Compare these geometries

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

Quoted message said:

Bike 1: 73 degree STA, 57cm TT, 8cm stem BIke 2: 72 degree STA, 56cmTT, 10cm stem

Position of seat relative to BB would be the same. Distance from seat to bars would be the
same, too.

How would the 2 bikes compare in regard to balance and handling?

No way to truly answer without head angle, fork rake & chainstay dimensions. But assuming they're
the same for both, bike 1 has a longer front center, a more rear-biased weight distribution and a
lighter-feeling front end. Whether that's good or bad depends on who's sitting on it, and what their
*personal* CG is in their riding position(s). If I was fitting someone on those frames, I'd put them
in the drops and measure the loaded weight distribution of the two bikes, then choose the one that
was closest to what I consider ideal. CONI had it at 45f/55r, and that's a good general base point.
My personal happy number is 44/56, as it matches the bikes that have felt the best under me (& also
the "magic" number given by a vaunted racecar designer as being the best for not 4-wheeled vehicles,
but two-wheelers as well).

SB

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Bike 1: 73 degree STA, 57cm TT, 8cm stem BIke 2: 72 degree STA, 56cmTT, 10cm stem

Position of seat relative to BB would be the same. Distance from seat to bars would be the
same, too.

How would the 2 bikes compare in regard to balance and handling?

No way to truly answer without head angle, fork rake & chainstay

dimensions.

Quoted message said:

But assuming they're the same for both, bike 1 has a longer front center,

a

Quoted message said:

more rear-biased weight distribution and a lighter-feeling front end. Whether that's good or bad
depends on who's sitting on it, and what their *personal* CG is in their riding position(s). If I
was fitting someone on those frames, I'd put them in the drops and measure the loaded weight
distribution of the two bikes, then choose the one that was closest to

what

Quoted message said:

I consider ideal. CONI had it at 45f/55r, and that's a good general base point. My personal happy
number is 44/56, as it matches the bikes that

have

Quoted message said:

felt the best under me (& also the "magic" number given by a vaunted

racecar

Quoted message said:

designer as being the best for not 4-wheeled vehicles, but two-wheelers as well).

Forgot to mention; based on the original assumptions, you'd also need an 11 stem on bike 2 to have
the same reach as bike 1, assuming the seat vs bb relationship is the same for the two. You've
compensated for the slacker seat angle(1cm) and shorter top tube (another 1cm), but not for the loss
about 1cm of effective top tube because the seat would be slid further forward on the post on bike
2. The result would be the same as above, but moreso.

SB

mann-<< Bike 1: 73 degree STA, 57cm TT, 8cm stem BIke 2: 72 degree STA, 56cmTT, 10cm stem

Position of seat relative to BB would be the same. Distance from seat to bars would be the same,
too. >><BR><BR>

Don't think they can be the same if your knee is in the proper place for bike
A..then going to bike B, need to move you seat forward about 1cm, effectivley making the top tube of
bike B 55cm...

same is true if the bike B KOPS is proper...effective top tube for bike A would be 58cm...

Peter Chisholm Vecchio's Bicicletteria 1833 Pearl St. Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535 vecchios.comvecchios.comOpen ↗ "Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"