what is this thing called 'geometry'?
- Thread starter 2manyoranges
- Start date
2manyoranges
Old School Grand Master
- Feedback
- View
Was8v - my experience too. On objective measures: hills I have ridden for 30 years, I can get up further, faster on my contemporary bikes, and downhill faster and more safely. Retro is good, and fun, but I am with you re performance...
- Feedback
- View
ebikes dont count.
2manyoranges
Old School Grand Master
- Feedback
- View
....hehe Big Cheese...you well know that there’s not a single e-bike in the stable here...only human powered, mainly steel things.
Actually...I am having to pull back from considerable annoyance about e-bikes. A couple of weeks ago we were thrashing up some upward-winding singletrack in Stanmer Woods - a two way bit which you have to be very alert on since you can indeed get people going in both directions - when a young guy on an e-bike came blasting down the gradient and on a blind corner in the woods took me entirely by surprise - it was damned fortunate that I automatically jinked to my left and he twitched to his left - avoiding a very nasty collision. I shouted a warning to the Grom and Ant who were a few seconds behind me, but i-like-going-very-fast man managed to scare the living daylights out of them, too.
They are good for some things. But simply using them to go very very fast seems rather pointless.
Anyway....back to geometry....I have just held up the new BfE Max frame (small) against the 16 inch Stanton - one has a nominal nominal 438 reach (140 forks) and the other 450mm reach (160 forks) and the thing is this - although the rear triangle on the Cotic is clearly longer (for clearance for plus tyres), they are pretty much identical in the cockpit - eg saddle to bars and bb alignment. Which is not very interesting for a retrobike thread. Although it makes you realise yet again that you have to commit to a bike and actually ride it to fully understand it.
What IS interesting is that holding up a 1996 C16R in medium (nominal 16inch), the cockpit is essentially the same dimensions...but of course the front wheel is tucked right in due to the steeper head angle. And that’s what I think when I move from a retrobike to a contemporary bike: ‘....bejesus look at all that wheel out in front of me...’ and when I go from a contemporary bike to a retrobike ‘...holy crap where’s the front wheel gone..?...’
Actually...I am having to pull back from considerable annoyance about e-bikes. A couple of weeks ago we were thrashing up some upward-winding singletrack in Stanmer Woods - a two way bit which you have to be very alert on since you can indeed get people going in both directions - when a young guy on an e-bike came blasting down the gradient and on a blind corner in the woods took me entirely by surprise - it was damned fortunate that I automatically jinked to my left and he twitched to his left - avoiding a very nasty collision. I shouted a warning to the Grom and Ant who were a few seconds behind me, but i-like-going-very-fast man managed to scare the living daylights out of them, too.
They are good for some things. But simply using them to go very very fast seems rather pointless.
Anyway....back to geometry....I have just held up the new BfE Max frame (small) against the 16 inch Stanton - one has a nominal nominal 438 reach (140 forks) and the other 450mm reach (160 forks) and the thing is this - although the rear triangle on the Cotic is clearly longer (for clearance for plus tyres), they are pretty much identical in the cockpit - eg saddle to bars and bb alignment. Which is not very interesting for a retrobike thread. Although it makes you realise yet again that you have to commit to a bike and actually ride it to fully understand it.
What IS interesting is that holding up a 1996 C16R in medium (nominal 16inch), the cockpit is essentially the same dimensions...but of course the front wheel is tucked right in due to the steeper head angle. And that’s what I think when I move from a retrobike to a contemporary bike: ‘....bejesus look at all that wheel out in front of me...’ and when I go from a contemporary bike to a retrobike ‘...holy crap where’s the front wheel gone..?...’
Last edited:
xtaffa
Gary Fisher Fan
This guy's quite 'sure of himself' but an interesting article on finding a proper fit system/algorithm for MTBs from a custom builder:
http://www.peterverdone.com/im-soooo-rad/
http://www.peterverdone.com/im-soooo-rad/
Last edited:
- Feedback
- View
Its overthinking it!
Just ride the bleedin' things, heck there's enough 2nd hand frames out there to find what suits
(remember to put wheels and other parts on otherwise you look daft trying to take a bare frame for a brisk morning drag)
Just ride the bleedin' things, heck there's enough 2nd hand frames out there to find what suits
(remember to put wheels and other parts on otherwise you look daft trying to take a bare frame for a brisk morning drag)
xtaffa
Gary Fisher Fan
- Feedback
- View
??
Is it to make a clean sweep of the trails?
Brushing up on skilz?
'this bike feels wooden'
Bristling with technology?
Getting a handle on things?
Pulling the Trigger? (broom)
- Feedback
- View
Tried 19 or 20" Kona's, though they have slacker 74° seatube than you want, they fit the other dimensions, either side of your wheel base, correct headtube angle (to be honest that's standard, some race bikes went steeper by half a degree)
I ride with inline and forward from centre.
20" headtube are 150mm
5' 10" ish in cycle shoes.
Comfy bikes.
I would say Rockies too, but they are hard to describe.
Seat and Head angles, length changed as sizes changed.
AND
They changed between models too, depending on their target riding.
AND if it had an in line post, they slackened the seat angle a bit.
So the lower models with lay backs would have steeper seat tubes.
And some had STT Short Top Tubes withing that model, so a 18" came in two different effective top tube length.
So just because you like a Hammer or an Altitude doesn't mean you'd like a Blizzard or Stratos or Fusion..
So couldn't recommend one to try.
- Feedback
- View
Though it's probably quicker and easier to do Ben Nevis with just the frame..
Geometry wasn't the problem here
P. S. Not me, but Yorkshire RetroBikers a few years back.
Last edited:
Similar threads
