Cyclocross Parts questions

czmike said:

Time to upgrade the Kona Jake the Snake. Thinking about a carbon fork-

I just read a test in FIETS about the Kona. THey say the geometry is not as
good as the Empella's for cyclocross, because of the "lazy" geometry of the
Kona.

Greetings, Derk

Derk said:

czmike said:

Time to upgrade the Kona Jake the Snake. Thinking about a carbon fork-

I just read a test in FIETS about the Kona. THey say the geometry is not as
good as the Empella's for cyclocross, because of the "lazy" geometry of the
Kona.

Greetings, Derk

Unless, of course, YOU prefer the geometry of the Kona, which makes the
test report in FIETS completely irrelevant.

Now, as to the original poster's questions, I don't imagine crank
length is going to matter much as you're generally not doing a lot of
seated climbing in a cross race and that's one of the few areas where a
longer crank may help. The Sugino is a perfectly good crankset.

Also, don't assume that just because your current fork is straight that
it isn't also a 4.5cm offset (or 'rake' as it's commonly misreferred
to). Some folks swear that a carbon fork is more comfortable, but
that's debatable. Also, many carbon forks are not nearly as light as
their manufacturers would have you believe. You may save somewhere
between nothing to .5 lb by switching. If you replace your current
fork with a new one with slightly different offset you probably won't
notice the difference, unless it's a huge difference in offset. Almost
all cross forks are 4.4 or 4.5 offset. You won't notice a handling
difference between these two 'extremes'.

Scott said:

Unless, of course, YOU prefer the geometry of the Kona, which makes the
test report in FIETS completely irrelevant.

I don't think so. Real Cyclocross races mean (at least here) that you have
to make very sharp turns with the bike and the competition thus has an
advantage with a frame with faster geometry, because it will be faster on
technical terrain. So what I meant to say is that if I would really race
this bike under the circumstances cited above, I wouldn't invest in a
carbon fork for the kona, but buy a "fast" cyclocross frame instead, which
doesn't have to be an Empella of course.

Greets, Derk

Derk said:

Scott said:

Unless, of course, YOU prefer the geometry of the Kona, which makes the
test report in FIETS completely irrelevant.

I don't think so. Real Cyclocross races mean (at least here) that you have
to make very sharp turns with the bike and the competition thus has an
advantage with a frame with faster geometry, because it will be faster on
technical terrain. So what I meant to say is that if I would really race
this bike under the circumstances cited above, I wouldn't invest in a
carbon fork for the kona, but buy a "fast" cyclocross frame instead, which
doesn't have to be an Empella of course.

Greets, Derk

I'm guessing you don't know [censored] about frame geometry and it's affect
on handling.

So long as the frame geometry doesn't limit the turning radius of the
bike too severely, any geometry will make the same turn, it'll just
"feel" differently while doing it.

Some folks like a short wheelbase, "quick" geometry bike, others prefer
a longer wheelbase or perhaps more laid back front end, and they're all
right.

Here's a visual for you: if you think that only crit bikes are good
for crits, then how can tandems corner so damn fast???

Scott said:

I'm guessing you don't know [censored] about frame geometry and it's affect
on handling.

As a matter of fact I owned an Empella and sold it, because I didn't like
the geometry a.o.

Quoted message said:

So long as the frame geometry doesn't limit the turning radius of the
bike too severely, any geometry will make the same turn, it'll just
"feel" differently while doing it.

As if that's not an important part of bike handling.....

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Here's a visual for you: if you think that only crit bikes are good

for crits, then how can tandems corner so damn fast???

I'm willing to race against you anytime in a criterium in what we call
"rounds around the church" on a crit bike, while you ride a tandem, O.K.?

You seem to know it all better than Cyclocross experts (former CX champions)
who tested many CX framesets for TOUR and FIETS. Maybe you should apply for
a job there, being THE self-proclaimed expert in this field?

Derk

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In article <[email hidden]>,

Scott said:

Derk said:

Scott said:

Unless, of course, YOU prefer the geometry of the Kona, which makes the
test report in FIETS completely irrelevant.

I don't think so. Real Cyclocross races mean (at least here) that you have
to make very sharp turns with the bike and the competition thus has an
advantage with a frame with faster geometry, because it will be faster on
technical terrain. So what I meant to say is that if I would really race
this bike under the circumstances cited above, I wouldn't invest in a
carbon fork for the kona, but buy a "fast" cyclocross frame instead, which
doesn't have to be an Empella of course.

Greets, Derk

I'm guessing you don't know [censored] about frame geometry and it's affect
on handling.

So long as the frame geometry doesn't limit the turning radius of the
bike too severely, any geometry will make the same turn, it'll just
"feel" differently while doing it.

_ This is just not true.

Quoted message said:

Some folks like a short wheelbase, "quick" geometry bike, others prefer
a longer wheelbase or perhaps more laid back front end, and they're all
right.

_ I wouldn't argue that, but racing doesn't care how you feel on
the bike.

Quoted message said:

Here's a visual for you: if you think that only crit bikes are good
for crits, then how can tandems corner so damn fast???

_ You are confusing two very different things. How fast a bike
reacts to input and how far over you can lean it. The first is
highly dependant on frame geometry, the second much less so.
In racing it's not really about how fast you can take the
curve, but how fast you can ride the curve on the line
you're given.

_ Booker C. Bense

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBQ2+qR2TWTAjn5N/lAQGPQwP9EhzMJ9quTXd8Id88EYJ4Fhx1+60pxuog
P5PSzxV6YwLwUBm/Cv4LnawcH6Op/1C7koKWTfz1MoM5Tnncdon2u02UtIv6tzMZ
cqjeoE3G+HC6RdPgHGGHlfs524I4LcayIOjxK/Q6ZdpobieZsHgQciCU6E7DLXQA
J34dm5Wn0t4=
=yfdC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Booker C. Bense said:

In racing it's not really about how fast you can take the
curve, but how fast you can ride the curve on the line
you're given.

Right! I didn't know how to say that in English.

It's not a coincidence that all pro-riders here ride "fast" CX frames with
short top tubes, like Ridley's, Empella's and Colnago's.

Greets, Derk

I LOVED my Jake the Snake. It does have a little extra head tube which
a lot of racers would face down a bit (on the bottom) to liven up the
steering. I suppose it depends more on level or racing you are doing.
I never took cross that seriously and from the sounds of it - neither
does the OP (mid-pack masters).

Derk - nobody asked you to harsh on this guys ride - he was just asking
for imputs on some upgrades...

I know a couple guys who went to the carbon cross fork and likes the
results. As for cranks, you probably won't get much bang for your buck
unless you shift to the stiffer outboard bearing models. I've heard
good things of the TruVativ's and the FSA Gossamers. I prefer longer
cranks on cross to dig up some of the hills, but there's no science
behind my choice.

Andrew F Martin said:

Derk - nobody asked you to harsh on this guys ride - he was just asking
for imputs on some upgrades...

I know. I just thought it might be a better decision IF he wanted to
seriously race, to invest in a "faster" frame instead of spending money on
carbon forks, since carbon is very expensive. IMHO a "fast" frame with an
aluminium fork could be a better choice than upgrading a "slow" frame with
a carbon fork. It might even not be that more expensive, since a cheap
Ridley e.g. costs only 380 Euro's here, whilst a carbon fork for the Kona
could be as expensive as such a frame.

I ordered a "Slow" CX bike myself last friday. It has the same geometry as
his Kona. Since I won't race it I prefer the longer top tube for occasional
rides in the woods. So I have nothing against either frame geometry, but I
thought it might be a good idea to warn him that a "slow" bike might not be
the best choice. Especially because he speaks himself about "associated
psychological advantage" I thought a "fast" frame might boost his
confidence more than a carbon fork.

Greetings, Derk

Carbon cross forks run ~$150 here...not too pricy at all. Even the
cheapest Redline frame is $400. I understand your points, but it I'm
not sure a new Ridley Carbon would even buy him that much speed 🙂.

czmike said:

Time to upgrade the Kona Jake the Snake. Thinking about a carbon fork-
the Kona Project 2 is steel and straight- what's a 45mm rake fork going
to change in the "feel" of the bike?

Depends on how much rake your Project 2 has. More rake will decrease
trail and stability (make it "faster" handling). Less rake will
increase trail and stability ("slower" handling).

Faster handling is not faster racing -- just different feel: quicker
turn-in, etc. as some racers are accustomed to.

Quoted message said:

Also, looking at switching out
the Sugino 38/48 170cm crankset for perhaps a Truvativ. I run 172.5 on
road and 175 on mountain bikes- what's a longer crankarm going to do on
the cross bike?

My 175s stuck a pedal on more than one occasion; once I even crashed
because of it. I switched to shorter 170mm cranks to reduce that
chance.

Quoted message said:

Or would it make sense to stick with the length I'm
currently racing?

"To do nothing is also a good sulution"! No length change might reduce
any risk of knee problems (especially with masters like us!) ;-)

Quoted message said:

Or maybe the Sugino is good enough...

Of course it is; it's just more fun to upgrade. ;-)

Quoted message said:

Any other reasonable upgrades?

I'm thinking maybe tires, or pedals in case it gets muddy.

Or if you're like most racers I know, maybe your bike isn't in the
best-maintained state anyway, so spend your money on a pro tune-up, or
new cables, or a chain cleaner, or a *nice* hotel the night before the
race, etc.

Quoted message said:

I'm not good enough to go for a whole new/second
bike- Finishing middle of the pack in the masters races and need some
new parts and therefore the associated psychological advantage to stay
up with some of my team mates.

That's the biggest bang you get out of the upgrade! :-)

Thanks guys, very entertaining. As Andrew says, on the cheap, a
lighter carbon cx fork can be had for <$150 mail order. Quality might
not be top shelf, but lighter and my current fork took a ding a couple
years back so not a bad excuse to swap out. And a team mate has
subsequently suggested picking up some used Ultegra 172.5 cranks. From
a couple of the posts above, as I do grind in the saddle more than out
of the saddle, might be just the trick before putting out for all new
kit. As far as Derk's last comment..., hmmm, yes, I would lust after a
new frame but need to clear out some of the various other bike's first
lest I start sleeping in the basement with the bikes :-) Mid-pack
masters is this year- some equipment upgrading, a sensible focus on
cross next year, drop a few pounds and enough sense to put a few less
pounds in the tires (sliding thru EVERY corner on Saturday) and I could
be chasing the leaders next season. And Scott? Sorry, I'm NOT taking
the tandem down for crits! Bottom line I think you all convinced me to
see if some of the local "cross coalition" will let me test out some of
their bikes so I know if I'm really missing something, and maybe just
tweak the Snake for now.

Thanks- Mike