Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Framebuilders
Reload this Page >

What bikes have similar geometry to this?

Framebuilders Thinking about a custom frame? Lugged vs Fillet Brazed. Different Frame materials? Newvex or Pacenti Lugs? why get a custom Road, Mountain, or Track Frame? Got a question about framebuilding? Lets discuss framebuilding at it's finest.

What bikes have similar geometry to this?

Old 09-04-09, 10:33 PM
  #1  
kmart
Blue Light Special
Thread Starter
 
kmart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bay Area, Sunny Cali
Posts: 1,467

Bikes: '05 Felt F55, Schwinn Prologue road bike, '86 Centurion DS Iron Man, Sette Flite AM MTB

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
What bikes have similar geometry to this?

I just got a new frame recently, in a 55cm size. It's a road bike. Here's the geo chart:
78.jpg

I came from a Felt F55 bike in the same size that had the same bb drop, stem length, fork rake (43mm) but the effective TT was 56cm instead of 55, the head angle was 73.5 instead of 72.5 and the chainstays were 410mm instead of 406mm. The new bike handles a lot "better" for me, in that it takes corners very confidently without much leaning required. It has just about the same wheelbase as the Felt, but much more trail. It seems like a winning combination for me, so I've begun to wonder what other frames are built this way, and what people think of this geometry.

I've ridden frames with the standard ST/HT 73-73 angles or 74.5-73, so at first I thought the slacker 72.5 HT was going to mean slower handling. In fact, it's very quick, and actually feels more "active" than the Felt in terms of the number of small adjustments I make during riding, and turns much more securely than the Felt. It feels kind of like a "newbie bike" in that respect, it just corners on its own and I don't have to lean in as far.

Anyway, I'm wondering what other bikes or builders have used similar geometry, especially with regards to the HT angle. I seem to remember hearing that some Pinarellos and Colnagos use this setup, but when I tried to check Colnago's site, I found that they don't publish HT angles anywhere (annoying!). I figured the builder's forum would be intimately familiar with such traits.

EDIT: The bike in question is a Bottecchia CF 78, aka Pedal Force RS. I just realized this fact when I went to the Pedal Force site and noticed their geometry chart looks a lot like the one on Bike Island's page, by which I mean they are exactly the same.

Last edited by kmart; 09-04-09 at 11:23 PM.
kmart is offline  
Old 09-04-09, 10:53 PM
  #2  
Nessism
Senior Member
 
Nessism's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Torrance, CA
Posts: 2,719

Bikes: Homebuilt steel

Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 140 Post(s)
Liked 9 Times in 9 Posts
I use a 72.5 head angle and either a 45 or a 43mm rake fork on my personal bikes (roughly the same size as yours). My preference is for longer chain stays, 42.5 cm, and a little more BB drop - 7.5 cm range. My seat tube is also set at 72.5 since I have long femurs. Overall I'm happy with the bike(s) but unfortunately, I don't ride enough these days.
Nessism is offline  
Old 09-04-09, 11:12 PM
  #3  
kmart
Blue Light Special
Thread Starter
 
kmart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bay Area, Sunny Cali
Posts: 1,467

Bikes: '05 Felt F55, Schwinn Prologue road bike, '86 Centurion DS Iron Man, Sette Flite AM MTB

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Thanks Nessism, any particular reasons for choosing the slacker HT angle?

I have this nagging feeling in the back of my mind that, switching from steeper HT angles will somehow make my bike less "racey", so I posted the thread to see if other builders of race frames have used this geometry before. Really, I'm just curious about what purpose this geometry is intended for, and what builders choose to go with a slacker head angle and hence a bit more trail.

I think that the choice of geometry depends a lot on the rider's skills and ability to handle the bike, and I have realized that I feel a lot more comfortable if I have a bit more trail. However, I browsed the "crit bike geometry" thread (you might recall your participation in that one), and I was left conflicted. On the one hand, I gleaned that steeper head angles and shorter wheelbases became popular as roads became smoother, so the thinking was that less trail was needed. On the other hand, the idea came and went that trail was a bad thing because it was thought to slow the handling down, and eventually longer trail became popular again.

In the "crit bike thread", the OP seemed to attribute a steeper HT angle with a quicker-handling "crit bike", which many disagreed with. But I'm sure there are plenty of people riding bikes with slacker 72 HT who would also call theirs a "crit bike". In the end, there seemed to be a consensus that there are no bikes that can really be called "crit bikes". This leaves me confused about where my bike fits into the spectrum of road frame geometries, and what its intended purpose is. I can certainly vouch for all the reviews from Pedal Force RS/Bottecchia CF 78 owners - the bike handles very securely in corners. A few find it slightly on the twitchy side, while others seem to prefer a "steeper, quicker" handling. I don't get this - it feels plenty quick to me, and the ability to corner precisely and effortlessly seems to me to be a lot more useful when riding in a pack than would be quick handling.

EDIT: Made lots of edits, am finished now

Last edited by kmart; 09-04-09 at 11:22 PM.
kmart is offline  
Old 09-06-09, 01:51 PM
  #4  
Nessism
Senior Member
 
Nessism's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Torrance, CA
Posts: 2,719

Bikes: Homebuilt steel

Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 140 Post(s)
Liked 9 Times in 9 Posts
Since you brought that old thread up, I hope you remember how most of the real framebuilders didn't have much tolerance for the term "crit frame geometry". Honestly now, bikes are made to be ridden so just judge the bike for yourself based on the way it rides, not based on numbers from some chart. If there is something about your current bike that doesn't suit you, keep this in mind before your next purchase and make the appropriate change.
Nessism is offline  
Old 09-07-09, 09:18 AM
  #5  
kmart
Blue Light Special
Thread Starter
 
kmart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bay Area, Sunny Cali
Posts: 1,467

Bikes: '05 Felt F55, Schwinn Prologue road bike, '86 Centurion DS Iron Man, Sette Flite AM MTB

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
With bringing up the "crit bike" thread, I just wanted to make the point that different builders have different opinions on which geometries work better for climbing, flats and other riding situations, as well as comfort. My question was if anybody knew other builders that had made the same geometry choices as my frame. I'm just trying to understand the rationalization behind the design choices. All I'm asking is if you know of other builders, commercial or independent, that have similar geometries to my bike, which is a very capable race bike with a longer trail than is typical these days. Of course, I've been doing some research myself, but I thought I'd ask here too.
kmart is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
cegerer
Classic & Vintage
1
06-08-14 11:27 AM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.