Cyclocross - Ibis Hakkalugi geometry
Bikeforums.net is a forum about nothing but bikes. Our community can help you find information about hard-to-find and localized information like bicycle tours, specialties like where in your area to have your recumbent bike serviced, or what are the best bicycle tires and seats for the activities you use your bike for.
08-22-10, 10:39 PM
I've been eyeing the Ibis Hakkalugi but wonder if the headtube angle (70.5) and seat tube(73.1) seem a little odd/too relaxed. I wonder if that's going to push my weight far back on the bike. What do you think?
08-27-10, 04:05 PM
you talking new or the old one ? for a cross bike it not a bad combo..
seat angle is for power, and the head angle will.if the fork rake/trail is well designed .
for dirt .. which is what Cross racing is, afterall..
weight back on the back wheel is where you get traction.
I dont understand your issue , the chainstays are longer for the fatter tires , and mud clearance
so that takes the wheel back a ways..
it's all about compromises .. angles and lengths change with sizes.
short frame may have to kick the wheel out to get toe overlap cured .
08-28-10, 01:14 PM
I've been eyeing the Ibis Hakkalugi but wonder if the headtube angle (70.5) and seat tube(73.1) seem a little odd/too relaxed. I wonder if that's going to push my weight far back on the bike. What do you think?I've been looking at that frame very closely.
I personally think a cross frame ought to be slacker than a road bike. I believe the stock build has a zero setback seatpost, which I would run too.
Here's a good review:
"As a pure road bike, well, it's not ideal. Novices probably won't notice the difference, but the high bottom bracket -- while terrific for racing and high speed offroad maneuverability, is not your friend when cornering. But then again, I don't anticipate too many folks using one as a dedicated crit machine."
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.12 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.