very funny. Wonder if Zidane has a copy yet...

Guys, check out this thread. Funniest read in a long time

https://www.bikeforums.net/professional-cycling-fans/209678-ahh-annual-gift-french.html

How did you NOT get flamed for this???

Everyone's still busy playing the Zidane game

Because they know if they flame me I'll sick Hitchy on to them.

Plus......I'm right.

I assume you like Kennedy's idea about the long stays? Is anyone else doing it?

That Scapin I had must've had a 74+ degree headtube -- it was so twitchy that it was almost dangerous.

When I bought one of the aluminium Taiwanese robot frames off Kennedy a few years ago, I'd been mainly riding my Ralieigh, which has pretty light steering. This Kennedy import (the guy who painted it reckons it's a Norco ) has heavier steering, and I complained to John that it made the bike feel slow, blah, blah, even though I liked the stability.......but after I got used to it I realized that something like 73 degrees is MUCH better than trying to get my bikes to feel like the track bike I had when I was 21

Melted crayons?

Always

and scrambled eggs on vegemite toast

I think if you're tall, you should have longer stays. The further back you sit (ie: if you're tall or have long upper legs) the longer your stays should be. One length of stays does not fit all, which is what most companies seem to think. That makes no sense.

As for steering, 73 degree HTA with a 45mm rake will suit most people's tastes in not being too twitchy or heavy or anything like that. I like a certain trail figure in terms of handling, and I think that's part of what makes a Thylacine a Thylacine.

Of course there are other things to consider, too, such as bar width and stem length. They make a difference to how a bike feels and steers too, but people often forget about that. They think they can get away with an ill fitting frame and just put a longer or shorter stem on it and eveything will be roses. Doesn't work like that in my book.

Having said all that, I'm still living and learning. Road bikes aren't my main focus, but I'm not skimping when it comes to doing my homework and formulating ideas and giving them a go.

a head angle of 74deg on its own shouldn't make a bike that twitchy. Must've been a few other factors affecting weight distribution or the balance of the bike (or both).

If you take two bikes set up the same except for HTA (say one with 72HTA and the other with 74HTA) then with all other things being equal you should only really notice a difference at high speeds (typically entering corners on fast downhill runs). The bike with 72HTA will be marginally 'lazier', and that's about it.

hmmmm............I see

hmmmm.....I see

riddle me this....

Mountain bikes are very much classified on HTA, XC race bikes typicly have a HTA of 70 - 72 degrees, whil my cannondale has a HTA of 69 degrees. My hard tail is in the 71 degree range and is noticably twitchier and also more nimble. this may also be atributed to weight and bike length, the cannondale is looonnngggg.

so , why is the given HTA for a " race geometry " so steep? is there any associated climbing benefits to a steep HTA?

Having said that, you will find bikes with steeper HTA are (generally) more responsive on technical ccts coz they will naturally turn quicker

Ummm isn't this "The Aussie Thread"...mindless drivel & all that? Wassup with all this technical bike talk?

yeah, it's doin' my head in !

MTBs are actually more complicated, because as the suspension forks compress, the HTA increases off the charts, quickening up the steering response. Exactly the opposite of what you want. That's why HTAs go down as travel increases.....71 for 80mm travel.....70 got 100mm.....etc.

To complicate things further, companies measure it differently. I design my bikes as if the rider is sitting on them ( called 'sagged' ) whereas other companies may or may not. The difference can easily be a full degree in both HTA and STA.

Aren't ya glad you don't have to think about this sh¡t all the time?

Is there climbing benefits to a steep HTA? I'm not convinced. I'd design a climing bike a smidge different than a descending one, but that's the problem - what goes up must come down (assuming XC/Trailbiking) so if you design a bike with a full on climbing bias, what happens when you need to come down off the hill?

ok, back to the BS.....

anyone else sus on their local petrol station?

My 1992 Fairmont had at least a 1/3 of a tank before I topped it right up, and it took 49L!!!!!!

????

Take the ford badges off, that should fix it!

ive been sus about them a few times as well......would only have to be a liter or 2 out per 40 and they stand to make a nice profit....

Could be the servo - or maybe you have the same type of Ford fuel gauge as Gary Ablett Jnr

Isn't a Fairmont tank around 80L ? In which case, 49L is less than 2/3 of a tank.

seems seppo's are getting upset about being called seppo's!......
https://www.bikeforums.net/showthread...=1#post2756631

i reckon they are just uptight because after stage 9 of TDF stage wins : Aussies 3. Seppo's: Zip!.....based on the fact that theres 20 million of us & 300 million of them, we would have 45 stage wins in the 1st 9 stages if we had their population! (any wonder I flunked maths! )

you know what they say; Fix Or Replace Daily

heres my link of the day Dave Chappelle gets his revenge