This has annoyed me for a while and I must be the only one. MANY bikes now have a downtube that leaves the BB and goes forward several inches before angling up. This makes it much more prone to impacts and of course heavier and weaker than if it went in a straight line from BB to headtube. There are a few suspension designs that need some bend for clearance but look at these bikes and you can see the bend is exaggerated beyond what's necessary and purely a cosmetic trend (Trek). There's even plenty bikes (Spesh Stumpjumper & Enduro) with that bend and no suspension stuff that needs clearing. It's like they saw it on another frame and copied the look. How stupid when you consider the other lengths that are gone to in the name of maximizing strength/weight. Would the bike below really not look as good with a straight downtube and would that affect ANYONE's purchasing decision? Mention carbon frames and someone will bring up rock strikes. However, I'm the only one who questions a frame design that increases the chance of a downtube rock strike.
P.S. The bent/slacked seat tube on that frame is stupid too but I'll save that rant for another thread. I'm sure the engineers who make these frames are aware of both issues but why they ignore practicality in favor of aesthetics is mind boggling when we're talking about an expensive, performance oriented piece of gear.
P.S. The bent/slacked seat tube on that frame is stupid too but I'll save that rant for another thread. I'm sure the engineers who make these frames are aware of both issues but why they ignore practicality in favor of aesthetics is mind boggling when we're talking about an expensive, performance oriented piece of gear.