compact geometry hell

"Derk" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Robert Brown said:

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

Quoted message said:

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

[email hidden] (Chalo) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

[snip]

Quoted message said:

Yum: wundel.commanitoOpen ↗
u1_grossbild.jpg

Yuck: cyclesdeoro.comInterbike%20ShowsOpen ↗
/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

"Mike S." wrote:

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

Quoted message said:

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

Robert Brown said:

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?

Quoted message said:

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

(Carl Fogel) said:

Quoted message said:

wundel.commanitou1Open ↗
grossbild.jpg

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

Yes.

Quoted message said:

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. 😄

Chalo Colina

Ryan Cousineau said:

... 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)

Carl Fogel said:

[email hidden] (Chalo) wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

[snip]

Quoted message said:

Yum: wundel.commanitoOpen ↗
u1_grossbild.jpg

Yuck: cyclesdeoro.comInterbike%20ShowsOpen ↗
/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.

Quoted message said:

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

Who knows?

Quoted message said:

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

My current Turner also has square stays.

Greg

Tom Sherman said:

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

Rick Onanian said:

Robert Brown said:

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 . . .

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Chalo said:

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: wundel.commanitoOpen ↗
u1_grossbild.jpg

Yuck: cyclesdeoro.comInterbike%20ShowsOpen ↗
/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.

ajames54 said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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).

Quoted message said:

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

Unfortunately.

Matt O.

Matt O'Toole said:

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

Ted Bennett said:

BaCardi <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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.

"Matt O'Toole" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Chalo said:

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: wundel.commaniOpen ↗
tou1_grossbild.jpg

Yuck:

cyclesdeoro.comInterBiOpen ↗
ke00/Colnag5L.gif

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

flashy for me, but from a design standpoint it definately
looks "better."

I

Quoted message said:

think most design buffs would agree.

I agree it has nothing to do with the angles of their top
tubes, though,

and

Quoted message said:

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

"Matt O'Toole" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Chalo said:

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: wundel.commaniOpen ↗
tou1_grossbild.jpg

Yuck:

cyclesdeoro.comInterBiOpen ↗
ke00/Colnag5L.gif

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

flashy for me, but from a design standpoint it definately
looks "better."

I

Quoted message said:

think most design buffs would agree.

I agree it has nothing to do with the angles of their top
tubes, though,

and

Quoted message said:

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

Derk <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Matt O'Toole said:

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.

Evan Evans said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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

Mike S. said:

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.

Evan Evans said:

Derk <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Matt O'Toole said:

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

"S o r n i" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Mike S. said:

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