I mean't the whole bike when you said "The entire bike is short" - why is that?
Geometry question for the people who ride multiple types of bikes
Gary doesn't associate himself with the riffraf. He's a cultured gentlemen esteemed for his ability to manual on anything.
is that based on a head to head comparison of *just* the brakes themselves? or does it account for (any) increase to aerodynamics of the rim? it's certainly possible when accounting for both it's a net improvement
I overtook a big rig @50ish heading down to Wilson on my HT once. Probably not one of my most sensible maneuvers...
Source? German Tour magazine did a wind tunnel test of both Specialized Venge and Canyon Aeroad bikes that are available with rim and disc brakes and differences were insignificant, with a slight advantage towards the disc brake bike.
Not entirely sure, could be forum hearsay.
That's a coaster wheelie
and I meant. it's normal. don't worry about it. roadbikes really don't need massive wheelbases
Why do you think this is relevant?
Plenty manufacturers make perfectly good road frames and don't have a professional road team riding them.
Plenty perfectly good road frames are welded.
Plenty perfectly good road frames come from moulds in the far east and sell for a couple of hundred bucks
Plenty frame builders will custom build you whatever the fuck you ask for for quite a bit less than a mass produced TCR Advanced.SL frame costs. Just not in Crabon. (which really doesn't matter)
This could equally be said of mountainbike consumers. Infact. Even more so in a lot of ways.
because making bicycles is a business. This isn't Formula 1. They can't drop a couple million bucks designing a road frame only to make a few dozen frames for their teams.
and if they're marketing it for racing, it needs to be UCI compliant since effectively all race governing bodies report up to them; the exception here is tri bikes which are governed by the ITU.
and? material is irrelevant. they still have to meet the same criteria to be UCI certified
and they're not fielding road teams. if they were, still UCI compliant. and then there's the aspect of whether or not these are knock off frames; don't get me started about IP theft in ASPAC.
and if you're gonna race it, it needs to be UCI compliant if the race is governed by a regional body that falls under the UCI.
it's across the entire bike industry. it's more relevant on the road side since that's the bulk of the business (at least compared to MTB)
And they don't need to.
Do you really think G. Thomas wouldn't have won the TDF* if he'd been riding a £200 Aliexpress frame?
A Major Tour stage has been won by a rider on his massively different sized team mates frame.
*Purely IMO (and I don't even follow road cycle racing) he won because the main SKY rider was caught not playing strictly by the rules very close to the tour. It was a foregone conclusion Sky would win. Just not which rider. And it makes next to no difference which frame manufacturer they use.
it's called ROI. despite whatever you may think, bike companies, even the big three, aren't in the financial position to design and produce frames only for their pro teams.
edit: sure they might do some R&D on pre-production frames, but the end goal is always something that will sell to the public.
Yes, road bikes do need to be super agile. Not for riding to work or derping around on the bike path on Sunday morning, but in a race at race speeds when you are millimeters from the guys around you, agility and lightning fast steering are critically important.
How you use your bike shows us your frame of reference. While recreational riding is probably the most common use for road bikes, it is not the usage that sets the design criteria. Performance while pedaling as hard as you fucking can within stinking distance of angsty adrenaline-amped amphetamine-guzzling barely-post-pubescent subhumans in lycra is what the design criteria for this product are aimed at. In other words you need a bike that is just as twitchy as the rider.
Can we get the beating a dead horse meme now?
EDIT: grammar
Last edited:
2 things that confuse me:
1. Roadies don't need massive wheelbases
2. If the rear isn't super long or short as you claim, the wheelbase isn't super long and the head angle is steep how is there not enough weight on the front wheel ? The normal not super long wb with a steep HA and not super long rear would suggest the TT isn't too long either so the weight distribution shouldn't be rear heavy.
Dude no need to go full "GTFO you nub" this is not a gaming forum. Seriously I have some decent understanding of road racing, I used to be part of a road team as a kid for a short time (13-14) and a good friend of mine runs a female road racing team . I just ask questions because I assume you know more than me. I am not suggesting any changes. I am just trying to understand why some ideas from the MTB world wouldn't work. Not because I want to change the road world without knowing much but because I am genuinely interested of what exactly makes a good road bike. I don't understand how is my curiosity considered a bad thing outside of the fact that you somehow imagined that I want to change roadbikes when that's clearly not the case. I know it's mandatory to be angry on the internet but why can't I be curious about how road bikes work?
To get back to the topic - I assumed the agility would be needed for racing in peletons but then what about time trial and triathlon bikes where you don't ? Also we talked about commuter bikes and the need for a longer more stable bike was also dismissed.
Finally if fast stering is so important when you race in peletons why roadies use long stems?
I think you mis-interpreted my tone and intent. No anger. I was just trying to emphasize where the design criteria come from. My dark view of road racing may have seeped into my description a little...
Last edited:
Cool it with the dick swinging. Nobody gives a shit about you pretending to be too cool to care about this thread while simultaneously constantly responding. You don't need to talk about how little you care, or tell others their experiences are irrelevant.
Do you see the cognitive dissonance you're living right now? Take a step back for a minute. Let me know where we're disagreeing.
#1 most important design criteria - be fast. Put you in an aero position, with a good way to put power to the pedals. The better the aerodynamic efficiency the better.
#2 Needs to be able to climb well.
#3 Road bike needs to be super agile. Not for riding to work or derping around on the bike path on sunday morning, but in a race at race speeds when you are blahblahblah, agility and lightning fast steering are critically important"
Actually, I think we agree on most of these points, but I don't think the third one is mutually exclusive with something that has even better handling *and* stability at the same time.
Because a 140mm stem will never, ever, ever fucking handle as well as an 80mm stem. It just fucking wont. Anybody telling you otherwise is comparing something they've got thousands of hours of practice on to something they have 0 hours of practice on. Throw an 80mm stem on any bike and its going to have faster, more precise steering. And you can slack out the HA a little bit (doesn't have to be 64, like I said the HA is the least important part of this equation, and a super slack one is more of a curiosity thing. We could be talking 70 degrees instead of 73) to accommodate the faster steering of a shorter stem. Shit, you don't even need to slack out the HA. Why not just a longer, lower front center, longer wheelbase, and a shorter higher drop stem to put you in the right aero position, get your weight further forward, and you just get faster more precise steering.
I donno. Obviously this question doesn't interest you. You like things just fine the way they are - that's great. I think there's room for improvement, wonder what compromises I'm missing and why this hasn't been tried before (or if it has, what were the results).
Edit: apparently I just misread the point of your statement along with norbar. Either way, couldn't care less. participate or don't, it doesn't bother me.
I think you have articulated what I was thinking really well. A shorter stem + longer tt doesn't doesn't seem like a bad option
Plus a ton of arguments about why certain ideas wouldn't work for road were used before against slacker head angles in dh. People were worried 65 and then 63ha would make a bike unturnable, then they were worried about long wheelbases, wide bars. None of those fears materialized. Not saying we need trek madone geometron (though Chris Porter probably got a boner right now) but I wonder if some ideas were even considered in road
i think there's some subjectivity as to what constitutes "good" handling esp between road and MTB. MTB needs faster / twitchier response for tight turns (at least to more of a degree than road bikes), and for road bikes you want more stability through high speed turns.
also, ergonomics / fitment is a bigger consideration for road stems than MTB.
someone should fire up their tig welder and find out.
@norbar read what Chuffer has taken the time to write. He knows what he's talking about. As do I (But unlike Chuffer I really can't be arsed explaining the basics of road riding in a DH forum)
1. Mountainbikers dont *need* them either. I for one fucking hate long wheelbase bikes. Look at almost any slopestyle guy. Ok they're not hitting random rocks at warp speed but they are jumping large jumps (often at high speed) not many on here would even attempt. They're doing it on short twitchy bikes and they're making shapes I couldn't manage the playstation button combination for. and they're landing (mostly) smoothly.
2. First watch some live road racing online or on TV. it goes on for hours and hours. That should give you plenty time to work out how they position their bodies, how they maneuver and manipulate their bikes. Then ride one yourself for a while. Then try riding it at speed in an organised road group taking turns on the front.
@William42 wind your own neck in. Chuffer knows what he's talking about. I honestly don't think you do.
While having a hissy fit about 140mm stems have you even considered where your hands are most of the time on a road bike?
You're actually wrong about a 140mm stem never handling as well as a 90mm. I've ridden roadbikes with both. They do handle differently though.
1. Mountainbikers dont *need* them either. I for one fucking hate long wheelbase bikes. Look at almost any slopestyle guy. Ok they're not hitting random rocks at warp speed but they are jumping large jumps (often at high speed) not many on here would even attempt. They're doing it on short twitchy bikes and they're making shapes I couldn't manage the playstation button combination for. and they're landing (mostly) smoothly.
2. First watch some live road racing online or on TV. it goes on for hours and hours. That should give you plenty time to work out how they position their bodies, how they maneuver and manipulate their bikes. Then ride one yourself for a while. Then try riding it at speed in an organised road group taking turns on the front.
@William42 wind your own neck in. Chuffer knows what he's talking about. I honestly don't think you do.
While having a hissy fit about 140mm stems have you even considered where your hands are most of the time on a road bike?
You're actually wrong about a 140mm stem never handling as well as a 90mm. I've ridden roadbikes with both. They do handle differently though.
see when you're riding your moutainbike at 40 mph?
do you steer it with
A) your stem
B) leaning
What about 20mph?
You can phone a friend if you like
Funnily enough, the deadhorse comment was my acknowledgement of the exact "cognitive dissonance" that you called me out for. Even though I may not want to and I sure as hell know that I shouldn't, I just can't help myself from hitting the horse again and again... So, yeah, we agree there too.
As for stem length, I find 110 mm is optimal for me on the road bike and the cross bike, even though they have completely different frame geometries, body positions and riding styles. In my experience, fwiw, stem length is usually used to fine tune the ergonomics. I don't think it effects steering feel nearly as much as it effects body position.
Actually, you can do either; see precession. Some motorcyclists learn this the hard way...
Gary I take your opinions with a grain of salt because you are a bit averse to anything you view as a trend, even to some things most of the people agree upon is beneficial. I don't get the slopestyle bike comment. Dirt Jump and slope frames are super small not to be stable but to do tricks. Stability is something that is sacrificed in search of tricks. Also most slope comps have relatively safe landings. When they didn't like that Crankworx 5-6 years who with that huge jump - people switch to bigger bikes. So slope bikes are a compromise but from your comments it seems like road bikes aren't a compromise but seem perfect in all areas.
As for 2 - I've ridden in organized groups. I have also watched a ton of road racing. After my 2 year stint in road as a kid I was an XC racer but since there were no xc races transmited I watched road and I still watch TdF. I get the needs for peleton but that is why I mentione triathlon and time trial. Also wouldn't different geometry be beneficial for mountain stages?
Plus watching road racing isn't enough. Did road bars change their dimensions in the last 10 years? I wonder how stagnant geometry and cockpits for road bikes are. Since it's an old sport I assume much more than in mtb but it would be good to know
no. it's not. it's sacrificed in search of added maneuverability and quick handling. Same as with road bikes. for different reasons. Granted. but no less valid.
You simply don't need a super stable bike to ride roads at bicycle speeds (let's call that averaging 20, Max 60?). Just like you don't need a super stable bike to make the relatively smooth run in to the kicker of a 60ft slopestyle jump.
Yes. but only to shallower drop. That might have been a bit over 10 years TBF. and traditional drop is still around too.
Sorry. I really CBA discussing your ideas on "road mountain geometry", Tri or TT Geometry. Maybe when the Alps have chairlifts up the mountain roads instead of up the Ski pistes.
Countersteering is the only way to turn. Well, I guess you could bunnyhop and land with the bike intentionally to the outside of the turn.
See last page: http://bicycle.tudelft.nl/schwab/Bicycle/DO-07-3-2bicycles.pdf
Not directly related but relevant to the topic writ large: https://www.nature.com/news/the-bicycle-problem-that-nearly-broke-mathematics-1.20281
Thanks.
Gary maneuverability and quick handling is what needed for tricks and riding steep jumps. I know you may assume I know shit about road and that may be true but don't assume that about Slope. I used to work for a company that sponsored many strong slope riders and have spent a ton of times including going to quite a few trips with a top10 FMB guy. I may be average to bad at dirt jumping but riding with those guys has thought me a lot about slope bikes so maybe don't assume I know nothing about every type of bike riding. Still all I've said is that the slope argument is silly since you said "see they are using those super unstable bikes and they still land big jumps" like the lack of stability wasn't a sacrifice and like they don't use bigger bikes for comps with bigger jumps. The logic here is typical Gary - if something is good enough or makes it possible to do something then there is no need to look for the optimal solution.
As for road geometry you are twisting what I am asking about. I am not saying we need a super stable bike. I (and I assumeWilliam) just wondered if a) road geometry changed in recent years b) can there be small adjustments made inspired by some new trends in mtb even if they should be much smaller here since roadies have different requirements. For some reason in your mind I want a 65 head angle road bike which isn't the case.
I donno. I don't mind being wrong, and its totes possible I am. But I'm still not certain what I'm missing - it should be possible to have an identical fit, and gain a more stable bike that handles better at the same time. I'm struggling to understand what you're giving up by changing said geometry. And I get that you lean your bike at high speeds - a longer wheelbase isn't going to suck there. At slower speeds, where you turn your bars more, or in a group ride/peloton, I can't see any reason why faster more precise and controlled steering would be a drawback.
I get that the trend is to figure out what bike size you're on, grab 1-2 sizes smaller, and slap a ridiculously long stem on that baby, and call it a day. But I don't quite understand why. Is there some rule about how much stem drop you're allowed to run that I don't know about?
I get that the trend is to figure out what bike size you're on, grab 1-2 sizes smaller, and slap a ridiculously long stem on that baby, and call it a day. But I don't quite understand why. Is there some rule about how much stem drop you're allowed to run that I don't know about?
So, rode the new bike down the pass. Speed limit is 55, passed a few cars on straight sections. Iclocked my speed at FASTASFUCK. I don't know what the hta is on this new bike (Giant Defy Advanced), but it felt even more composed/stable at high speed than my 20 y.o. Cross bike, which I assume has a slacker hta.
As said before, I don't think I can see room for improvement...but hey, anything could happen.
Addendum: I LOVE road disc brakes.
EDIT: looks like the Giant hta is 72.5, my old Redline is 72.
As said before, I don't think I can see room for improvement...but hey, anything could happen.
Addendum: I LOVE road disc brakes.
EDIT: looks like the Giant hta is 72.5, my old Redline is 72.
Last edited: