Singlespeed & Fixed Gear - IRO group buy: howto make it more aggresive

so yeah, I was thinking that if i go with a different fork that puts the wheel closer to the frame that would do it right?
anyone know if the carbon fiber fork offered on IRO's site has more agressive angles than the IRO group buy bike?

why make it more aggressive?

because he really wanted a frame with true track geometry, but couldn't resist the price of the IRO?


why make it more aggressive?

get really big tires

cause he is an AGGRESSIVE kind of guy


grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

cause he is an AGGRESSIVE kind of guy


grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

I heard he bites.

why make it more aggressive?
Because he deals dope and needs something to protect him from the 5-0?

as usual, thanks for all the thought provoking helpful comments.

well since the seat tube is more slack than a track frame, maybe a 650c front wheel with the stock fork?

Changes to make it more aggressive? Proper width and positioned (not just really ****ing low and narrow) drop bars so your out-of-saddle sprints have great leverage and a good saddle position so you can really wind up your spin (slightly more forward than "usual" = better ... if unsure, experiment in .5cm increments).

Uh... Iro sells carbon forks?

yup

Link? I don't see any their website.

they are listed under

add an upgrade
?

and

add a carbon fork
?

Pump it full of steroids, then kick it in the head tube.

i dunno.. machine guns?

prolonged eye contact tend to make IROs more aggressive, especially males

BINGO!


because he really wanted a frame with true track geometry, but couldn't resist the price of the IRO?

These things always depend, but tequila works for me.

the iro is cool how it is

yeah, but moving the tyre closer to the frame will make it look more aggressive, but handle less aggressively. I'm throwing on an Easton EC70, with a few mm more rake (IIRC) as a test, to see if it'll quicken up the handling, making it 'more aggressive'.

And seat tube angle is overrated. steeper allows shorter chainstays, but if you use a setback post, saddle slammed back on the rails, or a straight post with saddle forwards, you are changing the angle anyway.

FI, assume a 28cm long saddle with one corner of a hypothetical triangle connected to the middle, one more to the BB and one horizontal with the ground, so it forms angle ABC (effective ST angle) with the BB.

Lets say the test whatever has his saddle at 76cm from the BB.
1. straight post with clamp in the middle of the saddle will be a 73 degree seat angle. How many people use that?

2. Setback post pegged 7.5cm behind BB.
=73.6 degrees.

3. Italian style 10cm behind bb
=71.6 degrees

4. 5cm behind bb (theoretical UCI limit) Easily achievable with a straight post because my short femurs mean I use this position
=75.5 degrees.

There you go, you can have an aggressive 75.5 (or keep pushing it up) or a slack 71.6 using the same post. Or is this another one of those fashion, not position, things.

When you get professionally fitted for a bike (a road bike, at least), they make sure your knee doesn't extend past your toes while pedalling because it supposedly causes knee problems. So watch out if you decide to slide your saddle all the way forward.

because he really wanted a frame with true track geometry, but couldn't resist the price of the IRO?

I think you mean because he wants something that people will talk about putting a low rake fork on has nothing to do with "true track geoemetry"

yeah, but moving the tyre closer to the frame will make it look more aggressive, but handle less aggressively.

This is the important part of this thread. If you want the bike to handle more quickly, you want a fork with more offset, not less.

This is the important part of this thread. If you want the bike to handle more quickly, you want a fork with more offset, not less.

understanding trail (http://www.phred.org/~josh/bike/trail.html) ftw!

This is the important part of this thread. If you want the bike to handle more quickly, you want a fork with more offset, not less.

That's right - and from my experience I would not F with radically changing the fork rake. Just sayin'.

I thought the iro frame was true track geometry? What makes it not and what is there that is in this price range?

I thought the iro frame was true track geometry? What makes it not and what is there that is in this price range?

See this thread. http://bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=225713

Run it into a wall.

some bikes are listed as compact geometry, is this lessa gresive then track geometry?

some bikes are listed as compact geometry, is this lessa gresive then track geometry?

http://www.google.com/search?q=compact+geometry <-- Get your learn on.

Leave it chained up outside in the heat with no water.

I'm not convinced that a steep ht or short chainstays significantly help in traffic. I was just looking at this post on velonews. (see http://www.velonews.com/phorum3/read.php?f=2&i=93284&t=93269 )



Date: 06-01-05 10:25

"For example, if you had a touring bike geometry and took it to a criterium,
you probably literally wouldn't make the turns. "

This is not only a gross exageration, it is entirely inaccurate. Frame geometry can affect the feel and feedback of a bike, but it in no way affects how sharp a bike can turn at anything above a walking pace.

A bicycle is much lighter than its rider, so it doesn't take much force to maneuver a bike (especially at the relatively low speeds that they travel), so a touring bike can easily be leaned over into a sharp turn. Bicycles also have a relatively short wheelbase, so even a touring bike has a short wheelbase compared to its turning radius. And how do account for mountain bikes, which often need to make sharper radius turns than a road bike, and yet has a more "relaxed" geometry than most road touring bikes (longer wheelbase, slacker head angle, shorter fork offset)? No, it is not the geometry of the bike that limits its turning radius. How sharp a bike can turn (assuming reasonably smooth pavement) is limited by the skill of the rider and the traction of the tires, not on the geometry of the frame.

There are a variety of reasons that criterium bikes have the geometries they do, but being able to make sharp turns is not one of them.

Is the typical street fixer's interest in "aggressive geometry" (e.g. forks with less rake (?)) just aesthetic at best, or is there something more to it? What do you really gain from less trail, shorter chainstays etc? Dave Moulton says track bikes have steep hts mainly to handle best under g's in the banks. what else do you get?