Modern frames with classic road geometry
 

For those of you that have built up those modern classics, you know, the sinfully gorgeous bikes that draw appreciation from all of us...

How does the ride of modern steel compare to some of the nicer 1980's (more attainable) rides such as a trek 760, specialized allez, gitane TDF, centurion ironmans (the better production roadie stuff from that era)? Is the improvement noticeable and worth the cost of a modern custom (or higher end standard) frameset? Talking about $2k or so frames here (gotta pay for kid's college, all that good stuff).

Here's the root of my dilemma... I'm lusting after a modern ti bike, but really want classic geometry. I got this same disease in the mid 90's and got over it (mainly because I'm not a litespeed guy and that's what most people got back then). I've looked into other more affordable stuff such as the Habernero ti, Moto ti's etc and I'm gradually convincing myself that one of these frames with a light wheelset and compact double weighing in around 17lbs would be enough of a functional wow factor to forget the lack of C&Vish beauty and craftsmanship (at least in the same way I've come to appreciate it in nicer steel frames).

Experiences? Is there a classic ti best of both worlds I haven't considered? Help me out (please)

Not classic exactly classic geometry but as far as Ti, I kinda like Kish's road bike.

What's "classic road geometry"?

Generally something with a horizontal top tube, a fist and maybe a bit more of seat post, rider fitted top tubes (vs one sized sloping top tube frames with swapped in stems). Also more of a "French fit" size wise. Prefer something with a sport tourer's steering responsiveness.

Talk to a local frame builder. Find out what he/she can do for you.

I should've just said that.

I could be wrong but I believe a "Classic" geomentry, especially for the late '80s period, was ideally a 73.5 or so parrellel nominala nd the working the size of the bike around that. Other than shorter stays and that stupid craze of making carbon bikes with that sloping TT so people who should ride a 59 look like they are on a 56 I don't geomentry has changed alot.

I think (I don not own any modern steel beside my bargin basement Bikes Direct Motobecane cross) but I think unless you get up into semipro to pro level bike the steels are likely not nearly as nice as the late '80s. So while the geomentry may be the same a '88ish Trek 520 will not have the same feel as a new 520.

And Ti? My first experience with Ti was a bit a of disapointment but I was not riding alot when I bought it, and while the geomentry was pretty 'classic', something just never felt right about it. I now have a different Ti but with a much beefier frame design and it rides more like a steel but but is heavier than the 1st Ti bike.

Lastly all bikes are different and feel different and I think that is one of the many thngs we all love about them. I think it is very hard to compare the ride of two bikes that were built 30 years apart. If one were to stay with the same brand it may be easier to tell wether their 2013 Unatainum/carbon/angle hair composite frame rides like their '88 top shelf 531 but maybe not.

Does any of this make sense or am I delerious from the heat here?

Either:
Euclid on a velocipede

Or:
Straight, blacktop, two yellow lines in the center, one white line on either side.

You choose.

Am I looking for ti or steel? Good point, and I guess that sums up the question. But, with the twist of modern steel vs ti and as compared to what I know best which is 80's steel (figured others have that as a point of reference here and might have thought about this already).

I think that fit and geometry are getting a little confused based on my comments. However, it's the sloping top tube of modern bikes that I don't care for and never liked (seems that one sure purpose of it is to have one frame be able to fit multiple people).

Use will be for 50-100 mile rides in hilly terrain. Thinking slightly larger/relaxed sized fit with a compact double would work, but would consider a triple. Need a frame that will not beat me up on longer rides, but still be responsive on climbs and sure on downhills. Need not have touring amenities. Basically a century bike. Sure I have bikes that fit that bill nicely, but this is a question about what's the difference between an 80's mid-upper steel bike and modern ti or steel (in terms of ride, value for $, etc). The value equation is secondary, but something that needs to be considered for the purchase. Thanks for putting up with my fractured question...

Is this what you are looking for perhaps?

http://www.curtgoodrich.com/images/f...ite%20bike.jpg

http://www.bobjacksoncycles.co.uk/images/Vulcan_500.jpg

I've got a nice Goodrich sport/touring frameset if you want to stop by sometime and take a look.

The Bob Jackson framesets appear to be good values again. Thinking about one for our oldest son for a grad gift.

I think a capable builder is going to be able to make you a bike that rides like you want from any material...and the modern steels aren't that much heavier than ti anyway. That being said, I do think ti offers some MAJOR advantages - no paint chips, no corrosion. I love ti and would consider it in many ways the ideal bike material. It is more industrial looking and ti bikes all do have that sameness to them (unless painted, which destroys some of the benefits). If aesthetics count, and they often do, I might go steel. Price is a factor as well, though the really fancy steels are no cheaper than ti anyway (and maybe more pricey!).

If you want an EXCELLENT, traditional builder who is also a good bit less expensive than most, I'd strongly recommend Daniele Marnati. Mine rides exactly like what I wanted...it's a perfect expression of my riding and aesthetic preferences. If you want titanium, I'd stick to the larger names - Serotta, Seven, Moots, IF, Spectrum, Black Sheep.

Aaron,

You have had great times with your Merlin, so that leaves me with hope on a ti frameset.

The ones I have owned have been underwhelming. A few I tried were a Merckx ti and a Litespeed Classic and a Tuscany that left me cold.

Sold them all with no second thoughts.

A guy in our group rides a Serotta Legend ti that is my size and it is a dream bicycle.

Until I heard the price he paid. Simply isn't in my budget anytime soon, as it is in the $10,000 plus category.

Classic from what era? Seat tube angles wheelbases, and bottom bracket height gradually increased over time. I would consider a Coppi era Italian road bike "classic."

I agree that you should contact some custom builders, but rather than ask them to reproduce a ride quality of a particular era or country, I'd discuss what kind of riding you will do, whether and to what extent you will carry any gear, and how you want the bike to handle. And for the price of some stock ti frames you can get custom steel.

As for ti--it's a great material and I enjoyed my Airborne ti bikes a lot. My Carpe Diem was marketed as a cross/touring bike and my 58cm might have had parallel 72, but the chainstays were shortish and the bb was fairly high. Nice bike, but I've had many other steel bikes that handled better.

http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/j...o/IMG_4182.jpg

Gomango - all of those bikes have one thing in common ;) I didn't like my Look KG292 at all. On the other hand, i LOVE the Litespeed MTB, but that's a whole different animal and I'm no where near as picky with MTBs. Once I have a 1.5 tire, I can't tell the difference anyway!

Sounds like you don't know what you really want/what things really were back then.

French fit road bikes generally do not work that well for someone with average dimensions. If you've got short legs and long arms/torso that fit style is ok but if you're more proportional FF is going to either leave you stretched and uncomfortable or leave you stuck with a super short stem that makes climbing sluggish and slower.

If all you want is a modern bike with a horizontal top tube, just buy the Rivendell Roadie.

Nothing, expect superficial tubing differences or differences specific to model. Look up some geometry charts and you'll see most of the angles/tube lengths are close enough to be the same or are actually the same.

You called?

My two cents is the French Fit on a bike sized 4cm up is delightful for moderate rides, but if you go the distance you may be tempting shoulder and neck pain. I have two big "classic geometry" 58cm bikes I love to ride, but if you are talking century distance you'll find me on a compact geometry, even a 54cm. My perception is this bias is shared by pro riders, if you watched the TdF don't they look like they are on remarkably small frames given their proportions? Heck, alot of them have their arms at a 45 degree angle while it the drops, I have no bike so short I that can replicate that position.

So, be careful what you are asking for. Love the French Fit, but as a sport bike only.

As Aaron stated, a good builder can make a bike feel like anything with any material.

Steel has surpassed titanium in terms of weight. R&E cycles here only recommends titanium for people who want the aesthetics and longevity. Their S3 is 13 pounds, but man, that tubing must be thin. I just got a litespeed firenze, which gomango would probably pass up if he rode it. I haven't experienced much of the really high end titaniums so I don't know any better. Part of the joy in riding it is that it is bulletproof and will stand the test of time better than steel bikes.

As far as the joy:$ ratio, no one can answer that for you. If you are the kind of person who is always buying bikes to scratch an elusive itch, than a custom makes sense. If you are the average person who only rides every once in a while and has average proportions, then custom might not be worth the $ and an older bike might make more sense.

People who want custom have done their homework and know what they want. When I am out of school and am no longer paying medical school debts, then I will definitely spring for a custom.

Pudget - I don't think the lightest steels are lighter than most 3/2.5 butted ti frames, but am not certain. I know they're close, but I think most ti frames do still have a very slight weight edge - at least after the steel is painted. I really like my ti bikes - but how much is the material and how much is the builder? I like the material properties very much - you don't stress about chips and patina with ti. De Rosa and Tom Kellogg are pretty good designers, so it's not surprising that I'd like their ti bikes.

Your Firenze is likely a very fine bicycle.

If it works for you, that's awesome.

I just happen to be a big guy and I have been piling the miles on this summer.

Fom week to week, I can really feel a performance increase.

As my weight goes down, the fitness level is really increasing.

A large framed rider and titanium hasn't been the right combo for me yet unfortunately.

If I should win the lottery a Legend ti could make me very happy though.

Aaron and PP have made good points otherwise and I agree with them.

You're probably right on the whole. I forget that I'm not talking to the folks at R&E who shows crazy pride for how light their lightest road frame is. I agree with the durability... Ti is tough as nails and would probably hold up better vs an aggressively butted, same weight, thin tubed steel bike.

No animocity here, just complimenting you and expressing my jealousy for your fleet ;)

Outstanding!

Danke sehr. :)

S3 and the top end columbus stuff can be build into a 1 kg frame, if you really push it. Bat****. Ti can get down to 1200-1300 grams, but those frames trying that (Litespeed Ghisallo comes to mind) have a reputation for being scary whippy.

How much lighter were the 6-4 frames? I don't think anyone is working with 6-4 anymore, but I could be wrong.

When discussing high end steels and the advantages of Ti when it comes to corrosion, paint nicks, the added weight of paint to prevent rust, etc., of steel frames, don't leave 953, XCr, and KVA MS2 stainless tubesets out of the discussion.

Looking for something like this?

http://www.somafab.com/archives/prod...anyan-frameset

http://www.vehibase.com/soma-stanyan.jpg

http://ep.yimg.com/ca/I/yhst-3773699254952_2213_4130

They bill it as a lugged road sport frame. I have a Soma Smoothie (their other road frame which you may not like because of it's compact geo look) and love it! If I was going to add another road bike to the stable it would likely be one of these.

Thanks for all the input. Valuable input always draws more questions...

I'm narrowing the field and finding that I need to give modern steel (in a classic form) a second look. I still like the ride it hard and put away wet aspect of ti, but it would have to be the right bike.

I may be inquiring regarding backlogs for the local builders. Though, I hear rumors of multi year waits for some, and that would be more than I could bear. 953 and other stainless is spot on but probably beyond my means. Does anyone have any experience with a DeSalvo classic ti road bike? Is a standard custom modern steel frame normally in the $2-$2.5k range? Any experience working with Anderson?

I did get a little laugh from the comment that I don't understand 80's bikes. I'm deciding which one of my half dozen 80s rigs to take out this evening.

I think it was Aaron who mentioned that it's not so much the material that matters, but the builder's design.

I don't try to guage a bike's handling, comfort or durability based on what material it's made of.
It all comes down to design, but as far as reliability goes it all comes down to quality control and testing, without which you'll never know what to expect.

I recommend trying as many bikes and adjustments as possible, then try to figure out what it is about each setup that give it it's advantages (if any).
It can be a lifelong learning curve though, I can testify to that.

Most people like what they ride, until they try others for camparison.
I've changed my preferences a lot as my knowledge of bikes (and body) has accumulated.

One thing I believe in is a more rider-forward positioning, as one pursues speed, hard accelerations and climbing.
Being able to stay aero while pedaling at max output off of the saddle, and being able to stay aero without bending so sharply at the waist both point to a more-foreward handlebar and saddle, respectively.

Combine those two features, and your trips through the rolling hills will seem almost effortless compared to a more touring-oriented geometry.
Yet, there's no rule that says you can't combine a more-foreward rider position with a more-relaxed head tube angle for stability, and the only compromise with that is that you won't be able to draft as closely to another rider's rear tire.
I wanted to test that last approach, which is common to many "multisport/tri" bikes, and put this together last week:
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8024/7...578a384d_b.jpg
I started with a very big (for me, I'm barely 5'10") 62cm frame with a 61cm top tube(!). It came with the long neck, which I slammed down. The seat and head tube angles are both about 72 degrees.

The ride is indeed very stable with the 72-degree head tube angle, but the 115 length stem is about as long as one can use with such a shallow head tube angle before the steering starts to become floppy while riding out of the saddle during sprints and climbs.
The stock seatpost, reversed, turned out to be the only one of many 26.8mm posts that I have here which could put the saddle so far foreward, other than using a cheap straight post with a reversed clamp.
The ride is both comfortable and fast, but not twitchy at speed.
Heck, it's got a 54t chainring, so it's gotta be fast ;-)>

Anderson Custom Bicycles in Saint Paul make some nice bikes with 953. Out of my $$ range, but a guy can dream.

Glad you brought that up. I am curious as to how much does a custom in one of those sets cost? There was a debate in the paceline forums not too long ago and there was a consensus that the extra cost over a Ti frame is not worth the extra coin.