PBP. Until there is a fork with clearance for even a skinny tire and fenders then no geometry changes to a carbon-forked-bike will make it a randonneur. Or let me put it this way, when it's raining who is going to be on your wheel? The fender-frees can go their own way, be wet and make other people wet!

So why isn't there a carbon fork made for sport bikes with fender clearances? Why do we have, say, fifty on the market that are...uhh...all the same (okay that was overstated to make the point that none serve be more than a variation of the same notion)? It's sort of like the Shimagnolos making five versions of more or less the same group (until very recently when we got a zillion dollar compact "racer" crank...maarone...).

I would also agree that it's easy to sell a race bike and hard to sell a sport tourer/audax because the marketing and racing image is what we have been sold.

dbrk

[Ray]

So why isn't there a carbon fork made for sport bikes with fender clearances? Why do we have, say, fifty on the market that are...uhh...all the same (okay that was overstated to make the point that none serve be more than a variation of the same notion)? It's sort of like the Shimagnolos making five versions of more or less the same group (until very recently when we got a zillion dollar compact "racer" crank...maarone...).

I would also agree that it's easy to sell a race bike and hard to sell a sport tourer/audax because the marketing and racing image is what we have been sold.


You can get 'em. Wound Up makes one that started out being for Hampsten. The Spectrum I ordered will have this fork and fender clearance front and rear. I probably won't ride it with fenders or anything fatter than 700x23 most of the time, but if I like it as much as I hope I will, I'll also want to ride it on week long supported tours and I gotta have fenders and 25s or 27s for those rides.

Specialized also makes a carbon fork for standard reach brakes - I think it was spec'ed on their most recent iteration of the Sequoia? I think there are others. Eyelets may be a different story - I'm gonna have to use p-clamps on the Wound Up. Minor drag, but not a deal breaker by a long shot.

Slowly but surely, this stuff is showing up out there. Sorta like 110 bcd cranks. A few years ago, you hadda be a retro-grouch. Now they're all the rage.

Who knows, maybe you could even get an Ottrott with integrated lighting and racks....and 650b wheels. :cool:

-Ray

[Matt Barkley]

Just a short note: I am reading this thread as not primarily about aesthetics.

[jerk]

Are you saying it's a good example of the bad designs Jerk was talking about or a good example of a good design?

Thanks for the clarification.

Len

len,
that's a great looking bike. and not the type of thing the jerk was talking about. to achieve the same contact points...the jerk would have shortened the tt a bit to tuck in the front center, used a longer stem, (bearing in mind the bar reach which is very important,) and probably dropped the top tube a bit giving the thing some degree of seat tube and head tube extensions and bringing the shifters up on the bars a bit.....anyway...would it have been better? maybe not...that is a fine and perfect bicycle.
jerk

[Len J]

len,
that's a great looking bike. and not the type of thing the jerk was talking about. to achieve the same contact points...the jerk would have shortened the tt a bit to tuck in the front center, used a longer stem, (bearing in mind the bar reach which is very important,) and probably dropped the top tube a bit giving the thing some degree of seat tube and head tube extensions and bringing the shifters up on the bars a bit.....anyway...would it have been better? maybe not...that is a fine and perfect bicycle.
jerk

Thanks.

What change in handling would your changes have resulted in?

I'm really trying to understand design and effect.

Thanks

Len

[jerk]

len-
in general the jerk thinks that too much frame design is done by "fitters" instead of the true masters of the craft like kelly bedford. the jerk knows just enough to be dangerous so take what is said with a grain of salt but the jerk has ridden bikes at the extreme, for a living and knows that race bike geometry works and works well. putting a little more weight over the front wheel is almost always a good thing...the bike will descend, corner and behave in a more predictable manner especially at speed...shorter top and down tubes (but not shorter seat or head tubes) make for torsionally more rigid bikes at the same weight...alot of builders are focusing on the bottom bracket when they shouldl be focusing on the front and the back end of their frames.....the jerk is not an overly powerful guy....but their are very few bikes the jerk can't twist torsionally to the point that the thing starts feeling weird in a hard corner....anyway, level top tubes dropped a little bit help on bigger bikes.....fat chainstays help....etc. etc. you're bike is probably perfect because serotta knows what it is doing...but a little bit more weight on the front wheel, a little bit lighter and torsionally stiffer frame....who knows? the next bike is always better than the lasty right?
jerk

[jerk]

oh sorry one more thing....len, a strange thing happened when dura ace nine speed came out.....rider's couldn't fit their hands in between the drop and the lever.....so the handlebar manufacturers came out with ergonomic bars...which were awesome provided you never ever used the drop part of the handlebar.....so the pros started doing a very strange thing.....they kept their round bars but rotated the hoods further up on them to give them more room in the drops....but now all of a sudden the hoods were way too high, the riders couldn't get low enough to stay in the draft of the other midget riders...or to cut through the wind in a breakaway...or to get their hips rotated forward enough so they were actually using the most powerdul muscles in their bodies etc. etc....so they asked for frames with shorter head tubes......they got'em....but then the drops were too low so they asked their handlebar sponser to take back their deep drop bars and make some shallow drop round bars...easton and deda and a bunch of other guys did and all is well with the world...the guys are still in the same positions as they were fifteen years ago but the bike frame is lower and longer.....so there.
jerk

[Len J]

Thanks for the response.

So lower in the front, shorter TT/longer stem = more weight on front wheel.

More weight on front wheel = more control at speed.

Does this mean that more weight further in front, somehow translates steering impulse into action quicker? and therefor that shorter is somhow slower?

As to the bars.....I get what you are saying. I've changed the bars out already to something more comfortable for me. I've also moved the hoods up higher. It is a game of small adjustments.

I appreciate the responses.....I tend to have a few bikes at a time and don't get the chance to experiment back to back to "feel" the effects....especially dramatic changes like shorter vs longer TT's. Over time, I've found what works for me,but I'm always tinkerin'.

Happy Holidays.

Len

[Ahneida Ride]

Mr. Kelly is a true Master. My LBS fitter worked cosely with Mr. Bedford
To produce a perfect Bike. The ride far exceeds all expections !

Kelly is a most gracious, knowlegable, humble and patient gentleman.

[John H.]

Jerk,
You might not know this because you ride a big bike, but a medium size bike with a short front center rides like a pile of s**t.
Most stock 54-55 bikes come in under 58.5, many under 58. 59ish is mo' betta!

[vaxn8r]

But here's a thought....do stem manufacturers actually strengthen as they lengthen? My brief experience with a 140mm stem was, or seemed, flexy. Granted, it was only one stem. But it seems to me the longer you are out there, the more bulk you need to reinforce it. I doubt this is being done but I could be wrong.

[93legendti]

By popular demand, I am posting my sig quotes and a few others interesting quotes. Peace!

Andy Pruitt’s Medical Guide for Cyclists:
"Rule 2: Make the bike fit your body; don’t make your body fit the bike. It’s easy to adjust the bike but difficult to stretch or contort your body into some pre-conceived “ideal” position."

"Reach is the most individual part of bike fit. It depends on a wide range of factors including hamstring and low-back flexibility, low-back strength, posture, arm and torso length, and shoulder strength."

"Forget what your favorite pro rider’s bike looks like unless your body is a carbon copy of his. Make your bike look like you, not like your hero."

By Andrew L. Pruitt, Ed.D., with Fred Matheny
2002 Andrew L. Pruitt

Inside a Pro Team Camp for Roadies:

Lyne Bessette: "Your position on the bike has to be comfortable. Even if it looks bad, if it’s comfortable you’ll go faster."

By Fred Matheny
2002 RBR Publishing Company

[Big Dan]

Who really cares??? :confused:
Set up your sled whichever way you like it....but an 80mm stem is still short no matter how many quotes you find............

[93legendti]

nice.....

[Big Dan]

Nicer to get a shorter Top tube.............. :crap: :crap: :crap:

Find the doctor's quote that says "get a long tt and an 80mm stem for ideal position".


:confused:

[93legendti]

Read my posts VERY CAREFULLY, then get back to me.

[93legendti]

Here, I did this for you in the last thread about stem length, I guessed you missed it :D :

"Since people aren't built the same with the same measurements, flexibility and strength, pronouncing there is only one way to run a stem is fun, but probably not realistic and certainly not correct.",

"You guys really think stem length decides anything? I ride a shorter stem on my cross bike for control. I ride 90-100 on my road bikes. My Serotta certified fitter specs the stems I use. I am sure he knows less than you experts. I am also sure you know what's better for me than I do.

I am just so impressed with people who can decide what stem length is correct for someone else without seeing the person on their bike, knowing the bike size, checking their flexibility, or knowing any of their physical measurements.",

"Exactly, and when you throw in my short arms and long torso, as well as my herniated disc, a 80mm stem on a cross bike and a 90-100mm stem on a road bike , as spec'ed by Serotta and Strong on my custom bikes, is correct for me.

http://forums.thepaceline.net/showthread.php?t=5686&page=7&pp=15

[slowgoing]

"Get a long tt and an 80mm stem for ideal position if you ride a 52 cm frame, have a long torso, short arms and a herniated disc and if it fits."

There's your quote.

Personally, I could care less what anyone's stem length is. If they're happy, end of story in my book. However, I do find it rather amusing how defensive and intolerant some people can be about the issue.

[Big Dan]

What a joke...using his own quotes.....
Go ahead like I said before I could care less.
Is simple math 80mm is shorty....believe me you may think is big, but is not...sorry heh.. :D ....
REALITY BITES ....
merry xmas :banana:

Please give me the name of your fitter so my friends can stay far away from him or her...

[93legendti]

:)

[slowgoing]

Big Dan, that’s the eighth time in the last several weeks you’ve said an 8 cm stem is short. There are all kinds of reasons to keep repeating oneself, but none of them are very flattering.

[bostondrunk]

Haven't been following this thread really carefully <burp>, but...
80mm stem is pretty damn short. My -guess- is that, asthetics aside (ugly IMO:):)), the bike will likely not handle as easily in turns, etc., with that short of a stem. The steering would be very sensitive, no?
If you are having a bike custom built, I'm not sure why you wouldn't have the top tube designed so that you would be using a 100mm stem instead (or a 110-120 on a bike larger that 51cm...). As for back problems, etc., you can still raise your bars up, regardless of its length...
Thats not to say that the bike with 80mm stem is bad, or ugly (personal preference), but I too am suprised that a trained fitter would design a bike like that. Different style I guess...

[92degrees]

OK, now I want to talk about ME again :p

So, my fitter did what bostondrunk describes -- lengthened my TT x 1.4cm over Serotta's standard compact geometry, gave the TT a good deal of slope -- 7 degrees (not that much compared to the 10+ degrees on a Fierte), and that gets me a on a 110 stem.

I'm supposed to review the build sheet with my fitter this week and this was one of the things I was questioning -- specifically, the resulting small headtube (10.89cm). All things being equal (that the fit was a good one) this seems like a good solution?

[Smiley]

What handle bar reach does your fitter have you using ? 10 , 8.2 or 7 cm , this will affect your reach . I usually will opt for a longer stem but a shorter reach bar if I need to see a good bend at the elbow while on the hoods .

[GoJavs]

You are right, slowgoing...It's also been about the 8th time that 93legend brings up the subject again and attempts to justify his tiny stem with obscure quotes and small women's geometry! Some people just don't know when to quit. :crap:


Big Dan, that’s the eighth time in the last several weeks you’ve said an 8 cm stem is short. There are all kinds of reasons to keep repeating oneself, but none of them are very flattering.

[Climb01742]

What handle bar reach does your fitter have you using ? 10 , 8.2 or 7 cm , this will affect your reach . I usually will opt for a longer stem but a shorter reach bar if I need to see a good bend at the elbow while on the hoods .

smiley, if its not too much trouble, could you give an example of bars that have each of the three reach #s you mentioned...i'd be curious to check them out and compare...thanks alot.

[92degrees]

What handle bar reach does your fitter have you using ? 10 , 8.2 or 7 cm , this will affect your reach . I usually will opt for a longer stem but a shorter reach bar if I need to see a good bend at the elbow while on the hoods .


Smiley, I'm not clear what that number is? My fitter worked this up using a Ritchie Biomax bar. My sheet says "Actual reach from HTC" is 5.97?

[Len J]

What handle bar reach does your fitter have you using ? 10 , 8.2 or 7 cm , this will affect your reach . I usually will opt for a longer stem but a shorter reach bar if I need to see a good bend at the elbow while on the hoods .

Isn't total reach the same if I use a longer stem and shorter reach bars or a shorter stem and long reach bars? If the total reach is the same, wouldn't the elbow bend when on the hoods be the same?

I agree that different bars change the reach, but I don't get it when you say.." I usually will opt for a longer stem but a shorter reach bar if I need to see a good bend at the elbow while on the hoods ."

Help.

Len

[Smiley]

Len , if I need to shorten stuff I'll do it at the expense of the handle bar bend reach and always will go with the longest stem possible . This way the bike handling won't be comprimised and I'll drive the riders weight thru the steerer tube . I built a 65 cm frame with a 8.2 reach bar and a 58 cm TT using an 11 cm stem for a guy that was 6'5" tall , his height was all in his legs . You would have figured this guy could have used a normal long reach bar at 10 cm but we needed to shorthen the bar reach to give him a decent stem length .

[Smiley]

Climb , go to www.salsacycles.com and see the graph of the different reach bars , I carry all three at home in every width .

Pro Bars 10 cm, bend reach
Short and Shallow Bars , 8.2 cm bend reach
Poco bars , 7 cm bend reach

As a bonus each bar listed also has a different drop so along with the shorter reach you get a shorter drop . Salsa is a good brand NOT too expensive but most importand any LBS can get these for you cause Salsa is owned by Quality Bicycle . Another good source for Salsa products is www.aebike.com . Ritchey also has a variaty of bars with differing bends but the POCO's are my favorite problem solver for those short stem circumstances . YMMV for other issues . I don't think Climb you have any of these issues due to the bike geo's that I saw of yours , just make sure that when you do get fitted if you really like a certain bar you get sized with THAT bar or one pretty close to it .

[Len J]

Len , if I need to shorten stuff I'll do it at the expense of the handle bar bend reach and always will go with the longest stem possible . This way the bike handling won't be comprimised and I'll drive the riders weight thru the steerer tube . I built a 65 cm frame with a 8.2 reach bar and a 58 cm TT using an 11 cm stem for a guy that was 6'5" tall , his height was all in his legs . You would have figured this guy could have used a normal long reach bar at 10 cm but we needed to shorthen the bar reach to give him a decent stem length .

What I don't get is how could handling be different if total reach is the same? If my hands are on the hoods of a 10 stem + 10 reach bars compared to an 11 + 9, the steering "leverage is the same isn't it....consequently, wouldn't steering be exactly the same? If not, why not?

Thanks in advance.

Len

[Smiley]

Total reach is the same BUT stem length is different cause depending on bar bend reach and bar width this make up a diagional dimension from nose of saddle to tip of hood shifter . The stem length can and will change so the best way to ensure a proper handling design is to make sure the stem length is appropriate for the TT length selected . This only gets dicey when your at 9 to 8 cm stem lengths . Kelly Bedford told me that he has no problem what so ever designing BIG frames around an 11 cm stem ( I think thats what he has on his new Ottrott ) . Every case is very unique and different , don't get me going on what I feel is a good trail figure for fork rake and head tube angle combo either cause you'll open up another whole debate. The point is you got to also consider the rider's position on the bike and how they prefer to ride , some people NEVER get down on the drops , I think Sandy is one that comes to mind , I mean never uses the drops .

[92degrees]

It looks like the Biomax is 13 drop and 7.5 reach.

[Big Dan]

That's all I'm trying to say. If you have to or want to use a short stem fine, knock yourself out. For me I rather use a shorter TT. Instead of people taking it personal just analize that maybe, just maybe I'm trying to help. That's all we try to do on this board, help each other enjoy cycling. Use whatever stem you want , don't worry I'm not showing up during the night to install a 150mm on your bike.....clear??? :bike:

BD got my point...Thanks... :beer:

slowgoing..well..pick up the pace a little.......... :confused:

[RichMc]

Len J -

I think one of the things Smiley is alluding to ( and senor Jerk too) is the distribution of rider weight between the wheels and how that affects the handling of the bike. Reach by itself is only one part of the equation. That weight distribution is mostly determined by chain stay length, seat tube angle, top tube length, and stem length. I might have missed one or two factors. There are many opinions as to what constitutes a good handling bike or good handling race bike. That could fill lots of other threads. Consider this alone; two different bikes having the same saddle to bar reach but with different length top tubes and different stem lengths will handle differently due to where the riders weight will be positioned between the wheels.