Geometry Evolution, yours personally?

[robt57]

What I mean by that is how and why your druthers have evolved and/or changed.

Be it via age, shape, attaining comfort, predominate riding style. Or just plain old I wanted to do or try this/that/other thing yada.

Like to cover changes of stack/reach/wheelbase, bar width/reach/drop if drop bars etc etc.

What worked, what didn't etc.

Let empirical experience be shared. Let's not talk about what we have read and not lived if that's OK folks.


_________
Some things that changed enough to mention for me to kick it off.

Biggest; Loosing 35 lb and getting back to lower stack without bulky fat impeding breathing.

Next; Really loosing RR geometry for Longer and a touch less neutral front ends.

But; can't do 69+ trail front ends, just can't. Rather go lower than higher than mid 56mm avg RR geometry trail for my size.
OK for loose surface maybe, but rather grippy tire/tread and less trail, just me maybe?

And like most of us I'd presume. 28-30mm tires for road bike. Although rocket rides; 25mm tubulars still for for 30 miled FTP ride too much fun.

[bigbill]

Road and gravel, shorter top tubes, taller head tubes, and longer stems. 58/120 is my sweet spot.

MTB, the other way around.

[steelbikerider]

Stem is shorter by 1cm, seat setback from Bb is 1 cm less. HB have been raised about a 1/2 cm. HB has been narrowed from 44, then 42 now 40. All happened in last 5 years, 63 now. Otherwise geometry stayed about the same for 25 years.

[DeBike]

I have been making adjustments for the past couple of years. Handlebar a bit higher, stem shorter, saddle lowered and moved foreword a bit. I have also been transitioning to wider tires and have not been riding my fast, more aggressive geometry bikes as much, preferring the comfort and stability of my other bikes.

[NHAero]

What you are calling geometry I would call fit.

I actually prefer "classic" geometry - I had Carl Strong build my frame this year with a 73 degree HTA and 48mm of trail, and 425mm CS. That's very similar to my almost 50 year old Bob Jackson. Modern road bikes are a bit slacker, at least in small to mid-range sizes. Between CPSC and the dominance of carbon forks with few offset choices, HTAs and trail are all over the place - look at a geo chart for Spec Diverge.

My fit has changed a lot, and while some of that is definitely age and various spine stuff, I rode the Bob Jackson, my only road bike for over 30 years, with a 572mm TT length and 40mm of seatpost showing. Way too big for me- that's how they sized me for a custom frame in 1972! Both my Firefly (bought used) and my Strong have 550mm TTs and noticeably more standover. In my 20s I rode up to 150 miles in a day on the Jackson, but by the time I was 50 a century ride was painful. It caused me to take a detour into riding recumbents for 3 years, until I figured out by borrowing someone's bike on a trip that I needed a smaller frame. In the last two years I've ridden century rides with no pain on the Firefly and the Strong, so I know I have a good fit. Bars are pretty much level with the saddle, so there will be the occasional faster backwards snipes here, but I'm on a bike most days, so I'm happy.

Photo by Sheldon Brown, summer 1972.

[carpediemracing]

When people started asking about my bar position I looked back at my position back to when I started riding. Although I initially went with a higher saddle position (modeled after the high position of the US National Team just around the 84 Olympics, and the higher saddle heights the pros used like .... the guy on 180s that raced for Renault, dark hair, 55-ish cm frame), I found that the drops have always been at about the same height, for almost 40 years.

For me my sprint is my only tool so I have to be able to sprint well on the bike, and if the bars aren't at the right height relative to the BB then I can't sprint well. I tried going up 3 cm for a couple years but it was an absolute disaster, almost crashing a few times sprinting on my own, and dialing back my efforts when sprinting in an actual race.

My saddle height has come down a touch, maybe 5mm, maybe 8mm. My cranks went from 167.5 to 175s (contributing to the drop in height), my bars have come down a touch, partially because it was possible (previously I just dropped the stem to the headset), partially because my saddle dropped a bit.

In the old days I switched my bars out during the winter, a wider bar, one with squared off bends (can't sprint on them without bruising my arms). After missing a few key "truck drafts" I decided not to do that anymore. In the winter I also used Spinacci type 3ttt bars. And in races on and off I used Cane Creek Speed bars and Scott whatever bolt on drop bars (Drop ins?). The Cane Creek I'd use now if I could but they are now illegal. I last used them maybe 2015 or something.

I went to longer cranks as I got older. I don't know if they would have helped when I was younger. I do know that it's a huge difference going to 175s from 170s - I basically get ridden off the wheels, which is a problem I had when I was younger. This is based on a few different tries trying to use 170s unsuccessfully then going back to 175s. Each time I used the 170s for 6+ months (to get acclimated), and literally the day I went to 175s it was a thousand times better. There is a Tues Night Worlds crit series (permitted, official) and I was off the back quickly one week (170s) then sprinting for a place the next week (175s, essentially the same racers). I'm trying 170s again due to giving track a shot, been on them for 2 years now, not much racing (none successful on the road, but decent on the track), so we'll see what happens.

1984 (still figuring things out but I won the "field sprint" at the finish, out of maybe 8 or 10 riders). 170s, 40 cm bars:


1992 (higher saddle position). 167.5s, 40 cm bars:


2011 (longer reach by about 5-6 cm, custom frame, and my current position and current bike/s - I have two with the same geometry). 175s, 40cm bars:


2016 (in the red - 175s, 40 cm bars):


I don't have "positional" pictures after that I don't think, but it's the same bike, same stem. I've gone to 38 cm bars and 170 cranks, both on the red bike (pictured) and the same geometry black bike. Saddle went up 5mm and back a little bit, a few mm.

Black bike (175s, 40cm):


Red bike (175s, 40cm):


Contact points are basically the same as from about 1989, except the saddle is a bit lower now. But BB->bars is the same. Since BB height is basically the same across the board, you can compare where the drops are compared to the front wheel, and the drops have always been about the same height. The shallow drop bars (current ones) forced me to get a 3 cm lower stem. But it's the same position as before I went to shallow drop bars, it's just that the stem looks odd.

[NHAero]

This is SO interesting to read about, thanks for posting. Really wonder what it is about the 175 vs 170 cranks!

Originally Posted by carpediemracing

When people started asking about my bar position I looked back at my position back to when I started riding. Although I initially went with a higher saddle position (modeled after the high position of the US National Team just around the 84 Olympics, and the higher saddle heights the pros used like .... the guy on 180s that raced for Renault, dark hair, 55-ish cm frame), I found that the drops have always been at about the same height, for almost 40 years.

For me my sprint is my only tool so I have to be able to sprint well on the bike, and if the bars aren't at the right height relative to the BB then I can't sprint well. I tried going up 3 cm for a couple years but it was an absolute disaster, almost crashing a few times sprinting on my own, and dialing back my efforts when sprinting in an actual race.

My saddle height has come down a touch, maybe 5mm, maybe 8mm. My cranks went from 167.5 to 175s (contributing to the drop in height), my bars have come down a touch, partially because it was possible (previously I just dropped the stem to the headset), partially because my saddle dropped a bit.

In the old days I switched my bars out during the winter, a wider bar, one with squared off bends (can't sprint on them without bruising my arms). After missing a few key "truck drafts" I decided not to do that anymore. In the winter I also used Spinacci type 3ttt bars. And in races on and off I used Cane Creek Speed bars and Scott whatever bolt on drop bars (Drop ins?). The Cane Creek I'd use now if I could but they are now illegal. I last used them maybe 2015 or something.

I went to longer cranks as I got older. I don't know if they would have helped when I was younger. I do know that it's a huge difference going to 175s from 170s - I basically get ridden off the wheels, which is a problem I had when I was younger. This is based on a few different tries trying to use 170s unsuccessfully then going back to 175s. Each time I used the 170s for 6+ months (to get acclimated), and literally the day I went to 175s it was a thousand times better. There is a Tues Night Worlds crit series (permitted, official) and I was off the back quickly one week (170s) then sprinting for a place the next week (175s, essentially the same racers). I'm trying 170s again due to giving track a shot, been on them for 2 years now, not much racing (none successful on the road, but decent on the track), so we'll see what happens.

1984 (still figuring things out but I won the "field sprint" at the finish, out of maybe 8 or 10 riders). 170s, 40 cm bars:


1992 (higher saddle position). 167.5s, 40 cm bars:


2011 (longer reach by about 5-6 cm, custom frame, and my current position and current bike/s - I have two with the same geometry). 175s, 40cm bars:


2016 (in the red - 175s, 40 cm bars):


I don't have "positional" pictures after that I don't think, but it's the same bike, same stem. I've gone to 38 cm bars and 170 cranks, both on the red bike (pictured) and the same geometry black bike. Saddle went up 5mm and back a little bit, a few mm.

Black bike (175s, 40cm):


Red bike (175s, 40cm):


Contact points are basically the same as from about 1989, except the saddle is a bit lower now. But BB->bars is the same. Since BB height is basically the same across the board, you can compare where the drops are compared to the front wheel, and the drops have always been about the same height. The shallow drop bars (current ones) forced me to get a 3 cm lower stem. But it's the same position as before I went to shallow drop bars, it's just that the stem looks odd.

[Dave]

With my 83cm inseam and 72-73cm saddle height, I tried 175mm crank arms for the first time last year, at age 68. They worked OK so I'm still using them. I changed from an 8cm saddle to bar drop to 10cm back in 2008 and still use that. I probably have a little shorter reach, but I'm also about 1/2 inch shorter than I used to be.

Understanding stack and reach has made it easier to compare different frames.

[carpediemracing]

Originally Posted by NHAero

This is SO interesting to read about, thanks for posting. Really wonder what it is about the 175 vs 170 cranks!

I think it's my muscle make up, drafting, and my racing "type" (crits with short hills being ideal).

My strong points are my sprint (which is an overt thing) but probably the most significant thing in my racing quiver is my ability to draft closely. After some online discussions (and accusations of being inaccurate) I realized that I draft much closer and accurately (wind direction) than most other racer. So for me, in a Cat 3 race, I might average 160-180w for an hour, and capped with a decent sprint (typically 1000w sustained, 1200w peak, not the 1800w number I've seen thrown at me), I can place top 5 or so, or win a field sprint.

My weak point is easy - I have terrible aerobic capacity. My FTP in my best years (upgraded to Cat 2 one of those years) were 218-220w. And my other weak point is I'm typically heavy. In the pictures above I was <103 lbs (I'd be 103 lbs 3 years later), 130 lbs, 168 lbs, and 180 lbs. So my w/kg is pretty bad, even when I was 100 lbs I couldn't climb, and I thought I would be a good climber.

So with that in mind...

I went on a regular group ride on a tandem, it has to be in the 2008 date range, maybe 2009. Riding with the Missus, who is not a "cyclist" per se but we get along well on the bike. I figured we'd struggle on some hills but if we could power over them then we'd be in good shape. Monday recovery ride with a local shop, no racers, and I could hold my own solo - I'd struggle on the longer hills (aka got shelled) but otherwise I was fine. I figured the tandem wouldn't be horrible. We'd probably get shelled on the 20 min grades but the short stuff would be okay and the flats and downhills should be easier.

To my absolute horror we got ridden off the wheels within 10-15 minutes (of a 2-2.5 hour ride), before we hit any real hills. And in the process I learned about something I do when sitting in a group.

On the tandem I found that I was making a short effort to close a small gap but that effort, due to the weight of the tandem+2people, would take extra long. In my mind I was thinking maybe one pedal stroke but each little dig extended to 8 or 10 revolutions. I blew sky high shortly after the ride started, and we got dropped. I adjusted so I wasn't trying to keep gaps as close but it was too late.

When I got back on the single bike, I realized that I made these "one downstroke" efforts to adjust the gap to the rider in front of me, reducing it by a couple inches or something. I did it all the time, sometimes multiple times a minute. I'd be pedaling relatively easy (for others anyway), 100-150w, but with the odd hard downstroke. I didn't really get feedback on the downstroke effort when I rode solo because the SRM didn't register it. But on the tandem (no SRM / powermeter so I'm guessing here) I was making multiple revolution efforts at probably 400-600w. This is not sustainable for me.

The 170s don't allow me to do a single downstroke to adjust those minor gaps. It takes me a full pedal stroke, sometimes two or three, and on the tandem it took 4 or 5 strokes. It's like doing over/under intervals, where you can't recover enough between efforts. Consequently I feel like I'm always out of breath, like I can't breathe well. And I find myself getting shelled in races within 8-10 minutes.

In each of those attempts to go to 170s (2008, 2011, 2016 was last time, then 2020) I would struggle simply to sit in. I'd get that "holding my breath" sensation early on, and 8-10 minutes later I was off the back.

When I put the 175s back on, I never had that "holding my breath" feeling. Sure, I was working hard, but not in a sense that I wasn't able to breathe. And this was immediate, like I'd race 170s on Sunday, decide to give up on them, switch cranks on Monday (with a short trainer ride to make sure they wouldn't fall off etc) then race Tuesday night. And that Tuesday would be like I was supercharged, I could sit in fine, I wasn't out of breath all the time, etc.

[NHAero]

Super interesting, thanks for all the insights.

Originally Posted by carpediemracing

I think it's my muscle make up, drafting, and my racing "type" (crits with short hills being ideal).

My strong points are my sprint (which is an overt thing) but probably the most significant thing in my racing quiver is my ability to draft closely. After some online discussions (and accusations of being inaccurate) I realized that I draft much closer and accurately (wind direction) than most other racer. So for me, in a Cat 3 race, I might average 160-180w for an hour, and capped with a decent sprint (typically 1000w sustained, 1200w peak, not the 1800w number I've seen thrown at me), I can place top 5 or so, or win a field sprint.

My weak point is easy - I have terrible aerobic capacity. My FTP in my best years (upgraded to Cat 2 one of those years) were 218-220w. And my other weak point is I'm typically heavy. In the pictures above I was <103 lbs (I'd be 103 lbs 3 years later), 130 lbs, 168 lbs, and 180 lbs. So my w/kg is pretty bad, even when I was 100 lbs I couldn't climb, and I thought I would be a good climber.

So with that in mind...

I went on a regular group ride on a tandem, it has to be in the 2008 date range, maybe 2009. Riding with the Missus, who is not a "cyclist" per se but we get along well on the bike. I figured we'd struggle on some hills but if we could power over them then we'd be in good shape. Monday recovery ride with a local shop, no racers, and I could hold my own solo - I'd struggle on the longer hills (aka got shelled) but otherwise I was fine. I figured the tandem wouldn't be horrible. We'd probably get shelled on the 20 min grades but the short stuff would be okay and the flats and downhills should be easier.

To my absolute horror we got ridden off the wheels within 10-15 minutes (of a 2-2.5 hour ride), before we hit any real hills. And in the process I learned about something I do when sitting in a group.

On the tandem I found that I was making a short effort to close a small gap but that effort, due to the weight of the tandem+2people, would take extra long. In my mind I was thinking maybe one pedal stroke but each little dig extended to 8 or 10 revolutions. I blew sky high shortly after the ride started, and we got dropped. I adjusted so I wasn't trying to keep gaps as close but it was too late.

When I got back on the single bike, I realized that I made these "one downstroke" efforts to adjust the gap to the rider in front of me, reducing it by a couple inches or something. I did it all the time, sometimes multiple times a minute. I'd be pedaling relatively easy (for others anyway), 100-150w, but with the odd hard downstroke. I didn't really get feedback on the downstroke effort when I rode solo because the SRM didn't register it. But on the tandem (no SRM / powermeter so I'm guessing here) I was making multiple revolution efforts at probably 400-600w. This is not sustainable for me.

The 170s don't allow me to do a single downstroke to adjust those minor gaps. It takes me a full pedal stroke, sometimes two or three, and on the tandem it took 4 or 5 strokes. It's like doing over/under intervals, where you can't recover enough between efforts. Consequently I feel like I'm always out of breath, like I can't breathe well. And I find myself getting shelled in races within 8-10 minutes.

In each of those attempts to go to 170s (2008, 2011, 2016 was last time, then 2020) I would struggle simply to sit in. I'd get that "holding my breath" sensation early on, and 8-10 minutes later I was off the back.

When I put the 175s back on, I never had that "holding my breath" feeling. Sure, I was working hard, but not in a sense that I wasn't able to breathe. And this was immediate, like I'd race 170s on Sunday, decide to give up on them, switch cranks on Monday (with a short trainer ride to make sure they wouldn't fall off etc) then race Tuesday night. And that Tuesday would be like I was supercharged, I could sit in fine, I wasn't out of breath all the time, etc.

[rain dogs]

Smaller frame size. Always seem to be inching smaller and smaller (and I'm not getting shorter).

[rain dogs]

Originally Posted by carpediemracing

And my other weak point is I'm typically heavy. In the pictures above I was <103 lbs (I'd be 103 lbs 3 years later), 130 lbs, 168 lbs, and 180 lbs. So my w/kg is pretty bad, even when I was 100 lbs I couldn't climb, and I thought I would be a good climber.

Wait... what? 103lbs? Like One..Zero..Three? Is that an adult weight or is this a typing error?

If you're 100lbs, you only have to produce 227W to be climbing at 5W/kg which is pretty damn good W/kg

[NHAero]

When I was in high school four of us ran the MT Washington Hillclimb road race. One friend was not the fastest normally, but he was a stick figure (as someone described him, if he turned sideways and stuck out his tongue he'd look like a zipper) and just over 100 pounds and he kicked our butts!

Originally Posted by rain dogs

Wait... what? 103lbs? Like One..Zero..Three? Is that an adult weight or is this a typing error?

If you're 100lbs, you only have to produce 227W to be climbing at 5W/kg which is pretty damn good W/kg

[robt57]

Originally Posted by NHAero

What you are calling geometry I would call fit.

Verb VS noun perhaps?

I actually prefer "classic" geometry - I had Carl Strong build my frame this year with a 73 degree HTA and 48mm of trail, and 425mm CS.

Do you run any front loading/bags etc, and what tire size usually on it. I ask because especially with 25-7mm road tires, one bike I don't ride much with 49 trail I do not like much up front. The Domane Classic is 51 trail, so all other things not being equal etc.. But Domane is also a Semi in the WB dept and get 31mm tire rolling.

[NHAero]

Over almost 50 years I have ridden the Bob Jackson stripped down with tubulars all the way to big HB bag and front panniers. Handles fine. It's slow when the front end is really weighted but once moving not a big deal. Was running 28-32mm tires when loaded, but the tubies were skinny BITD.

And all over-pressured given what we know now.

Please don't mistake me that I think only front end geo matters to handling. You asked about geometry evolution and I'm just saying my prefs haven't changed whereas, like others, my fit has.

I have a good sized Rixen&Kaul HB bag these days that clips onto the klickfix on the Jackson, the Litespeed dropbar 26er, and even the Nagasawa fixie.

Originally Posted by robt57

Verb VS noun perhaps?




Do you run any front loading/bags etc, and what tire size usually on it. I ask because especially with 25-7mm road tires, one bike I don't ride much with 49 trail I do not like much up front. The Domane Classic is 51 trail, so all other things not being equal etc.. But Domane is also a Semi in the WB dept and get 31mm tire rolling.