User Tag List

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 75

Thread: What happened to traditional cyclocross geometry?

  1. #21
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Better to be ruined than to be silent atmo.
    Posts
    20,512
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: What happened to traditional cyclocross geometry?

    Quote Originally Posted by jclay View Post
    I'm thinking 42 rake and move the saddle forward 5 to 10.
    And maybe treat myself to some fresh rubber.
    If that doesn't put me in a happy place do some more homework and build another frame/fork.
    That doesn't work.
    It's the setback that's extreme.
    Even if that saddle is moved forward, the rear part of the bicycle will remain in place.
    I'm opening a rabbit's hole of thread drift, but that seat angle is so wrong for a frame that small.
    I'll leave at that for now.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Tallahassee, FL
    Posts
    1,057
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: What happened to traditional cyclocross geometry?

    Quote Originally Posted by thollandpe View Post
    That's a pretty radical change, 55 mm to 42 mm.
    I think it only appears radical because the rake and trail are so far from what I now understand as a fairly accepted/proven range. I started with the geometry of an old Alan...but I modified it more than I thought I had. Oops.

    Quote Originally Posted by e-RICHIE View Post
    That doesn't work.
    It's the setback that's extreme.
    Even if that saddle is moved forward, the rear part of the bicycle will remain in place.
    I'm opening a rabbit's hole of thread drift, but that seat angle is so wrong for a frame that small.
    I'll leave at that for now.
    What I'm seeing, I believe, in frames my size is a setback that's 10 to 15 mm less than my bike. I'm also starting to appreciate the utility of setback as opposed to STA for framebuilding.

    And speaking of setback, referencing the photo at the link below, is it typically measured as the A line, or B line? The "A" line is to the top of the saddle where the centerline of the ST would intersect it if extended to do so.
    Flickr

    Thanks much.
    John
    John Clay
    Tallahassee, FL
    My Framebuilding: https://www.flickr.com/photos/21624415@N04/sets

  3. #23
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Better to be ruined than to be silent atmo.
    Posts
    20,512
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: What happened to traditional cyclocross geometry?

    Setback is the linear measurement that's taken horizontally from the center point of the top tube seat tube intersection (if you have a sloper, you simply must imagine it) forward to the vertical line that rises from the bottom bracket center. Seat angle is a way to adjust setback rather than a control. The linear measurement overrides everything. The goal is to have the saddle (whichever one you choose) in the center of the rails, and on a setback (traditional) seat post I might add.

    You also should start thinking in terms of front center rather than head tube angle or trail or those other pesky 70s era Bicycling Magazine featured specs. The sooner you embrace linear the sooner the whole will make sense.





    Quote Originally Posted by jclay View Post
    I think it only appears radical because the rake and trail are so far from what I now understand as a fairly accepted/proven range. I started with the geometry of an old Alan...but I modified it more than I thought I had. Oops.



    What I'm seeing, I believe, in frames my size is a setback that's 10 to 15 mm less than my bike. I'm also starting to appreciate the utility of setback as opposed to STA for framebuilding.

    And speaking of setback, referencing the photo at the link below, is it typically measured as the A line, or B line? The "A" line is to the top of the saddle where the centerline of the ST would intersect it if extended to do so.
    Flickr

    Thanks much.
    John

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Tallahassee, FL
    Posts
    1,057
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: What happened to traditional cyclocross geometry?

    Quote Originally Posted by e-RICHIE View Post
    Setback is the linear measurement that's taken horizontally from the center point of the top tube seat tube intersection (if you have a sloper, you simply must imagine it) forward to the vertical line that rises from the bottom bracket center. Seat angle is a way to adjust setback rather than a control. The linear measurement overrides everything. The goal is to have the saddle (whichever one you choose) in the center of the rails, and on a setback (traditional) seat post I might add.

    You also should start thinking in terms of front center rather than head tube angle or trail or those other pesky 70s era Bicycling Magazine featured specs. The sooner you embrace linear the sooner the whole will make sense.
    My head is spinning. It might be the beer.

    I'll have to go measure some bikes and cypher on it.
    John Clay
    Tallahassee, FL
    My Framebuilding: https://www.flickr.com/photos/21624415@N04/sets

  5. #25
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Better to be ruined than to be silent atmo.
    Posts
    20,512
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: What happened to traditional cyclocross geometry?

    Quote Originally Posted by jclay View Post
    My head is spinning. It might be the beer.

    I'll have to go measure some bikes and cypher on it.
    I'm on Laphroaig 10 Years Old here.
    Don't measure things. Ride. Ride more.
    Study history. Don't fall into that commercial bicycle hell-hole of angles and head tube length and span and (I'll stop here. For now.)
    There are points (dots) connected by lines. The line length is what drives the bus.
    I haven't measured or recorded an angle in 40 years.
    I don't know what trail is on any of my bicycles.
    And when someone asks me what the head tube length is, after I recover from fainting I answer, "It's the measurement from the bottom to the top of the head tube."

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    5,072
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: What happened to traditional cyclocross geometry?

    Quote Originally Posted by e-RICHIE View Post
    I'm on Laphroaig 10 Years Old here.
    Don't measure things. Ride. Ride more.
    Study history. Don't fall into that commercial bicycle hell-hole of angles and head tube length and span and (I'll stop here. For now.)
    There are points (dots) connected by lines. The line length is what drives the bus.
    I haven't measured or recorded an angle in 40 years.
    I don't know what trail is on any of my bicycles.
    And when someone asks me what the head tube length is, after I recover from fainting I answer, "It's the measurement from the bottom to the top of the head tube."
    That is what I was told 30 years ago at the (famous) RIH frame builder in Amsterdam when I asked for the head tube angle
    "We put the seat where it needs to be and the rest follows right from there".
    Olympic golds to make their point (Leontien van Moorsel and other world champions).
    I was so focussed on the head angle because I had a steep frame that shimmied bad.
    No numbers were available . "The seat where it needs to be."
    Did not have the money then, and it would have been cheap by today's standards.
    Regrets.
     

  7. #27
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Better to be ruined than to be silent atmo.
    Posts
    20,512
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: What happened to traditional cyclocross geometry?

    Quote Originally Posted by rabo View Post
    That is what I was told 30 years ago at the (famous) RIH frame builder in Amsterdam when I asked for the head tube angle
    "We put the seat where it needs to be and the rest follows right from there".
    Olympic golds to make their point (Leontien van Moorsel and other world champions).
    I was so focussed on the head angle because I had a steep frame that shimmied bad.
    No numbers were available . "The seat where it needs to be."
    Did not have the money then, and it would have been cheap by today's standards.
    Regrets.

    That's the classic way. The haute way. Linear trumps all.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Tallahassee, FL
    Posts
    1,057
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: What happened to traditional cyclocross geometry?

    Quote Originally Posted by rabo View Post
    That is what I was told 30 years ago at the (famous) RIH frame builder in Amsterdam when I asked for the head tube angle
    "We put the seat where it needs to be and the rest follows right from there".
    Olympic golds to make their point (Leontien van Moorsel and other world champions).
    I was so focussed on the head angle because I had a steep frame that shimmied bad.
    No numbers were available . "The seat where it needs to be."
    Did not have the money then, and it would have been cheap by today's standards.
    Regrets.
    There is a bit more to it than that. RIH et al may not have quantified things like HTA but they certainly knew what an acceptable HT slope was and most likely had, at a minimum, witness marks on their various fixtures or patterns to guide them. And RIH was cagey enough to keep their secrets close to their chest and maintain the mystique.
    John Clay
    Tallahassee, FL
    My Framebuilding: https://www.flickr.com/photos/21624415@N04/sets

  9. #29
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Better to be ruined than to be silent atmo.
    Posts
    20,512
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: What happened to traditional cyclocross geometry?

    Quote Originally Posted by jclay View Post
    There is a bit more to it than that. RIH et al may not have quantified things like HTA but they certainly knew what an acceptable HT slope was and most likely had, at a minimum, witness marks on their various fixtures or patterns to guide them. And RIH was cagey enough to keep their secrets close to their chest and maintain the mystique.
    John - there's no mystique to maintain. RIH (probably) used the classic way to design that employs lines and tape measures rather than protractors and an angle chart. Yeah, the head tube and the seat tube have to lean one way or another. But they do so in order that other dimensions are correct. I'm gonna take a WAG and say front center is (was) a driver at their shop and once the detail was dialed, little else mattered. Of course, I'm not overlooking rider position and wheel spacing and COG here.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    rio de janeiro
    Posts
    3,225
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: What happened to traditional cyclocross geometry?

    I have bikes w/ the same top tube length, same head angle, same wheelbase: handling and fit are different enough from each other and I am understating the word difference.
    I came here for the socks.

  11. #31
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Tallahassee, FL
    Posts
    1,057
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: What happened to traditional cyclocross geometry?

    Quote Originally Posted by e-RICHIE View Post
    I'm gonna take a WAG and say front center is (was) a driver at their shop and once the detail was dialed, little else mattered. Of course, I'm not overlooking rider position and wheel spacing and COG here.
    First of all, I'm not arguing anything. I think all of it matters and that there are multiple ways of getting all of the important points and relationships, where and how they should be. But using front/center as a primary measurement has me puzzled.

    My CX bike FC=595 (WB=1010)
    My stunningly perfectly handling and fitting rando bike (26" x 54mm tires) FC=615 (WB=1042)

    I don't understand how to use the FC as an initial design parameter. For example: Getting the saddle in the right place wrt the BB spindle (regardless of the method used) makes obvious sense though I believe that the location is somewhat a function of the discipline (CX vs, say casual road riding vs a velodrome rig); I do that right after setting drop. Trail, whether one knows (has quantified) the value or just gets it right by virtue of experience and knowing how much offset makes it happen, seems obviously important. But weaving FC into that, as a primary driver, is where I'm at a loss....like, does the FC then drive the TT length? I certainly get the notion that CG location matters.
    John Clay
    Tallahassee, FL
    My Framebuilding: https://www.flickr.com/photos/21624415@N04/sets

  12. #32
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Better to be ruined than to be silent atmo.
    Posts
    20,512
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: What happened to traditional cyclocross geometry?

    Quote Originally Posted by jclay View Post
    First of all, I'm not arguing anything.
    I know that. Not sure the word was used.
    Quote Originally Posted by jclay View Post
    <cut> But weaving FC into that, as a primary driver, is where I'm at a loss....
    I know that.
    Quote Originally Posted by jclay View Post
    ...like, does the FC then drive the TT length? I certainly get the notion that CG location matters.
    Well yeah, kinda'. For each design I know what the front center will (read: should) be. I arrive at it by adjusting the rake a mm or two either way. And also the incline of the head tube by a few minutes either way. And, to the point, whatever is in the space between the head tube and the seat tube (whose height and setback are previously considered) becomes the top tube length by default. That is, it's a resultant measurement that produces the desired reach (which is a driver measurement) from the nose of a properly placed saddle to the center of the handlebars (that line is measured on the diagonal, while also factoring in drop from saddle to stem. Also worth noting is making sure the right size bicycle design is joined with a stem appropriate for it. That is, no 10cm stems on - say, a 62cm frame.

  13. #33
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Tallahassee, FL
    Posts
    1,057
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: What happened to traditional cyclocross geometry?

    Quote Originally Posted by e-RICHIE View Post
    I know that. Not sure the word was used.
    It wasn't; I just wanted to make it clear that I am not trying to be a dick.

    Quote Originally Posted by e-RICHIE View Post
    Well yeah, kinda'. For each design I know what the front center will (read: should) be. I arrive at it by adjusting the rake a mm or two either way. And also the incline of the head tube by a few minutes either way. And, to the point, whatever is in the space between the head tube and the seat tube (whose height and setback are previously considered) becomes the top tube length by default. That is, it's a resultant measurement that produces the desired reach (which is a driver measurement) from the nose of a properly placed saddle to the center of the handlebars (that line is measured on the diagonal, while also factoring in drop from saddle to stem. Also worth noting is making sure the right size bicycle design is joined with a stem appropriate for it. That is, no 10cm stems on - say, a 62cm frame.
    Thank you. That is clarifying things.

    So each client has a known FC or range of FCs (for different cycling disciplines) from riding and recording what works/feels right. So....let's say that my current CX FC and WB are good, and the setback for that frame really needs to be more like 158 (down from it's current 169). On my fixture, establish the drop, setback and TT height (via standover). From recently gleaned info know that the rake for a CX bike ought to be 42ish...and pick an HTA that gives a trail in the low 60s...and then locate my front end fixture machinery so that the FC will be 595ish. The TT derives from that but it's not finished; check reach; massage rake and HTA small amounts (which move the HT) so that a reasonable length stem gives whatever the reach should be (haven't measured it).

    Close the right zip code?
    John Clay
    Tallahassee, FL
    My Framebuilding: https://www.flickr.com/photos/21624415@N04/sets

  14. #34
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Tallahassee, FL
    Posts
    1,057
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: What happened to traditional cyclocross geometry?

    ^^ And by Zip Code I mean the methodology, the thought process, not the numbers.
    John Clay
    Tallahassee, FL
    My Framebuilding: https://www.flickr.com/photos/21624415@N04/sets

  15. #35
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Better to be ruined than to be silent atmo.
    Posts
    20,512
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: What happened to traditional cyclocross geometry?

    Quote Originally Posted by jclay View Post
    ^^ And by Zip Code I mean the methodology, the thought process, not the numbers.
    Saw it.
    Traveling.
    'Will reply Monday.

  16. #36
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4,325
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: What happened to traditional cyclocross geometry?

    listen- it's really easy. road bikes and cross bikes all use the same size wheels whether the bike is ridden by a midget or a giant. you get the positionals in the best place they can be for the rider and you start dicking with things like head angle and fork rake and top tube length and stem length so you can put the rider in the right place while keeping the wheels in the right place. the right place for the wheels are in relation to the center of the crank- f

    head angle, fork rake, top tube length, are all resultant measurements that come up because a builder/frame designer/product manager made decisions. think of front center and chainstay length and bb drop even- as being like the wheel size, or the setback of the seatpost or even stme length- they're pretty fixed in their measurement and can't really be changed all that much if at all- so you dick around with head angle to get the wheel where it needs to be and get the rider's hands where they need to be.....

    no one who has ever built a bike that rode properly in my opinion used or uses trail as a driver or even knows what it is- there's a reason that if you look at an Italian race bike geometry chart- the measurments seem non-sensical 73 degree and 10 minute head angles- and 57,7 top tube lengths etc. etc. it's because none of this shit other than the size of the wheel is an arbitrary driver. you can't think about any of these measurements without understanding or trying to understand the totality of the bike and the rider on the bike.

    for me- it's easy because proper bike geometry for race bikes using 700x23 wheels was figured out a long time a go- and the sport insures that while things fashionably adjust a little bit here and there depending on lots of things- we're not ever having to re-invent the wheel because- ahem....the wheel has stayed the same size.
    bamboo, aluminum, wood.

    My name is Craig Gaulzetti.

    www.summercycles.com

    www.gaulzetti.co

  17. #37
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4,325
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: What happened to traditional cyclocross geometry?

    Quote Originally Posted by jclay View Post
    It wasn't; I just wanted to make it clear that I am not trying to be a dick.



    Thank you. That is clarifying things.

    So each client has a known FC or range of FCs (for different cycling disciplines) from riding and recording what works/feels right. So....let's say that my current CX FC and WB are good, and the setback for that frame really needs to be more like 158 (down from it's current 169). On my fixture, establish the drop, setback and TT height (via standover). From recently gleaned info know that the rake for a CX bike ought to be 42ish...and pick an HTA that gives a trail in the low 60s...and then locate my front end fixture machinery so that the FC will be 595ish. The TT derives from that but it's not finished; check reach; massage rake and HTA small amounts (which move the HT) so that a reasonable length stem gives whatever the reach should be (haven't measured it).

    Close the right zip code?
    sorta kinda- forget the trail thing look at the front center if you need to use anything as a a driver- and tweak the head angle to allow for the rider's positionals to be correct. honestly-if you don't know what the reach should be- you can't even begin to design a bike. you need positionals- otherwise why are you even buidling bike?

    i's not really a linear decision tree- it's more like a web- but the center of that web is where the athlete goes.
    bamboo, aluminum, wood.

    My name is Craig Gaulzetti.

    www.summercycles.com

    www.gaulzetti.co

  18. #38
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    5,072
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: What happened to traditional cyclocross geometry?

    Quote Originally Posted by jerk View Post
    sorta kinda- forget the trail thing look at the front center if you need to use anything as a a driver- and tweak the head angle to allow for the rider's positionals to be correct. honestly-if you don't know what the reach should be- you can't even begin to design a bike. you need positionals- otherwise why are you even buidling bike?

    i's not really a linear decision tree- it's more like a web- but the center of that web is where the athlete goes.
    I wonder if this sometimes does get strange for tall riders. I have a Chesini 65 cm frame that (in order to keep FC short?) has a head angle of 75 degrees and a fork with little rake ( to correct for trail?).
    Columbus SL.
    The frame is just nervous, and shimmies terrible in certain circumstances. Not good at low speed-not good at high speed.
    Bought new early 80's I still have the bike and ride it sometimes. To me there is something essentially wrong with the geometry since an SP frame should not react like that under a 160 lbs rider.
    It made me focus on HA ever after, and I never bought a frame steeper than 73 degrees again.
     

  19. #39
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Tallahassee, FL
    Posts
    1,057
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: What happened to traditional cyclocross geometry?

    Quote Originally Posted by jerk View Post
    sorta kinda- forget the trail thing look at the front center if you need to use anything as a a driver- and tweak the head angle to allow for the rider's positionals to be correct. honestly-if you don't know what the reach should be- you can't even begin to design a bike. you need positionals- otherwise why are you even buidling bike?

    i's not really a linear decision tree- it's more like a web- but the center of that web is where the athlete goes.
    The notion that one can't design a frame without quantifying reach is nonsense! I don't know my reach but I know what combination of STA, saddle, TT length and stem length work for me.

    I've no interest in getting into the partisan politics of linear vs angles vs knowing/not knowing what the steering geometry is. What I AM interested in is learning more about the genesis of the linear methods and any enlightenment they may provide in support of solving the puzzle that is frame fitting and building. I'm also interested in how rider position and frame geometry change as a function of discipline.

    If my CX saddle is too far aft for the bike's mission it isn't because I didn't use a "setback" measurement, it's because I generally tend to like slacker STAs and set it up that way. If the front end is a little prone to washout (and if it's not the balding tire) it's not because I didn't use "FC", it's probably because (judging by the info from a half dozen well respected CX mfgs) that I put my butt too far aft and have too little trail. And you don't "have" to quantify the trail if you know how much fork offset "works" for what you build; I prefer to know what the trail is, particularly since I'm not building 700x23 based bikes exclusively. The coordinate system I used or didn't use had nothing to do with the potential shortcoming of my CX machine; it was a knowledge shortcoming, not a defective coordinate system.
    John Clay
    Tallahassee, FL
    My Framebuilding: https://www.flickr.com/photos/21624415@N04/sets

  20. #40
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Better to be ruined than to be silent atmo.
    Posts
    20,512
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: What happened to traditional cyclocross geometry?

    Quote Originally Posted by jclay View Post
    The notion that one can't design a frame without quantifying reach is nonsense! I don't know my reach but I know what combination of STA, saddle, TT length and stem length work for me.

    I've no interest in getting into the partisan politics of linear vs angles vs knowing/not knowing what the steering geometry is. What I AM interested in is learning more about the genesis of the linear methods and any enlightenment they may provide in support of solving the puzzle that is frame fitting and building. I'm also interested in how rider position and frame geometry change as a function of discipline.
    It's simple. Amass the knowledge (or wisdom) by making lots of bicycles, trying different things, and develop a sense of your own.

    Quote Originally Posted by jclay View Post
    If my CX saddle is too far aft for the bike's mission it isn't because I didn't use a "setback" measurement, it's because I generally tend to like slacker STAs and set it up that way. If the front end is a little prone to washout (and if it's not the balding tire) it's not because I didn't use "FC", it's probably because (judging by the info from a half dozen well respected CX mfgs) that I put my butt too far aft and have too little trail. And you don't "have" to quantify the trail if you know how much fork offset "works" for what you build; I prefer to know what the trail is, particularly since I'm not building 700x23 based bikes exclusively. The coordinate system I used or didn't use had nothing to do with the potential shortcoming of my CX machine; it was a knowledge shortcoming, not a defective coordinate system.
    It's all pretty simple if you've done the homework. A rider sits over and between wheels to get an efficient position and one that's comfortable too (assuming the event isn't a kilo or maybe a 4000 meter pursuit.)

    The athlete touches the bicycle in three spots (four if you count the hands twice, or more if you have two feet.)

    These points are dots connected by lines. The distance of each line is what's used to design the position and it's based on use of machine. Yes there are angles formed by the lines and dots and intersections. They result from the choices made.

    Not all riders sit the same way, or the same way on bicycles made for different purposes. That's a basic.

    And this all isn't some school of thought. Or a mystique RIH or others are hiding behind so that consumers are left guessing. And there's no trade firewall. All of the information is beyond basic and elementary assuming you've done the work. I'm still doing the work and learning each season and on every frame. Things are clearer now than they were in 2014, and much clearer than in 1996, and a world clearer than when I first flew to London. I haven't measured an angle (or recorded one) since 1978 when I realized how the approach to design that uses that system (one that, as I've mentioned many times) went sideways when American consumer magazines started doing (wait. for. it.) road tests in the Bicycle Boom Era and became obsessed with angles and fork rakes and everything in between except the important stuff. Worse yet (or not) is the public's perception that catalog specs are hard news and stationary targets rather than a guideline to how a brand designs its line of bicycles.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Whatever happened to...
    By Maxspeedwell in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 02-25-2014, 02:13 AM
  2. Dunno what happened
    By WadePatton in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 04-22-2012, 05:41 PM
  3. traditional club racer geo
    By dbh in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 12-07-2010, 10:58 PM
  4. Cyclocross Geometry
    By dcpdpayne in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 08-17-2010, 04:48 AM

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •