Originally Posted by Doctor Who
I really doubt that it's poor design. I mean, I don't know who knows more about the ideal ST angle for a track bike - a bike company with thousands, if not millions, of dollars of R&D and input from professional riders, or a bunch of kids on the Internet, who fetishize vintage bikes that were designed in the '60s.
I'm not trying to be insulting. I'd much rather own a vintage track bike from the '60s, but if I were getting paid to ride a bike, I'd much rather ride a bike that had the R&D done to ensure that every last bit of energy is going to propelling me and my bike, and not fighting wind resistance and a flexible frame.
I'm not saying that I know better than they do, but I know enough about engineering to know that not everybody who can afford to do it, does it. I'm just wondering if the R&D was actually done, or if they are just using the designs from their road bikes. More specifically, I'm wondering, if they are doing the research and engineering, what benefits are gained by the more slack HT (Though, 73.5 isn't all that slack, i've seen as low as 72, and vintage is usually 74-75), and what is it about CF that makes it possible when it appears to be impossible with steel. Vomitron mentions it is easier to paceline, which seems to make sense, though I'm not sure exactly why that would be.