Long and low frames
 

I am a road sprinter looking for a stiff aluminium road frame with long and low geometry. I have looked at Gaulzetti buts that is out of my price range. Does anyone know where to get a frame with these qualities. I was thinking about a primus mootry.

The geometry needed would be a 54 seat tube, 58 top tube, and under a 15cm head tube.

Thanks

CAT what?

Real 54 cm seat tube or effective 54 seat tube with sloping top tube? I have never heard of a bike with an effective 54 cm seat tube and 58 cm top tube with either standard or compact geometry.

I am a junior, 16 years old. Currently a Cat 3, could be a 2 but I am lazy about submitting upgrades. Effectively 54 would be fine mostly I am looking for it to be a radically short head tube in comparison to a 58cm top tube.

That's the problem. Bikes with 54 cm seat tubes (effective on a compact or real on a standard geometry) come with 54-55 cm top tubes. Other than custom, I highly doubt you will find what you are looking for. Also when top tubes are longer than usual, head tubes tend to be taller to make up for it. You are asking for a very strange setup.

Good to know you are an actual racing cyclist. Usually when someone says "sprinter" it means they are too fat to climb hills:rolleyes: Short answer is you are unlikely to find a stock frame with that unusual geometry. More to the point, have you been told by a coach or fitter that this is what you need? If you have a bike that suits you otherwise, you may want to experiment with bars with lower drops and/or a longer stem.

Older LeMonds were known to be relatively long in the top tube. A long -17 stem could make a lot of difference too.

Yeah my coach says that this type of geometry would be best. I am trying to get as close to my track bike which is a 56 with a 130mm stem deep drop and long reach handlebars. Probably will end up getting an allez with a 20d stem.

On the longer stem topic already using a 147mm stem on a caad10 with a 54cm top tube. My knees almost hit the bars when sprinting but the on a bigger bike the head tube feels so high.

If [MENTION=77814]carpediemracing[/MENTION] doesn't reply to this thread, send him a PM.

Thanks for the mention else I wouldn't have seen it quite so quickly.

I have a 40 cm (c-t) seat tube, sloping top tube (real seat tube length would be more like 48-49 cm), effective 56.5 TT length, 75.5 ST angle, 9.5 cm head tube (which was "as short as possible" - I would have preferred a 6-7 cm head tube so I wouldn't have to use -17 stems, and right now I'd want to have a head tube in the 6 cm range to use a -17 14.5 stem.

Actually I have two of them, both by Tsunami Bikes. At the time the pricing was pretty low, $650 and $700 I think (included shipping and paint), and I paid more because I thought he was undercharging me by a couple hundred dollars each. I think his frames are in the $850 range and there is no fork. You can look up frame tubing and pretty much ask him to build a frame using whatever aluminum you find (7005 series anyway). I let him pick the tubing in my frame so I honestly have no idea what's in them.

He'll sell you a fork at a discounted rate. I bought an ENVE 2.0 fork for the now-red bike, previously I used a take off fork (orange bike) and I sourced a 3T fork for the black bike.

In 2010, when I first received and built up the then-orange bike, I had probably the second best year of my life, earning, for the first time, my upgrade to Cat 2. At that point I'd been racing 28 seasons. I got the black bike in 2011 and wanted to see if I could get some free speed from the frame. No go but it looks cool. I downgraded to Cat 3 at the end of 2011 as we wanted to start a family (Junior showed up in early 2012). Definitely a sprinter, can't climb, can't TT.

Current original bike (was orange, now red). I had the stays shortened to 39 cm (39.3 cm was shortest possible) because the long front end meant the rear wheel skittered even when I was coasting in normal fast turns (30 mph, 90 degrees, not narrow roads). I went to compact bars which are 3 cm shorter in reach and 3 cm higher in terms of drop. I have a 14.5 cm -32 stem and that puts the drops in the same place as with the original bars (12 cm stem, regular crit bend bars).
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-TpuVEdJjYS...0/DSC_0544.JPG

Both bikes, red paint indicates stays were shortened. Notice how high the drops are on the red bike - compact bars, 14 cm stem, -17. Black bike has same geometry, slightly taller seat tube due to the aero tubing, 39.0 cm chainstays (which is really nice).
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-yVszbCsm9a...0/DSC_0605.JPG

The red bike when it was orange. Normal 40.5 cm stays, way too long. I built the bike at what I called my SoCal training camp (I live in CT, visited my former teammate and still close friend for 2-3 weeks in Jan/Feb of 2004-2011) so I needed some shop assistance building up the black bike. I rode with the frame around my neck to the shop to get the headset cups installed.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_TbmplkIYLx...e_with_Two.jpg

Incidentally I think you use the same specs as Bennati. I wonder if Cannondale has some spare frames. I remember he used a top tube in the 58 cm range, seat tube I think was 52 or 54 cm, I think it was 52.

Another note, the 75.5 seat tube angle makes the top tube longer than its length because my saddle's "neutral" position is pretty far forward. My saddle-bar length is almost the same as a teammate's 63 cm BMC bike.

Ok. Im A fitter and I need to see you on this bike. My Alarms a so Setting off but it obviously works for you and I would love to see that! My Curiosity is piqued.

Thanks for replying. Don't need geometry that extreme but thanks for th link to tsunami. I will Definetly look into them.

Although steel, the Breezer Venturi is a stiff, sprinter's platform, which in the M/L size, has a 54 ST, 570 ETT, 140 HT and responsive geometry.

Sounds like you need Peter Sagan's geometry. Win a few more races and maybe Cannondale will make you one :)

Unfortunately its around $2000 or more for a custom aluminum frame. Hopefully someone on the board can point you to a reasonable source.

the carbon composite craze took hold and so commenced the great aluminum disappearing act. High-end road bikes were the first to go. Top-of-the-line hardtail mountain bikes were next, quickly followed by suspension and midpriced bikes. Aluminum’s 20-year run at the pinnacle of the sport ended with shocking abruptness.

fyi

In my previous life I also fitted bikes. I didn't take the step of going full custom until long after leaving the industry though - I was told that the frames I asked for were "impossible" or "we don't do that" etc.

I actually tried to get a Bennati frame since Cannondale is a local company and I had friends who worked there. I tried to get a custom frame when they offered them (for a very limited time, 1997?) but couldn't.

My position isn't that radical. It's optimized for riding in the drops (well sprinting out of the saddle in the drops, which at that point my only contact points are the drops and the pedals) but I can go for 6-7 hour rides no problem, at least in terms of fit/comfort (in terms of fitness it's questionable). I prefer to have a decent amount of weight on the front wheel, for better handling. I have a bad back so that's part of it, I can't be slightly bent over else I have pretty bad pain. I'm super inflexible so that's another part of it. I use 175 cranks so I have more pedal drop (i.e. my saddle is lower relative to the BB) so everything gets pulled down a few extra mm.

I'm on a slight hill and just getting shelled off the back of a race so I've slid forward on the saddle. This is about the best picture I have of me from the side.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_TbmplkIYLx...0/DSC_0797.JPG

I'm sitting down in this picture but not quite on the saddle, after a sprint. Gives a better idea of torso vs arms/legs.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-A8lQqVNdw2...Picture+15.png

Oh, c'mon now...

seeing the pictures, it looks fine fit wise, but to call it not radical is a little misleading. But its cool to see what the proper fit can do.

you might want to learn about stack and reach, figure out what you need, and google around. here's a start

Stack & Reach Primer: Chapter One - Slowtwitch.com

https://www.retul.com/frame-finder/s...type=1&search=

Felt, Trek H1 fit, and Specialized Allez/Tarmac are pretty long.

Wouldn't you get pulled up at races for not having 5cm minimum saddle setback?

If I were doing a pro race I'm sure I would, but I'm nowhere near ever entering such a race. My bikes violate three UCI rules from what officials have told me - bar height (sort of debatable since it's not clear if they define the tire as part of the wheel - the bars have to be above the wheel), saddle set back (I bought a short nose saddle just in case), and, with clinchers, rear tire clearance on the black bike.

Ultimately if through some miracle I were to turn pro I could handle all those things. A higher BB height would raise both the saddle and the bars, pulling my bars up over the minimum height. A TT type saddle with a super short nose would allow me to use my normal saddle position. I'd get a skinnier seat tube to increase clearance to the rear tire on the black bike.

Keep in mind my position isn't radical. It's perhaps a bit aggressive but it's not radical. It would be extremely uncomfortable to raise my bars 3 cm for example. Last year I tried to make that work because I didn't want to buy a custom stem and I really wanted to use the bars. The result? I had back problems all season.

Keep in mind that USA Cycling rules are different and that's critical. When you start any kind of competition you start with the rules and go from there. My bikes are totally legal under USAC rules for the local races that I do. In fact when I'm reasonably fit I'll use Cane Creek Speed Bars, and I used them extensively in 2010. They're totally illegal for UCI races. I also have similar function Scott Rakes from way back when. They're also UCI illegal, always have been, but they are USAC legal.

Tsunami with Cane Creeks, 2010. Although not a breakaway rider I'd work for teammates and that involved pulling or leading them out. The Cane Creeks helped with those efforts. I have no pictures of me actually using the bars, only point of view shots from my helmet cam.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_TbmplkIYLx...2-01-30_12.jpg

Scott Rakes on an older bike, about 1995 or so. In terms of mounting position I would put the Rakes much closer together now - at the time I was experimenting, and throughout the season I realized that I could move the bars in closer and still corner really hard (solo) in the Rakes. I stopped using them because my elbows and knees hit each other. With the significantly longer Tsunamis I can use the Cane Creeks without those problems, and in fact they should be much better with the compact bars (and the necessary custom stem with it). The tops of the bars are a further 3 cm out so I'd have even more room to get narrow with my elbows. Unfortunately I'm pretty heavy now so any aero gains would be offset by the fact that my legs are hitting my stomach :)
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_TbmplkIYLx..._0118_edit.jpg

id get a bent- long and low.i

I say my position isn't radical because it's not really a radical position. In fact I apply the philosophies that drive my own fit when I fit other riders. One of the more open minded recreational riders (woman, 40s, not a racer, hybrid bike) really liked the "out of box" fit I did for her. She ended up in essentially a road bike position with straight bars. It was more comfortable, allowed her to get more power down through the pedals, and basically made riding more fun for her.

Another rider I fit more recently is a teammate of mine. I prefer not to offer advice unbidden so I waited until he asked me for some advice on his racing. He finally asked me for feedback as he felt like he was in a rut, he couldn't quite win the B race, he didn't have the punch that he thought he should. The first thing I did was re-fit him on his bike. He'd been "professionally fitted" but his position was, to me, obviously holding him back. We made some wholesale changes - measured in centimeters - and I told him to give it a shot without "easing into" the position. We did the position change on the weekend. The next Tuesday he won the B race, and in fact he won the next three total (and then I think the races were done for the season). He also placed in a target race, I think a 3rd place in a hard race (the next year he got 2nd and I was one of the last finishers).

Net position changes were 4+ cm more drop saddle/bar, 1 cm more forward, 1 cm more net reach (2 cm longer stem but saddle moved forward 1 cm).

His position is still pretty conservative - I see the potential for another massive change, literally 4-5-6 cm of change in reach, but that would require a custom frame and a huge commitment on his part. He's not prepared to do that so no go on the fit change. However he's since won the A race at that Tues race (I've never gotten better than 2nd) and he's made some huge moves in races, once soloing 7 laps chasing a break in vain, getting caught at about 200m to go, leading out the sprint, and winning the field sprint.

His position changes reduced stress on his back, improved his power, and probably improved his aerodynamics. It's more comfortable (we did a long ride one year, I think it was 105 miles, and I was reduced to hanging on for dear life by the end), it has better performance.

Once a person accepts that you can get more comfort and also be more efficient/powerful it's not a big deal. To buy into that theory is hard though - most riders assume that a more efficient/powerful position will automatically be less comfortable. At some point, yes, that's true, but for general riding that's absolutely not true.