Advantages of a custom compact frame?

[CardiacKid]

Thanks for redirecting this back on topic, I got a bit distracted, sorry.

[e-RICHIE]

"i'm on the framebuilder listserve and frameforum.net and i've not
seen/read any evidence to support that customers choose "slope"
from framebuilders when offered that option."
Personally, I think it's all an aesthetic judgement. Heck, I've built a couple of fixies with sloping UP top tubes, and as I mentioned, the bigger size bikes just plain look better with a sloping top tube IMHO. Makes 'em look less like a clowns bike, and believe me, I already look too much like a clown as it is :)


it is an aesthetic issue - only.
let's not beat the weight/stiffness thing as though it has
anything to do with anything; it only lowers the quality
of the chat when folks try to convince others that slant
frames are anything but 1) a style statement and 2) a
way for producers to make fewer cpu's for reduced inventory
purposes.

[CardiacKid]

it is an aesthetic issue - only.
let's not beat the weight/stiffness thing as though it has
anything to do with anything; it only lowers the quality
of the chat when folks try to convince others that slant
frames are anything but 1) a style statement and 2) a
way for producers to make fewer cpu's for reduced inventory
purposes.Dude, someday I am going to convince the old lady that I need a custom bike. When that happens, I would really dig you helping me rock the free world. Hopefully I'll give you a shout out in a few years. :D Of course, you will probably have a three year backlog, by then.

[bellweatherman]

Thanks for redirecting this back on topic, I got a bit distracted, sorry.

No prob. We're all just in this sport for the fun anyway. That's what it all boils down to. So, for all the variations in bikes and the people that ride them, the bottom line is rock on with what give you the most fun. Right now, I'm rocking the free world on my old-school, skinny tube, traditional level top tube, style frame. Someday, I'll get with the times and get something compact like what these kids are riding. Until then, I'm having fun. At least, I got rid of the old toe clips.
:D

[Bing]

Dude, someday I am going to convince the old lady that I need a custom bike. When that happens, I would really dig you helping me rock the free world. Hopefully I'll give you a shout out in a few years. :D Of course, you will probably have a three year backlog, by then.Last I heard, it's bigger than 3 years now!

[CardiacKid]

No prob. We're all just in this sport for the fun anyway. That's what it all boils down to. So, for all the variations in bikes and the people that ride them, the bottom line is rock on with what give you the most fun. Right now, I'm rocking the free world on my old-school, skinny tube, traditional level top tube, style frame. Someday, I'll get with the times and get something compact like what these kids are riding. Until then, I'm having fun. At least, I got rid of the old toe clips.
:D
clue

n 1: a slight indication [syn: hint] 2: evidence that helps to solve a problem [syn: clew, cue] v : roll into a ball [syn: clew]

Get one.

[bellweatherman]

clue

n 1: a slight indication [syn: hint] 2: evidence that helps to solve a problem [syn: clew, cue] v : roll into a ball [syn: clew]

Get one.



Wow! What a total jerk. I apologize for upsetting you with my admitted poor choice of words and then you take that goodwill and mock it like the total ****** that you really are. Oh well. I pity da fool! :rolleyes:

[Trogon]

Three of the four customs I own are sloping. I do it for 2 reasons - I like the way it looks and it allows me to work on my bike in the stand without moving the saddle up. Very simple motivations. Took me a while to figure it out though.

[KendallF]

I'm preparing to build my first custom frame, and I like the look of the sloping top tube. My intention is to copy the geometry of my current road bike bike (non-sloping) and just move the top tube down (a la the earlier BikeCad pics in this thread). I guess I'd fit the "consumers like the look" bit.

[Thylacine]

If you're doing lugs, check out Kirk Pacenti's 'Slant 6' lugset. Currently they're your only option if you want a sloping lugged frame.

Also, why just copy your current frame's geometry? Chances are, if it's a mass produced number, the numbers in the catalog won't match the actual bike anyway, so why not develop some ideas of your own as to what you think will work and do whatever you like?

This is a good opportunity to get into bike design, handling traits, steering geometry - all the meaty stuff that actually makes for a good bike.

[Nessism]

If you're doing lugs, check out Kirk Pacenti's 'Slant 6' lugset. Currently they're your only option if you want a sloping lugged frame.

Also, why just copy your current frame's geometry? Chances are, if it's a mass produced number, the numbers in the catalog won't match the actual bike anyway, so why not develop some ideas of your own as to what you think will work and do whatever you like?

This is a good opportunity to get into bike design, handling traits, steering geometry - all the meaty stuff that actually makes for a good bike.

I built two different sloping top tube frames by bending the lugs. Both frames use the same sized tubing as the Slant 6 lugs - super OS, and turned out great.

Regarding sloping top tube frames in general, I like them. I was able to get the handlebars higher than I could have on a level top tube frame without resorting to a strange looking head tube extender. Just my opinon of course.

Ed

[baxtefer]

it is an aesthetic issue - only.
let's not beat the weight/stiffness thing as though it has
anything to do with anything; it only lowers the quality
of the chat when folks try to convince others that slant
frames are anything but 1) a style statement and 2) a
way for producers to make fewer cpu's for reduced inventory
purposes.

is it really just aesthetics?
what about people like me with short legs/long torso who want the handlebars up at a decent height, but who don't want to mash their nuts on the top tube?
I guess you're going to tell me to get a extended top lug, or a massively long quill, or some positive rise stem with a stack of spacers.
and then I guess I'll say "eeeeeeew, ugly"
so maybe it is just aesthetics.

[KendallF]

If you're doing lugs, check out Kirk Pacenti's 'Slant 6' lugset. Currently they're your only option if you want a sloping lugged frame.

Also, why just copy your current frame's geometry? Chances are, if it's a mass produced number, the numbers in the catalog won't match the actual bike anyway, so why not develop some ideas of your own as to what you think will work and do whatever you like?

This is a good opportunity to get into bike design, handling traits, steering geometry - all the meaty stuff that actually makes for a good bike.

I'm going to TIG this one..I am a car guy and have a TIG at home. I'm actually better at TIG than I am at brazing, though I do have a Henrob torch setup that I use occasionally.

I have a road bike that fits me well and handles well; it's a cheap, heavy Windsor (MIG welded water pipe, most likely; it weighs 29 lbs!). I have put 3000 miles on it this past year, mostly commuting. I want to start racing and did a crit on the Windsor, but it's just too heavy for those quick surges! Plus, the rack and light probably cost me style points. :) I thought I'd replicate something I know I like, and then I may jump in with both feet and build something weird next.

I have been watching those lugs, and looked at some of the beautiful stainless polished lugwork people are doing. I might try to do a small frame for my wife; she's 5' tall and those mini Slant 6 lugs would be perfect to give her some stand-over room while still having a tall enough headtube. I could make it with 650 wheels, and that'd give me an excuse to use the wheels from my tri bike and buy new race wheels...this is dangerous. :)

[pigmode]

market pressure?

I wonder in this particular case. At his site there are pics of TK on his personal RB, and it has a little more exposed seatpost than the one in the OP. TK seems a very meticulous designer, so I'm inclined to think that he has practical reasons for those frames, beyond the simplistic monkey see, monkey do approach.

[pigmode]

Market pressure?




http://home.hawaii.rr.com/konnichiwa/IMG_6491.jpg
http://home.hawaii.rr.com/konnichiwa/Fillerup.jpg

[Thylacine]

I don't get it. You can still be a great designer and not rely solely on 'practical reasons' to come to a conclusion. In fact, I'd go so far as to say someone who relies on 'practical reasons' only to justify a conclusion ISN'T a designer.

[e-RICHIE]

is it really just aesthetics?
what about people like me with short legs/long torso who want the handlebars up at a decent height, but who don't want to mash their nuts on the top tube?
I guess you're going to tell me to get a extended top lug, or a massively long quill, or some positive rise stem with a stack of spacers.
and then I guess I'll say "eeeeeeew, ugly"
so maybe it is just aesthetics.


this thread (and most of my post replies) is about
compact design frames. you are talking about sloped
frames - those, despite having non-horizontal top tubes,
are different animals.

[r-dub]

Wow, Spectrum radially laced C-Records?

[pigmode]

Wow, Spectrum radially laced C-Records?

Not sure about the wheels, but she rode that frame to a Gold in the Junior World Champion - Match Sprints.

The other pic is the '01 Master's World Pursuit 45-49 Gold medalist.

[Thylacine]

That is a little scary, but the stiffness from those wheels comes mostly from the rims, so they wouldn't have to be laced as tight as say a tradtional low profile rim. Also, it's not like they're jumping gutters or anything, so it looks like a calculated risk and a small one at that.

[AnthonyG]

is it really just aesthetics?
what about people like me with short legs/long torso who want the handlebars up at a decent height, but who don't want to mash their nuts on the top tube?
I guess you're going to tell me to get a extended top lug, or a massively long quill, or some positive rise stem with a stack of spacers.
and then I guess I'll say "eeeeeeew, ugly"
so maybe it is just aesthetics.

You could still come up with a horizontal top tube design that addressed your issues better than a sloping top tube design. Honestly I'm a bit ambivelent about the issue but from a pure design point of view to say that it couldn't be done is just bad design skills.

Here's my baby,

http://www.anthonyglynn.com/cycling/hillbrick3.jpg

The trick is you need to design the WHOLE setup, not just the frame. Firstly if you have seriously short legs like me then you need short cranks. Once you decide to use short cranks you can lower the centrebracket and then you can end up with a set up like mine where I have very little seatpost exposed yet I have standover [only just but thats enough]. With the limited amount of seatpost extension the differential between seat height and handlebar height is minimal yet I have only a normal amount of steerer tube extension.

So, its all in the design realy but you've got to know what you need to design.

Regards, Anthony

[Thylacine]

Which is why I'm a professional designer. :)

You're a very special case though Anthony, I think sometimes you forget that. I would've liked to have seen especially you on a sloping top tube TIG'd bike.

[AnthonyG]

Which is why I'm a professional designer. :)

You're a very special case though Anthony, I think sometimes you forget that. I would've liked to have seen especially you on a sloping top tube TIG'd bike.

Sure I'm a special case but not as special as some might believe. I insisted on many of the design principles that went into this frame but I owe a lot of thanks to Paul Hillbrick for listening to me and making it happen. Without my input I'm sure Paul would have made the frame with a sloping top tube and tig welded it but it actualy works brilliantly with an almost flat top tube and lugs. It is slighly off flat in order to assist in making the lugs work with its VERY relaxed seat tube angle.

For me the heart of the design was the decision that it would be built around 140 mm cranks and that it would be built proportionaly from there and the design works brilliantly. The bike is very stable despite a very short wheelbase at 895mm and a trail of 53 mm. Now I'm not the only guy out there who needs short cranks. Theres heaps of riders that would be better off using say 150-155 mm cranks but there using 170 mm cranks instead and of course there are design compromises involved in having a small frame that needs clearance for 170 mm cranks. This is just a compromise that frame builders have to work with but I decided that it didn't matter realy and I was going to ignore it. Even 160 mm cranks would be too big for my frame as I have a little toe overlap with 140 mm cranks but that's not an issue to me. The reach (Cervelo concept: horizontal distance from BB to centre/top HT) is only 325 mm. Thats WAY short and in fact I've pushed the boundaries of the minimum size possible with 650c wheels and I've been thinking that I would be a more natural fit on 24" (ISO 520) wheels!

Anyway my point is that even custom builders are working around compromises and restraints that are artificaly based on current easy availability of parts that realy should be "blown away" more often than they are.

Regards, Anthony

[baxtefer]

Anthony, it looks like you still have a 2" spacer stack on that frame.

[AnthonyG]

Anthony, it looks like you still have a 2" spacer stack on that frame.

There's 40 mm of spacers there which I would consider "normal" and thats to get the handlebars pretty much level with the seat. The nature of my hands means that the handlebars are effectively lower for me than they would be for the rest of you. The stem is angled down/flat rather than up. As I lose weight and get fitter/stronger I expect I will start to lower the handlebars but anyway it doesn't look quirky.

Regards, Anthony

[Thylacine]

Sure I'm a special case but not as special as some might believe....Anyway my point is that even custom builders are working around compromises and restraints that are artificaly based on current easy availability of parts that realy should be "blown away" more often than they are.

Hate to break it to you Anthony but you can't just say you're not so special and then spend the whole next paragraph clearly illustrating how different you are!

Obviously we're all based in the real world, so of course we're restricted to what is available - there's nothing 'artifical' about reality (unless you want to get all existential). The restrictions are based on what people will pay and what some companies can do realistically as a one off or small run (I'm talking frame parts and components here). I mean, tomorrow I could do you a carbon/titanium composite frame with custom laser cut dropouts with your initials carved into them, and custom CNC machined cranks, custom bent titanium handlebars....but when I say "That will be 8 grand please", obviously Paul H is going to start looking better and better!!

If you want to see what's possible in the current market, check out the NAHBS thread. There are pleanty of us trying our little hearts out to "blow away" what's possible.

[AnthonyG]

Hate to break it to you Anthony but you can't just say you're not so special and then spend the whole next paragraph clearly illustrating how different you are!



Actualy the thing that makes me most different is that I'm a stuborn S.O.B. and I insisted on making a bike that fitted me proportionaly. You may not all be as short as me although at 5'1" I'm not THAT short. There's lots of people out there that would benifit from riding 150-155 mm cranks and correspondingly smaller frames but there just not out there and I believe that its more of a mental attitude thats limmiting things rather than the physical.

You can take a set of 170 mm cranks and have an engineer drill a couple of new holes and shorten the cranks. Should cost $100-$150. I beleive that Truvativ's range of cranks are the best to start from because of their solid arms that aren't heavily scolloped. The frame building isn't anything out of the ordinary. Mines a pretty standard, lugged steel frame. Sure I could have made it easier for Paul by not wanting luggs but I was in a retro-grouch frame of mind and I love the outcome. It just takes a bit of thinking to start with and yes it does have some comprimises such as it won't take longer cranks but the world is full of comprimises. It's a matter of assessing your priorities.

By the way I used to study Industrial Design so I do have a paticular interest in design matters.

Regards, Anthony

[bellweatherman]

Actualy the thing that makes me most different is that I'm a stuborn S.O.B. and I insisted on making a bike that fitted me proportionaly. You may not all be as short as me although at 5'1" I'm not THAT short. There's lots of people out there that would benifit from riding 150-155 mm cranks and correspondingly smaller frames but there just not out there and I believe that its more of a mental attitude thats limmiting things rather than the physical.

You can take a set of 170 mm cranks and have an engineer drill a couple of new holes and shorten the cranks. Should cost $100-$150. I beleive that Truvativ's range of cranks are the best to start from because of their solid arms that aren't heavily scolloped. The frame building isn't anything out of the ordinary. Mines a pretty standard, lugged steel frame. Sure I could have made it easier for Paul by not wanting luggs but I was in a retro-grouch frame of mind and I love the outcome. It just takes a bit of thinking to start with and yes it does have some comprimises such as it won't take longer cranks but the world is full of comprimises. It's a matter of assessing your priorities.

By the way I used to study Industrial Design so I do have a paticular interest in design matters.

Regards, Anthony




That's great that you got a nice custom fit with a horizontal top tube and lugs, but you're making it sound like you couldn't possibly have gotten a custom fit with a sloping design.

[AnthonyG]

That's great that you got a nice custom fit with a horizontal top tube and lugs, but you're making it sound like you couldn't possibly have gotten a custom fit with a sloping design.

I wasn't claiming that actualy. Personaly I'm ambivelent about the flat vs sloping top tube debate. My point was addressing someone who said that a flat top tube frame couldn't be made to suit his requirements. I'm saying that it can be done but it involves thinking outside the square.

My view is that sloping top tubes are too often used to fiddle things although it doesn't have to be that way. I was just racing at a crit today with some vets and a lady there had a 43cm, 650c Trek but would you beleive that it had 170mm cranks fitted. :eek: The lady wanted shorter cranks but it was too hard for the shop to find her some. Usual story and I certainly get cranky about that sort of thing.

Regards, Anthony

[Deanster04]

I didn't get a chance to go through all the comments, but it is my understanding that Giant first introduced the so called compact frame to reduce the necessary inventory. After 50 years of riding mostly traditional steel frames I purchased a compact frame from Dean in Boulder, CO. When I rode track I always rode a frame about 1 inch smaller than my road bike. I liked the "feel" of the bike under me on wild sprints and doing track stands on the banked surface...in other words control. I must say that my compact Dean has a wonderful feel...I have even gotten to appreciate the geometry from an aesthetic perspective. I am now appreciating the new look as much as the old. There are compact frames that don't look particularly appealing...maybe its the paint or maybe the large decal sets that seem to be on all bikes today.

[Bop]

I have two custom frames with sloping top tubes, one mountain and one road. I am tall and both are big bikes. Both are S&S coupled and the compact frame makes them a bit easier to fit in the cases for travel. Also, I frequently loan a bike to a someone shorter and because of the frame design, they have less of a problem with standover height. However, the main reason was the ease of fitting into the hard cases.

[tomacropod]

I have two custom frames with sloping top tubes, one mountain and one road. I am tall and both are big bikes. Both are S&S coupled and the compact frame makes them a bit easier to fit in the cases for travel. Also, I frequently loan a bike to a someone shorter and because of the frame design, they have less of a problem with standover height. However, the main reason was the ease of fitting into the hard cases.

^^^^^
well there's something tangible. I prefer the aesthetics of traditional geometry, but it's all kind of academic Eye Em Aitch Oh.

enjoy drinking yourselves into sunday morning!

- Joel

[Garfield Cat]

Cervelo of Toronto has been around as a small private company marketing to the triathlon and time trial riders. Then it got attention with CSC on the TdF and then the compact frame with their Soloist and R-3. Great for climbing the Alps. For the TT they stuck with their P3 which isn't a compact design.

Light, stiff, responsive. Do you think they were thinking primarily or even secondarily of marketing to the Joe average charity rider when they came out with the Soloist and R2 for the TdF.