Originally Posted by
Nessism
Everyone is different in terms of what they prefer, and that goes for framebuilders as well.
- Colnago frames have a lot of trail and steer slowly relative to many other frames. Does this mean they handle poorly?
-Serotta uses a lot of bottom bracket drop – 8 cm (most frames have approx 7.0 cm). Does this mean his frames handle better/worse than the competition?
Both Serotta and Colnago are highly respected brands, yet their frames are different from the norm in subtle ways. Riders are different as well; some people may like a bike that steers fast but others do not. There is no right and wrong answer here.
Framebuilders shoot for the middle ground because they know what works. As I said before, a frame built right on the median of the popular geometry range will work wonderfully for both general road usage and crits as well. Somebody may prefer something that steers a little faster/slower but that does not mean that the general purpose frame is not great for most riders.
The quandary of what is best could possibly be best explored in terms of bottom bracket height; a low bottom bracket frame turns easier since the CG is lower, yet a low BB is ripe for a pedal strike. What is “best”? Most builders shoot for a compromise of roughly 7.0 cm because this works for most riders, under most conditions.
I think you are hung up on the fact that you like a frame that steers fast, and you assume this is best for all aggressive riders. Colnago apparently begs to differ. Personally, I’m not a Colnago fan, just using the brand an example. There is no reason to get hung up on all these subtle differences. Just get a frame that feels the way you like and don’t generalize as to whether or not this frame should have its own category, or whether or not this frame is best for people other than you.
This horse is flogged.
PS: Dual pivot brakes are one of the most positive improvements in road components in the last 20 years. They are industry standard for a reason. Your singling them out as bad clearly puts the spotlight on yourself as the outlier.
The marketing argument used at the time (notice the term "marketing" and not "engineering"), was that there was a misconception that standard road brakes pulled more on one side than on the other. Often they touched on one side first (spring inconsistencies, an ever slight resistance from the cable housing that tended to keep the brake more in one opsition until the forces got bigger), and because they saw the the two arms are on one side... people put this all together and thought they saw evidence that one brake shoe pushes on the rim more than the other. This is totally false. Do the geometry, make the calculations, or get a geometry/trigonometry tutor to help you with it (I had a final mark of 100% in college, I can help you if you like). And of course, from a manufacturer's standpoint, since most people aren't that good at physics and geometry, why argue with them when you can come out with a new product and great marketing hype. There are two big reasons why dual bolts aren't the best, uneven pad alignment through the pressure application arc (one side pivots downwards while it's extention moves the pivot on the other side upwards as it closes in), and uneven mechanical advantage (leverage) on each side, plus a third but very small reason which is more total bolt length than if it had a single center pivot, hence a little bit of extra weight. I probably lost you there... read carefully, you'll see the light.
Now, regarding your kicking a dead horse... NO ONE IN THIS THREAD WAS SAYING A CRIT BIKE WAS BETTER. IN FACT, WE DON'T EVEN CARE WHICH IS BETTER. THAT WAS NOT THE POINT OF THIS THREAD. IF YOU READ THE ORIGINAL POST, THIS IS ABOUT FINDING A RIDE SIMILAR TO WHAT I ONCE HAD. A BIKE DESIGNED FOR CRITERIUMS. A CALL FOR HELP. PERIOD. Not a request for ridicule, not a request to be told it never existed, not a request for a self-righteous amateur framebuilder's permission to use a given term, none of that! You can argue all you want about your personal garage design philosophy, this thread doesn't care about that. We're talking about finding a criterium-specific bike. Why is that so hard to understand? I'm sure you can find some other threads where they embrace your philosophy and where it's the proper place to debate it's merits, where you'll get plenty of warm and fuzzy handholding telling you how right you are, and novices in awe telling you how brialliant and good you are. You have been way off topic for quite some time. All you've been doing is wanting a little publicity for your homebuilt frames but stumbled in the process. I don't want a bike made like every other bike from China. I want something different and better. It baffles me that someone is masochistic enough to make something ordinary and average. Why go through all that trouble, when you can find plenty of ordinary chinese frames for less than it costs you to buy the tubing and lugs. I mean, what's your point, why even bother? You're not bringing anything useful to mankind.