Cycling Equipment · Public discussion

Frame geometry

Started by Bruni · · Last activity · 6 posts · 460 views

← Back to Cycling Equipment

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

01 / Original postFrame geometryBruni · 21 Aug 2004 02 / This pagePosts 1–6Page 1 of 1 · chronological order 03 / Latest replyPost #6Tim McNamara · 21 Aug 2004

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
Cycling Equipment
Published
21 August 2004
Last activity
21 August 2004
Original author
Bruni
Posts
6
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
460
Views / 30 days
0
Topics
Frame geometryPedal choiceGreg LeMond

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–6 of 6
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. Original post
    Bruni
    Archived post
    #1

    In general, road bikes have become crit bikes: chainstays have shortened,
    seat and head angles have steepened. Numbers: CS were420-430mm, now
    395-415mm head angles were 72* , now 74*. Greg Lemond's book refers to his
    favorite 72 paralell frame favorably as a road racing as opposed to crit.
    With the percentage road bikes down in the past 2 decades, roadies have
    self-selected a hard core self image, leaving "comfort" bikes to carry the
    demand for a more practical steed. This is definitely not my belief as my
    bikes are more the Lemond geometry-comfort and speed are not incompatible!
    -- Tom
    Bruni Bicycles
    "Where art meets science"
    brunibicycles.com
    410.426.3420
    DJA <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    An earlier poster talked about preferring Rivendell frame geometry.
    Several responses mentioned 70's & 80's bikes having similar geometry.
    Can someone summarize how most current frame designs differ from older
    or "old style" custom frames? What's the new philosophy?

    What would be different on my '85 Schwinn?:

    Frame: 23in (58.42cm)
    Head angle: 73°
    Seat angle: 73°
    Top Tube: 22 3/8in (56.83cm)
    Chainstay: 16 15/16in (43.02cm)
    Wheelbase: 40 7/16in (102.7cm)

    --
    David
    dja--dot--mail--at--comcast--dot--net

    Report
  2. DJA
    Archived post
    #2

    An earlier poster talked about preferring Rivendell frame geometry.
    Several responses mentioned 70's & 80's bikes having similar geometry.
    Can someone summarize how most current frame designs differ from older
    or "old style" custom frames? What's the new philosophy?

    What would be different on my '85 Schwinn?:

    Frame: 23in (58.42cm)
    Head angle: 73°
    Seat angle: 73°
    Top Tube: 22 3/8in (56.83cm)
    Chainstay: 16 15/16in (43.02cm)
    Wheelbase: 40 7/16in (102.7cm)

    --
    David
    dja--dot--mail--at--comcast--dot--net

    Report
  3. Arthur Harris
    Archived post
    #3
    DJA said:

    An earlier poster talked about preferring Rivendell frame geometry.
    Several responses mentioned 70's & 80's bikes having similar geometry.
    Can someone summarize how most current frame designs differ from older
    or "old style" custom frames? What's the new philosophy?

    What would be different on my '85 Schwinn?:

    Frame: 23in (58.42cm)
    Head angle: 73°
    Seat angle: 73°
    Top Tube: 22 3/8in (56.83cm)
    Chainstay: 16 15/16in (43.02cm)
    Wheelbase: 40 7/16in (102.7cm)

    Your '85 Schwinn sounds typical of Sport Touring frames of that era. Bikes
    older than that often didn't have proportional sizing (e.g., all frame sizes
    had the same top tube length, etc.).

    The current fashion is for short chainstays (~40cm) and slightly longer top
    tubes for a given frame size. Also, the trend is for riders to choose a
    shorter seat tube (you don't find many 63cm c-c frames like mine), and have
    more seatpost exposed. That allows the handlebars to be placed lower
    relative to the saddle. There is also a trend for tight clearances (often
    making it hard to fit tires wider than 25mm). The new "philosophy" is mostly
    about looking racy.

    Personally, I prefer the geomertry of the older bikes. The longer wheelbase
    provided a more comfortable and stable ride, the greater clearance gave more
    tire options, and the taller frames made it easy to get the bars at a
    reasonable height. And it didn't really slow anyone down.

    Rivendell goes a bit beyond the classic sport touring geometry, recommending
    very large frames, often setting the bars higher than the saddle, and
    fitting very wide tires and fenders. They also tend to shun things like
    indexed shifting and clipless pedals.

    Art Harris

    Report
  4. Craig
    Archived post
    #4


    Quoted message said:

    Rivendell goes a bit beyond the classic sport touring geometry,


    recommending

    Quoted message said:

    very large frames, often setting the bars higher than the saddle, and
    fitting very wide tires and fenders. They also tend to shun things like
    indexed shifting and clipless pedals.

    Art Harris


    It's fun to mess with the Rivendell guys and ask them how much their frames
    weigh. I'm all for the retro stuff, I ride road and mountain bikes and
    would never consider riding a dual suspension. Hard tail is here to stay (at
    least in this house).

    Report
  5. SMMB
    Archived post
    #5

    "Arthur Harris" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de :
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    DJA said:

    An earlier poster talked about preferring Rivendell frame geometry.
    Several responses mentioned 70's & 80's bikes having similar geometry.
    Can someone summarize how most current frame designs differ from older
    or "old style" custom frames? What's the new philosophy?

    What would be different on my '85 Schwinn?:

    Frame: 23in (58.42cm)
    Head angle: 73°
    Seat angle: 73°
    Top Tube: 22 3/8in (56.83cm)
    Chainstay: 16 15/16in (43.02cm)
    Wheelbase: 40 7/16in (102.7cm)

    Your '85 Schwinn sounds typical of Sport Touring frames of that era. Bikes
    older than that often didn't have proportional sizing (e.g., all frame


    sizes

    Quoted message said:

    had the same top tube length, etc.).

    The current fashion is for short chainstays (~40cm) and slightly longer


    top

    Quoted message said:

    tubes for a given frame size. Also, the trend is for riders to choose a
    shorter seat tube (you don't find many 63cm c-c frames like mine), and


    have

    Quoted message said:

    more seatpost exposed. That allows the handlebars to be placed lower
    relative to the saddle. There is also a trend for tight clearances (often
    making it hard to fit tires wider than 25mm). The new "philosophy" is


    mostly

    Quoted message said:

    about looking racy.

    Personally, I prefer the geomertry of the older bikes. The longer


    wheelbase

    Quoted message said:

    provided a more comfortable and stable ride, the greater clearance gave


    more

    Quoted message said:

    tire options, and the taller frames made it easy to get the bars at a
    reasonable height. And it didn't really slow anyone down.

    Rivendell goes a bit beyond the classic sport touring geometry,


    recommending

    Quoted message said:

    very large frames, often setting the bars higher than the saddle, and
    fitting very wide tires and fenders. They also tend to shun things like
    indexed shifting and clipless pedals.

    Art Harris


    If retro were better, it would be better. You offer a perfect explanation
    of the deficiencies of this brand, without trying. Progress is not novelty,
    alone. Progress also usually involves avoiding the errors of the past.
    --
    Bonne route,

    Sandy
    Paris FR

    Report
  6. Tim McNamara
    Archived post
    #6
    SMMB said:

    "Arthur Harris" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de :
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    DJA said:

    An earlier poster talked about preferring Rivendell frame
    geometry. Several responses mentioned 70's & 80's bikes having
    similar geometry. Can someone summarize how most current frame
    designs differ from older or "old style" custom frames? What's
    the new philosophy?

    <snip>

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    The current fashion is for short chainstays (~40cm) and slightly
    longer top tubes for a given frame size. Also, the trend is for
    riders to choose a shorter seat tube (you don't find many 63cm c-c
    frames like mine), and have more seatpost exposed. That allows the
    handlebars to be placed lower relative to the saddle. There is also
    a trend for tight clearances (often making it hard to fit tires
    wider than 25mm). The new "philosophy" is mostly about looking
    racy.

    Personally, I prefer the geomertry of the older bikes. The longer
    wheelbase provided a more comfortable and stable ride, the greater
    clearance gave more tire options, and the taller frames made it
    easy to get the bars at a reasonable height. And it didn't really
    slow anyone down.

    Rivendell goes a bit beyond the classic sport touring geometry,
    recommending very large frames, often setting the bars higher than
    the saddle, and fitting very wide tires and fenders. They also tend
    to shun things like indexed shifting and clipless pedals.

    If retro were better, it would be better. You offer a perfect
    explanation of the deficiencies of this brand, without trying.
    Progress is not novelty, alone. Progress also usually involves
    avoiding the errors of the past.

    What "errors of the past" has Rivendell not avoided? What are the
    deficiencies of Rivendell?

    Report

Keep exploring

Browse the sectionCycling Equipment Return to CyclingForumsStart at the home page Search discussionsFind another thread

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.