Why all the hostility towards Leader Frames?

I'd like to know too. I think I read before that their geometry for one of their bikes was just a copy of some other bike.

Well, at least they design their own stuff (not just getting the taiwanese factories to rebrand the same stuff they pump out for other companies)

My understanding is that they are ok as budget track/ whatever frames. The problem is that they are quite ugly and not particularly functional. The welds look bad, their low headtubes require large, gross looking stacks of spacers if you want to build a sweet fixie instead of a track bike, and their "aero" features are mostly for show and don't actually work.

The smaller frames aren't really smaller at all.
zero thought went into designing the smaller frames.
If you're wondering what I mean, just take a pencil, paper, protractor and ruler, draw out the frame. You'll see they just become midgets, but the terrible ST and HT angles force you into all these contortionist and stretching rack positions.

I like there steel offering The hydro Formed steel thing is cool,

The AL to me are MEH

17" of tire clearance on a "track bike."

There was a poster on here a while back who detailed all his problems with the fork ends on his Leader and the response he got from Leader Bikes. Long story short, Leader Bikes wouldn't own up to a pretty blatant design flaw, and were pretty rude to the kid. They changed the fork ends on that frame model, but the customer service debacle is what sticks in my mind.

hmm, the frames look sweet.

however the bottom bulk on the down tube seems highly unnecessary

TBPH, I actually like how the frames look. I think that the aero tubing, wheather or not its functional, looks sweet.

But then even if it DID copy other frames, it wouldn't exactly be as bad, seeing that a lot of companies allegedly pump out multiples of the same frame with different brands.....

And even if the geo is "screwed up", doesn't it just depend on the person who is riding? I mean stretched out or not, who am I to say that a certain geometry is bad for a certain rider who LOVES his leader frame bike?

I was just wondering though why they get all the hate. I personally dont care for the welds. I mean details are important, but I prefer to look at the bike as a whole rather than hate on the bike for one particular detail whether it be the ugly welds, the "jacked up" geometry etc.

I recently bought a leader and the welds seems pretty normal to me. No problems with the geometry either.

I dont understand the fugly weld around the seat clamp area on one of those frames

i personally love leader frames... i' pretty confident that there not going to be my next frame, but definitely the one after that. There fames look bad donkey. Personally i think the geometry looks perfectly fine.

saw a steel 722 locked up outside my apartment.

pretty heavy, but it could have been the rest of the guys build

also their 725V2 has hideous amounts of wheel clearance. coz i'll run 38's on my track bike. I like the complete swing from clearance that wouldn't clear a clincher tire to now mountain bike status chainstay lengths

So the OP basically considering a Leader over a high-end Look bike now? Trolling much?

I guess reading comprehension isn't taught in Chicago. He said nothing about a "LOOK" bike, he said the look of a bike is important TARD!

i too have no f*king idea what that guy was talking about. Must be a Chicago thing.

He means the useless thread that ph4nt0m started about the LOOK 596.
Back to the topic, the only Leader I'd consider buying is their lugged hand made track frame.

this is what he's talking about.
https://www.bikeforums.net/showthread...light=LOOK+596
and Chicago is an awesome city, some of the best years of my life were spent there. so **** off.

whats all this about Chicago?

im looking at maybe getting the 735tr and making it a track only bike, but i dont know how that would go as a legit track bike...

my 722ts isn't very heavy. With profile hubs/mavic open pros and external bb cranks and name brand components it comes in at under 20lbs.The bike is comparable to my roomate's Kilo, but the finishing touches and tubing are a little nicer. Think Iro Angus

As for the build quality the welds are tight and clean, think 90's diamondback/centurion. They're very well done. The hydroformed tubeset rides very much like my columbus thron road bike (Univega modovincere). Fitting, considering that the tubing profiles and sizing are pretty similar. If you want to see poor welds to compare, look at an affinity.

People need to stop confusing the terms "geometry" and "design". My 58 cm has 73 degree headtube and 74 degree seat-tube, it also clears 32c tires front and rear. Clearance has nothing to do with the angles of the bike, really, making the chainstays a little longer or dimpling them to fit a slightly larger tire doesn't affect handling. I'd rather have the option of tire choice than fleeting asthetics anyway. For a 58cm I expected an inch or so of spacers with a 120mm stem and about 6 inches of seat post. Thats exactly what I got.

That said their aluminum bikes are ugly as hell.

I was thinking about buying their trick-track frame for a little while. Looks tough as hell.

yeah i did make a post about a 596. But thats besides the point, I wasnt considering buying a LOOK, nor am I considering buying a Leader Frame. I admit that the post about the 596 was a bit unncessary. And ok ill take it back. Maybe in the future ill consider buying another frame since im running a Windsor Hour atm.


BUT, point is, I just wanted to know why lots of people hate on Leader. If I got a frame in the future, I would want it to be a Leader Frame only because a friend of mine has one and he hasn't had any problems with it, and he says its good etc.

if your friend has a leader then why dont you ride his bike instead of asking for our opinions? yet again logic remains nowhere to be found on bikeforums........

Haha i have ridden it. Part of the reason for the post was just curiosity?