Re: Bikes With Short Top Tubes and High Front Ends - WAS:Interpreting Serotta Fit Cycle Data For Oth

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

> I was originally looking at TI bikes which led me to Serotta and
> Litespeed and ruled out the carbon Trek Pilot. It looks like a stock
> Litespeed is probably out unless a Siena can be made to fit but the
> front end might not be tall enough. The Serotta Fierte looks like it
> might be a possibility in a 54S although the seat tube is a little
> short
>
> Can anyone offer any other possibilities for similar TI bikes that
> have this characteristic geometry?

Of course, the dumb question that comes to mind is, given that fit trumps
just about everything else, why does the bike need to be made of Titanium?
If it's an aesthetic issue, fine... whatever it takes to make somebody want
to ride more. But great frames can be made of steel, ti, aluminum or carbon.
If the Trek Pilot series fits, you ought to try one and see how it goes. And
not just because it's a Trek (a disclaimer that I have to make, particularly
since we're the largest Trek carbon dealer in the country). If it's the
theoretically-correct fit, it's worth trying if for no other reason that to
see how the fit feels for the custom Ti bike it sounds like you might have
to have made.

By the way, doesn't Serotta make an extension tube that essentially
lengthens the headtube, raising the front end? It's not a cheap piece of
hardware, but I believe it can be used on a number of frames.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com


"Steve Sr." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> The Previous thread was getting long and I think it is time to bend it
> in a slightly different direction. Thanks to everyone who responded
> and especially to Jay.
>
> I went back to the person who did the fit and asked some more
> questions about the data. For the conventional frame Fit Cycle here
> are the ideal frame measurments:
>
> Seat Tube = 55cm.
>
> Top Tube = 55cm (but that resulted in a 70mm stem which is no good).
> So the top tube should be 53cm with a 90mm stem or a rediculous 51cm
> with a standard 110mm stem.
>
> Seat and Head Tube Angle = 73.5 degrees.
>
> Seat to Stem Height = Stem 8mm higher than seat.
>
> I think that these are all of the important numbers. If there is
> anything that I have missed let me know and I'll try to find it.
>
> So from here it does look like I will need a bike with a shorter top
> tube to fix the reach issue and a taller front end to address the
> height issue.
>
> I was originally looking at TI bikes which led me to Serotta and
> Litespeed and ruled out the carbon Trek Pilot. It looks like a stock
> Litespeed is probably out unless a Siena can be made to fit but the
> front end might not be tall enough. The Serotta Fierte looks like it
> might be a possibility in a 54S although the seat tube is a little
> short
>
> Can anyone offer any other possibilities for similar TI bikes that
> have this characteristic geometry?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Steve

 

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

>>Of course, the dumb question that comes to mind is, given that fit trumps
>>just about everything else, why does the bike need to be made of Titanium?
>>If it's an aesthetic issue, fine... whatever it takes to make somebody
>>want
>>to ride more.
>
> You're right, I have decided on Ti for aesthetics and longevity. Where
> I live the humidity is high enough that steel will eventually rust and
> I'm not sold on the longevity or durability of carbon either. TI is
> forever. Zero maintenance.

Ti frames *do* fail. Just like everything else. Choose Ti because you like
the way it looks, not because it's somehow stronger than carbon. Carbon
fiber, used properly, is as strong as anything you can get. If you're
actually concerned that a Trek carbon frame isn't going to be as durable as
a brand-whatever Ti, then I'll be interested in what fork (specifically what
type of material it's made of) you choose for your bike...

>>But great frames can be made of steel, ti, aluminum or carbon.
>>If the Trek Pilot series fits, you ought to try one and see how it goes.
>>And
>>not just because it's a Trek (a disclaimer that I have to make,
>>particularly
>>since we're the largest Trek carbon dealer in the country). If it's the
>>theoretically-correct fit, it's worth trying if for no other reason that
>>to
>>see how the fit feels for the custom Ti bike it sounds like you might have
>>to have made.
>
> Sounds like a good idea to try out the Trek for fit. However I'm not
> so sure that a short test ride will be sufficient to really tell much.

You may be quite surprised at how much even a four mile test ride can
determine. It will definitely help if there are some hills, and a variety of
pavement types.

> I think that a lot of folks sort of learn to put up with fit problems
> just like I have on the Cannondale. I suspect that this is the main
> reason that Ebay is so full of good used bikes. The bike didn't fit
> right and the owner finally got tired of riding it that way.

That's unfortunate. For a majority of bikes, getting a proper fit is
primarily a matter of defining it. Actually modifying the bike to get there
is relatively easy. You may have to throw out some cherished myths about
stem length though (especially the silly stuff about looking down through
the bars and having the hub obscured). Very few people need "custom" bikes
(and even fewer with bikes like the Pilot coming on the scene).

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com


"Steve Sr." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 07:29:44 GMT, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> I was originally looking at TI bikes which led me to Serotta and
>>> Litespeed and ruled out the carbon Trek Pilot. It looks like a stock
>>> Litespeed is probably out unless a Siena can be made to fit but the
>>> front end might not be tall enough. The Serotta Fierte looks like it
>>> might be a possibility in a 54S although the seat tube is a little
>>> short
>>>
>>> Can anyone offer any other possibilities for similar TI bikes that
>>> have this characteristic geometry?
>>
>>Of course, the dumb question that comes to mind is, given that fit trumps
>>just about everything else, why does the bike need to be made of Titanium?
>>If it's an aesthetic issue, fine... whatever it takes to make somebody
>>want
>>to ride more.
>
> You're right, I have decided on Ti for aesthetics and longevity. Where
> I live the humidity is high enough that steel will eventually rust and
> I'm not sold on the longevity or durability of carbon either. TI is
> forever. Zero maintenance.
>
>>But great frames can be made of steel, ti, aluminum or carbon.
>>If the Trek Pilot series fits, you ought to try one and see how it goes.
>>And
>>not just because it's a Trek (a disclaimer that I have to make,
>>particularly
>>since we're the largest Trek carbon dealer in the country). If it's the
>>theoretically-correct fit, it's worth trying if for no other reason that
>>to
>>see how the fit feels for the custom Ti bike it sounds like you might have
>>to have made.
>
> Sounds like a good idea to try out the Trek for fit. However I'm not
> so sure that a short test ride will be sufficient to really tell much.
> I think that a lot of folks sort of learn to put up with fit problems
> just like I have on the Cannondale. I suspect that this is the main
> reason that Ebay is so full of good used bikes. The bike didn't fit
> right and the owner finally got tired of riding it that way.
>
> I think that another good way to test for fit is after a really long
> ride like a century (either metric or english!) The other issue is
> that the carbon Trek I suspect will feel quite different simply
> because of the frame material.
>
>>By the way, doesn't Serotta make an extension tube that essentially
>>lengthens the headtube, raising the front end? It's not a cheap piece of
>>hardware, but I believe it can be used on a number of frames.
>
> I don't know about this. Serotta is mostly a high-end custom frame
> company but they happen to make one "stock" model which comes fairly
> close to fitting me. I have heard that it is not a good idea to add
> long extensions to the steerer tube both for aesthetic and handling
> reasons.
>
> Steve
>
>
>
>>
>>--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
>>www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
>>
>>
>>"Steve Sr." <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> The Previous thread was getting long and I think it is time to bend it
>>> in a slightly different direction. Thanks to everyone who responded
>>> and especially to Jay.
>>>
>>> I went back to the person who did the fit and asked some more
>>> questions about the data. For the conventional frame Fit Cycle here
>>> are the ideal frame measurments:
>>>
>>> Seat Tube = 55cm.
>>>
>>> Top Tube = 55cm (but that resulted in a 70mm stem which is no good).
>>> So the top tube should be 53cm with a 90mm stem or a rediculous 51cm
>>> with a standard 110mm stem.
>>>
>>> Seat and Head Tube Angle = 73.5 degrees.
>>>
>>> Seat to Stem Height = Stem 8mm higher than seat.
>>>
>>> I think that these are all of the important numbers. If there is
>>> anything that I have missed let me know and I'll try to find it.
>>>
>>> So from here it does look like I will need a bike with a shorter top
>>> tube to fix the reach issue and a taller front end to address the
>>> height issue.
>>>
>>> I was originally looking at TI bikes which led me to Serotta and
>>> Litespeed and ruled out the carbon Trek Pilot. It looks like a stock
>>> Litespeed is probably out unless a Siena can be made to fit but the
>>> front end might not be tall enough. The Serotta Fierte looks like it
>>> might be a possibility in a 54S although the seat tube is a little
>>> short
>>>
>>> Can anyone offer any other possibilities for similar TI bikes that
>>> have this characteristic geometry?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Steve
>>
>

 

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

> Point taken. My new bike will probably have a carbon fork since just
> about all high end bikes seem to be coming with carbon forks. However,
> I would much rather have to replace a fork for $200 than a frame for
> $2000.
>
> Steve

Steve: My point had nothing to do with cost. Rather, if you don't trust
carbon to hold up for a frame, why would you even consider using it on a
fork? A frame can fail many different ways without dumping you on the
ground, but if a fork fails, you're toast. There is no part of your bike
that you're more dependent upon for living a normal lifespan than your fork
(and maybe your bar & stem). Fork goes, YOU go. Badly.

Fortunately, it's been a non-issue. Carbon forks are generally (not always)
engineered with a pretty healthy safety margin. Just like many (not all)
carbon frames. And the type of impact that would kill a carbon frame would
most likely do the same to any other material. Repair costs? Carbon frames
can have tubes replaced... no, it's not cheap, but it's not cheap to do so
on Ti (or steel) either.

Buy Ti because you like the looks, or imagine that it rides better. But
don't get sucked into the idea that it builds a better frame than any other
material. A few years ago the world was littered with a whole bunch of
name-brand Ti "SL" (superlight) frames that broke where the shifter bosses
are located. I was riding with a guy who had one... we noticed some noise
and found a small crack. Decided not to do the ride to the coast that
morning, and started heading back towards his car. Within one mile that
crack had gone from 1/4" to more than halfway around the tube. Why did this
happen? Because the manufacturer (remember, big-name company) (no, not
Mark/Habanero; he'd never have something built that close to the edge!)
wanted to play the weight game, and get something close to the weight of
carbon. Dumb. It was an inappropriate way to use the material.

Used properly, as I said before, you can make a great frame out of any of
hte standard materials. You just have to understand the strengths &
weaknesses of each. And we've sold many thousands (literally) of Trek carbon
frames over the years, enough to know that they hold up as well as anything
else out there. I've even road-tested one myself into a car, just to make
sure (http://www.chainreaction.com/oclvtestcrash.htm). But I don't recommend
you repeat the experiment!

PS: You can still buy a steel fork for your new bike, you just have to look
a bit harder to find them.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com

Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
"Steve Sr." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 04:49:12 GMT, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>>Of course, the dumb question that comes to mind is, given that fit
>>>>trumps
>>>>just about everything else, why does the bike need to be made of
>>>>Titanium?
>>>>If it's an aesthetic issue, fine... whatever it takes to make somebody
>>>>want
>>>>to ride more.
>>>
>>> You're right, I have decided on Ti for aesthetics and longevity. Where
>>> I live the humidity is high enough that steel will eventually rust and
>>> I'm not sold on the longevity or durability of carbon either. TI is
>>> forever. Zero maintenance.
>>
>>Ti frames *do* fail. Just like everything else. Choose Ti because you like
>>the way it looks, not because it's somehow stronger than carbon. Carbon
>>fiber, used properly, is as strong as anything you can get. If you're
>>actually concerned that a Trek carbon frame isn't going to be as durable
>>as
>>a brand-whatever Ti, then I'll be interested in what fork (specifically
>>what
>>type of material it's made of) you choose for your bike...
>
> Point taken. My new bike will probably have a carbon fork since just
> about all high end bikes seem to be coming with carbon forks. However,
> I would much rather have to replace a fork for $200 than a frame for
> $2000.
>
> Steve
>
>>
>>>>But great frames can be made of steel, ti, aluminum or carbon.
>>>>If the Trek Pilot series fits, you ought to try one and see how it goes.
>>>>And
>>>>not just because it's a Trek (a disclaimer that I have to make,
>>>>particularly
>>>>since we're the largest Trek carbon dealer in the country). If it's the
>>>>theoretically-correct fit, it's worth trying if for no other reason that
>>>>to
>>>>see how the fit feels for the custom Ti bike it sounds like you might
>>>>have
>>>>to have made.
>>>
>>> Sounds like a good idea to try out the Trek for fit. However I'm not
>>> so sure that a short test ride will be sufficient to really tell much.
>>
>>You may be quite surprised at how much even a four mile test ride can
>>determine. It will definitely help if there are some hills, and a variety
>>of
>>pavement types.
>>
>>> I think that a lot of folks sort of learn to put up with fit problems
>>> just like I have on the Cannondale. I suspect that this is the main
>>> reason that Ebay is so full of good used bikes. The bike didn't fit
>>> right and the owner finally got tired of riding it that way.
>>
>>That's unfortunate. For a majority of bikes, getting a proper fit is
>>primarily a matter of defining it. Actually modifying the bike to get
>>there
>>is relatively easy. You may have to throw out some cherished myths about
>>stem length though (especially the silly stuff about looking down through
>>the bars and having the hub obscured). Very few people need "custom" bikes
>>(and even fewer with bikes like the Pilot coming on the scene).
>>
>>--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
>>www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
>>
>>
>>"Steve Sr." <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 07:29:44 GMT, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I was originally looking at TI bikes which led me to Serotta and
>>>>> Litespeed and ruled out the carbon Trek Pilot. It looks like a stock
>>>>> Litespeed is probably out unless a Siena can be made to fit but the
>>>>> front end might not be tall enough. The Serotta Fierte looks like it
>>>>> might be a possibility in a 54S although the seat tube is a little
>>>>> short
>>>>>
>>>>> Can anyone offer any other possibilities for similar TI bikes that
>>>>> have this characteristic geometry?
>>>>
>>>>Of course, the dumb question that comes to mind is, given that fit
>>>>trumps
>>>>just about everything else, why does the bike need to be made of
>>>>Titanium?
>>>>If it's an aesthetic issue, fine... whatever it takes to make somebody
>>>>want
>>>>to ride more.
>>>
>>> You're right, I have decided on Ti for aesthetics and longevity. Where
>>> I live the humidity is high enough that steel will eventually rust and
>>> I'm not sold on the longevity or durability of carbon either. TI is
>>> forever. Zero maintenance.
>>>
>>>>But great frames can be made of steel, ti, aluminum or carbon.
>>>>If the Trek Pilot series fits, you ought to try one and see how it goes.
>>>>And
>>>>not just because it's a Trek (a disclaimer that I have to make,
>>>>particularly
>>>>since we're the largest Trek carbon dealer in the country). If it's the
>>>>theoretically-correct fit, it's worth trying if for no other reason that
>>>>to
>>>>see how the fit feels for the custom Ti bike it sounds like you might
>>>>have
>>>>to have made.
>>>
>>> Sounds like a good idea to try out the Trek for fit. However I'm not
>>> so sure that a short test ride will be sufficient to really tell much.
>>> I think that a lot of folks sort of learn to put up with fit problems
>>> just like I have on the Cannondale. I suspect that this is the main
>>> reason that Ebay is so full of good used bikes. The bike didn't fit
>>> right and the owner finally got tired of riding it that way.
>>>
>>> I think that another good way to test for fit is after a really long
>>> ride like a century (either metric or english!) The other issue is
>>> that the carbon Trek I suspect will feel quite different simply
>>> because of the frame material.
>>>
>>>>By the way, doesn't Serotta make an extension tube that essentially
>>>>lengthens the headtube, raising the front end? It's not a cheap piece of
>>>>hardware, but I believe it can be used on a number of frames.
>>>
>>> I don't know about this. Serotta is mostly a high-end custom frame
>>> company but they happen to make one "stock" model which comes fairly
>>> close to fitting me. I have heard that it is not a good idea to add
>>> long extensions to the steerer tube both for aesthetic and handling
>>> reasons.
>>>
>>> Steve
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
>>>>www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Steve Sr." <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>> The Previous thread was getting long and I think it is time to bend it
>>>>> in a slightly different direction. Thanks to everyone who responded
>>>>> and especially to Jay.
>>>>>
>>>>> I went back to the person who did the fit and asked some more
>>>>> questions about the data. For the conventional frame Fit Cycle here
>>>>> are the ideal frame measurments:
>>>>>
>>>>> Seat Tube = 55cm.
>>>>>
>>>>> Top Tube = 55cm (but that resulted in a 70mm stem which is no good).
>>>>> So the top tube should be 53cm with a 90mm stem or a rediculous 51cm
>>>>> with a standard 110mm stem.
>>>>>
>>>>> Seat and Head Tube Angle = 73.5 degrees.
>>>>>
>>>>> Seat to Stem Height = Stem 8mm higher than seat.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think that these are all of the important numbers. If there is
>>>>> anything that I have missed let me know and I'll try to find it.
>>>>>
>>>>> So from here it does look like I will need a bike with a shorter top
>>>>> tube to fix the reach issue and a taller front end to address the
>>>>> height issue.
>>>>>
>>>>> I was originally looking at TI bikes which led me to Serotta and
>>>>> Litespeed and ruled out the carbon Trek Pilot. It looks like a stock
>>>>> Litespeed is probably out unless a Siena can be made to fit but the
>>>>> front end might not be tall enough. The Serotta Fierte looks like it
>>>>> might be a possibility in a 54S although the seat tube is a little
>>>>> short
>>>>>
>>>>> Can anyone offer any other possibilities for similar TI bikes that
>>>>> have this characteristic geometry?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>> Steve
>>>>
>>>
>>
>