compact geometry hell

Discussion in 'Cycling Equipment' started by Callistus Valer, Feb 29, 2004.

  1. Mike S.

    Mike S. Guest

    "Derk" <I_hatespam@invalid.org> wrote in message
    news:404e017c$0$561$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
    > Robert Brown wrote:
    > > But you are right, I have _not_ looked at the sizes of
    > > compact frames generally on offer because I too find
    > > them so damned ug-leee.
    > I agree with you that these frames are ugly. Still,I
    > bought one last week. I needed a bike I can leave in
    > France instead of dragging one with me
    every
    > holiday. I was offered a compact frame for 1000 Euros in
    > stead of the 1400 it cost last year, because there was a
    > new model out. I compared, but was unable to find anything
    > else in the 1000 Euros price range, so I bought a very
    > lightweight compact frame that I'll use a few weeks a year
    > in France.
    >
    > About sizes of normal geometry frames: LOOK for example
    > offered a reasobly priced frameset only in 57 or 59 size
    > in stead of the 58 I need.....
    >
    >
    > Greets, Derk

    Y'all keep overlooking the Big S who offers their S-Works
    compact frames in the same 1-2cm increments as all their
    other bikes...

    I know they off at least a 52, 53, 54 'cause I was looking
    at a 52. Decided it was too short. Looked between 53 and 54.
    Chose the 53, but shoulda bought the 54. Oh well.

    Mike
     


  2. Carl Fogel

    Carl Fogel Guest

    chumpychump@hotmail.com (Chalo) wrote in message news:<8b4b7de4.0403082021.3b1c1c1e@posting.google.com>...

    [snip]

    >
    > Yum: http://www.wundel.com/frankys.pic/frankys.jpg/manito-
    > u1_grossbild.jpg
    >
    > Yuck: http://www.cyclesdeoro.com/images/Interbike%20Shows-
    > /InterBike00/Colnag5L.gif
    >
    > Chalo Colina

    Dear Chalo,

    Are those square tubes on the first bike's chain and
    seat stays?

    If so, do you know what's going on? Stronger, cheaper,
    easier to manufacture, just cosmetic?

    And are they going to spread eventually to the rest of
    future bicycle frames?

    Carl Fogel
     
  3. Robert Brown

    Robert Brown Guest

    "Mike S." wrote:

    ---8<----- cutting middle bit

    >
    > I know they off at least a 52, 53, 54 'cause I was looking
    > at a 52. Decided it was too short. Looked between 53 and
    > 54. Chose the 53, but shoulda bought the 54. Oh well.
    >

    Join the club. Many racers I've known do that on purpose -
    they go for a shorter frame. I should ideally ride a 55 or
    56, based on my total height, but I like my 53 (Colnago have
    the gall to call it a 54 but that's another discussion)
    since my legs are long for my height and I thus require a
    shorter top tube.

    The sacrifice I make is having 3 cm of spacers between top
    of headset and bottom of handlebar stem. Of course I could
    saw down the steerer and flip the stem to point it upwards,
    but then it wouldn't look like a "real" bicycle.

    In this config, top of handlebars is 15 cm (ca. 6 in) below
    saddle tip (level saddle). Fits me perfectly.

    /Robert
     
  4. Rick Onanian

    Rick Onanian Guest

    On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 23:16:02 +0100, Robert Brown
    <rxobert.bxrown@txripnet.se> wrote:
    >The sacrifice I make is having 3 cm of spacers between top
    >of headset and bottom of handlebar stem. Of course I could
    >saw down the steerer and flip the stem to point it upwards,
    >but then it wouldn't look like a "real" bicycle.

    So, you could shave a few grams, but your vanity exceeds
    your gram-weenie-ity?

    >In this config, top of handlebars is 15 cm (ca. 6 in) below
    >saddle tip (level saddle). Fits me perfectly.

    Sounds torturous. Is that your race bike or just for
    training?
    --
    Rick Onanian
     
  5. Chalo

    Chalo Guest

    carlfogel@comcast.net (Carl Fogel) wrote:

    > > http://www.wundel.com/frankys.pic/frankys.jpg/manitou1_-
    > > grossbild.jpg
    > >
    > Are those square tubes on the first bike's chain and
    > seat stays?

    Yes.

    > If so, do you know what's going on? Stronger, cheaper,
    > easier to manufacture, just cosmetic?

    Stronger? Not really. (Only to bending loads on-axis.)

    Cheaper? Possibly. Depends on whether they streamline
    production somehow.

    Easier to manufacture? Sometimes. I like square tubes for
    the fact that they align well to reference surfaces.

    Cosmetic? Could be. They looked new and cool at one time
    (mid '80s- early '90s). Kleins used to have them, as well as
    the tasteful Doug Bradbury-built Manitou in the picture.
    Those were both bike marques with some glamor attached.

    I believe the main reason square stays were used on early
    aluminum bike frames was to maximize both tube cross-section
    and tire clearance within a given external width constraint.
    (That is the same reason they are used now on downhill-type
    MTB swingarms.) At that time, tapered and fancy shaped bike-
    specific aluminum tubes were as yet unavailable, and common
    cranks and BBs imposed limitations on the permissible widths
    and curvatures of chainstays.

    At that time, one of the bragging points of aluminum was
    that an aluminum frame could be made both stiffer and
    lighter than a comparable steel frame, and those few makers
    who built aluminum frames were making them *actually
    stiffer* than steel frames. That meant no skimping on the
    tubing sizes, which in turn made square tubes a good choice
    when tube width was limited by clearance issues.

    Of course, thanks to those early aluminum builders,
    everybody came to know that aluminum frames are all
    incredibly stiff and harsh riding, no matter the specifics
    of the tubing in the frame. After this shift in bike
    consumer consciousness, there was no longer a need to put
    quite so much structure in tight areas like the chainstay-
    BB joint. :D

    Chalo Colina
     
  6. Tom Sherman

    Tom Sherman Guest

    Ryan Cousineau wrote:

    > ... Imagine a typical compact bike: as you approach the
    > obstacle, you slide off the seat forward and to one side
    > of the bike. Crouch down low so one leg is touching the
    > top tube, and drop your head so it's down around the level
    > of your handlebars.
    >
    > You are now riding really low....

    Really low is being able to touch the ground with both hands
    while seated on the bike.

    Tom Sherman - Quad Cities (Illinois Side)
     
  7. G.T.

    G.T. Guest

    Carl Fogel wrote:
    > chumpychump@hotmail.com (Chalo) wrote in message
    > news:<8b4b7de4.0403082021.3b1c1c1e@posting.google.com>...
    >
    > [snip]
    >
    >
    >>Yum: http://www.wundel.com/frankys.pic/frankys.jpg/manito-
    >>u1_grossbild.jpg
    >>
    >>Yuck: http://www.cyclesdeoro.com/images/Interbike%20Shows-
    >>/InterBike00/Colnag5L.gif
    >>
    >>Chalo Colina
    >
    >
    > Dear Chalo,
    >
    > Are those square tubes on the first bike's chain and
    > seat stays?
    >

    Yes, I had a later model Answer-made Manitou.

    > If so, do you know what's going on? Stronger, cheaper,
    > easier to manufacture, just cosmetic?

    Who knows?

    >
    > And are they going to spread eventually to the rest of
    > future bicycle frames?
    >

    My current Turner also has square stays.

    Greg
     
  8. Derk

    Derk Guest

    Tom Sherman wrote:

    > Really low is being able to touch the ground with both
    > hands while seated on the bike.
    Can't be that hard: monkeys do that without any problem!

    Greets, Derk
     
  9. Robert Brown

    Robert Brown Guest

    Rick Onanian wrote:

    > On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 23:16:02 +0100, Robert Brown
    > <rxobert.bxrown@txripnet.se> wrote:
    > >The sacrifice I make is having 3 cm of spacers between
    > >top of headset and bottom of handlebar stem. Of course I
    > >could saw down the steerer and flip the stem to point it
    > >upwards, but then it wouldn't look like a "real" bicycle.
    >
    > So, you could shave a few grams, but your vanity exceeds
    > your gram-weenie-ity?

    Absolutely . . . I'll gladly pay some extra weight in the
    name of style . . .

    >
    >
    > >In this config, top of handlebars is 15 cm (ca. 6 in)
    > >below saddle tip (level saddle). Fits me perfectly.
    >
    > Sounds torturous. Is that your race bike or just for
    > training?

    < grin > This is the way I also train, so that when I race,
    I'm already used to it.

    My hamstrings are still a bit too short, so this position
    also encourages me to do the proper stretching exercises
    afterwards.

    /Robert
     
  10. Matt O'Toole

    Matt O'Toole Guest

    Chalo wrote:

    > Anyway, many new road bikes look cheesy and declassé
    > because they _are_ cheesy and declassé, not because of the
    > angles of their top tubes.
    >
    > Yum: http://www.wundel.com/frankys.pic/frankys.jpg/manito-
    > u1_grossbild.jpg
    >
    > Yuck: http://www.cyclesdeoro.com/images/Interbike%20Shows-
    > /InterBike00/Colnag5L.gif

    To each his own, I guess. To me, the Manitou looks like it
    was made in someone's garage. (Which I know is the appeal.)
    The Colnago would be a bit flashy for me, but from a design
    standpoint it definately looks "better." I think most design
    buffs would agree.

    I agree it has nothing to do with the angles of their
    top tubes, though, and that most newer road bikes *do*
    look declasse.

    Matt O.
     
  11. Matt O'Toole

    Matt O'Toole Guest

    ajames54 wrote:

    > Even so when mountain bikes first went to a slopeing
    > top tube design they were still measured in the
    > standard way... only to the effective top tube rather
    > than the actual.

    > In recent years they have become S M L XL there are a
    > number of reasons, but one of the reasons was that the
    > customer who fit one 18" frame did not necessarily fit
    > another, the other dimensions varied so much.

    > To make it easier on the shops the manufacturors swapped
    > to the Letter sizes. It does not really affect the
    > knowledgable customer or the good shops .. but there are a
    > lot of both customers and shops that are not these
    > things...

    There are so many different ways of measuring frames, plus
    they have different proportions. So the numbers are only
    nominal anyway. And if they're only nominal, one might as
    well just use names, not numbers.

    I see nothing wrong with this. It's actually easier to
    understand for most people, making fitting a bike like
    buying clothes (which it sort of is).

    > The "you fit what we have in stock" attitude is very
    > common.

    Unfortunately.

    Matt O.
     
  12. Derk

    Derk Guest

    Matt O'Toole wrote:

    > The Colnago would be a bit flashy for me,
    That's an understatement: the guy who designs the paintwork
    seems to be colour blind to me.

    Greets, Derk
     
  13. Matt O'Toole

    Matt O'Toole Guest

    Ted Bennett wrote:

    > BaCardi <usenet-forum@cyclingforums.com> wrote:

    >> Why aren't there non-compact mountain bikes? Why don't
    >> the traditionalists make a big deal about that?

    > There are non-compact mountain bikes. I have one, made
    > by Fat Chance, with a horizontal top tube. I haven't
    > seen a mountain bike like it in some time. It's about 15
    > years old.

    I had an old Bontrager with a level top tube, and geometry
    designed for a suspension fork (a Rockshox Mag 10). Sloped
    top tubes became popular around 1990 or so, when suspension
    forks became popular. But there were still some level tube
    holdouts for awhile after that. Ritchey was one of the last
    to get sloped, IIRC.

    I don't see what the big deal is.

    Matt O.
     
  14. Mike S.

    Mike S. Guest

    "Matt O'Toole" <matt@deltanet.com> wrote in message
    news:YTV3c.36293$rW6.24658@nwrddc03.gnilink.net...
    > Chalo wrote:
    >
    > > Anyway, many new road bikes look cheesy and declassé
    > > because they _are_ cheesy and declassé, not because of
    > > the angles of their top tubes.
    > >
    > > Yum: http://www.wundel.com/frankys.pic/frankys.jpg/mani-
    > > tou1_grossbild.jpg
    > >
    > > Yuck:
    > >
    http://www.cyclesdeoro.com/images/Interbike%20Shows/InterBi-
    ke00/Colnag5L.gif
    >
    > To each his own, I guess. To me, the Manitou looks like it
    > was made in someone's garage. (Which I know is the
    > appeal.) The Colnago would be a
    bit
    > flashy for me, but from a design standpoint it definately
    > looks "better."
    I
    > think most design buffs would agree.
    >
    > I agree it has nothing to do with the angles of their top
    > tubes, though,
    and
    > that most newer road bikes *do* look declasse.
    >
    > Matt O.
    >
    I don't get it. You're comparing a mtn bike made in the
    late 80s/early 90s when mtn biking was in its infancy to a
    Colnago with 50+ years of road development behind it?
    Uhhh, yeah.

    When was the last time you saw a Manitou mtn bike. Even
    better, when was the last time you saw a mtn bike WITH NO
    SHOCK? (being ridden off-road that
    is)

    Beauty is indeed in the eye of the beholder. Like in
    politics, women, sports, and religion, we're going to have
    to agree to disagree.

    Mike
     
  15. Mike S.

    Mike S. Guest

    "Matt O'Toole" <matt@deltanet.com> wrote in message
    news:YTV3c.36293$rW6.24658@nwrddc03.gnilink.net...
    > Chalo wrote:
    >
    > > Anyway, many new road bikes look cheesy and declassé
    > > because they _are_ cheesy and declassé, not because of
    > > the angles of their top tubes.
    > >
    > > Yum: http://www.wundel.com/frankys.pic/frankys.jpg/mani-
    > > tou1_grossbild.jpg
    > >
    > > Yuck:
    > >
    http://www.cyclesdeoro.com/images/Interbike%20Shows/InterBi-
    ke00/Colnag5L.gif
    >
    > To each his own, I guess. To me, the Manitou looks like it
    > was made in someone's garage. (Which I know is the
    > appeal.) The Colnago would be a
    bit
    > flashy for me, but from a design standpoint it definately
    > looks "better."
    I
    > think most design buffs would agree.
    >
    > I agree it has nothing to do with the angles of their top
    > tubes, though,
    and
    > that most newer road bikes *do* look declasse.
    >
    > Matt O.
    >
    I don't get it. You're comparing a mtn bike made in the
    late 80s/early 90s when mtn biking was in its infancy to a
    Colnago with 50+ years of road development behind it?
    Uhhh, yeah.

    When was the last time you saw a Manitou mtn bike. Even
    better, when was the last time you saw a mtn bike WITH NO
    SHOCK? (being ridden off-road that
    is)

    Beauty is indeed in the eye of the beholder. Like in
    politics, women, sports, and religion, we're going to have
    to agree to disagree.

    Mike
     
  16. Evan Evans

    Evan Evans Guest

    Derk <I_hatespam@invalid.org> wrote in message news:<40502bf6$0$566$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>...
    > Matt O'Toole wrote:
    >
    > > The Colnago would be a bit flashy for me,
    > That's an understatement: the guy who designs the
    > paintwork seems to be colour blind to me.
    >
    > Greets, Derk

    What is up with colnago's paint colors? I would love to
    own one. I'm sure thay ride wonderfully , but whoever came
    up with the idea to put eye-balls on every tube lost me as
    a customer.
     
  17. Derk

    Derk Guest

    Evan Evans wrote:

    > What is up with colnago's paint colors? I would love to
    > own one.
    I nearly bought a Dream B-Stay last week, but I couldn't
    find any colour scheme I liked. I don't want to ride a very
    flashy bike, being over 40. I never liked their colours btw.
    Pinarello do a far better job IMHO.

    > I'm sure thay ride wonderfully , but whoever came up with
    > the idea to put eye-balls on every tube lost me as a
    > customer.
    What do you mean by eye-balls?

    Greets, Derk
     
  18. S O R N I

    S O R N I Guest

    Mike S. wrote:
    >
    > When was the last time you saw a Manitou mtn bike. Even
    > better, when was the last time you saw a mtn bike WITH NO
    > SHOCK? (being ridden off-road that is)

    Umm, like, Saturday. (No derailleurs, either.)

    Bill "lots of rigid mtb's out there (not mine, mind you --
    gimme gears 'n squish)" S.
     
  19. Robert Brown

    Robert Brown Guest

    Evan Evans wrote:

    > Derk <I_hatespam@invalid.org> wrote in message
    > news:<40502bf6$0$566$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>...
    > > Matt O'Toole wrote:
    > >
    > > > The Colnago would be a bit flashy for me,
    > > That's an understatement: the guy who designs the
    > > paintwork seems to be colour blind to me.
    > >
    > > Greets, Derk
    >
    > What is up with colnago's paint colors? I would love to
    > own one. I'm sure thay ride wonderfully , but whoever came
    > up with the idea to put eye-balls on every tube lost me as
    > a customer.

    Would you be happier if you could see them eyes as little
    suns with asteroid belts orbiting them?

    ;-)

    Try to get hold of a 2002 model. I think mine's called D23N.
    Not an eyeball to be seen, just nice little rainbows. Or try
    this year's Classic in D11N scheme, or this year's Mix in
    PR23 scheme (if you want the eyeballs/planets to be replaced
    by some cute little wavy Estonian flags . . .).

    Or just respray the damn thing Bianchi green.

    /Robert
     
  20. Mike S.

    Mike S. Guest

    "S o r n i" <sorni@bite-me.san.rr.com> wrote in message
    news:eek:q34c.24356$4o3.16631@twister.socal.rr.com...
    > Mike S. wrote:
    > >
    > > When was the last time you saw a Manitou mtn bike. Even
    > > better, when was the last time you saw a mtn bike WITH
    > > NO SHOCK? (being ridden off-road that is)
    >
    > Umm, like, Saturday. (No derailleurs, either.)
    >
    > Bill "lots of rigid mtb's out there (not mine, mind you --
    > gimme gears 'n squish)" S.
    >
    SS mtn bikes are a different critter than what the pic was.
    Those SS guys are PROUD to be retro "ouch that rock HURT!"
    kinda guys.

    Mike
     
Loading...
Loading...