I am sitting here on memorial day, not working, and looking at my bikes. I have never actually rode a proper track bike, so I really have no idea what such a thing would be like. However, I notice from appearance that my Mark V pro looks very similar to my Bianchi Giro road bike. I remember when choosing the IRO that part of the appeal was that the geometry was very similar to what I was used to.

So here is the difference.
Road bike has a slightly steeper ST angle while IRO has a slightly steeper head tube. (73.5 v 73 and 73.5 v 74 respectively) The standover is slightly higher on the IRO and the wheelbase is slightly shorter (2 cm). Near as I can figure, in terms of the ride this is mostly identical.

That said, my question for those of you out there who are actually into track bikes, is how much is this different then proper track geometry. What kind of differences in ride (if any are noticable) are there.

Thanks a lot for the info. That said then, you could say that due to the high bottom bracket, the Mark V is actually a "track bike" except with a relaxed seattube angle. Or more accurately, probably a track bike style that has been backed off a bit due to the assumption that most people will be riding it on the road. Regardless, the geometry seems to work for me.

I think you hit it on the head. The frame is designed for the street not the track. The frame will work on the track but if I was 20 years younger and serious about track racing I wouldn't ride a Mark V. I would call Don Walker and have him build a frame for me.


Tony

don,

you said that track geometry is usually 74-76*, so what's the deal with these keirin frames i see with like 80* angles. is that just ****ing crazybrains to ride something like that? what would be the advantage?

pure sprint powa!