interpreting frame geometry numbers
#26
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 12,825
Bikes: (2) ti TiCycles, 2007 w/ triple and 2011 fixed, 1979 Peter Mooney, ~1983 Trek 420 now fixed and ~1973 Raleigh Carlton Competition gravel grinder
Mentioned: 128 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4741 Post(s)
Liked 3,860 Times
in
2,509 Posts
I ran the numbers assuming the same tires on all three bikes. Adusting my nuimbers to standardize the results to what Gunnar gives, I see:
Gunnar's trail - 61
Both Trek' and VO's 55
So, using the same tires for comparison, the Gunnar will be the most stable and the other two very close to each other. The VO will have a little more wheel flop. The bikes aren't very different. Here, wheelbase is a lot more different than the front end geometries. I"d look at that and balance between the wheels if I were l,inintingmy choices to these three bikes. (But at 4" difference in wheelbases, you are kinda comparing comparing a compact with a luxury car and saying they are not that different; they have the same number of turns of the steering wheel, lock-to-lock.)
Ben
Gunnar's trail - 61
Both Trek' and VO's 55
So, using the same tires for comparison, the Gunnar will be the most stable and the other two very close to each other. The VO will have a little more wheel flop. The bikes aren't very different. Here, wheelbase is a lot more different than the front end geometries. I"d look at that and balance between the wheels if I were l,inintingmy choices to these three bikes. (But at 4" difference in wheelbases, you are kinda comparing comparing a compact with a luxury car and saying they are not that different; they have the same number of turns of the steering wheel, lock-to-lock.)
Ben
#27
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Elevation 666m Edmonton Canada
Posts: 2,456
Bikes: 2013 Custom SA5w / Rohloff Tourster
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1221 Post(s)
Liked 314 Times
in
241 Posts
For sure the Univega, gorgeous. Hopefully it has a 130+ DO and a wheelbase 1060+. 2 years ago a guy rode the same bike SS around middle California. The OP bikes are uselessly short. That frame is IGH ready also, anytime. I would get a PHIL BB for slick power.
73o angles is rather goofy for a tour bike anyway.
73o angles is rather goofy for a tour bike anyway.
Last edited by GamblerGORD53; 10-23-15 at 09:39 AM.
#28
Full Member
Thread Starter
#29
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,411
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 55 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 32 Times
in
18 Posts
I'm not clear on what aspect of the bike's handling you are unhappy with. Usually people are referring to front-end geometry when talking about a bike's "handling" but a lot of other factors influence it as well.
Your bike's shorter wheelbase might be contributing to an overall twitchy feeling or it might be the lower trail number (or both). If you want to make the front-end handling less responsive, a fork with more offset would take you in the opposite direction and make your front-end even twitchier. A new fork with less offset would take you in the right direction but it would also shorten the wheelbase (subtracting from stability) and increase the chance of toe overlap.
My preference is for a bike with wider tires, a 71.5 degree head angle and a fork with rake in the low 40mm range. This gives over 70mm of trail and feels very stable when riding. I was riding a bike with 60mm of trail and did not like it at all. Very twitchy feeling.
Here is the calculator I use to figure out the impact of head angle, fork offset/rake, wheel size and tire size. My experience is that a few mm of trail doesn't make a difference.
Bicycle Trail Calculator | yojimg.net
Your bike's shorter wheelbase might be contributing to an overall twitchy feeling or it might be the lower trail number (or both). If you want to make the front-end handling less responsive, a fork with more offset would take you in the opposite direction and make your front-end even twitchier. A new fork with less offset would take you in the right direction but it would also shorten the wheelbase (subtracting from stability) and increase the chance of toe overlap.
My preference is for a bike with wider tires, a 71.5 degree head angle and a fork with rake in the low 40mm range. This gives over 70mm of trail and feels very stable when riding. I was riding a bike with 60mm of trail and did not like it at all. Very twitchy feeling.
Here is the calculator I use to figure out the impact of head angle, fork offset/rake, wheel size and tire size. My experience is that a few mm of trail doesn't make a difference.
Bicycle Trail Calculator | yojimg.net
#30
Senior Member
Bob, Here are a couple of web pages to at least raise more questions.
Understanding Bicycle Frame Geometry | CyclingAbout
Bicycle Trail Calculator | yojimg.net
Brad
Understanding Bicycle Frame Geometry | CyclingAbout
Bicycle Trail Calculator | yojimg.net
Brad
#31
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 12,825
Bikes: (2) ti TiCycles, 2007 w/ triple and 2011 fixed, 1979 Peter Mooney, ~1983 Trek 420 now fixed and ~1973 Raleigh Carlton Competition gravel grinder
Mentioned: 128 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4741 Post(s)
Liked 3,860 Times
in
2,509 Posts
#32
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,441
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 33 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times
in
3 Posts
I am pretty sceptical of frame charts. Same of the ones I have looked at just aren't possible, like they may have the same wheel base for every size of frame. I wouldn't trust anything I hadn't measured myself. There seems to be pressure on some of the numbers, people come with expectations, and the charts reflect what clients will want, even if they are impossible.
A lot of the bikes seem to have 45mm offset forks, and 73 degree head tubes, or claim they do. Inability to ride hands free may have to do with twist in the frame.
A lot of the bikes seem to have 45mm offset forks, and 73 degree head tubes, or claim they do. Inability to ride hands free may have to do with twist in the frame.
#33
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 11,112
Bikes: 1961 Ideor, 1966 Perfekt 3 Speed AB Hub, 1994 Bridgestone MB-6, 2006 Airnimal Joey, 2009 Thorn Sherpa, 2013 Thorn Nomad MkII, 2015 VO Pass Hunter, 2017 Lynskey Backroad, 2017 Raleigh Gran Prix, 1980s Bianchi Mixte on a trainer. Others are now gone.
Mentioned: 47 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3426 Post(s)
Liked 1,441 Times
in
1,122 Posts
Some have converted older 27 inch frames to 700c wheels by putting on longer reach sidepull brakes. Not sure if that is practical modification with cantilevers, but if it was me I would try to figure out if that is a viable option. The wider variety of 700c tires is a pretty strong justification. Used wheel sets with 126mm dropout spacing can be had for a pretty good price too, last winter I got a very nice set of wheels at a swap meet for a very good price.
#34
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 11,112
Bikes: 1961 Ideor, 1966 Perfekt 3 Speed AB Hub, 1994 Bridgestone MB-6, 2006 Airnimal Joey, 2009 Thorn Sherpa, 2013 Thorn Nomad MkII, 2015 VO Pass Hunter, 2017 Lynskey Backroad, 2017 Raleigh Gran Prix, 1980s Bianchi Mixte on a trainer. Others are now gone.
Mentioned: 47 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3426 Post(s)
Liked 1,441 Times
in
1,122 Posts
#35
Senior Member
Don't know if it's just me, but I find talk of what quantifies "twitchy handling" to be very much determined by the individual and what they personally find twitchy or stable. Have seen first hand when switching bikes with friends that some people are just not comfortable with a given bikes handling characteristics and can find it nervous, where it perfectly fine for someone else.
Perception comes into it I'd say, just as being comfortable at speed, as shown in some of the answers here concerning what different individuals feel as a comfort level at a given speed.
Perception comes into it I'd say, just as being comfortable at speed, as shown in some of the answers here concerning what different individuals feel as a comfort level at a given speed.
#36
Sunshine
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Des Moines, IA
Posts: 16,531
Bikes: '18 class built steel roadbike, '19 Fairlight Secan, '88 Schwinn Premis , Black Mountain Cycles Monstercross V4, '89 Novara Trionfo
Mentioned: 123 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10897 Post(s)
Liked 7,384 Times
in
4,144 Posts
An average of 3.5-4 hours of riding every day for over 1200 days- that's seriously getting after it.
#37
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,441
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 33 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times
in
3 Posts
That's right, but you can have norms, the industry designs around some concept of what the public wants, even if they have different ideas about that. I also think different riders, as you say, will experience things differently possibly because of different weight, or objective factors as well as subjective factors. I think there are objective as well as subjective issues, or one couldn't design anything.
#38
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,247
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 138 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 17 Times
in
16 Posts
As for speed. I can routinely hit 40 around my house and do it all the time. On the multi-speed to fixed gear convert I love hitting 40. I always know when I hit 40 mph, it feels different. Yeah, I'm riding 52x17 so I can still climb the hills but I can also descend down them without having to put on the brakes. I've been over 50 once and almost hit 50 this summer down in CT on the bike trip. I was shocked to find something faster on a state/federal highway than what I have here in NH. I have one spot 6-7 miles from my house that used to be the fastest descent in the NE 1/4 of the United States at 48.7 mph. That changed this summer. The biggest shock this summer was hitting 35.6 mph just east of Tallahassee, FL. I figured if I were to get down around Claremont, FL I might be able to get going that fast but anywhere else in FL, not a chance. Boy, was I wrong.
#39
Senior Member
That's right, but you can have norms, the industry designs around some concept of what the public wants, even if they have different ideas about that. I also think different riders, as you say, will experience things differently possibly because of different weight, or objective factors as well as subjective factors. I think there are objective as well as subjective issues, or one couldn't design anything.
I compare this to a friend of mine who has a Trek 520, and he finds the Tricross way to twitchy for him.
So its interesting to me that even with a much faster steering bike like the Rockhopper, it still remains stable and confident at 70kph, or about 45mph , thats about the fastest Ive gotten it to, so it does seem that numbers can indicate that a bike will steer quicker than another, but it may not clearly how the bike feels when it does get going fast, or with a load on it and going fast.
This is one of the reasons why I am so fond of this old Rockhopper, it works well unloaded and it takes a good rear end load really really well also, stays very composed and like I said, while still fast steering, it doesnt display any concerning handling issues.
It would be interesting for me to try to find the specs of these bikes, I really dont have a good understanding of trail and all that, and certainly havent retained the numbers for my bikes, even if I had seen them at one point. Would be interesting to compare to other bikes I have had and ridden, and to other bikes mentioned here.
#40
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 5,198
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 137 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 81 Times
in
64 Posts
I am pretty sceptical of frame charts. Same of the ones I have looked at just aren't possible, like they may have the same wheel base for every size of frame. I wouldn't trust anything I hadn't measured myself. There seems to be pressure on some of the numbers, people come with expectations, and the charts reflect what clients will want, even if they are impossible.
.
.
#41
Senior Member
Ditto, unless there are other factors than trail affecting handling. I've had a 56cm 700c LHT, presently have a 26" wheel LHT and a 56cm CrossCheck. According to the trail calculator they all have nearly the same trail but the 700c LHT is out in left field wrt wheel flop and lack of responsiveness at low speeds compared to the other two.
I can write up the numbers if anyone wishes.
Brad
* All four are Cannondales, three are roadies.
#42
Full Member
Thread Starter
Wheelbase, head angle and trail seem to be the critical dimensions. And, admittedly, it's subjective. My 32-year-old Univega is looking better all the time.
Bob
#43
Full Member
Thread Starter
I finally completed the clean/lube/adjust everything process, and put the Univega on the road. I would say that this bike has the handling that I have wanted and for much less money than I might have spent. Unfortunately, I don't think that I can accurately measure the frame, certainly not the head angle.
Bob
Bob
#44
Banned
Hardware- Builders supply have angle Finders . You're the "engineer" You should already know this or how to plot an angle..
#45
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,411
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 55 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 32 Times
in
18 Posts
I finally completed the clean/lube/adjust everything process, and put the Univega on the road. I would say that this bike has the handling that I have wanted and for much less money than I might have spent. Unfortunately, I don't think that I can accurately measure the frame, certainly not the head angle.
Bob
Bob
#46
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,860
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 595 Post(s)
Liked 278 Times
in
189 Posts
My closest friend that I used to tour with had over a dozen high end bikes but he loved his old damn Giant Iguana steel mountain bike for touring as he claimed it was the most comfortable bike that he owned for spending long hours in the saddle.
Last edited by robow; 10-30-15 at 02:43 PM.