Originally Posted by
DeadGrandpa
Um, ok. What about the choice of frame material? If you use more compliant material for the tubing, can you or do you need to adjust the HT or ST angles? And what about the tube thickness, which is another variable. Another thing I've found is that wider tires at lower pressure can make up for overly stiff geometry and frame material.
There you go.
Would you mind elaborating how a more compliant frame material would necessitate a change in angles? My wild guess would be, that more compliant frame designs may allow for slightly improved stability over imperfections, and therefore, respond well to more aggressive angles?
I know that materials such as aluminum and carbon often call for larger diameter tubing versus something like steel or titanium. Im assuming that, with modern technology, frame builders look for ways to make the aluminum frames very stiff and rigid, whereas with a steel frame, they can focus on offering some compliance because its already such a strong material.
Originally Posted by
mstateglfr
OP- a lot of current mountain bikes tend to have a more vertical seat tube angle. 74 and 75 degree seat tubes are common.
Others do have slacker seat tubes. Its a varied range since mountain bikes are so segmented in design.
I guess its about offering the right balance between a planted rear end without causing the front end to become too light. But with everyone being dofferent in size and stature, a standard size does not fit all...
Originally Posted by
70sSanO
Too many variables to summarize with HA & SA. Stem length and bar width impact how responsive, or non-responsive, any bike feels. And that is just one more piece of the pie. Slant top tubes, BB to axle, etc. all figure in the equation.
John
What would be the benefits of a slanted top tube? A taller stack versus a relatively lower seat tube? What about some of those road bikes which have an arched top tube? What are the benefits in that?