Rigi's are following that description, super short.. seat tube in 2 tubes. splits to let it pass over the tire
74, 75 angles ..

probably pictures in the C&V section, somewhere , or of course the WWW.

Most campus bikes from the '70s had high bottom brackets, including Peugeot UO-8s and all Raleighs. The angles of a Trek 1.2 are steeper than those of a Giant TCR Advanced or an Eddy Merckx EMX-525, its trail is longer than that of a Specialized Tarmac, and its wheelbase is shorter than that of a Felt F1.

With our customers "aggressive geometry" usually translates to, "Means I have to ride with my butt higher than my hands." For them we have "endurance geometry," which means higher head tube (always), shorter top tube (usually), slacker head angle (almost always), and a bit more fork rake (so it doesn't steer like a Plymouth Valiant with a loose tie rod and a trunk full of anvils). I've spent some time on a Bianchi Sempre, which I found to have a ride I'd describe as stable and silky. After the Sempre, my Madone feels jittery and choppy. But if you want to ride the Sempre, your butt will most certainly be higher than your hands. And one of the neat things about carbon fiber and hydroformed aluminum is that you can tailor the angles for rider fit and handling of the bike without necessarily changing the ride characteristics.

The meaning of "aggressive geometry" must depend on the context.

I remember the Rigi. Along the same line of thinking, Schwinn had a racing Paramount with seat tube that curved around the rear wheel to allow a shorter wheelbase. And then the Ciocces and later Gioses that were exported to the US had short top tubes and steep head and seat angles, but low bottom brackets and rather long fork offsets. Go figure.

This right here is the crux of the bisquit. You can have aggressive geometry and a very comfortable bike. Generally, more aerodynamic results in less comfort, not more aggressive geometry.

Comfortable perhaps, but twitchy. Not the bike geo I'd pick for sightseeing and brevets.

There is no strict or universally accepted definition of the term "aggressive geometry" in cycling. It's used to describe attributes of frame proportions pertaining to fit a bit more often then it is used to characterize handling.

That "twitchy" thing is way over done. One man's twitchy is another's precise steering. I've done brevets and raced across America on aggressive geometry bikes quite comfortable without the bike flying all over the road because it was so "twitchy." It's like the difference between a Ferrari and a Ford Fiesta.

Wouldn't "twitchy" be dictated more by stem length than frame layout?

And watch out pedaling out of those corners, lol. Crit bikes have higher bottom brackets.

I consider my Pedal Force RS2 to be kind of "aggressive"

[TABLE="width: 640, align: center"]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 6"]How a bike fits is perhaps the most important factor when deciding on a new bike frame. We suggest that you follow our bike fit calculator to find your ideal frame size. This will ensure an optimal fit for your body and your riding style.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 6"]http://pedalforce.com/online/Image/framegeometry.png[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 152, bgcolor: #333333"][/TD]
[TD="width: 50, bgcolor: #333333"]

44cm

[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, bgcolor: #333333"]

49cm

[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, bgcolor: #333333"]

52cm

[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, bgcolor: #333333"]

55cm

[/TD]
[TD="width: 50, bgcolor: #333333"]

58cm

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]A. Seat Tube Length[/TD]
[TD="class: style18, width: 50"]

44.0

[/TD]
[TD="class: style18, width: 50"]

49.0

[/TD]
[TD="class: style18, width: 50"]

52.0

[/TD]
[TD="class: style18, width: 50"]

55.0

[/TD]
[TD="class: style18, width: 50"]

58.0

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #f8f8f8"]B. Horiz. Top tube length[/TD]
[TD="class: style18, width: 50, bgcolor: #f8f8f8"]

51.5

[/TD]
[TD="class: style18, width: 50, bgcolor: #f8f8f8"]

53.0

[/TD]
[TD="class: style18, width: 50, bgcolor: #f8f8f8"]

55.0

[/TD]
[TD="class: style18, width: 50, bgcolor: #f8f8f8"]

57.0

[/TD]
[TD="class: style18, width: 50, bgcolor: #f8f8f8"]

59.0

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: style29"]E. Head Tube Length[/TD]
[TD="class: style18, width: 50"]

11.5

[/TD]
[TD="class: style18, width: 50"]

12.5

[/TD]
[TD="class: style18, width: 50"]

14.5

[/TD]
[TD="class: style18, width: 50"]

17.5

[/TD]
[TD="class: style18, width: 50"]

20.0

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #f8f8f8"]F. Wheelbase[/TD]
[TD="class: style18, width: 50, bgcolor: #f8f8f8"]

96.0

[/TD]
[TD="class: style18, width: 50, bgcolor: #f8f8f8"]

97.0

[/TD]
[TD="class: style18, width: 50, bgcolor: #f8f8f8"]

98.0

[/TD]
[TD="class: style18, width: 50, bgcolor: #f8f8f8"]

100.0

[/TD]
[TD="class: style18, width: 50, bgcolor: #f8f8f8"]

101.0

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]G. Bottom Bracket Drop[/TD]
[TD="class: style18, width: 50"]

6.9

[/TD]
[TD="class: style18, width: 50"]

6.9

[/TD]
[TD="class: style18, width: 50"]

6.9

[/TD]
[TD="class: style18, width: 50"]

6.9

[/TD]
[TD="class: style18, width: 50"]

6.9

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #f8f8f8"]H. Chainstay Length[/TD]
[TD="class: style18, width: 50, bgcolor: #f8f8f8"]

40.4

[/TD]
[TD="class: style18, width: 50, bgcolor: #f8f8f8"]

40.4

[/TD]
[TD="class: style18, width: 50, bgcolor: #f8f8f8"]

40.5

[/TD]
[TD="class: style18, width: 50, bgcolor: #f8f8f8"]

40.8

[/TD]
[TD="class: style18, width: 50, bgcolor: #f8f8f8"]

40.8

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]I. Front Center Distance[/TD]
[TD="class: style18, width: 50"]

56.7

[/TD]
[TD="class: style18, width: 50"]

57.4

[/TD]
[TD="class: style18, width: 50"]

58.5

[/TD]
[TD="class: style18, width: 50"]

60.1

[/TD]
[TD="class: style18, width: 50"]

61.4

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #f8f8f8"]J. Head Tube Angle[/TD]
[TD="class: style18, width: 50, bgcolor: #f8f8f8"]

72.0

[/TD]
[TD="class: style18, width: 50, bgcolor: #f8f8f8"]

72.5

[/TD]
[TD="class: style18, width: 50, bgcolor: #f8f8f8"]

73.0

[/TD]
[TD="class: style18, width: 50, bgcolor: #f8f8f8"]

73.0

[/TD]
[TD="class: style18, width: 50, bgcolor: #f8f8f8"]

73.3

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]K. Seat Tube Angle[/TD]
[TD="class: style18, width: 50"]

74.5

[/TD]
[TD="class: style18, width: 50"]

74.0

[/TD]
[TD="class: style18, width: 50"]

73.5

[/TD]
[TD="class: style18, width: 50"]

73.0

[/TD]
[TD="class: style18, width: 50"]

72.7

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #f8f8f8"]Weight kg (lb)[/TD]
[TD="class: style18, width: 50, bgcolor: #f8f8f8"]

1.04 (2.29)

[/TD]
[TD="class: style18, width: 50, bgcolor: #f8f8f8"]

1.08 (2.38)

[/TD]
[TD="class: style18, width: 50, bgcolor: #f8f8f8"]

1.10 (2.42)

[/TD]
[TD="class: style18, width: 50, bgcolor: #f8f8f8"]

1.15 (2.53)

[/TD]
[TD="class: style18, width: 50, bgcolor: #f8f8f8"]

1.18 (2.60)

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 6"] [/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
But I really don't know -- is it? I have the 44cm frame

[h=2]Geometry - Van Dessel Drag Strip Courage[/h][TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR="class: thead"]
[TD="width: 7%"]size[/TD]
[TD="width: 13%"]seat tube (c-t)*[/TD]
[TD="width: 15%"]top tube (c-c)**[/TD]
[TD="width: 11%"]head tube[/TD]
[TD="width: 11%"]head angle[/TD]
[TD="width: 12%"]seat angle[/TD]
[TD="width: 12%"]chain stay[/TD]
[TD="width: 9%"]bb drop[/TD]
[TD="width: 11%"]wheel base[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: row1"]
[TD]50[/TD]
[TD]47[/TD]
[TD]52[/TD]
[TD]8[/TD]
[TD]73.5[/TD]
[TD]75.5[/TD]
[TD]39[/TD]
[TD]5.5[/TD]
[TD]94.8cm[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: row2"]
[TD]52.5[/TD]
[TD]49.5[/TD]
[TD]54[/TD]
[TD]10[/TD]
[TD]74[/TD]
[TD]74.5[/TD]
[TD]39[/TD]
[TD]5.0[/TD]
[TD]95.9[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: row1"]
[TD]55[/TD]
[TD]52[/TD]
[TD]56[/TD]
[TD]12[/TD]
[TD]74[/TD]
[TD]74.5[/TD]
[TD]39[/TD]
[TD]5.0[/TD]
[TD]97.45[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: row2"]
[TD]57.5[/TD]
[TD]54.5[/TD]
[TD]58[/TD]
[TD]14[/TD]
[TD]74.5[/TD]
[TD]74.5[/TD]
[TD]39[/TD]
[TD]4.5[/TD]
[TD]99.45[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: row1"]
[TD]60[/TD]
[TD]57[/TD]
[TD]60[/TD]
[TD]16[/TD]
[TD]74.5[/TD]
[TD]74[/TD]
[TD]40.5[/TD]
[TD]4.5[/TD]
[TD]101.4[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Yes, it has typical track geometry. Very nimble and responsive.

How long has it been since you've seen a new "crit bike?" These pretty much went out of fashion by the late 1970s, no doubt because the guys winning most of the Cat 1 and 2 crits were doing it on pretty conventional road bikes.

Most road bikes these days have a BB drop of 65-70 mm, sometimes on the same model, depending on the frame size.

I assume you're joking.

Yeah I'm definitely behind the times, lol. I'm thinking of my buddy who crashed his Schwinn Super Sport in his first crit and bent my rear wheel in half.....And being passed on my left by my pedal cap a couple of times in pacelines in centuries. I have those 175 crankarms. I'm still riding steel and toeclips.

Been there. I didn't give up my toeclips until 1998 or so.

Seriously, though, below the top tube there is very little differentiation in road bikes these days. A Specialized Allez is a Tarmac executed in aluminum with a taller head tube. Pretty much the same for a Trek 1.2 and the Madone.

Some brands will differentiate between "classics bikes" and "stage race" bikes, but that's splitting hairs. Except for "endurance bikes," in dimensions below the top tube and ride and handling characteristics, contemporary road bikes are modeled after continental road race bikes of the 1970s.

What exactly is considered "endurance" bike if you don't mind me asking?

I've been struggling to understand these posts...

But, am I to understand that "aggressive" has more to do with "responsiveness" than it does rider position or speed?

In that sense: I find my LeMond Poprad steel frame, CX to be faster (even with the 700x34 tires) than my Cannondale R500 (with its 700x28 tires). I think of the LeMond as "stable" -- even at speed it's calm and relaxed. But the Cannondale is far more responsive -- to the point of being erratic. It seems that I have to watch it constantly or it will veer off line VERY quickly. And, I have to use more subtle motion to control it. If I get carried away, so does the bike.

... Part of that difference might be due to the fact the 50cm R500 is smaller than the 52cm LeMond. Actually, the LeMond feels a LOT bigger.

I touched on this in an earlier post, but here it is with a bit more detail. First and foremost, the head tube is longer to facilitate a more upright position. Second, the head tube is slacker by a degree or two, to relax the steering and soften the ride a bit. Along with this, the fork offset (rake) is increased to bring trail back to a reasonable length. Third, the top tube is often, but not always, shorter, also to facilitate the upright position. Fourth, the chain stays are often, but not always, longer, also to soften the ride.

Last, frames have proprietary design features intended to quiet or smooth out the ride. For instance, the Specialized Roubaix uses "Zertz" elastomer inserts and a crook in the seat stays and fork blades. Trek Domane uses the "Isospeed" coupling at the seat cluster to allow the seat tube to move independently of the stays, and Volagi Liscio uses "Longbow Flex Stays" for similar function.

Some endurance bikes are more endurance than others. For example, Scott's CR1 is often marketed as an endurance bike, but except for its slightly longer head tube and its version of vertically compliant seat stays, it's a pretty straightforward road geometry.

I can't say anything about the size of your two bikes, but in general the slacker head angle and longer fork rake of the cyclocross geometry will relax the steering of the bike. A Gary Fisher Presidio 'cross bike had a similar effect on me, figuratively disappearing under me the first time I rode it.

The key word there is marketed. Most all of that is marketing hype for the century crowd. You can make a full race geometry frame just as compliant as a "endurance" frame with the proper use of frame materials. This is especially true since the advent of carbon as a frame material. Just because a bike has more relaxed steering geometry or longer seat stays does not necessarily mean the bike is going to have a softer ride(look at a touring frame). Usually longer seat stays are to allow the installation of fenders and more relaxed steering provide a little more stability, neither of which is a requirement for endurance riding. The stability is the reason it is popular with many racers who race in events like Pari-Roubaix and are racing on cobblestones where it's useful. Notice that they go back to their "regular" race bike for all other events. The relaxed geometry is also useful if you are carrying a load on the handlebars. The taller head tube wouldn't be needed if every bike shop in the country didn't lop off the steerer as soon as a new bike come in the door.
Sorry but I really think those Zertz inserts, crooks in the seat tubes/forks, b-stays etc are just gimmicks.
Have you ever been to a real endurance event? Like the Gold Rush, Furnace Creek 508, Race Across Oregon, Race Across America etc. See how many "endurance" bikes there are there. Not many.
Now, the Volagi interests me. I do like some of the stuff they've done with that bike. I haven't had a chance to ride one yet but, I am looking forward to it.
I apologize for baiting you a bit here. I've been doing "endurance" cycling events for more than 20years and I've seen fads come and go. I see the "endurance" bike as just another fad. Most people (with the exception of the Volagi) those bikes are marketed for are people who think a century ride is a life time event.

Well, it isn't about what you like, what I like, or what riders are actually bringing to brevets. It's about what sells bikes, what brings riders into the sport and keeps riders in the sport. Specialized has been marketing the Rourbaix for about ten years now and there's no end in sight. Every day that I go out I see people out riding these bikes and I'm just happy to see everyone having a good wholesome time, and if they want to buy new bikes, well come into the shop where I work and we'll be glad to put you on a Raleigh Revenio, a Scott CR1, a Bianchi Infinito, a Domane, or an H3 Madone.

Some guys say the Zertz is a gimmick but the crooks really work. Fabian Cancellara says he loves his Domane 7 (58 cm with a 16 cm head tube, very custom) so much he uses it almost all the time now. I think the CR1 is a dandy ride, but a Bianchi Sempre is smoother yet, with no gimmicks other than pencil-thin seat stays. It's been a weak seller, though, probably because it's marketed as a "workhorse" race bike and has a shorter head tube. Personally, I think the Volagi Liscio is the biggest gimmick going, but I'm not going to argue the point with a room full of happy Volagi owners.

And frankly, most of these bikes are sold to arthritic boomers, overweight gen-Xers, and millenials who grew up with BMX and just don't see the point of reaching too far for a handlebar. Many of these folks don't ride more than 200 miles a month but they feel a lot better about their bike if it's called endurance rather than plush, lard-ass or old-fart.

LOL. Speaking as an arthritic boomer who is still more of a lard-ass than any racing cyclist has any right to be, but who rides maybe four times that far, I buy this description. Nonetheless there is a place for slightly more relaxed geometry.

At 6'3" I'm a big rider, my 2006 TCR advanced is the biggest size they offered and as a result the headtube angle is 74 degrees. Add the short wheelbase and it's a very fast-handling bike. Nothing wrong with that, though the shortish headtube does mean that even with a big saddle to bar drop (not all that arthritic, really!) I still ride it with more spacers than I really like to see on a carbon steerer, and with a 100mm stem that further accentuates the lightness of the front end.

I race the bike and its fine. But it doesn't "disappear under me" as you put it earlier. So I'm having one built for me which will put me in a pretty much identical position on the bike, but will have a 73 degree headtube angle, shorter top tube (compensated for by 120mm stem) and fractionally longer wheelbase. So my weight should be distributed slightly differently and the bike should handle better. That's the plan, anyway. And although those changes are very similar to what one sees in those marketed as "endurance", the way I'd put it is that I am getting a bike that will fit me perfectly without my having to make compromises on things like saddle position and stem length in order to get into the position - aggressive though it is - that suits me.

There you go. I like the TCR, too, but mine got squeaky and saggy.

Speaking of things staying the same, here's a profile shot of the Great One waiting for the action to start at the 1974 Tour.
http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=305088
The frame is a DeRosa, 58.5 cm C-C (60 C-T), 57 cm top tube, ~73 degree seat tube, ~73.5 head tube, moderate bottom bracket drop (probably 70 mm), and moderate fork rake (probably 43 mm). 175 mm cranks, 13 cm stem, Cinelli 66 bar, 42 cm wide. Eddy's custom bikes were short in the top tube to accommodate his lanky physique. Aside from the top tube, Ugo DeRosa's handiwork, and Eddy's drillium, this is a pretty conventional bike.

Top tubes on stock bikes got almost uniformly longer in the '80s. Handlebars got wider, too. A lot of riders who weren't built like Greg LeMond simply sized down or got shorter stems. Today's longer head tubes make sizing down a lot easier.

Great pic. That De Rosa is beautiful, for all the advantages of carbon and sti, bikes never looked better than in the 1970s, in my nostalgic old fart opinion.

Eddy was bigger than most people realise. I like narrower bars too, and like him I find a shorter top tube works for me. Never thought I'd have anything in common with Eddy Merckx.