User Tag List

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 61 to 75 of 75

Thread: What happened to traditional cyclocross geometry?

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    New Belgium, Massachusetts
    Posts
    2,449
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: What happened to traditional cyclocross geometry?

    Yum.
    Attached Images Attached Images
     

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    5,076
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: What happened to traditional cyclocross geometry?

    Quote Originally Posted by colker View Post
    NO one ever said "I am quitting this cause i have to focus hard on what i am doing"
    No they said "my back is shot" "I'm too hurt".
    Perhaps you need to experience what it means, but , not even the pro tour riders these days come close to the milage -and race days of the riders in the 60's and 70's.
    I remember Steve Tilford writing he did not care about geometry too much, as long as the bike would ride well "no hands". I can relate to that.
     

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    797
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: What happened to traditional cyclocross geometry?

    Quote Originally Posted by rabo View Post
    No they said "my back is shot" "I'm too hurt".
    Perhaps you need to experience what it means, but , not even the pro tour riders these days come close to the milage -and race days of the riders in the 60's and 70's.
    I remember Steve Tilford writing he did not care about geometry too much, as long as the bike would ride well "no hands". I can relate to that.
    This sounds to me like "200 race days" is the problem well before any geometry concerns.
     

  4. #64
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by rabo View Post
    No they said "my back is shot" "I'm too hurt".
    Perhaps you need to experience what it means, but , not even the pro tour riders these days come close to the milage -and race days of the riders in the 60's and 70's.
    I remember Steve Tilford writing he did not care about geometry too much, as long as the bike would ride well "no hands". I can relate to that.
    Didnīt Ugo de Rosa build most of the bikes on the peloton then? Anyway i have no experience at this level of riding.
    I came here for the socks.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Better to be ruined than to be silent atmo.
    Posts
    20,517
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: What happened to traditional cyclocross geometry?

    Quote Originally Posted by colker View Post
    Didnīt Ugo de Rosa build most of the bikes on the peloton then? Anyway i have no experience at this level of riding.
    No. He didn't.

  6. #66
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by e-RICHIE View Post
    No. He didn't.
    Didnīt Ugo build a bike for Bob Roll mid Giro or was it mid Tdf? Didnīt Ugo build the bikes when a Cannondale team hit the Giro? Who was building most of the bikes of the peloton then? Thank You.
    I came here for the socks.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Better to be ruined than to be silent atmo.
    Posts
    20,517
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: What happened to traditional cyclocross geometry?

    Quote Originally Posted by colker View Post
    Didnīt Ugo build a bike for Bob Roll mid Giro or was it mid Tdf? Didnīt Ugo build the bikes when a Cannondale team hit the Giro? Who was building most of the bikes of the peloton then? Thank You.
    There are dozens - scores - of other makers and manufacturers who can be named.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    7,672
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: What happened to traditional cyclocross geometry?

    Quote Originally Posted by colker View Post
    Didnīt Ugo build a bike for Bob Roll mid Giro or was it mid Tdf? Didnīt Ugo build the bikes when a Cannondale team hit the Giro? Who was building most of the bikes of the peloton then? Thank You.
    There wasn't one single framebuilder building for most of them.

    I know there was some regionalism in term of bike fitting, like a whole lot of french pros and cat 1 riders were going to Armel André but then the measures were sent to the riders or team preferred framebuilders. Not sure about other countries.
    --
    T h o m a s

  9. #69
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by sk_tle View Post
    There wasn't one single framebuilder building for most of them.

    I know there was some regionalism in term of bike fitting, like a whole lot of french pros and cat 1 riders were going to Armel André but then the measures were sent to the riders or team preferred framebuilders. Not sure about other countries.
    That makes sense.
    I came here for the socks.

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Carrollton TX
    Posts
    385
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: What happened to traditional cyclocross geometry?

    Quote Originally Posted by colker View Post
    I saw an experiment by Joe Breeze where he kept the front center, extended the top tube by a couple inches w/ a seriously steep head angle and short stem. It seems the bike rode the same as all his other bikes.
    Building the extremes and the in betweens and riding them is what tells one what matters.
    I built 3 forks for my last bike for this very reason. The insight was certainly worth the time.
    Mark Walberg
    Building bike frames for fun since 1973.

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    5,076
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: What happened to traditional cyclocross geometry?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Walberg View Post
    I built 3 forks for my last bike for this very reason. The insight was certainly worth the time.
    Care to share the insight?
     

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Tallahassee, FL
    Posts
    1,058
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: What happened to traditional cyclocross geometry?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Walberg View Post
    Building the extremes and the in betweens and riding them is what tells one what matters.
    I built 3 forks for my last bike for this very reason. The insight was certainly worth the time.
    Mark - I'd be very interested to know what insights you gained. When I get around to building the second fork (with rake/trail in the 45/62 mm range) for my CX bike I will certainly share the results here.
    John Clay
    Tallahassee, FL
    My Framebuilding: https://www.flickr.com/photos/21624415@N04/sets

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    left coast
    Posts
    1,332
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: What happened to traditional cyclocross geometry?

    not to derail this into a hell of geo dorking but...

    this thread inspired me to reminisce on the geometry of the road bike i've hated the most...ever. ever ever. a 54cm Factor O2. i tend to run smaller stock bikes than i should, both to achieve a buncha drop, and because i have long legs/short torso/long arms/lotsa flexibility (at 6'1/189cm). yes, i'm that asshole who shows up with a 140mm stem. but i'm also a halfway-decent descender, and really enjoy going fast. i've always raced small stock bikes, 51-54cm. never had much of an issue when it came to drivability until i rode this one.

    i peeped the geo on the site. pretty standard 90s/00s racebike numbers. 405 chainstay, 68mm bb drop, 73.1 ha, 73 sa, 43mm rake fork. reach at 384. conspicuously absent are front center and wheelbase numbers. i'd never bothered to look, because...you know, bar/saddle floating in space. and i trusted that Factor knew wtf was going on.

    wheelbase: 972mm. that's a cm shorter than the next size down from the 54cm (52cm - which uses a 53mm rake fork and degree slacker HT). with a fairly tall BB. stubby back end. not rapidly quick trail. it's a fucking squirrel that doesn't turn. like, you can't get it up to speed enough to countersteer it before it tries to murder you. at least with shorter trail, better f/r balance, or a lower bb (or you know ALL THREE), one could take it out crit racing. pair the already shitty geometry with my oversized nature and you have a disaster in the making. i could not fucking go downhill on that bike to save my life. every corner was terrifying. and slow. the first and only time i've melted a carbon wheel in a decade was on that bike.

    but it bunny hopped real nice.

    anyway, this is my roundabout way of saying, i've realized that FC/weight balance matters. a lot. yes trail is important, but really it's just how you touch the bars and your tire's contact patch, it can be fiddled with to suit personal tastes/riding styles. as always, geometry is holistic, everything is very dependent on each other.

    thank you for the education/reinforcement, party people above. reminds me why i love this place and appreciate your contributions.
    NK

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Belmont MA
    Posts
    46
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: What happened to traditional cyclocross geometry?

    This is why I still race/ride my 2010 geekhouse mudville, it is so nimble and balanced. I think marty based the geo off of speshes crux geo but ive never ridden one to be sure.

    Most of the disc cx bikes ive ridden feel very different. Are more stable in that the bb is a bit lower, but feel a bit longer in a sense. I suspect it has alot to do with clearance for bigger tires, and HT angle/fork rake as mentioned above.
     

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    santa barbara CA
    Posts
    156
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: What happened to traditional cyclocross geometry?

    Quote Originally Posted by Heisenberg View Post

    ..... ..i've realized that FC/weight balance matters. a lot. yes trail is important, but really it's just how you touch the bars and your tire's contact patch, it can be fiddled with to suit personal tastes/riding styles. as always, geometry is holistic, everything is very dependent on each other. ...thank you for the education/reinforcement, party people above. reminds me why i love this place and appreciate your contributions.
    Well said, my sentiments exactly, thanks for your input.
    "The older I get the better I was" Brian Clare

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234

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
  •