"TIG welded oversized steel or aluminum"

There's the problem, that bike doesn't exist.

By the way, my romp in #56 above is not in any way a coment on their basic point that such a bike is not needed. That could well be true, and is a consideration vastly beyond my pay scale.

Doesn't exist? I'm confused: Are you saying Teesdale puts it on his website but has never built one and has no intention of building one? I really doubt that. He also must see the differences in geometry to be significant enough to distinguish it by name from his other frames.

It is refreshing to see that some are able to nuance road, criterium, time trial, stage race, etc... very refreshing indeed. Thanks for that link. That guy looks like he knows what he's doing, fine-tuning the geometry for different applications, not settling for "good enough". Very appealing, his philosophy!
Feel free to give more links if you have any.
Cheers!

Don't be confused.

Steel can be brazed (with internal or external lugs, and some have even done lugless), and it can be welded, using a number of techniques... steel isn't fussy, however, different types of tubing (steel alloys) are specifically designed for different welding techniques.
However, aluminum needs to be stripped of it's oxydized layer where to be joined, and then protected against oxygen during the welding itself, by methods, such as, for example, an inert gas shielding (MIG and TIG are popular methods) or flux shielding.

That was a bit off topic though... however, it's not the first time we've strayed now is it? ;-)

You guys sound vindicated because you found a builder that has an option for "criterium geometry", but what does this mean? Steepen the head angle by 1 degree and raise the bottom bracket by 5 mm? Fairly minor changes. Do we need a seperate frame category for this kind of frame?

High bottom bracket frames are nice for pedaling through corners but they don't turn as nice as a low bottom bracket frame because the CG is higher.

I still don't understand what the goal of this thread is anyway? Prove their is something called "criterium geometry" or design a frame that turns and handles well?

LOL I was wondering how long it would take for you show up with that old argument again. But why must I repeat myself, AGAIN? We never set out to "prove" anything. You are the one who was splitting hairs and punishing us for employing terms that do not fit with your one-design-fits-all framebuilding philosophy. We were here just talking about finding a sweet ride, nothing more. But since you mentioned it, again, the "criterium frame", although not a category but a philosophy (I just hate having to repeat myself over and over again), is not new, as it has been around for quite some time. I'm starting to find more framebuilders who seem to have knowledge of this as well. (I'm getting better with google LOL).

Following your reasoning, since there are only "minute differences" between a stage race bike and a "sporting bike", and between that and a "touring bike", for that matter... while we're at it, why make separate categories for those? Why not make something along the median of everyting, as one of your posts suggested? A one-design-fits-all sort of bike. Remember "hybrids"? They are a great example of a "median" bike! They make a POOR mountainbike, and they make POOR road bike! In fact, they're pretty crappy at everything, but then again, if you've never tried better, how would you know?
That "little one degree difference" you mention is what separates a road racing bike from a touring bike. Ditto for bottom bracket height. So do you also reason that we may as well give racers touring bike angles and bb heights from now on? After all, it's the same "minor difference" between a standard road racing bike and either of them (touring or criterium), just not in the same direction!

Now regarding the CG height... you're leaning at the same angle, for a given speed and arc, no matter what the height of your bottom bracket. CG height affects vehicles like cars that do not lean and will tip over if the CG is too high! But we lean at a given angle depending on speed and arc, so we don't have that issue on a bike. The book "Bicycle Science" gives more information on this topic.

Your repeated insistence on trying to kill the term "criterium geometry", hammering it to death and threatening anyone who uses it of ridicule, is starting to look very much like a closed minded framebuilder who came here for some free exposure and publicity, but now has painted himself into a corner. You've made statements you won't back away from for obvious reasons, and you look concerned about your reputation. No one asked for, nor needed, your permission to use the term "criterium geometry", nor to have it recognized by you. It was used in the past, is being used again, and will be used in the future, whether you like it or not.

"Doesn't exist? I'm confused:"

My tongue is firmly in cheek. If it's metal but not lugged it doesn't exist. If it's aluminum, it could be lugged and still not exist.

"Steepen the head angle by 1 degree and raise the bottom bracket by 5 mm? Fairly minor changes. Do we need a seperate frame category for this kind of frame?"

"Oh reason not the need", to quote King Lear. Sorta like why we need all those 700C cyclo cross bikes, and couldn't live without 29ers, or 69ers, or...

It's fair to ask if the bike ends up within the parameters of another bike is it a different bike. It would in part depend on what the intention of the designer is. I find it hard to believe, that if you put the objective of crit bike down on a piece of paper, there wouldn't end up being a whole series of minor optimizations that might actually be tried. In tubing, design, layout of some parts, and so forth. Just as any two designers might not come to the exact same formula when preparing a given design for anything. If there can be quite different approaches to the same task. If indeed they take 30 years of professional slogging to get right. It is hard to believe that with a modified objective nothing new could be added or subtracted. Now whether there is any real difference, who knows, but that's the kind of thinking where you may as well turn out the lights. The business of custom bikes is not the business of zero distinctions.

I do wonder whether the reason micro differences like this aren't there any more is that it is more expensive to do them with some processes like all carbon molded frames, or whatever people win with at the highest level. Or perhaps there isn't an advantage to a world class athlete who like Lance, went through a whole development program tailored to his needs, to do that all over again for a "minute change". Maybe the hyper-perfected bike is a better deal than spending the time on several less well optimized frames. On the other hand. In the steel world many of us occupy, in the weekend warrior class, were some folks don't have a whole development program for each bike. Maybe it makes sense to get a bike built to the only style of race you actually participate in. Steel can make these adjustments easily. Maybe we (or really, all you all) have an interested in hanging onto minute differences.

Do you work in Marketing? People in that profession love to "label" things and create categories for different types of products in order to create product differentiation.

Since you have made this personal...I'm not a professional frambuilder, just a garage builder. Most of the frames I've made have been for myself. The nice thing about being able to build frames is that it's easy and cheap to experiment with different geometry's and such...something I've done quite a bit of. I have personal experience with high/low BB's, long/short top tube, long/short trail, etc.

In my experience, changes in these frame characteristics are noticeable in subtle ways but are not worthy of creating a new frame classification for.

As a builder, if someone came to me and wanted a frame to race crits on, I'd tweak the geometry slightly to accommodate them. The changes would be small but I'd do it because that's what custom builders do (at least many of them do). If you want to label a frame like this a "Crit" frame, go ahead. What ever makes you happy. I can tell you that a frame like this will only be slightly different from a general road use frame I would build for that same person - guy most likely wouldn't even notice the difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nessism (Post 7662070)

Do you work in Marketing? People in that profession love to "label" things and create categories for different types of products in order to create product differentiation.

Since you have made this personal...I'm not a professional frambuilder, just a garage builder. Most of the frames I've made have been for myself. The nice thing about being able to build frames is that it's easy and cheap to experiment with different geometry's and such...something I've done quite a bit of. I have personal experience with high/low BB's, long/short top tube, long/short trail, etc.

In my experience, changes in these frame characteristics are noticeable in subtle ways but are not worthy of creating a new frame classification for.

As a builder, if someone came to me and wanted a frame to race crits on, I'd tweak the geometry slightly to accommodate them. The changes would be small but I'd do it because that's what custom builders do (at least many of them do). If you want to label a frame like this a "Crit" frame, go ahead. What ever makes you happy. I can tell you that a frame like this will only be slightly different from a general road use frame I would build for that same person - guy most likely wouldn't even notice the difference.

---

As I thought. Oh, and I didn't want it to be personal, but I've repeatedly been assailed with attacks and ridicule regarding the matter of a criterium bike - so I'm not accepting 100% blame nor any complaints right now. :saweeet:

You know, a professional (lets take Lance for example) could, without the shadow of a doubt, win a Tour de France, or any race for that matter, on a touring frame. :giver: But it doesn't mean he'll be happy about it! :troll:
And he'd have to work a little harder (as if racing isn't demanding already), and be more careful in the turns. He'd also literally be putting his life in danger in some of the passes and turns they ride through. :bike2: :injured: "it works" doesn't mean it can't work better, and doesn't mean an experienced racer won't feel the difference. Yes, the average person doesn't ride a bike hard enough, fast enough, through testing courses like racers do, and thus will probably not fully feel the difference. But I do. Any I'm betting that any experienced racer does as well. All you have to do is try in a race, or at least in hard training pushing the limits (ie: not just making circles in the parking lot at regular speed).

BTW, the two things I find are true marketing hype (since it's been referred to so often), are aero downtubes and dual pivot road racing brakes. Why would you want to make the one tube, that is referred to as the "backbone of the bike", easily twist when a round shape keeps it nice and rigid. It already "looks" oval to the wind (think of it's horizontal cross-section - not at right angle to the tube, but parallel to the ground). And why wold one want a brake that has a different mechanical advantage with one lever than with the other? THAT is marketing BS at work. (remember Shimano's dura-ace AX brakes? I inherited a pair... nothing works worse than those, and they're heavier, all that for a doubtful aero advantage). But fine-tuning a frame geometry is no hype. It's needed as the results are very real.

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.

That was a nice read :)

tigrrrtamer, I'd perhaps look into a Gios Compact frame. It has 74 deg ST and 39.5cm chain stays (with funky sliding dropouts... there is about 1cm of adjustement), a 26.6cm BB heigh (~7.8 drop). They don't specify the head angle but the fork has a 4.5cm offset, so I'd guess 74-73 deg for a 5-5.5 cm trail.

link

I just got a used 57cm one. Can't comment much on it since I did not ride it much yet, but I love it :). I have tried other road bikes (a 54cm Marinoni and a 55cm Ryffranck), and can't honestly say I felt an obvious difference. But I'm rather inexperienced, i.e. don't ride enough, only in TO and Ontario, and usually quietly :p. It's the best fitting one so far though.

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.

Your argument is lacking logical progression.

You claim to want something “better” than a common Chinese frame but you have not defined what is wrong with the Chinese frame and what characteristics you want to improve upon.

If you want to build a path forward you need to know where you are.

Define the geometry of the bike you are currently riding, or have experience with, and then explain what you like and don’t like about it. From there, a logical step can be taken to alter the geometry to more closely align with your desires.

Waxing poetic about some frame you had 20 or 30 years ago is not productive unless the geometry is known.

Regarding me, I don’t build frames for profit, only for myself and friends. I’m not here to "promote" my frames as you claim – just share my hard earned knowledge.

As far as brakes are concern, dual pivot is the standard for a good reason; they are a superior design. All the major manufacturers have made the switch which speaks for itself. Nuff said.

what is a criterium-specific bike?

in all my years of racing and building, the ones designed as such had characteristics
that were contrary (as in 180 degrees from being good for...) for the handling and
usefulness that one would want for a four corner race (or similar) atmo. whether it
be steering, or turning, or cornering, or sprinting whilst in the apex of an angle, or
comfort, or position, etcetera, increasing angles and shortening rakes (and front
centres), and raising the CG, and decreasing the c'stay length each (and all together)
fkcu with what is known to be good design. caveat emptor to those who ignore it.
ps i spelled centres the british way to show that i have a proper public school edu.

I HEAR YOU! I still have my Cambio Rino track bike, and the reason I don't use it as a singlespeed, is the frame geometry is exactly what you say. It pushes these limits too far, and is not well suited for the road. However, the reason I created this call for help, was because the road version was an amazing ride that I couldn't get in anything else I've ever ridden. I've owned bikes that are more of a standard road racing bike, such as my Vicini, a 1980's 19 lb wonder... but compared to the Cambio Rino Corsa, although a near perfect racing geometry, it was boring to ride.

You see, it's not flawlessness that awakes our senses... it is the idiosyncraties that awaken the passion, when the fit is right.

Thanks very much for your help and participation.

you are welcome atmo.

we also must remember that we may not like marrying the same girl
we think we fantasized about as 14 year olds. well, i dunno how else
to phrase this. there were alotta girls along the way, and they were,
well - great for the time. but if one was delivered (read: redelivered)
to me now, i'd choose the girl i married over all the dates i had in my
going to the pistol range days atmo.

I, too, was going to try to reproduce the ride of my favourite bike, a TI Raleigh. It was stolen many years ago, but I remember the first time I rode it. It was just so quick and responsive. I bought it at the time because it looked so beautiful, not because of any particular geometry. But it seems some people MIGHT call it criterium geometry. See http://www.wooljersey.com/gallery/v/...ction/album94/. Mine was 22.5 inches C-T (57cm). This bike is 74/74 deg, and about 64cm bb drop (I calculate).

So the questions are:
Was it just me being (much) younger and more impressionable that it just seemed to handle so well?
Should I try to reproduce this? Or something more traditional like 73/73 deg?

I appreciate all your great insights, and I am in awe of people like e-Richie.

Not wanting to start another war.....

Thanks,
Dave

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tuz (Post 7663226)

That was a nice read :)
tigrrrtamer, I'd perhaps look into a Gios Compact frame. It has 74 deg ST and 39.5cm chain stays (with funky sliding dropouts... there is about 1cm of adjustement), a 26.6cm BB heigh (~7.8 drop). They don't specify the head angle but the fork has a 4.5cm offset, so I'd guess 74-73 deg for a 5-5.5 cm trail.
link
I just got a used 57cm one. Can't comment much on it since I did not ride it much yet, but I love it :). I have tried other road bikes (a 54cm Marinoni and a 55cm Ryffranck), and can't honestly say I felt an obvious difference. But I'm rather inexperienced, i.e. don't ride enough, only in TO and Ontario, and usually quietly :p. It's the best fitting one so far though.

---

I think they are trying to keep a "trade secret"... LOL If you are curious about it's geometry, you can do as I did, and order an inexpensive inclinometer on ebay. I'll be measuring my rides soon. Also ordered a scale...

But from the looks of the pictures on the link you gave, it seems like the head tube angle is rather slack. Looks like a stage race or bad-roads bike. May be a time trial bike... steeper seat tube angle, slack head tube for a more stable straight line ride (shortens the distance going from point A to point B).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by e-RICHIE (Post 7665517)

we also must remember that we may not like marrying the same girl
we think we fantasized about as 14 year olds. well, i dunno how else
to phrase this. there were alotta girls along the way, and they were,
well - great for the time. but if one was delivered (read: redelivered)
to me now, i'd choose the girl i married over all the dates i had in my
going to the pistol range days atmo.

---

Bikes don't go crazy with time! LOL

I still have the bikes of my youth (except for a lightning fast and twitchy Faggin with rocket speed:D), and they don't ride like they did in the mid 80's.............

Dave, you are among the fortunate, that you can find the geometry because the bike was more popular.
Whether you should try to reproduce it or not, depends on what you are looking for. If you preferred it's handling, I'd say go for it! But don't expect something identical, because type of lugs, tubing, fork crown, all affected the rigidity and feel of the bike. You do have the opportunity, however, to change materials to favor rigidity or vibration dampering without changing the geometry. That's the beautiful opportunity offered when you want to recreate a ride that you loved.

We sometimes question ourselves (and quite legitimately so) as to whether we can trust an impression from days when we were less experienced. I remember when I tried other rides after my Cambio Rino crash, more standard racing geometries, and I was able to experience immediately the differences because I had the "body-memory" of my lost love.

When going back to a conventional wisdom geometry, you either like it more, or you like it less. I think that an immediate impression is something you can trust and go by. A more average racing geometry is definitely something to test ride to give yourself a baseline of comparison, to help make a decision of what direction to go in.

I think a good analogy for this thread is like being the only sober guy at party at 2am. :D

My 3TTT quill stem seems to point slightly downward, and those are set around 73deg right? On the other hand I didn't feel the bike to be super twitchy.

Just watch! We'll have the world's problems solved soon - pass the scotch!

Not necessarily. I have a stem on my track bike that does a nose-dive downwards.
Some of them had a radical down-sloping so you could set the handlebars lower than a conventional stem would allow, for a more aggressive / aerodynamic position. On the track it allowed you to be a bit more aerodynamic while still maintaining good arm extention and optimal bend in the elbows for a firm strong hold on the handlebars which was required in maneovering on the track. And on the road, well, in a time trials, these enabled you to go down even lower in that aerodyamic tuck.

What I meant is that the head angle is not really slack, since my road stem ends up pointing slightly downwards. If the latter is at 73deg (the Cinelli ones are), then the head angle is steeper. But I don't have a way to measure it so who knows really. Just to say it's perhaps the type of bike you're searching.

pic here. You'll notice the tight-ish clearance (25c mounted, with about 1/4" adjustment left fore and aft).

Tigertamer, check out this thread in C&V. I wonder if this is what you're looking for? Sounds close!

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=75660

Road Fan

Thanks for bringing that to my attention. Time-trial/triathlon/stage-race frames, and smaller 19" frames, tend to have slacker head tube angles. This bike meets both those criteria: it is a 19", and a time trial/stage-race focused* bike (hence it's "chronos" designation). However, I'd love to be proven wrong on that and would be open to getting measurements of a larger frame, in the 22" - 24" (56-60cm) range.

* I'd prefer to use the word geometry, but then another war would start, with people coming out of the woodwork to slap me over the fingers and telling me there is no such thing. ;-p

About the GIOS: Yes, I wrote my comment regarding the head tube looking rather slack after I saw a picture of one on the website. Now this was probably lens distortion from the camera (fish-eye effect as it is called) that made it look that way, as it was a 3/4 forward-facing view.

I looked at the picture you submitted, your yellow bike, and I no longer would make the same comment.
Your Gios looks quite nice! The angles too. I wish I could take it for a test ride. :-)

OK, what I was trying to say, is that I'm not hellbent on the seat tube angle, that if we find a nice handling bike with a STA that isn't ideal for the rider we can compensate in other ways. The STA is more fit-focused and not as much handling-focused as the HTA.

How I wanted it to be interpreted, is that we are paying more attention to the head tube angle and it's rake, in this particular thread.