Framebuilders - Frame Geometry

I am trying to re-create the feel of my second racing bike I had a very long time ago and lost in a crash.
Never had anything as nimble and well behaved since. It was an italian-made Cambio Rino (from before they started making the knock-offs in Canada). This one was optimized for criteriums.

Does anyone have any internet links, to a primer or framebuilder data on frame geometry?
More specifically, covering the head tube angle and trail?
Ideally, also as relating to wheelbase and center of gravity height?
But just the info on racing, versus track, criterium, frame geometry would be great.

I can't find my Framebuilder's book by Talbot in all of my boxes... HELP!

Two excellent articles on HTA, fork rake, and trail are on Dave Moulton's blog HERE (http://davesbikeblog.blogspot.com/2007/05/trail-fork-rake-and-little-bit-of.html) and HERE (http://davesbikeblog.blogspot.com/2007/04/head-angles-and-steering.html).

The Waterford website has the geometries for their different lines (road, touring/commuting, cyclocross, track/fixed gear, etc.).

http://waterfordbikes.com/

Along the left margin near the top of the page (Products, Restorations, Dealers, etc.), run your cursor over "Products", then "Road", then "Road Race/Crit", then click on "R-22/2200 Road Racing". The 22-Series Race Frame page will come up. Go to the right side of the page and click on "Sample Geometries".

You can repeat this for every technology and geometry frame Waterford builds.

Thank you for that.

Unfortunately, the blog is for beginners, and the website demonstrates that this is just another manufacturer adopting angles around 73 degrees (give or take a half) as published in Cinelli's landmark 1972 cycling bible on frame geometry and training. Back then the roads were pretty bad, and the geometry was a compromise between road shock absorbing and handling.

I was looking for something a little more exhaustive.

Most all standard racing frames built in the last several decades have head tube angles between 72 - 74 degrees. Fork rake works with the HTA to determine trail - which ranges from 5 - 7 cm. This range has been determined imperially and has held up to the test of time.

Chain stay length has a small effect on weight balance on the bike, and bottom bracket drop has a small effect on center of gravity placement. Again, common range for frames is quite tight because it just plain works.

One small Nessism I'll though out is somewhat controversial; I contend that a bike with a low bottom bracket will steer faster than one with a higher BB. The low BB lowers the center of gravity and moves said CG closer to the roll axis of the bike - thus making it easier to turn and lean.

Enjoy your research.:)

Well, the higher bottom bracket height is for the only purpose of being able to pedal through the turns... the tight ones, without scraping your pedals on the ground, and at the very least start to pedal sooner coming out of it. (All my pedals from my racing days are deeply scarred despited the higher BB). The higher BB does affect maneuverability, but relatively little impact... certainly nothing to the amplitude of good versus bad geometry on the rest of the bike. I've noticed that a bike with extremely short chainstays (like, I mean, you can't put on anything fatter than a 25C tire!) does handle better, but this is more apparent at lower speeds, in tight criterium turns, and on track racing on a tight track (in Montreal we had a 333m velodrome with a 49 degree inclination in the banks)... like combined with the right geometry it'll turn on a dime effortlessly when just sitting on it moving forward slowly, but this of course becomes diluted with speed. My road bike was extremely nimble, yet, surprisingly, at 60+mph spinning in top gear on a downhill I don't remember ever getting speed wobbles, yet in the criteriums, it could outmaneuver any Marinoni or other bike in the pack. That's why I miss it so much.



Most all standard racing frames built in the last several decades have head tube angles between 72 - 74 degrees. Fork rake works with the HTA to determine trail - which ranges from 5 - 7 cm. This range has been determined imperially and has held up to the test of time.

Chain stay length has a small effect on weight balance on the bike, and bottom bracket drop has a small effect on center of gravity placement. Again, common range for frames is quite tight because it just plain works.

One small Nessism I'll though out is somewhat controversial; I contend that a bike with a low bottom bracket will steer faster than one with a higher BB. The low BB lowers the center of gravity and moves said CG closer to the roll axis of the bike - thus making it easier to turn and lean.

Enjoy your research.:)

Maybe you were just younger back then! Is there any chance of finding a copy of the bike itself? Or info on it's geometry?

I am trying to re-create the feel of my second racing bike I had a very long time ago and lost in a crash.
Never had anything as nimble and well behaved since. <

Does anyone have any internet links, to a primer or framebuilder data on frame geometry? More specifically, covering the head tube angle and trail?
Ideally, also as relating to wheelbase and center of gravity height?

But just the info on racing, versus track, criterium, frame geometry would be great.

I can't find my Framebuilder's book by Talbot in all of my boxes... HELP!

I have my copy of Talbot, but I'm having trouble seeing what questions you have that you need answered. Are you looking to understand the meaning of trail and how it depends on HTA, or in how to choose values for trail and HTA, in order to get a specific result from a bike design?

There are a lot of frame geometries on line. Do you need links? What kind of bike do you want the geometry for?

Yes I would love links, thank you.
I haven't looked at my Talbot book in about 20 years, so I'm not even sure it would have what I want in it.
The bike I had was really short... ultra short chainstays, the feet overlapped with the front wheel, it handled amazingly in slow and fast situations... quite different from your standard steering geometry.
I want someting extremely nimble, but stable on th edownhlls as well... looking for some examples... something tried and tested. Track might not be appropriate for this. I have a track bike with an aggressive geometry from the same maker, and it handles quite differently from the frame I crashed and no longer have.

One small Nessism I'll though out is somewhat controversial; I contend that a bike with a low bottom bracket will steer faster than one with a higher BB. The low BB lowers the center of gravity and moves said CG closer to the roll axis of the bike - thus making it easier to turn and lean.

Enjoy your research.:)

I don't think that's controversial at all. Most directional changes are made (initiated) via weight shifts, so if your CG is lower, you have a much shorter 'pendulum' which means less movement is required to create the same lean angle.

Yes I would love links, thank you.
I haven't looked at my Talbot book in about 20 years, so I'm not even sure it would have what I want in it.
The bike I had was really short... ultra short chainstays, the feet overlapped with the front wheel, it handled amazingly in slow and fast situations... quite different from your standard steering geometry.
I want someting extremely nimble, but stable on th edownhlls as well... looking for some examples... something tried and tested. Track might not be appropriate for this. I have a track bike with an aggressive geometry from the same maker, and it handles quite differently from the frame I crashed and no longer have.


I was thinking of what are you looking for, and then I could send you just a few links.

How does this strike you: the numbers for my 53 cm California Masi, an odd, tight, short road bike (these are approximate, my notebook is at home):

ST 51.5 cm c-c
TT 52 cm c-c
STA 75 degrees
HTA 73 degrees
chainstey 39.5 cm
BB drop 7.5 cm
700c tubulars
has toe overlap

Or are you more interested in teh general science of frame design and customization?

Road Fan

I don't think that's controversial at all. Most directional changes are made (initiated) via weight shifts, so if your CG is lower, you have a much shorter 'pendulum' which means less movement is required to create the same lean angle.

Seems obvious to me, and obviously you:thumb:, but the old urban legend that a low bottom bracket "adds stability" is what a lot of people believe.

One of my favorite experiments to make my point is to tell people to take a yard stick and balance it with their palm underneath. After they get the hang of it, I tell them to try the same thing with a 12" ruler; the yard stick is much easier to balance because the CG if further away from the pivot point. This same thing applies to bikes; a high CG is more stable, but harder to turn.:) Truth be known though, the total range of effective BB heights on bikes is quite narrow so as to make this discussion somewhat unimportant. Interesting internet banter but not overly significant in the real world.

Seems obvious to me, and obviously you:thumb:, but the old urban legend that a low bottom bracket "adds stability" is what a lot of people believe.

One of my favorite experiments to make my point is to tell people to take a yard stick and balance it with their palm underneath. After they get the hang of it, I tell them to try the same thing with a 12" ruler; the yard stick is much easier to balance because the CG if further away from the pivot point. This same thing applies to bikes; a high CG is more stable, but harder to turn.:) Truth be known though, the total range of effective BB heights on bikes is quite narrow so as to make this discussion somewhat unimportant. Interesting internet banter but not overly significant in the real world.

A real confusion point, Nessism! The design with quicker response (low CG) is percieved as more stable!

Personally I think I can feel those differences between my high CG bike, a Woodrup, and the lower CG one, a Mondonico, but I also can't say that CG is the only cause of that handling difference!

Seems obvious to me, and obviously you:thumb:, but the old urban legend that a low bottom bracket "adds stability" is what a lot of people believe.

One of my favorite experiments to make my point is to tell people to take a yard stick and balance it with their palm underneath. After they get the hang of it, I tell them to try the same thing with a 12" ruler; the yard stick is much easier to balance because the CG if further away from the pivot point. This same thing applies to bikes; a high CG is more stable, but harder to turn.:) Truth be known though, the total range of effective BB heights on bikes is quite narrow so as to make this discussion somewhat unimportant. Interesting internet banter but not overly significant in the real world.


We must be careful when making such interpretations.
A stick (or any other object for that matter), is no harder to balance no matter what the length (height). It is harder to balance for a HUMAN. What I am saying, is that when you take into account our neuro-motricity responses, fine motor movements and larger motor movements in relation to reflexes (in delay and amplitude), a stick at a certain length is easier to balance, merely because it is easier to move our hand around several inches at a time than it is millimeters at a time.

However, when you are steering the handlebars, we are no longer concerned with fine motor movements such as in trying to balance a pencil or ruler - the movements are slower and more controlled (unless you feel like flying over your handlebars). We must think of the effect on lateral movement of the contact patch under the bicycle in relation to the vertical CG. What is the sideways deviation off a straight course of the front wheel's contact patch in relation to the CG height? And how fast and by how much do we need to move our arms to turn the handlebars. If you have deviation data, and divide it by the CG height, you can derive a probable percentage difference between two BB heights. I don't have that data, so this is all I'll say for now. But I suspect that what we are looking at is more like comparing two yardsticks in slightly different lengths, and definitely nothing of the amplitude of what was suggested. And yes, in this case, steering geometry definitely plays a very large factor.

Still haven't found my "dream geometry" btw. LOL ;-)

We must be careful when making such interpretations.
A stick (or any other object for that matter), is no harder to balance no matter what the length (height). It is harder to balance for a HUMAN. What I am saying, is that when you take into account our neuro-motricity responses, fine motor movements and larger motor movements in relation to reflexes (in delay and amplitude), a stick at a certain length is easier to balance, merely because it is easier to move our hand around several inches at a time than it is millimeters at a time.

However, when you are steering the handlebars, we are no longer concerned with fine motor movements such as in trying to balance a pencil or ruler - the movements are slower and more controlled (unless you feel like flying over your handlebars). We must think of the effect on lateral movement of the contact patch under the bicycle in relation to the vertical CG. What is the sideways deviation off a straight course of the front wheel's contact patch in relation to the CG height? And how fast and by how much do we need to move our arms to turn the handlebars. If you have deviation data, and divide it by the CG height, you can derive a probable percentage difference between two BB heights. I don't have that data, so this is all I'll say for now. But I suspect that what we are looking at is more like comparing two yardsticks in slightly different lengths, and definitely nothing of the amplitude of what was suggested. And yes, in this case, steering geometry definitely plays a very large factor.

Still haven't found my "dream geometry" btw. LOL ;-)

As a controller, the human mind and body are not fast, from an engineer's point of view. A longer vertical stick takes longer to tilt to the point where you can't regain control than a short stick does. That's basically why we find it harder to control. Neuro-muscular certainly factors into this.

I agree for a bike, steering geometry affects the available leverage to control the bike.

Is all this in any way addressing the original question?

Road Fan

As a controller, the human mind and body are not fast, from an engineer's point of view. A longer vertical stick takes longer to tilt to the point where you can't regain control than a short stick does. That's basically why we find it harder to control. Neuro-muscular certainly factors into this.

I agree for a bike, steering geometry affects the available leverage to control the bike.

Is all this in any way addressing the original question?

Road Fan

Yes, I couldn't have said it any better (as you can witness by the length of my post that this is a reply to).

I just hate it when people come up with the example of a long stik versus short stick... I couldn't let it go!

And NO, it obviously doesn't bring us any closer to the original question! ROTFL

And NO, it obviously doesn't bring us any closer to the original question! ROTFL

Okay then, I really do have the same question: WHAT IS CRITERIUM GEOMETRY, AND DOES ANYONE HAVE MEASUREMENTS OF AN EXAMPLE?

BTW, I had a mid-60s Italian bike back in the early '70s, and would dearly like to recreat that one's geometry. Problem is, I don't know the numbers, so I can't really talk turkey with a frame builder!

road fan

I am trying to re-create the feel of my second racing bike I had a very long time ago and lost in a crash.
Never had anything as nimble and well behaved since.What model and size bike? I had a Trek 770 in 54cm and it was a crit warrior. Short 41cm chainstays, 38" wheelbase, 74.5-degree head-tube, etc. It cornered telepathically! :)

It was a Cambio Rino, imported directly from Italy BEFORE Joe Gardin had a fake "master framebuilder" start making knockoffs in Toronto on these shores. (I was on the racing team of Centre du Vélo that was the first Montreal importer of these bikes, and this was my ride. The owner imported the first roster of these bikes from Italy pending their manufacture here, after which the quality and consistency degraded significantly).

I believe it may have been a 56cm or 60cm frame - I'm 6ft2. A bit of researching will tell you that the chainstays were extremely short, top tube was as well as my feet had plenty of overlap with the front wheel (and it was fine that way - you get used to it). The bike itself, with Cambio Rino components and sew-ups weighed in at around 18 lbs.

I have an old photograph, but can't really take measurements firectly from it, because of distortion from viewing anngle of camera lens, angle of bike (lean, direction), distance from lens unknown, height off ground of camera unknown, etc. Just too many variables to try to calculate corrections in the picture to arrive at a measurement.

It was a Cambio Rino, imported directly from Italy BEFORE Joe Gardin had a fake "master framebuilder" start making knockoffs in Toronto on these shores. (I was on the racing team of Centre du Vélo that was the first Montreal importer of these bikes, and this was my ride. The owner imported the first roster of these bikes from Italy pending their manufacture here, after which the quality and consistency degraded significantly).

I believe it may have been a 56cm or 60cm frame - I'm 6ft2. A bit of researching will tell you that the chainstays were extremely short, top tube was as well as my feet had plenty of overlap with the front wheel (and it was fine that way - you get used to it). The bike itself, with Cambio Rino components and sew-ups weighed in at around 18 lbs.

I have an old photograph, but can't really take measurements firectly from it, because of distortion from viewing anngle of camera lens, angle of bike (lean, direction), distance from lens unknown, height off ground of camera unknown, etc. Just too many variables to try to calculate corrections in the picture to arrive at a measurement.

I'm not familiar with this bike, but I'd suggest taking your question to the Classic Rendezvous site. There are some there who collect bikes of this vintage, and might know where one can be had, or a decent picture you could scale measurements off of.

Road Fan

Advice #1 - Copy an Eddy Merckx frame, believe me, he has been obsessed with this subject!

Advice # 2 - You can go to bicyclequarterly.com and purchase the issues that deal with geometry

Advice # 3 - As suggested earlier, you can peruse the internet for geometry of manufactured bikes and attempt test rides at the relevant stores.

Advice # 4 - Ride your friend's bikes, then decide. It worked for me, but that was before clipless pedals.

Bad Advice # 1- You can copy my preference for a sporty bike in the 56-60 cm range, 73 head angle, 5 cm trail, 41.5 cm chainstay, 8 cm BB drop. But what do I know?

Here's a Cambio Rino (http://velospace.org/node/12714) (Gardin Team) on Velospace.

EDIT - Using a Gerber Variable Scale and goniometer on the photo, I got the following angles and dimensions. The photo is in pretty decent profile to get fairly accurate measurements. Scaling was off the Open Pro rims which have a 622mm BSD. There is a little vertical distortion, so I used vertical rim measurement for vertical dimensions and horizontal rim measurement for horizontal dimensions.

HTA=77° (steep! -double checked)
STA=74°
Wheelbase=940mm
Seat tube (C-C)=56cm
Top tube (C-C)=54cm
Chainstay=400mm
BB Drop=60mm

YIKES! I plugged in the measurements I took off of the photo into BikeCAD. My guess is it would be very responsive and fun to ride, but could be tiring on longer rides. It sure looks like fun.

The photo appears to have been taken from the rear quarter as the front rim measured slightly smaller than the rear rim. This causes me to question the top tube length measurement; the bike may have a slightly longer top tube than the measurement I took off the Velospace photo. Because of this foreshortening, I tried to extrapolate the top tube length from the difference in sizes of the front and rear rims. Based on that, I'm inclined to think the frame is close to 56cm square, which also makes the wheelbase a little longer.

Here's the revised drawing that I suspect is pretty close to the geometry of the bike in the Velospace photo.

http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d7/k4drd/Bicycles/CambioRinoPista56cmsm.jpg

http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d7/k4drd/Bicycles/80sCambioRinoPistacr.jpg

Crock, thanks for your suggestions. I'm posting this reply to everyone here who is kind enough to read and/or to post some replies on this topic.

in 1972, Cino Cinelli published what was considered "THE" cycling bible. It covered everything about racing bicycles, from parts, frame geometry, to training and ergonomics, after exhaustive studies on the topic. Many books have been published since, and all seem to be a watered down version of this landmark book.

In those days, one of the considerations were the roads of the time: potholed, cracks, cobblestones.

Angles of the quadrilateral that any bike above the size of a 20" frame is, were 73 degrees for the head angle and same for the seat angle. He said he'd go "steeper", to 74 degrees, if the roads in europe were better. (before any of you try to correct me, that it is a main "triangle", think again. angles do affect vibration absorption because that head tube, although short, is a 4th side to the geometrical shape!)

My main frustration with a local builder, Marinoni with his bad character and myopic stubborness, and with many others, is that they were still building bikes with Paris-Roubaix frame geometry for north-american roads that have never seen cobblestone roads and with a cycling industry too young to have ever had cyclocross sections on a road race course.

The Eddy Merckx frames were no exception. They pretty much adhered to the Cinelli standards, as they did provide for a nice handling racing bike. What I find sad, is that if you look at almost all road racing bicycle specifications on the respective builders' websites, they all use the same old Cinelli standards - mainly because it worked, and continues to work for all racers.

But I do remember riding criteriums, and thinking what wusses they were all to not go faster in the corners, because my bike was able to take so much more than theirs'... way beyond the limits of the other racers' bikes! And I also remember that my Cambio Rino road bike was far better behaved and handling than my Cambio Rino track bike (which I use as a single speed since Montreal decided to convert our beautiful velodrome into an indoor zoo they call a biodome). What was so remarkable, was the handling, maneuverability, yet very stable behavior of the bike.

I was part of the Cambio Rino racing team, as I already posted somewhere, that imported these into Canada from Italy. The year after, Giuseppe "Joe" Gardin started to make knock-offs in Toronto, which had no consistency and no quality control, first under the Cambio Rino name and the year after under the Gardin name after he started having troubles and reprimands from Italy. I was lucky to have one of the rare ones imported from Italy before they started making inconsistent quality with totally random angles here on these shores. I know, because I saw them in the showroom every day... the whole line. I mean no offense to the owner of the Gardin, honestly! It was a sad reality.

I've received my carbon fiber cloth, and my resin epoxy has cleared customs on friday, and I'll be making some recumbents now... but I think this will always remain a back-burner project for me.

Scooper, thanks so very much for the efforts in taking those measurements.
I don't know what a "Gerber Variable Scale and goniometer" are, LOL, but I need to point out a couple problems with this.

I myself have an old photograph of me and my Cambio Rino, somewhere in old boxes.

The problem here, is that in any photo, the center of it will be precise, and as you move towards the edges, EVERYTHING is off, more and more, on a gradual scale. We don't know if it was taken with a 35mm, 40mm, 30mm, zoom lens, etc, nor the effects of distortion... to better understand what I am saying, just think of "fish-eye" lenses (you know the pics where you see a person or a dog, and their nose seems extremely inflated and huge, and items around are tiny and tinier as you approach the edges - this is an extremely wide-angle lens that best displays the way items, dimensions and even angles get distorted in photographs, even on the more "normal" lenses.

In your photograph, I'M assuming the image was cropped, or the bike was at an angle to the camera, because the rear wheel seems larger in it. This will distort all of the angles in the photograph.

There is a possibility of "straightening" it, if you know where the original centre point to the photo was... but we don't, because it may have been cropped, with more taken off on one side than the other. If it wasn't cropped, we could figure out the angle of the bike to the camera by looking at the chainring which is most in the centre of the pic. We can even extrapolate it's diameter by counting the number of teeth. But because we don't know the focal length of the lens, nor if it was cropped, this would have limited usefulness.

I have one of these BTW, and this is a track bike (as mentioned in my post of a few minutes ago), and does not at all have the same handling as the road bike of the same manufacturer. Also, a Cambio Rino or Gardin made in Toronto is not the same as a Cambio Rino made in Italy.

Once again, Scooper, I am moved that you made such efforts, and I thank you, but it's the wrong bike.

Road Fan, I was going through this thread and noticed that I had overlooked a couple posts.
You asked about what "criterium" frame geometry is. You seem to have a rather small frame size (53cm=20"), and this is borderline closest to the smallest one can go before having to extend the top tube because otherwise the downtube would intersect with it... I'm not confident my answer will apply to the smaller frame sizes, but I can comment on more "average" frames such as the more common 22"-24" range:

Criterium bikes are designed for smooth to average roads/pavement, fast turning with hard acceleration coming out corners.

3 areas of frame design have been optimized for the criterium type of riding:

more "aggressive" angles - steeper head and seat tube angles
shortest wheelbase possible: shorter chainstays, so that the rear tire almost touches the seat tube (2-6 millimetre clearance), approximate length 39cm. Shorter top tube, with a longer stem to compensate depending on a particular rider's reach (this was good for me as I am longer in the legs as compared to the average a man) - but careful, a shorter top tube also brings the front wheel closer under the rider and increases risks of flying over the handlebars during emergency braking)
some will also have a slightly higher bottom bracket, to allow for pedaling through some of the tight corners at speed


I believe that my Cambio Rino had a criterium geometry. It was a brazed steel frame, made of a mix of Columbus SL and Columbus SP with semi-sloping cast Columbus fork crown. 18.x lbs back in the mid 80's was rather remarkable for $800 back then! ($1800 Colnagos and other pro bikes with their campy super-record components weighed in at 21 lbs at the time - no $10k bikes back then... $2k was pretty much the upper limit in those days when there were only millionaires, no billionaires on this earth... how things have changed). Despite the criterium geometry, I went on 100-150 km rides daily with it (60-100 miles).

Take note that when talking ergonomics, I am more or less a believer in importance of seat tube angle for rider positioning, because you can adjust the seat's fore-aft position to change the effective angle. From an ergonomics standpoint, what the seat tube angle DOES in the quadrilateral (YES, quadrilateral with the head tube of any bike 22" fame size and up being the 4th side) is affect dampening of road surface caused vibration and effective perceived comfort of the bike, and from a geometry point of view (and this is more important) as to how close you can bring in the back wheel (thus your chainstay length and ultimately the minimum wheelbase you can attain). But my point of view is that it's not so important for rider positioning, because you can get seatposts with a different offset and you can adjust your seat's position too.

But my point of view is that it's not so important for rider positioning, because you can get seatposts with a different offset and you can adjust your seat's position too.

Wish I could agree with that, but we've had guys come to us that cannot fit on any road frame with a 73 degree STA because there isn't a seatpost on the planet with enough setback.

Also, there's no such thing as 'criterium' geometry. Nobody has a bike specifically designed just for racing crits because any old road bike does the job just fine. Companies tried to push the idea back in the 80's as a marketing exercise, but nobody bought it.

Thylacine, your comments seem a bit myopic... to me it is like saying that a cyclo-cross bike will do on a mountain bike course just fine instead of a mountainbike, or a road bike will do just fine on a track.

Of course "criterium bike" refers to a design philosophy, not an ISO standard or anything of the sort. Of course it's not a "standard"!!! LOL I was talking about a road racing bike optimized for criteriums... you did understand that didn't you? Why are you splitting hairs over a term?

BTW, perhaps in your country, there were mostly road races back in the 80's, I don't recall... but where I live, in Canada, it was mostly just criteriums period. The organizers were hoping this would help the sport gain in popularity with spectators, and help to justify sponsorship, hence only organized criteriums. But we were far behind the US and even farther than Europe before the sport started to get a little sponsorship and more road races. So there actually was an entire decade here - when I was racing - that it was extremely rare to see a real road race... you could count the road race events in a season on one hand - the rest were criteriums. (which was very disappointing to me who excelled on the long distances and hills) And it made sense back then to buy a bike optimized for crits.

And I can tell you, that a bike more designed for criteriums did much better than standard road race bikes which did VERY POORLY in handling on such courses as they still do today as compared to a "criterium design philosophy road race bike" (there is that better now for you?). Like you, many believed a road bike will do just fine... and they all looked like wusses everyting they went around a turn, cowardly putting on the brakes, rather than racing right through them... and that was most of the pack! I could take the whole course leisurely and in every turn move right back to the front and pass the whole pack, because so many had the same point of view as yours.

LOL I was talking about a road racing bike optimized for criteriums... you did understand that didn't you? Why are you splitting hairs over a term?

BTW, perhaps in your country, there were mostly road races back in the 80's, I don't recall... but where I live, in Canada, it was mostly just criteriums period. The organizers were hoping this would help the sport gain in popularity with spectators, and help to justify sponsorship, hence only organized criteriums. But we were far behind the US and even farther than Europe before the sport started to get a little sponsorship and more road races. So there actually was an entire decade here - when I was racing - that it was extremely rare to see a real road race... you could count the road race events in a season on one hand - the rest were criteriums. (which was very disappointing to me who excelled on the long distances and hills) And it made sense back then to buy a bike optimized for crits.

And I can tell you, that a bike more designed for criteriums did much better than standard road race bikes which did VERY POORLY in handling on such courses as they still do today as compared to a "criterium design philosophy road race bike" (there is that better now for you?). Like you, many believed a road bike will do just fine... and they all looked like wusses everyting they went around a turn, cowardly putting on the brakes, rather than racing right through them... and that was most of the pack! I could take the whole course leisurely and in every turn move right back to the front and pass the whole pack, because so many had the same point of view as yours.

Not trying to get into an argument but here in the States, where criteriums are the norm, there are basically NO CRITERIUM specific bikes being sold. The reason is simple, there is no such thing as criterium geometry. Geometry that works for general purpose riding works for criteriums as well so there is no need for anything special. You are just splitting hairs and theorizing. Even Colnago's, that have more trail than just about any other bikes, are all over the criterium fields I've seen and they do just fine. So again, we are right back at the top of this thread; the reason bike geometry is what it is in the marketplace is because it works. Straying off the norm is not needed and accomplishes very little other than make some technical people feel better and feed their heads (and yes, I can be one of those people sometimes so I'm not throwing stones).

Not trying to get into an argument but here in the States, where criteriums are the norm, there are basically NO CRITERIUM specific bikes being sold. The reason is simple, there is no such thing as criterium geometry. Geometry that works for general purpose riding works for criteriums as well so there is no need for anything special. You are just splitting hairs and theorizing. Even Colnago's, that have more trail than just about any other bikes, are all over the criterium fields I've seen and they do just fine. So again, we are right back at the top of this thread; the reason bike geometry is what it is in the marketplace is because it works. Straying off the norm is not needed and accomplishes very little other than make some technical people feel better and feed their heads (and yes, I can be one of those people sometimes so I'm not throwing stones).

Nessism, we're not QUITE back at the beginning; TT used a term to ask some questions, it caused uncertainty and discussion, he's explained himself in an understandable way, so that's progress. Not sure if he's gotten closer to his goal, though!

The term "crit" bike was common at least among the bike salesmen in the shops I haunted in the early '70s, when frames were starting to get shorter, steeper, and quicker steering. Salesmen steered me away from certain bikes because they were thought to be too quick-response for normal riding. What I notice as a veteran is that few bikes today have the length of the common bikes in the late '60s and early '70s. So more bikes today at least meet TT's short wheelbase criterion. Toe overlap seems to be avoided by design today, so that limits the head angle steepness and fork offset. Reading bike reviews mainly in Cycling Plus, I notice a lot of trail numbers near 6 cm on road bikes. I don't know how this compares to the concept TT is talking about or to his now-gone bike.

Thylacine, your comments seem a bit myopic... to me it is like saying that a cyclo-cross bike will do on a mountain bike course just fine instead of a mountainbike, or a road bike will do just fine on a track.

Of course "criterium bike" refers to a design philosophy, not an ISO standard or anything of the sort. Of course it's not a "standard"!!! LOL I was talking about a road racing bike optimized for criteriums... you did understand that didn't you? Why are you splitting hairs over a term?

BTW, perhaps in your country, there were mostly road races back in the 80's, I don't recall... but where I live, in Canada, it was mostly just criteriums period. The organizers were hoping this would help the sport gain in popularity with spectators, and help to justify sponsorship, hence only organized criteriums. But we were far behind the US and even farther than Europe before the sport started to get a little sponsorship and more road races. So there actually was an entire decade here - when I was racing - that it was extremely rare to see a real road race... you could count the road race events in a season on one hand - the rest were criteriums. (which was very disappointing to me who excelled on the long distances and hills) And it made sense back then to buy a bike optimized for crits.

And I can tell you, that a bike more designed for criteriums did much better than standard road race bikes which did VERY POORLY in handling on such courses as they still do today as compared to a "criterium design philosophy road race bike" (there is that better now for you?). Like you, many believed a road bike will do just fine... and they all looked like wusses everyting they went around a turn, cowardly putting on the brakes, rather than racing right through them... and that was most of the pack! I could take the whole course leisurely and in every turn move right back to the front and pass the whole pack, because so many had the same point of view as yours.

Yeah that's me, Mr.Myopic.

For as long as I've riding road bikes (20 years) there has been (road) criteriums in Australia every week. In fact, in Melbourne you could probably even now race a crit every night of the week in Summer, so Mr.Assumption, you are wrong. You can also race a 'normal' road race almost every weekend...we are as you can probably guess, a nation of cyclists.

Now as my background as a frame designer, I can tell you unequivocally there is no such thing as criterium geometry. No bike company in the world makes one, and no custom builder since 1988 has ever been asked to make one. Why? Because there is no such thing, and a 'garden variety' modern road bike will do the job just fine.

Your 'cross bike analogy' is rubbish because it's a bike designed around certain rules, and as far as I can see, "turning a few corners" isn't exactly what I would call a 'set of rules', nor is it an insurmountable design feat to design a bike that can do that.

Your "I could take the whole pack in the corners" story while cute is also anecdotal and of little relevance today, especially when referenced to my comments above. Could it possibly be you were better in the corners than the rest of the pack, or more 'courageous' than those brake wielding 'wusses' you obviously had to lower your standards to race against?

What you're saying is just crap, plain and simple, and you think you can respond to my comments like I'm some errant child? "ISO standard"? WTF? When did I ever refer to anything in this thread as a documented standard?

If you're in the market for a 'crit specific' custom frame maybe raise your bottom bracket 5-10mm, but do we need a whole ******** thread where you wax nostalgic about something you've romaticised through the mist of time that has virtually no design relevance in a modern context whatsoever?

LOL Looks like I ruffled a few feathers there. I'm not going to stoop down to the level of Thiamine's prose, because he'll only beat me with experience I think. Now Thylamine, you said we didn't need a thread for this... then WHY ARE YOU PARTICIPATING IN IT???

I'm referring to back in the mid to late 80's, there were criterium-specific geometries available. They were somewhere between a road and a track frame.

Now what we all need to distinguish here, is between a normal discussion, and a framebuilder who is getting all defensive about HIS personal framebuilding philosophy. Just because YOU decide to impose YOUR philosophy on your customers, and you intimidate them with your experience, doesn't mean you can just manhandle your way around here and intimidate everyone by flaunting your closed-minded experience at us. A little less arrogance and a little more civility and open-mindedness might do you good, and make this a more pleasant place.

Now if we could get back on topic here...

BTW, I'm supposed to go see one of these vintage bikes and take measurements... I'll keep you posted as to how it goes.

Cheers!

My opinion on this subject is more or less in alignment with Thylacines’s; regular road bike geometry is fine for crits. If one wanted to get cute, you could label a bike as having “criterium geometry” after you steepened the head and seat angles by 1 degree and limited the BB drop to 6.5 cm or so. Do we need to have a new frame type classification brought on by splitting hairs?

Eddy Merckx used to sell frames with two different geometry’s: Century geometry, and Corsa geometry. The Corsa geometry is what is being called “criterium geometry” in this thread. Merckx dropped the Corsa line presumably because the Century geometry frames got the job done and were more popular overall.

And speaking of riding in crits, who said a bike that steers fast is beneficial? I’ve been taken out by boneheads that couldn't hold a straight line in the pack. Put everyone on fast steering bikes with low trail and you could have pileups all over the place. No thanks.

Now as my background as a frame designer, I can tell you unequivocally there is no such thing as criterium geometry. No bike company in the world makes one, and no custom builder since 1988 has ever been asked to make one. Why? Because there is no such thing, and a 'garden variety' modern road bike will do the job just fine.

i unequivocally agree with warwick atmo.
he gets it.
e-RICHIE©™®
www.richardsachs.com
http://rscyclocross.blogspot.com

http://www.tetcycles.com/Frames/Road/Criterium/criterium.html

LOL Looks like I ruffled a few feathers there. Just because YOU decide to impose YOUR philosophy on your customers, and you intimidate them with your experience, doesn't mean you can just manhandle your way around here and intimidate everyone by flaunting your closed-minded experience at us. A little less arrogance and a little more civility and open-mindedness might do you good, and make this a more pleasant place.

Which is exactly what you're doing.

How about actually listening to the experience of others, including those that don't have the same opinion as you?

You know, such as me.......Nessism......Road Fan.......Richard Sachs.......

Wow, I'm mentioned in the same line as eRitchie!

Just to set straight, I'm not a frame builder. I've played with designign (see, I can't even spell it!) one for myself, and being an engineer, that becomes fun all by itself (yeah, I ride a bit, too, but no racing).

carry on!

I dabble in framebuilding, and have been cycling for 25+ years...........

Splitting hairs is the correct analogy, half the time on lugged framests the geometry varies up to a degree within the same lineup (handmade Italian steel 70's/80's) due to how the tubes ended up in the lugs for that particular frame. The "Masters" built by eye and feel, and produced sweethearts by the score.

Some framebuilder in the 70's stated that he wanted to make a museum of all the human freaks out there that supplied him with angles and tube lengths for custom builds that were submitted via mail.

Anyway..where was I?

He wants to recreate a bike from a long while ago, and people are telling him they didn't exist, except for a long long time ago... I found one with google search, and it wasn't lugged, and worse still was made of aluminum. Maybe that's the problem? Not lugged therefore doesn't exist.

He wants to recreate a <cut>



i dunno -

whether they existed or didn't exist, the term "criterium geo" was a marketing this more than
anything atmo. all of the so-called details that would make a design morphe into a crit specific
animal (higher CG, steeper angles, shorter rake, shorter c'stays...) contributed to making a bicycle
exactly what one WOULDN'T want in a criterium, unless - that is - you were never at the front,
and in a cat 5 field at that. no self-respecting framebuilder would make these compromises unless
he was doing it expressly for the money, for the market, or for a pal. all are valid reasons to cave, i
suppose. but the truth is, the ride and the handling would be compromised atmo.


e-RICHIE©™®
www.richardsachs.com
http://rscyclocross.blogspot.com

As an impartial observer, I'm so glad you have it all figured out and are so sure of your views that you can post them as the one and only truth. God, we'd be so lost without the E-richies and Thylacines of the world to tell us that our own personal experience and viewpoints are flawed and should be tossed aside and theirs taken up as gospel instead.

(hey, you guys may be absolutely correct: but the way you express your views makes a simple guy like me hope you are wrong!)

Rigi.... anyone?

I distinctly remember the "Steep Ages".

As an impartial observer, I'm so glad you have it all figured out and are so sure of your views that you can post them as the one and only truth. God, we'd be so lost without the E-richies and Thylacines of the world to tell us that our own personal experience and viewpoints are flawed and should be tossed aside and theirs taken up as gospel instead.

(hey, you guys may be absolutely correct: but the way you express your views makes a simple guy like me hope you are wrong!)

eh i dunno -
i don't post here alot so there ya' go.

35 years building. racing every weekend as a Cat 2 on the road.
dozens of national team cats queuing up here through the years.
i'm very comfortable opining. i can stand behind the reasoning
quite well. and i have never met a rider (at the top, at least)
nor anyone in the industry, who put any value in the term "crit
geometry". as i suggest (i believe some others here have as well)
it's a smoke and mirrors term atmo.

i dunno -

whether they existed or didn't exist, the term "criterium geo" was a marketing this more than
anything atmo. all of the so-called details that would make a design morphe into a crit specific
animal (higher CG, steeper angles, shorter rake, shorter c'stays...) contributed to making a bicycle
exactly what one WOULDN'T want in a criterium, unless - that is - you were never at the front,
and in a cat 5 field at that. no self-respecting framebuilder would make these compromises unless
he was doing it expressly for the money, for the market, or for a pal. all are valid reasons to cave, i
suppose. but the truth is, the ride and the handling would be compromised atmo.


e-RICHIE©™®
www.richardsachs.com
http://rscyclocross.blogspot.com

Well, look, the man had a certain bicycle (it was not in his mind), and it had some features he loved, and wants to find one like it. The only name he knows for it is one that was never well defined, it was 8/10 marketing, 1.5/10 bike sales floor crap (yes,even the hippie sales staff in Chicago were full of it!), and the rest the owner's word for things. There may have been some common understanding of what it was, but maybe except for me (55 yo) and a few others, nobody remembers that it existed, or certainly what it meant. So the fact remains the man wants a bicycle with some specifiec characteristics. In an early post he asked if someone has a copy of Talbot's to loan, but the think is his description of his dream does not match what Talbot was designing, essentially a CONI-pattern bike, today we'd see it as more of a sport-tourer (now this is kinda what I want!!!). Turns out it's upright, steep, tight, et cetera, probably a high BB with toe overlap. Can't any frame builder use some of that customer-schmoozing skill to steer him to a bike he would like? or would like you to build for him?

eh i dunno -
i don't post here alot so there ya' go.

35 years building. racing every weekend as a Cat 2 on the road.
dozens of national team cats queuing up here through the years.
i'm very comfortable opining. i can stand behind the reasoning
quite well. and i have never met a rider (at the top, at least)
nor anyone in the industry, who put any value in the term "crit
geometry". as i suggest (i believe some others here have as well)
it's a smoke and mirrors term atmo.

Again, in this case it doesn't reallhy matter what the pros and experts think, ultimately this gent wants a frame and needs help to articulate what it is. So what if his reference to crit racing is wrong for today? Is there any validity to what he wants today?

By the way, how would a 1980 Woodrup Giro be for crit racing? 103 cm wheelbase, flexy as hell, high BB, not much trail, needs a lot of bar force to flip into a turn but it stays on a line?

Again, in this case it doesn't reallhy matter what the pros and experts think, ultimately this gent wants a frame and needs help to articulate what it is. So what if his reference to crit racing is wrong for today? Is there any validity to what he wants today?


there are three points that matter -

and they are connected to his feet, his hands, and his butt.
there are a myriad of ways to set up the "triangle" but very
few will also yield a well-handling bicycle once the rider's
position is dialed in above and between the two wheels. it's
as simple as that.

there are three points that matter -

and they are connected to his feet, his hands, and his butt.
there are a myriad of ways to set up the "triangle" but very
few will also yield a well-handling bicycle once the rider's
position is dialed in above and between the two wheels. it's
as simple as that.

So as a builder you'd get his fit (or mine), position him in space between the wheels, then design the frame to hold it all together, and the bike he gets is the bike - forms follows function completely?

Road Fan

So as a builder you'd get his fit (or mine), position him in space between the wheels, then design the frame to hold it all together, and the bike he gets is the bike - forms follows function completely?

Road Fan

???
the rider's position overrides (no pun intended...) everything - always.
set contact points, and design a bicycle frame that works with them.
s.o.p. in most of the better shops atmo...

Ok, now we are totaly off topic and getting a Ritchie seminar. That's a good deal. As long as we aren't pretending to answer the OP's question, there is always lots of stuff to learn from those who know.

Just to be evil, I did detect at one point in the above the sense that maybe there is not only a criterium frame but actually one for people who are good and another for people that suck. For those of us far enough back there may even be types that provide sales space for popcorn and chessnuts. I'm confused (yeah, right) but nothing hangs on it for me.

Ok, now we are totaly off topic and getting a Ritchie seminar. That's a good deal. As long as we aren't pretending to answer the OP's question, there is always lots of stuff to learn from those who know.

Just to be evil, I did detect at one point in the above the sense that maybe there is not only a criterium frame but actually one for people who are good and another for people that suck. For those of us far enough back there may even be types that provide sales space for popcorn and chessnuts. I'm confused (yeah, right) but nothing hangs on it for me.

Cute!

Chestnuts for me!

Re the OP, he pops in and out of the thread every few days. yes, we're OT, but it's still mainly about frames.

Hmm would I get a good angel if I had someone here make me an audax frame.....

In support of what eRichie is saying, the main dimensions of the frame are dictated by the riders body: seat tube angle, seat tube length (effective), and top tube length (effective) are all set. Variables that are open include the amount of trail (head angle and fork offset), bottom bracket drop, and chain stay length.

Trail – common range is 5 – 6.5 cm – median of 5.5 cm
BB drop – common range is 6.5 – 8.0 cm – median of 7.0 cm
Chain stay length – common range of 40.5 – 42.5 cm – median of 41 cm

If a rider wants a frame that steers quickly (popular for crit racing) - shoot for the low end of the trail and CS length ranges.

If a rider wants to run long cranks and pedal through corners – shoot for the low end of the BB drop range.

A frame built right on the median for these three variables makes a competent crit frame. It also makes an excellent do-everything frame as well. Even when a frame is skewed to the end of the range of some of these variables, such as with a low bottom bracket (like e-Richie and Serotta advocate), or with lots of trail (like a Colnago), it will still function adequately as a crit race frame - no need for a special category to label frames for marketing purposes.

I have no problem with off topic at all, I usually am, sometimes even when I am trying hard to stick to the original point. Coments can have a different tone when they are said in one or another context.

I read somewhere that the proper BB drop range was 8.0 - 8.0 cm. Somewhere in that range anyway. :)