Longer Chainstays?

Is there a reason why woolmort isn't selling an aluminum/polevault
colnago for $175 is there a downside?
Cheers, gene

Well, for the one percent of bike buyers that race criteriums, shorter
chainstays give you a shorter wheelbase which makes for a
tighter-turning bike.

Similar to the SUV market, road bikes today are designed to excel in
the conditions that consumers fantasize about riding in (racing),
rather than the conditions they actually do ride in (coffee shop rides
at 16mph). Short chainstays are one manifestation of this...others are
short-reach brakes, low head tubes, 11 tooth cogs, and low spoke-count
wheels.

Manufacturers are finally beginning to design a few bikes built for the
way people actually ride (Specialized Roubaix comes to mind). Whether
consumers will respond remains to be seen.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Shawn Amir said:

I am getting the distinct feeling that longer chainstays are the way to
go... better weight distribution for descending, fewer wheelies when
climbing, and a lot easier over rough roads. But is there a downside? Is
there a non-marketing reason why road-bikes come with such short stays these
days?

Touring bikes have longer stays for a more stable and more comfortable
ride, and also make space for panniers. Racing bikes have shorter stays
for faster cornering.

correct!
i ride an '87 sport-touring was 10 speed
and am so old and decrepit that i added stuff to slow the frame down so
I didn't need to go 10/10ths all day long to keep the expletive deleted
frame from zipping leftrightleftleftrightrightupdown ad nauseum and out
into traffic especially at night when the long string of pearls comin
down the pike at you is piloted by drunken cretins and imbeciles just
from traveling over differing road surfaces/grips
sand-pebbles-cardboard-brokenglass-variousplantmaterials whilst goin'
down the road's shoulder/bike lane sheeet.

David B. said:

Well, for the one percent of bike buyers that race criteriums,

shorter

Quoted message said:

chainstays give you a shorter wheelbase which makes for a
tighter-turning bike.

Rubbish! If you think a tight-turning bike is crucial to crit racing
success, go watch a tandem criterium. Those whackos corner waaay
faster than a single bike.

The limiting factor in how fast you corner is NOT the wheelbase of your
bike (assuming your bike fits within normal limits).

David B. said:

Well, for the one percent of bike buyers that race criteriums, shorter
chainstays give you a shorter wheelbase which makes for a
tighter-turning bike.

Does not -- even for a tight turn, the difference in wheelbase between a "long"
bike and a "short" one is insignificant. 4-5cm on the circumference of a 10m
radius turn? Come on...

I'm not sure of the exact history, but I believe short chainstays came from
track bikes, and the desire to minimize following distances to facilitate
drafting. From that, short chainstays were associated with raciness, so road
racing bikes copied the style. An extreme example of this is the 80s Cannondale
frame with cantilevered dropouts, to make the seatstays look more vertical and
the chainstays shorter when viewed from a distance. These days extremely short
chainstays are rare because fat frame tubes don't allow them. Thankfully these
silly fads do run their course.

Quoted message said:

Similar to the SUV market, road bikes today are designed to excel in
the conditions that consumers fantasize about riding in (racing),
rather than the conditions they actually do ride in (coffee shop rides
at 16mph). Short chainstays are one manifestation of this...others
are short-reach brakes, low head tubes, 11 tooth cogs, and low
spoke-count wheels.

Yup.

Quoted message said:

Manufacturers are finally beginning to design a few bikes built for
the way people actually ride (Specialized Roubaix comes to mind).
Whether consumers will respond remains to be seen.

Tire and fender clearance anyone?

Matt O.

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

In article <[email hidden]>,

Scott said:

David B. said:

Well, for the one percent of bike buyers that race criteriums,

shorter

Quoted message said:

chainstays give you a shorter wheelbase which makes for a
tighter-turning bike.

_ I think "faster reacting" is a better way to put this. Until
the radius of the turn gets to be somewhere near the length
of the wheelbase, "tighter-turning" is not really the issue.
Even the most insanely laid out crit doesn't have turns that
small.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Rubbish! If you think a tight-turning bike is crucial to crit racing
success, go watch a tandem criterium. Those whackos corner waaay
faster than a single bike.

The limiting factor in how fast you corner is NOT the wheelbase of your
bike (assuming your bike fits within normal limits).

_ Speed is not the issue, it's following the line you're given
by everybody around you. Regardless of whether it's optimal or
not you're much better off if your bike handles very similarly
to everybody elses. So since most people are on short wheelbase
racing bikes, you'll have an easier time if you are as well.

_ You're confusing speed through the corner with reaction speed
to input. The first depends on how far you can lean your bike
over, the second on how fast you can get it leaned over. A long
wheel base actually makes for a faster cornerer[1], but a slower
reactor. A short wheelbase does the opposite.

_ Booker C. Bense

[1]- This is just my impression, but I feel much more comfortable
doing fast windy descents on a long wheelbase bike.

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

iQCVAwUBQfl+EGTWTAjn5N/lAQH4qgQAo9YI8d2D1+kDMsOVpDcPOz2/KLcfE5vY
FyFvDdEr3HVpwuzQoNoDXaJb63nPaR9pR8bMqRzq9rWy1fPFRqjUkoX6oSt5vqQ/
8CmFNglJmGY9shxcneQPJtIhohwIBJTTwv9yBwwSlOD5a5d2+TFvrsOvotAXDs5H
Qq7IMGSwdZw=
=pWzM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

Quoted message said:

... Short chainstays are one manifestation of this...others are
short-reach brakes, low head tubes, 11 tooth cogs, and low spoke-count
wheels.

Manufacturers are finally beginning to design a few bikes built for the
way people actually ride (Specialized Roubaix comes to mind). Whether
consumers will respond remains to be seen.

Actually, I like the lower head tubes and longer top tubes... I especially
hate the compact/hyena geometry. I understand that there are "sport" models
with longer chainstays, but alas I find the front-end too upright on those.
I also don't like the zerts (sp?) insert [censored] that Specialized is pushing.
So I think the Roubaix is out for me.

Booker C. Bense
<[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Scott said:

David B. said:

Well, for the one percent of bike buyers that race criteriums,
shorter chainstays give you a shorter wheelbase which makes for a
tighter-turning bike.

I think "faster reacting" is a better way to put this.

"Less stable" is probably the best way to put this. I can think of no
benefits for ultra short chainstays on bikes ridden on the road. It's
the trend and people have gotten used to how they handle, but it is
not optimal.

Quoted message said:

Tire and fender clearance anyone?

Well, they solved the fender clearance problem...no more eyelets🙂

Shawn Amir said:

I am getting the distinct feeling that longer chainstays are the way to
go... better weight distribution for descending, fewer wheelies when
climbing, and a lot easier over rough roads. But is there a downside? Is
there a non-marketing reason why road-bikes come with such short stays these
days?

You won't feel as racy.

Ron

Tim McNamara said:

Booker C. Bense
<[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Scott said:

David B. wrote:

> Well, for the one percent of bike buyers that race criteriums,
> shorter chainstays give you a shorter wheelbase which makes for a
> tighter-turning bike.

I think "faster reacting" is a better way to put this.

"Less stable" is probably the best way to put this. I can think of no
benefits for ultra short chainstays on bikes ridden on the road. It's
the trend and people have gotten used to how they handle, but it is
not optimal.

"Less stable" probably isn't fair either. They tend to "dive" into a corner or
fall into a lean more severely. It's predictable and controllable which is why
I'm reluctant to agree with less stable. But then again, it isn't entirely
inaccurate.

Try this:
http://www.xtracycle.com/html/default.php

David B. said:

Manufacturers are finally beginning to design a few bikes built for the
way people actually ride (Specialized Roubaix comes to mind). Whether
consumers will respond remains to be seen.

The Trek Pilot series is another. See
http://www2.trekbikes.com/Bikes/Road/Performance_Road/Pilot/Index.php

Long reach brakes, longer chainstays, more tire clearance. I like the
compact crank and light OCLV frame, too.

Yeah... Cervelo sure is retarded:

--
Phil, Squid-in-Training
"Matt O'Toole" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

David B. said:

Well, for the one percent of bike buyers that race criteriums, shorter
chainstays give you a shorter wheelbase which makes for a
tighter-turning bike.

Does not -- even for a tight turn, the difference in wheelbase between a
"long"
bike and a "short" one is insignificant. 4-5cm on the circumference of a
10m
radius turn? Come on...

I'm not sure of the exact history, but I believe short chainstays came
from
track bikes, and the desire to minimize following distances to facilitate
drafting. From that, short chainstays were associated with raciness, so
road
racing bikes copied the style. An extreme example of this is the 80s
Cannondale
frame with cantilevered dropouts, to make the seatstays look more vertical
and
the chainstays shorter when viewed from a distance. These days extremely
short
chainstays are rare because fat frame tubes don't allow them. Thankfully
these
silly fads do run their course.

Quoted message said:

Similar to the SUV market, road bikes today are designed to excel in
the conditions that consumers fantasize about riding in (racing),
rather than the conditions they actually do ride in (coffee shop rides
at 16mph). Short chainstays are one manifestation of this...others
are short-reach brakes, low head tubes, 11 tooth cogs, and low
spoke-count wheels.

Yup.

Quoted message said:

Manufacturers are finally beginning to design a few bikes built for
the way people actually ride (Specialized Roubaix comes to mind).
Whether consumers will respond remains to be seen.

Tire and fender clearance anyone?

Matt O.

Quoted message said:

the chainstays shorter when viewed from a distance. These days extremely
short
chainstays are rare because fat frame tubes don't allow them. Thankfully
these
silly fads do run their course.

Yeah... Cervelo sure is retarded:

http://www.cervelo.com/bikes/2005%20images/2005-P3Carbon-full.jpg

(intended as open-ended comment)
--
Phil, Squid-in-Training

"Phil, Squid-in-Training" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the chainstays shorter when viewed from a distance. These days extremely
short
chainstays are rare because fat frame tubes don't allow them. Thankfully
these
silly fads do run their course.

Yeah... Cervelo sure is retarded:

http://www.cervelo.com/bikes/2005%20images/2005-P3Carbon-full.jpg

(intended as open-ended comment)
--
Phil, Squid-in-Training

Main point there is to reduce the drag of the seat tube and wheel, and not
to reduce wheelbase (if that is even the case here). Cornering
characteristics aren't a major concern for a TT bike. Geometry may not be
that odd (I didn't look at any numbers) if you note that the seat post is
nearly vertical making the angle of a line drawn from the BB to the top of
the post within the normal range. The chainstays look short. There's no
reason to make them longer, but they could be if the curved tube was deeper.

--Art

Estimate your current weight distribution by weighing yourself and the bike,
then putting the front wheel on a bathroom scale and put books etc. under
the rear wheel until the top tube is level. Then get on the bike, make sure
the top tube's still level and read the scale. Use this figure and high
school math to figure out the proportion of your weight carried by each
wheel. If you've got close to 53% rear 47% front you're in a good
neighborhood.

Popping the front wheel usually means your weight's too far back for the
bike's geometry. The cheap solution is to see if you can pedal seated
farther forward to keep the front wheel planted. Or try to get your upper
body more horizontal by getting your bars a bit further away and/or down.
Just a little of both can sometimes be all that you need. If you can't adapt
your position, measure from your bb center to each wheel center, and shop
for longer chainstays, and more rearward front wheel, or maybe just a
smaller frame size is all you need.

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

Quoted message said:

I am getting the distinct feeling that longer chainstays are the way to
go... better weight distribution for descending, fewer wheelies when
climbing, and a lot easier over rough roads. But is there a downside? Is
there a non-marketing reason why road-bikes come with such short stays
these days?

Cheers, Shawn

Lee Hurd said:

If you've got close to 53% rear 47% front you're in a good
neighborhood.

Normal bikes don't carry anything even close to that much weight on the
front wheel, and it's not a good idea to do so.

Weight shifts rearward under acceleration or when climbing, and forward
while braking or descending. Pedal bike have a pitiful power-to-weight
ratio, so the rearward weight shift is of little concern unless the
chainstays are really too short. However, bikes should be able to stop
hard without tipping over, and that means keeping most of their static
weight on the rear wheel.

Chalo Colina