My opinion on this subject is more or less in alignment with Thylacines’s; regular road bike geometry is fine for crits. If one wanted to get cute, you could label a bike as having “criterium geometry” after you steepened the head and seat angles by 1 degree and limited the BB drop to 6.5 cm or so. Do we need to have a new frame type classification brought on by splitting hairs?

Eddy Merckx used to sell frames with two different geometry’s: Century geometry, and Corsa geometry. The Corsa geometry is what is being called “criterium geometry” in this thread. Merckx dropped the Corsa line presumably because the Century geometry frames got the job done and were more popular overall.

And speaking of riding in crits, who said a bike that steers fast is beneficial? I’ve been taken out by boneheads that couldn't hold a straight line in the pack. Put everyone on fast steering bikes with low trail and you could have pileups all over the place. No thanks.

i unequivocally agree with warwick atmo.
he gets it.
e-RICHIE©™®
www.richardsachs.com
http://rscyclocross.blogspot.com

Which is exactly what you're doing.

How about actually listening to the experience of others, including those that don't have the same opinion as you?

You know, such as me.......Nessism......Road Fan.......Richard Sachs.......

Wow, I'm mentioned in the same line as eRitchie!

Just to set straight, I'm not a frame builder. I've played with designign (see, I can't even spell it!) one for myself, and being an engineer, that becomes fun all by itself (yeah, I ride a bit, too, but no racing).

carry on!

I dabble in framebuilding, and have been cycling for 25+ years...........

Splitting hairs is the correct analogy, half the time on lugged framests the geometry varies up to a degree within the same lineup (handmade Italian steel 70's/80's) due to how the tubes ended up in the lugs for that particular frame. The "Masters" built by eye and feel, and produced sweethearts by the score.

Some framebuilder in the 70's stated that he wanted to make a museum of all the human freaks out there that supplied him with angles and tube lengths for custom builds that were submitted via mail.

Anyway..where was I?

He wants to recreate a bike from a long while ago, and people are telling him they didn't exist, except for a long long time ago... I found one with google search, and it wasn't lugged, and worse still was made of aluminum. Maybe that's the problem? Not lugged therefore doesn't exist.

i dunno -

whether they existed or didn't exist, the term "criterium geo" was a marketing this more than
anything atmo. all of the so-called details that would make a design morphe into a crit specific
animal (higher CG, steeper angles, shorter rake, shorter c'stays...) contributed to making a bicycle
exactly what one WOULDN'T want in a criterium, unless - that is - you were never at the front,
and in a cat 5 field at that. no self-respecting framebuilder would make these compromises unless
he was doing it expressly for the money, for the market, or for a pal. all are valid reasons to cave, i
suppose. but the truth is, the ride and the handling would be compromised atmo.


e-RICHIE©™®
www.richardsachs.com
http://rscyclocross.blogspot.com

As an impartial observer, I'm so glad you have it all figured out and are so sure of your views that you can post them as the one and only truth. God, we'd be so lost without the E-richies and Thylacines of the world to tell us that our own personal experience and viewpoints are flawed and should be tossed aside and theirs taken up as gospel instead.

(hey, you guys may be absolutely correct: but the way you express your views makes a simple guy like me hope you are wrong!)

Rigi.... anyone?

I distinctly remember the "Steep Ages".

eh i dunno -
i don't post here alot so there ya' go.

35 years building. racing every weekend as a Cat 2 on the road.
dozens of national team cats queuing up here through the years.
i'm very comfortable opining. i can stand behind the reasoning
quite well. and i have never met a rider (at the top, at least)
nor anyone in the industry, who put any value in the term "crit
geometry". as i suggest (i believe some others here have as well)
it's a smoke and mirrors term atmo.

Well, look, the man had a certain bicycle (it was not in his mind), and it had some features he loved, and wants to find one like it. The only name he knows for it is one that was never well defined, it was 8/10 marketing, 1.5/10 bike sales floor crap (yes,even the hippie sales staff in Chicago were full of it!), and the rest the owner's word for things. There may have been some common understanding of what it was, but maybe except for me (55 yo) and a few others, nobody remembers that it existed, or certainly what it meant. So the fact remains the man wants a bicycle with some specifiec characteristics. In an early post he asked if someone has a copy of Talbot's to loan, but the think is his description of his dream does not match what Talbot was designing, essentially a CONI-pattern bike, today we'd see it as more of a sport-tourer (now this is kinda what I want!!!). Turns out it's upright, steep, tight, et cetera, probably a high BB with toe overlap. Can't any frame builder use some of that customer-schmoozing skill to steer him to a bike he would like? or would like you to build for him?

Again, in this case it doesn't reallhy matter what the pros and experts think, ultimately this gent wants a frame and needs help to articulate what it is. So what if his reference to crit racing is wrong for today? Is there any validity to what he wants today?

By the way, how would a 1980 Woodrup Giro be for crit racing? 103 cm wheelbase, flexy as hell, high BB, not much trail, needs a lot of bar force to flip into a turn but it stays on a line?

there are three points that matter -

and they are connected to his feet, his hands, and his butt.
there are a myriad of ways to set up the "triangle" but very
few will also yield a well-handling bicycle once the rider's
position is dialed in above and between the two wheels. it's
as simple as that.

So as a builder you'd get his fit (or mine), position him in space between the wheels, then design the frame to hold it all together, and the bike he gets is the bike - forms follows function completely?

Road Fan

???
the rider's position overrides (no pun intended...) everything - always.
set contact points, and design a bicycle frame that works with them.
s.o.p. in most of the better shops atmo...

Ok, now we are totaly off topic and getting a Ritchie seminar. That's a good deal. As long as we aren't pretending to answer the OP's question, there is always lots of stuff to learn from those who know.

Just to be evil, I did detect at one point in the above the sense that maybe there is not only a criterium frame but actually one for people who are good and another for people that suck. For those of us far enough back there may even be types that provide sales space for popcorn and chessnuts. I'm confused (yeah, right) but nothing hangs on it for me.

Cute!

Chestnuts for me!

Re the OP, he pops in and out of the thread every few days. yes, we're OT, but it's still mainly about frames.

Hmm would I get a good angel if I had someone here make me an audax frame.....

In support of what eRichie is saying, the main dimensions of the frame are dictated by the riders body: seat tube angle, seat tube length (effective), and top tube length (effective) are all set. Variables that are open include the amount of trail (head angle and fork offset), bottom bracket drop, and chain stay length.

Trail – common range is 5 – 6.5 cm – median of 5.5 cm
BB drop – common range is 6.5 – 8.0 cm – median of 7.0 cm
Chain stay length – common range of 40.5 – 42.5 cm – median of 41 cm

If a rider wants a frame that steers quickly (popular for crit racing) - shoot for the low end of the trail and CS length ranges.

If a rider wants to run long cranks and pedal through corners – shoot for the low end of the BB drop range.

A frame built right on the median for these three variables makes a competent crit frame. It also makes an excellent do-everything frame as well. Even when a frame is skewed to the end of the range of some of these variables, such as with a low bottom bracket (like e-Richie and Serotta advocate), or with lots of trail (like a Colnago), it will still function adequately as a crit race frame - no need for a special category to label frames for marketing purposes.

I have no problem with off topic at all, I usually am, sometimes even when I am trying hard to stick to the original point. Coments can have a different tone when they are said in one or another context.

I read somewhere that the proper BB drop range was 8.0 - 8.0 cm. Somewhere in that range anyway. :)

One of my early frames had 7.7 cm of drop and I managed to hit the pedal a time or two going through corners. I'm sure a more diciplined rider than I could manage just fine with 8 cm of drop, but people like me get along better with a little more clearance.

Two of mine are pretty high, 7.0cm (Trek 610) and 6.5 cm (Woodrup Giro). I really don't get why either design needed to do that, neither one was ever marketed as an aggressive racing bike, and they are both sort of flexy. I feel that both of them get a little teetery at low speeds, but that could also be trail.

Road Fan

It's really simple mate. You listen to people with more experience than you.

I mean, for example Richo has been building bikes since I was born, and if there was ever a question regarding lugged framebuilding and processes, or heck even custom road bikes in general you'd be the dumbest person on earth not to at least listen.

People don't - I'm afraid to tell you - have some god given right to singlemindedly defend their opinions just because they're theirs. Someone can have an opinion and can still be 100% wrong, and if they're that closed minded and not open to change their opinions based on making a judgment call regarding people with more experience than them, then they're the most dangerous type of idiot.

I don't really care what the OP's experience was 'back in the day' because as I've said it's clouded with so many 'unknowns' to be of little value to a frame designer. I haven't seen any arguments as yet from him or anyone else that would lead me to believe there is such a thing as 'crit geometry' and that if you went to any custom frameshop worth their salt they would sell you one.

Now in terms of 'delivery style'.....well I'm sorry if you don't like it. What can I say, I'm a no BS Aussie. But like you I get riled when people insist on something that isn't true, and it's especially annoying if it's towing some marketing wank that ever worked but apparently worked for the OP and they're keen on 'reliving it' some 25+ years later.

It's patently obvious to me : nobody makes or sells 'crit geometry', you can't go into a bike store and buy 'crit geometry', you can't go to any decent road framebuilder and order one, and if you went to ANY crit anywhere in the World and told your fellow racers you have special 'crit geometry' they'd look at you like you were an idiot.

End of (long and boring) story.

:love:

Awesome. So now we're over that, let's get back to the OP's questions!

Hey, I'd just like to thank everyone who has put their time and enthusiasm into this so far.
I'd like to take a post to explain where I'm coming from, because some of the posts have made me feel like I need to defend/explain myself a bit more than I wanted to. When I was a teen, I read a book called Cycling or Bicycling... I can't remember... at the time it was considered THE cycling bible, written by the great Cinelli himself, circa 1972 or so. In that book he explains ergonomics and frame geometry philosophies, what is done different and why for the european cobblestone and country roads versus nicely paved north american roads, criteriums, long road races, track racing, touring, etc... the whole gamut in other words. I no longer have that book, but I do distinctly remember him explaining that one of the reasons for the angles to lean more towards the 72.5-73.5 degrees, is to help a bit in road vibration aborption because of the bad roads, but if the roads were better, this compromise would no longer be in the bike and the angles would be steeper. Today, they still make bikes this way, and pouring over manifacturers' websites' specs tells me they have never readjusted the geometry for our modern roads. I get the impression that today's bikes are more of a general purpose, well handling bike, rather than something more nervous and efficient as would be allowed by today's road conditions.

Cinelli references aside, let me share an anecdote with you. I owned an italian hand crafted racing bike - my first after a few bikes that weren't really for racing. I sprinted down our little mountain we have in the middle of the city here, Mount Royal, and in one of the curves, I went right into the retainer wall... the cement took off all my skin on one side... taking the curve at speed was asking just too much of that bike. A year later, with my Cambio Rino, I passed a Suzuki Katana in the same curve, I had become stronger and faster and I was going all out. The guy on the motorcycle, at the bottom of the hill, came up behind me, started beeping his horn like crazy. In those days, I was used to motorists honking at me to tell me to get off the road... and I was energized for a good fight! I put on the brakes (burning smoking rubber from my Modolo Speedy's), turned around and met him where he had just pulled over on the side. When I got in front of him, he took off his full helmet, and I saw he looked shaken. He yelled at me, that I could have killed myself. He said he was doing 95km/h (about 60mph) after he put on the brakes to take the curve, and he was still frightened, and I just flew right by him. And this was immensely faster than I had crashed just a year ago on my previous italian built racing bike. It was so fast that I was SPINNING in a 52x12 gear coming out of the curve. (they didn't have x11 yet back then).
I love the speed, the feeling of power. Always did, and today, despite back and knee problems, I still get the same rush. It's like a need, a drug that always brings euphoria. And a "standard road racing bike that will do just fine" just doesn't cut it for me!

And just so you all know... there never was any shop floor marketing hype... after crashing that first racing frame, I shopped around on the phone, found a 18 lb racing bike that was half the price and slightly lighter than top-of-the-like $2000 Colnagos at the time (pre-taiwan days), and that was just too good to pass up (in the early 80's $2k was about the max you could pay for a bike, and the light ones were 21 lbs and lightest were 19, like a Tomassini or Vicini (which I also owned later). I just went over and bought it. No one ever convinced me of anything, or gave me any hype... I didn't know enough at the time, only going on the weight/dollar equation. What luck I had! I learned later it was their criterium model. And the chance my ignorance had me take turned out to be the best purchase I had ever made.

In the years that followed, I read up more on framebuilding, nutrition, training, raced a lot, became team trainer for 3 racing teams after that... so today, I can confidently say that I am a knowledgeable person. And when I refused to buy a Marinoni that had the same "standard" frame-building philosophy as almost all other bikes made in the world, I fully understood and knew why. He was just as stubborn as the rest of them. Does ego close the mind to change, or is it self-preservation that instills fear of change into humans?

Yesterday, I ran into a guy who had bought a Cambio Rino at an auction... and it wasn't at all the same ride/handling as the one I had owned. So I checked, and sure enough, there were many differences: "77" above to serial number on the bottom bracket, older components, (mine had been circa 1980), there was no toe overlap (which I remember getting used to), more space between the rear tire and seat tube. It's ride was rather disappointing actually. But then again, it's not just a question of model year: I later joined their racing team, and remember seeing in the showroom, where we'd all meet up, different models with different geometries.

So my search continues... for the criterium frame geometry that never existed. LOL

"I mean, for example Richo has been building bikes since I was born, and if there was ever a question regarding lugged framebuilding and processes, or heck even custom road bikes in general you'd be the dumbest person on earth not to at least listen."

+1

On the other hand sometimes I do hear stuff that is at odds with my 30 years experience somewhere else. I know lots of people with 30 years experience at something.

The irony in this case, is that in general terms, the "lugsters", are coming here and saying a type of bike that you can find googled on the internet from no further back then 10 years ago, doesn't exist, possibly never existed. That's amusing because on the same basis of scarcity lugged racing bikes are a complete anachronism from the same period. Hey they may be wonderful, and some of us may look back to a time 20 years ago and say:

"I am trying to re-create the feel of my second racing bike I had a very long time ago and lost in a crash.
Never had anything as nimble and well behaved since. <

Does anyone have any internet links, to a primer or framebuilder data on frame joinery? More specifically, covering the difference between lugged steel bikes, Tigged bikes, and carbon bikes?"

I'm surprised they don't have crit bikes, heck they have bikes for cobble stones. Funny world.

I always like riding through Montreal and Quebec on my tours. There is a good bike scene there, which is fun to ride into after days in the countryside.

Yes, that is indeed the funny thing, that throws the supposed expertise of these guys into question for an outsider like me. It takes me no more than 5 seconds on google to find a current custom frame builder operating right now, a guy who has also done thousands of frames, and has a "criterium geometry" frame right now and has diagrams showing the exact differences it has from his road racing frame, touring frame etc. Steeper angles, a tiny bit higher bottom bracket, etc.

But yet...these frames don't exist and were merely "marketing" gimmicks from big labels of the past?

Sounds like you're better at googling than I am... any interesting links you've uncovered that you might share with us, or if you prefer, send me in email? Thanks! :-)

Here's one: http://www.tetcycles.com/Frames/Road...criterium.html