View Single Post
Old 03-16-13 | 03:02 AM
  #43  
GeorgeBMac's Avatar
GeorgeBMac
Senior Member
 
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,061
Likes: 1
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Bikes: 2012 Trek DS 8.5 all weather hybrid, 2008 LeMond Poprad cyclocross, 1992 Cannondale R500 roadbike

Originally Posted by Barrettscv
The most dependable indication of aggressive bike frame geometry is head-tube angle. Any angle 73.5 degrees or more is considered to be aggressive on a midsized frame. Good framebuilders will increase the headtube angle on larger sizes to mitigate the longer wheelbase on the larger sizes.

A steeper headtube angle makes the steering more responsive.
This is important in pelotons where many small adjustments are quickly made to avoid other racers.

Don't confuse aggressive geometry with bike fit. It's possible to have a bike with aggressive geometry and still have the handlebars above the saddle.
I've been struggling to understand these posts...

But, am I to understand that "aggressive" has more to do with "responsiveness" than it does rider position or speed?

In that sense: I find my LeMond Poprad steel frame, CX to be faster (even with the 700x34 tires) than my Cannondale R500 (with its 700x28 tires). I think of the LeMond as "stable" -- even at speed it's calm and relaxed. But the Cannondale is far more responsive -- to the point of being erratic. It seems that I have to watch it constantly or it will veer off line VERY quickly. And, I have to use more subtle motion to control it. If I get carried away, so does the bike.

... Part of that difference might be due to the fact the 50cm R500 is smaller than the 52cm LeMond. Actually, the LeMond feels a LOT bigger.
GeorgeBMac is offline  
Reply