Originally Posted by
Nessism
Not trying to get into an argument but here in the States, where criteriums are the norm, there are basically NO CRITERIUM specific bikes being sold. The reason is simple, there is no such thing as criterium geometry. Geometry that works for general purpose riding works for criteriums as well so there is no need for anything special. You are just splitting hairs and theorizing. Even Colnago's, that have more trail than just about any other bikes, are all over the criterium fields I've seen and they do just fine. So again, we are right back at the top of this thread; the reason bike geometry is what it is in the marketplace is because it works. Straying off the norm is not needed and accomplishes very little other than make some technical people feel better and feed their heads (and yes, I can be one of those people sometimes so I'm not throwing stones).
Nessism, we're not QUITE back at the beginning; TT used a term to ask some questions, it caused uncertainty and discussion, he's explained himself in an understandable way, so that's progress. Not sure if he's gotten closer to his goal, though!
The term "crit" bike was common at least among the bike salesmen in the shops I haunted in the early '70s, when frames were starting to get shorter, steeper, and quicker steering. Salesmen steered me away from certain bikes because they were thought to be too quick-response for normal riding. What I notice as a veteran is that few bikes today have the length of the common bikes in the late '60s and early '70s. So more bikes today at least meet TT's short wheelbase criterion. Toe overlap seems to be avoided by design today, so that limits the head angle steepness and fork offset. Reading bike reviews mainly in Cycling Plus, I notice a lot of trail numbers near 6 cm on road bikes. I don't know how this compares to the concept TT is talking about or to his now-gone bike.