This is kind of different, at least to me, and pretty interesting. Looks almost like a cross between touring and race geometry. The bottom bracket drop is real low, 78 as opposed to @70 on most bikes I've had so it has a high stack height without using a super tall headtube. And of course that makes the chainstays longer and it can fit a 30c tire without a long wheelbase. The ST/HT angles are 73 degrees, not too relaxed. I don't know, what do you think? Seems like it would be a nice ride. My size would be medium.

Basically on this bike you would be sitting lower between the wheels. You have to be careful of not enough ground clearance. Standard BB drop and BB height help prevent pedal strike. It is not the issue it used to be when pedals were much wider and not designed to accommodate an extreme lean angle. But still if the BB is too low, there could be problems. You certainly wouldn't want this on an MTB or X bike.

I'm not worried about my pedals hitting the ground. I do like the concept of being able to fit bigger tires and a high stack height without going with a 'comfort" or touring bike.

If you had ever gone down due to pedal strike (I know, stupid, right?) you might feel differently about that. Back when clipless pedals were first coming out, the manufacturers were making a big deal over greater possible lean angle with continuous pedaling. This geometry would set that back a bit.

Lower center of gravity will also affect handling...I just don't know how. If I had to guess, I would say it would be more sluggish, but don't quote me on that.

more stable might be another way to look at it

try loading a touring bike with the heaviest items up high, versus down low, and tell me if you notice a difference.

btw, sorry for quoting you on that.

More stable especially when descending. It would be a decent touring bike, it has rear rack mounts and a third bottle mount. This is the bike made by Fitwell. It comes with a pretty nice Novatech hubbed wheelset and good tires which isn't common for a stock bike, and they're marked way down direct from their website. Didn't like the looks at first but it's growing on me.

Yes, I think touring is what that bike was intended for. I was looking at it through my race bike glasses, but you guys are right. More stable is the purpose of the lower BB, and loaded touring is the natural beneficiary of that. If you aren't screaming around tight turns in criterium, you likely don't have to worry about pedal strike.

This is their concept on geometry. Stack and reach is the main basis.

Geometry and Fit ? FitWell Bicycle Company

Fitted with larger tires, the bottom bracket height goes back up, so I don't think pedal strike is an issue at all.

^^ True, I didn't think of that. With a 30c tire it would be almost as high as my other bikes with 25's.

BB drop doesn't usually change from one size to another, but it does on this frameset.

It's cool they fit different chainstay lengths to the frame sizes; a smart design element to normalize the ride quality across the size range.

Between wheelbase, chainstay length and trail, I'm reading the geo as being more towards high speed cruising than point-and-shoot athleticism. I can imagine this would be a nice gravel/dirt road bike that responds to pedal input nicely, but resists getting jostled by potholes and loose surfaces. It's probably less fun on pavement than dirt.

Absolutely right, and that observation has to do with another aspect of the likely application it would be most useful for, touring and the like for which such a tire would be very suitable. The designers may be emphasizing the importance of stack and reach and may have selected a method to optimize those in a certain type of bike, but the other implications of the design cannot be ignored. Or put another way, you don't normally use 30 mm tires in a criterium. I think this is a great design. I'm just pointing out it has a particular best application and racing isn't it.

From a comfort and control point of view you are likely right. OTOH one normally selects a higher bottom bracket for rough terrain. I will admit to not knowing much about gravel riding and what it entails, but you wouldn't want a low BB on a severely potholed surface.

Criterium racing, no, but for the exploding gravel road racing scene, it may be nicely adapted geo-wise.

Just to clarify a minor point.

You seem to imply that the lower BB improveS tire clearance. You are right that dropping the BB slightly lengthens the chainstay, but that doesn't change tire clearance unless the rear axle is pushed back. Tire clearance to the seat tube is determined by the right angle distance from the axle to the tube. Raising or lowering the BB doesn't change that.

As for it's effect on center of gravity and handling, the difference is marginal. Consider that you have something close to a meter in saddle to ground distance,, and your CoG is slightly above that. So changing it up or down by a few millimeters isn't going to make a material difference.

IME the things that riders notice most when riding various frame geometries are: (not in order by significance)

1- weight distribution between the axles, especially taller riders who sit farther back.
2- steering response or "nimbleness" (or steering stability) which is a function of front end geometry, ie. axis angle and trail, along with, to an extent, overall wheelbase.
3- head height relative to saddle height
4- top tube or "cockpit" length, though stem length and handlebar reach are also parts of that equation.
5- tire clearance, especially if short enough to limit options, or so long al to limit caliper brake options (not an issue with Cantis or disc)

If those are dialed in well the bike will feel right and ride nicely. If the fit, including top tube length is correct, and the rest of the geometry within bounds, you have a winner.

In my size it's the same comfort/endurance geo as my bike -- even the HT and ST angles -- but, the effective top tube length is a bit longish (that just takes a bit shorter stem length for me). Based on the specs the trail is should be 60 not 62.

I don't think that's relevant in the road context, gravel, potholed, or otherwise. I mean, if you're suggesting a hole is deep enough to swallow a wheel up to the pedals, pedaling through is not really the main operational concern.

Off road, where you need to power up and over obstacles, BB is more germane.

Interesting you say that. The advantage of the lower BB would be to produce more stack WITHOUT THE NECESSITY OF INCREASING THE TOP TUBE LENGTH. But it isn't hard to get a bike with more stack. It is only a problem if you want that extra stack without more reach too. (I should mention it is not as much of a problem these days with endurance geometries.) But if you are going to increase reach at the same time as stack, why not just use a more normal BB height and move up to the next size bike?

You must know more about all that than me. Knowing anything about it is more than me.

I'd watch a road bike race if it had exploding gravel

An advantage of a lower BB is that it produces more stack without having a ridiculous looking long head tube that's so popular today. I guess the reason I like this bike is because when I first glance at it, it looks like a standard road racing bike but it has clearance for big tires which would be good for my roads. I don't know, maybe it's just me. Those are 28's in the pic.




And by my calculations of my personal measurements, I would only need maybe two spacers to get the saddle to bar drop I like, which isn't low. So I wouldn't be as worried about snapping a carbon steerer and it looks better.

Fair enough. I am not concerned by the tall head tube appearance, but I see how this would help you.

My Brompton has a nice Low BB ... Commuting, coming to a stop, It's easy to comfortably put my foot down , sitting in the saddle ..

only leaning bike over a bit.

Takes a rear rack?, It would make a Good commuter ..

In my size deGroot's HT length at 226 is super tall as you describe it--taller than my 220. If the deGroot accommodates larger tires than other comfort/endurance bikes it's only because there is more clearance at the brakes. Many of the latest comfort/endurance road bikes are designed for 25s. A larger tire width isn't a problem but the brake mounts have 28s practically scraping the calipers.