Your cart is currently empty!
Theoretical Framebuilding Part 1- Geometry
Technology alone is a poor substitute for experience.-Richard Sachs
In my days working in science I had a supervisor that always said – do the experiment on paper FIRST and that means putting down the 5 minutes it takes you to walk to the spectrometer with the samples as well as anything else. He was right. If it didn’t work ‘on paper,’ it was NEVER going to work as you intended in practice aka it would fail miserably. This is the first of three part series on why and what makes a custom fit bicycle frame, different (and better) than ‘off the peg’ one. The posts are intended to shed light behing ‘hand picked, custom butted, special shaped tubing mix’ and all the terms you see and hear mentioned about custom bikes. This article is meant to educate and represents a successful experiment ‘on paper’ by an aspiring framebuilder (me). The science, metallurgy, physics and engineering are all researched, the opionions (as harsh as they may be) are all personal. The articles are ranked by order of importance. Part 1 discusses probably the most important aspect – geometry. Part 2 talks about tube forming and butting and it’s effect on “ride feel.” Part 3 delves in metallurgy and what heat does to metals and explores terms like, heat treatment, alloying, material stiffness and strength.
You might wonder what a thermonuclear weapon or an H-bomb in the header image have to do with custom bicycle framebuilding. Well to this day there is no OFFICIAL and CONFIRMED information on how the weapons work, it is all speculation, though in November 1979 the author of the above article in The Progressive was able to deduce pretty much how it all functioned by just looking at the type of parts etc. ordered by army contractors, in a way he reverse engineered it all. Granted welding or brazing metal tubes in 3 triangles is in a VERY different alley than thermonuclear weapons, Custom Bicycle Framebuilding just like cycling has not been spared by the many myths and legends and the extremely contradicitng information that is prevalent in pretty much everything in our daily lives. This is in a way refreshing since it pretty much points you towards the right direction – see what everybody else is doing and just do the opposite an you will be fine.
The curious individual that I am, I do like riding my bike quite a bit and over time I discovered that what is available out there is highly dysfuncitonal , and that is putting it midly and abstaining from nouns describing pure excrement. Well especially what was offered for somebody (like myself) who is above average proportions and height I was not able to find out why, information was just repeating some old dogmas “that everybody (and/or the PROs) have been doing up to now, so it can’t be wrong.” Needless to say this is what I refer to as a micro$oft/window$ type answer – correct but useless.
Therefore in my search for the most efficient position to make a bike feel like an extension of me, I came across Steve Hogg’s bike fitting website. If you have not seen it, go there after you finish this article, you will not be disappointed. If there ever was a methodical and clearly explained way on how us asymmetrical humans can function efficiently on a symmetrical apparatus that is a bicycle, this is the one stop place.
Through another article getting into the details on what the geometry does to bike handling. As I mentioned earlier I had a bike that I could fit on, though it rode interesting… Brand is not important, though suffice to say, it is one that has been ridden to great victory quite some times by the PROs. It was twitchy and extremely scary to ride at speed, leaned a LOT in corners, regardless of speed, oversteered like crazy, and on anything slightly technical would leave me trailing everybody else. Therefore as much it is not about the bike, the cogs in my head with the information from the above article pointed me that I might be able to really get something out of a custom bike. Here is the place to say that while 10% of people NEED a custom frame due to body proportions/injuries, everybody can benefit from one since off-the-peg items in generally are designed to fit no individual in particular and as many people in general.
Off-the-peg items in generally are designed to fit no individual in particular and as many people in general.
‘On paper’ I came up with a geometry that was supposed to cure all of the above problems. After some going back and forth with Steve Hogg himself, there were some touches here and there and I placed my order. The frame that I receved rode like it was supposed to and oh SO MUCH MORE! I will post a detailed full review on it soon.
Therefore with the next 3 series of articles it aim to dissect what makes a custom built frame special, different and perfectly suited for one person – you, no matter how (different from) average you are.
Bike Geometry Explained
I do send a warning the what I am about to describe are PRINCIPLES what might work for you and/or your clients will most likely be different from my examples here and second, all of the variables work together in combination and cannot be isolated.
How your body weight related to the wheels of the bike both horizontally (front to rear) and vertically (up and down) is the DEFINING variable that determines how a bike would behave according to its intended purpose (road, mountain, track, etc). To give you an example a 140cm (5’2″) woman, your average Joe rider 175cm/75kg (5’11″/165lbs), a tall lanky person like me 200cm/82kg (6’7″/185lb) and a tall musuclar 100+ kg (220+lbs) frame snapping individual (they exist, I have seen them). Each of those examples has UNIQUE weight distribution when seated on a bicycle, with the short and tall people being the two extremes of the spectrum.
That weight distribution is a direct result of body proportions AND functionality.
Body Proportions, Weight and Stability
According to bike fitter, Colby Pearce, bikes exist on a spectrum on how the rider’s position relates to the machine. On one extreme end you have time trial bikes and on the other end you have downhill mountain bikes. Priority is aerodynamics and power production with almost no rider weight changes on one side versus super low seat heights giving the the ability to drastically shift bodyweight to maneuver (at speed) over extremely varied terrain. In between you find the road bicycle and I don’t necessarily mean a racing one. Since the principles outlined below apply across the board to all types of bikes, for simplicity I will focus on the road bike since a lot of riding such as cx/gravel, touring, etc. originates from there.
The more weight you have towards the rear of the bike, it will result is a bike that that wants to ‘wheelie’ when climbing and in off road situations (MTB) one that you cannot steer on loose surface. Conversely too much weight at the front can cause real wheel slip and unresponsive/sluggish steering. You want balance that is achieved either by shifting back and forth, up and down as is the case of downhill MTBs or by having your center of gravity at the right spot. Road bikes achieve that balance by placing 45/55% of rider weight front/rear. Off road/MTB requires dynamic weight shifting to match the terrain, i.e. more weight/grip at the front tyre, etc.
Center of Gravity
This is not a new idea. The seat tube angle is probably the most important measurement on a bike since this puts the rider at a balance point from where other positions originate – out of the saddle climbing and sprinting for example. The idea is that since the bottom bracket and pedals don’t change position, out of saddle efforts would always place the rider at similar position relative to the BB, however if you are sitting too far back too far forward, out of saddle positions require a massive shift of your center of gravity. Anything from 72-74 degrees is reasonable , going into extremely like 69 (super slack) and 77 (super steep) creatives massive compromises i.e. hitting the bars with your knees when out of the saddle and/or having ridiculously long reach to the handlebars.
Here we come to the balance again.
All movement is a balance between two muscle systems – phasic and postural. In short, there must be a stable platform for movement to occur. Postural muscle provide that platform for the phasic muscles. Since all movement starts with commands from the brain, it is no wonder evolutionary the postural muscles ALWAYS get priority. What does that imply for pedaling a bike?
In short (full article by Steve Hogg) in order to pedal a bike efficiently you should be in a stable enough position to be able to cantilever your torso forward WITHOUT the use of upper body muscles for support; your arms should NOT be holding you upright. Why?
Remember postural muscles get priority so energy is NOT going into pedaling, but trying to keep you upright. In addition a good number of the upper body postural muscles are involved in breathing – you don’t want to be limiting that. Under load the position should be self-supporting. Steve Hogg refers to this as the balance test. Warm up and pedal at about 80-90rpm at 80-90% effort (hard but not maximum). At the right saddle setback you should be able to swing your arms backwards. Also bike use/power produces plays a role into it (racing vs touring for example)
Ideally a custom frame should be build that your saddle of choice at the right setback sits in more or less the middle of the rails on your seat post of choice. Hence we get back again to center of gravity and seat tube angle.
The balance test is where it gets tricky. A lot of ideas on position are based on this body part over that frame bit and/or the flavor/pro of the week (slammed stem, my handlebar drop is bigger than yours, etc) coupled with the fact that most people spend 40+h of the week sitting at a desk, creating massive amounts of muscle imbalances and overall dysfunctions (i.e. the runner that has a gait with the butt backwards and upper body leaned forward is one example).
While we all “love” the interview question: where do you see yourself in 5 years, it gives the first clue to how the frame should be built. If you are flexible and can functionally!!! ride an aggressive position, it’s an easy answer, if however, you have some limitations and lack range of motion/can’t bend well at the hips, do you see yourself improving down the road? The answer to the last question can make today’s made to measure frame, tomorrow’s poor fitting one. My advise to all aspiring frame builders and also towards cyclists getting a made to measure frame is – Don’t compromise based on the latest fads. There is no substitute for experience. My father told me on multiple occasions that all compromises are like a boomerang that comes back and hits you in the head when you don’t expect it or eloquently put:
Folks don’t come to you to get your version of what is sold at the mall. That wasn’t even the case when steel was ubiquitous. Clients call and arrive at your doorstep because you have abilities and experiences that enable you to translate their information and construct a frame of higher quality and fine design, material is NOT part of the equation.-Richard Sachs
The takeaway point here is that by going with body dimensions and stuff like knee over pedal spindle (KOPS) is an extremely limited approach that results in (sometimes quite significant) compromises which became super obvious for small and large riders, if you fall in the middle of the bell curve, you usually ‘learn to live with them,’ since in a way you don’t know any better. The methods mentioned above require time and some understanding of functional anatomy. Experience cannot be taught so it takes some getting used to it and to be able to translate somebody fit dimensions into a frame geometry. There are ‘standard sizes’ out there, however, you need understand what changing each of the numbers would do to the bigger picture, most importantly why pick one number over the other.
Some random examples:
- If you need 140mm stem to be in a functional position the frame is too short for you
- If you need an upright stem and lots of spacers, the frame is too low for you.
Obviously bike components have quite some adjustment built in them, however below are some aspects that can be directly influenced by the builder and comprise geometry.
Three Riders on a Bike
Below you see how a bicycle frame grows. The images are to scale representing a 48, 55 and 60 cm frames (S-black, M-red, XL-green). It’s not a perfect representation, though it serves a purpose.
While it may not be obvious to you, when frames grow, it is mostly the front triangle and wheels do not change in size.
Two points stick out right away. Large frames put more weight towards the rear axle and small frames, if built with standard 700c wheels cause massive toe overlap and/or too long reach relative for the size. I am repeating myself that compromises become blatantly obvious at the two ends of the scale while the middle range ‘learns to deal with them.’
What do I mean by compromises?
How Bicycles Steer and Stay Upright
Almost everyone can ride a bicycle, yet apparently no one knows how they do it. I believe that the apparent simplicity and ease of the trick conceals much unrecognized subtlety, and I have spent some time and effort trying to discover the reasons for the bicycle’s stability.-David E. H. Jones
It is not just the wheels acting as gyroscopes. David HE Jones went on to construct bicycles that were unrideable and he found it more difficult that he expected. In the end, coupled with the super computer of the time he made calculations and came up with the Jones stability index. Basically anything between 1 and 3 was rideable with 2 being the ideal. I am not posting the formula (you can read it for yourself) for a reason. This is only one part of what influences stability (head tube angle and fork rake) and cannot be viewed in isolation. Stable bike = bike that holds a straight line and takes more input in order to deflect it (corner) as compared to a less stable one. And no, unstable bikes are not the same as agile since agility involves coordinated-like movement, rather than twitchiness.
Therefore below are the elements of frame geometry that can be directly influenced by the frame builder that influence stability.
Obviously things need to be balanced and tailored for the purpose of the bike – extremely low bottom bracket on a bike to be used on a banked velodrome would cause pedal strikes, etc, etc. As usual keep in mind the big picture/purpose of the bike frame.
Longer chainstays = greater stability
Sometimes referred to as rear center, the longer chainstays shift more of the rider/bike weight to the FRONT axle relative to the wheelbase of the bike. Too much weight over one axle is not a good thing since it leads to an almost binary grip or no grip with no slip in between (and in my personal experience why I used to corner like a scared puppy on ice…). Riders who can get into a more aggressive position on the bike would need shorter chain stays then more upright ones for example. The length has also technical implications on the angle of the chain. Shimano’s 135mm spaced 10 speed (and above) group sets (mountain and cyclocross) have a recommended minimum length of 425mm, and I believe road ones (130 mm rear spacing) have minimum of 415 mm, yet most bikes fall extremely short of the mark. Why?
This is the place for a historical nugget of information or what I call “we have always done things this way, so it can’t be wrong” In and old edition of cycling textbook (Cycle Sport by Peter Konopka) I remember a picture of a “racing bike’ that had a curved seattube and the caption that was done to make for a stiff rear triangle (shorter tube is stiffer), and that was in the era of 19mm tyres….. Back in the day steel and bicycle tubing was a far away cry from even the low end materials of the last 2-3 decades and long tubes can be made extremely stiff without a weight penalty. Yet the old wisdom remains that the shorter the better. I can personally attest that a longer rear triangle makes a bike that rides (corners) like on rails rather than being plain scary and close to unrideable in anything other than straight line at speed. Granted someone of a smaller stature might not need 430mm like I do, 410-415mm on the SMALL sizes (48-52) and 420-425mm on the MEDIUM (54-58) ones is a good starting point (based on 28in 700c wheels). How is being able to corner FASTER with more confidence not racy?!???!?
Bottom Bracket Drop
Lower bottom bracket = greater stability
Back in the day cyclists used toe clips and even the first iterations of clipless pedals were quite bulky. As such pedal strike could be a real issue, especially in criteriums when pedaling in corners (whether that is the best way to do stuff is another question….). Simple physics points that the lower the center of gravity of bike+rider the more stable. Therefore the lowest bottom bracket drop you can get away WITHOUT hitting the pedals in a corner, is the ideal one for YOUR bike. In my opinion 70-75mm for road riding is ok. Smaller sizes that use shorter cranks can go lower. Bikes designed to be ridden with bigger tyres (touring, cyclocross/gravel) should have even lower bottom bracket drop – 80mm – since the tyres raise the overall center of gravty. Last, this is my personal experience, take it for what it’s worth – a more stable bike leans LESS at the same speed as compared a more unstable one, so the chance of pedal strike decreases even further. Speedplay users also have a distinct advantage here. Also bike companies have liabilities so avoiding tricky situations like wiping out 20 guys in a high speed corner is a good reason to avoid ‘bad reputation.’
Head Tube Angle, Fork Rake and Trail
The relationship goes as follows.
- More fork rake = less trail with the SAME headtube angle.
- Less (more slack) head tube angle = more trail with the SAME fork rake.
HIGH vs LOW Trail Debate and Wheel Flop
This is what David Jones used in his calculations. All of those three are interrelated. Headtube angle combined with the fork offset/rake create Mechanical trail.
The theory goes that 56mm of trail is ‘neutral,’ anything higher (60ish) makes the bike more stable and easier to ride in a straight line making for a touring bike and anything lower (52ish) is for ‘racing.’
And here is a recent update, that I experienced myself first hand. The great French monkey wrench (see what I did there) of the low trail cyclotouring randonneur bikes. Here trail figures range from 15mm!!! to 40mm at the HIGH end. Well if you are to believe the internet and even some framebuilders, these bikes will be unrideable. So how come all those cyclotouring French bikes that have done many thousands of kilometers in events such as the 1200km Paris-Brest-Paris?
Introducing Wheel Flop
As you increase the Mechanical trail, you also increase Wheel Flop. To spare you the math here, it basically means that as you turn the handlebars to one side, the front axle does not turn parallel to the ground but goes higher. Obviously you have all your weight on the bike so gravity, just makes handlebars and the bike as a consequence flop/drop to that side, FAST.
Why is that a problem?
I am glad you asked!
Well the saying goes that to stay upright on a bicycle you need to keep moving. While you probably don’t realise it though you are constantly ‘catching’ the bike from falling by weaving from left to right. With a lot of trail (and hence wheel flop) small movements get amplified into big deviations left and right. This gets worse as you get tired and/or you put a load (handlebar bag/front pannier/ aerobars – my emphasis) on the bike. It is a vicious circle – you get more tired your movements become less refined (read more pronouced) so you weave more, so you overcorrect, etc. Also just looking over your shoulder is enough of a weight shift to make you go 1m (3ft) into that direction – this is outright dangerous when riding/commuting in traffic or in a group. Obviously you learn to ‘anticipate’ this, though it all takes energy. As the miles and fatigue sets in, you correct less and less or even not all. Also crosswinds make a high flop bike quite a bear to keep in a straight line and this is coming from me who is (over)built like a Classics rider (2m/85kg).
So that brings me to:
Misconception#2: Low trail bikes NEED a front load or they are unirdeable/explode/etc.
Here is the catch:
To get the benefits low trail (low wheel flop) bikes, you need tires in the 28-42+mm size WITH supple casings that make the tyre conform/spread nicely to the road surface. This creates a decent sized contact patch, referred to as Pneumatic trail from the folks over at Bicycle Quarterly. This serves to stabilize the front end for a lack of better word. Using supple tyres on a high trail/flop bike you can actually feel the mechanical trail and penumatic trail fighting each other as the bike straightens out of a corner – it’s a weird feeling.
Skinny tires 25mm or less with stiff (puncture resistant) sidewalls make even a low trail bike behave twitchy due to very small contact pach. For everyday riding even racing there is no reason to use anyting smaller than 25mm (Google Bicycle Quarterly and tyre tests), though traditions and old wives tales die hard in cycling.
So the etenral question:
Do you NEED a front bag on a low trail bike?
No. This is looked wrong – ass backwards. Yes low trail bikes usually had a front bag/paniers/etc. However, I can argue that this is a result of their high trail cousins being close to unrideable when (front) loaded, so low trial was a fix for the floppy problem. Front load has many advantages (it is easily accessible for one) and does not require a massively overbuilt frame and overall ridign characteristics suffer a lot less.
Is High trail/flop ALL Bad?
Well at high speeds having the front end ‘firm’ up is for sure nice and I sometimes forget that most people out there cannot just buy some tubes and weld a bike together like I can, so you are at the mercy of what is avaialble. Most big brands keep only one type of fork rake (usually 45mm) and that leads to compromises in trail as the frames change size. In the ferrous times of old (ie pre carbon), a custom frame was coupled together with a custom steel fork, and it wasn’t solely for aesthetics.
Having ridden bikes with ridiculously high trail at quite some high speeds and now having been using 35-40mm trail bikes daily and/or many hundres of kilometers, I see aboslutely no reason why the 56mm neutral handling should be considered standard. I am even going to go as far as claiming that this is one *siginifcant* (though not only) reason for the horrific crashes you see at big professional races such as the Tour de France. Overstiff bikes with very twitchy handling for sure add to it.
The current explosion in popularity of long multiday(gravel) racing and the use aerobars (more weight at the fornt axle) in my opinon would lead us to rediscover what French contructeurs had found out long ago – low trail.
Front Center/Toe Overlap
With the proper weight distribution between the axles as per the bike’s intended use, the wheels end up where they end up. While not directly influencing stability per se, too much front center causes a light front end which is too twitchy to control (at speed) with the tendency to wash-out under the rider on loose terrain. Toe overlap can be a byproduct of front center and it might be annoying in stop and go traffic and/or in techical hairpin turns in cyclocross or on bikes with fenders.
Toe overlap can be used, and unfortunately it is also abused by manufacturers. Big sizes (for riders with large shoes) suffer the most since increasing the headtube angle (less slack/higher number=LESS front center), in order to keep weight distribution somewhat balanced between front and rear axles (more weight towards the front of the bike; same principle as chain stay length, and not get a version of the green bike above). This seems all fine since at first glance, yes you can live with some toe overlap, though in order to keep inventory low, fork rakes come in limited sizes (or ONE size in some cases for ALL frame sizes) As you saw above more twitchy if you are already more unstable due to higher rider+bike weight (large sizes = taller and heavier riders), is NOT a good thing (coupled with too much weight on the rear axle).
Small sizes suffer from the opposite problem (slack head tube angle/lower number) in order to make toe overlap reasonable (i.e. not half your shoe), resulting in MASSIVE trail figures (62+mm), combined with the smaller overall rider weight, causing the front of the bike to be a bear to steer (or a version the green bike above). Hence why 26in/650c wheels are a viable option for small riders. As far as toe overlap, having ridden bikes both with or without, I lean towards one without. Hey, it’s custom so why not?
Stem Length and Height
Longer and/or lower stem = greater stability
This can be changed and is not directly influenced by the frame builder, however, it is a part of the whole bike stability thing (and extremely long/short stems point at frame that is the wrong size….).
Just like chain stays influence how much weight is on the rear axle you can load the front axle more by either having the stem/handlebars more forward or lower. This is important when climbing in the saddle so that the bike stays planted rather than trying to ‘wheelie.’ Also a light front end is not confidence inspiring at (high) speed cornering and causes upper body fatigue from having to constantly ‘point’ the bike forward as it veers due to road irregularities.
Bike geometry is probably the most important aspect when it comes to a “made-to-measure” bicycle frame. There is much more than just tube lengths. The frame geometry is a result of the rider straddlign and pedaling it and both should work in harmony to achieve good handling. It starts with body dimensions/proportions and continues with the rider’s functionality and finishes with the intended use of the bicycle. All you have to do in the end is connect the dots.
Theoretical Framebuilding Series.
- Part 1: My Frame is Bigger than Yours: Geometry
- Part 2: I Like Big Butts: Tube Sizes, Butting and Ride Feel
- Part 3: Metallurgy and Materials
I welcome comments, however, before asking a question please visit t
Overkill Bike: Source
8 responses to “Theoretical Framebuilding Part 1- Geometry”
You’ve got your rake-angle-trail relations completely upside-down. More rake means less trail. Less angle means more trail. Big bikes typically have more angle which means less trail and more toe overlap (bit is necessary in order to get reasonable weight distribution while keeping a reasonable wheelbase for the handling that most racers prefer).
The optimal wheelbase is a matter of preference though it does have some general trends; this is exactly why I wrote “handling that most racers prefer”. What feels twitchy to you can feel agile for someone else. Luckily, most people can test this within what is available off the shelf; being of average height, I don’t have to design a custom bike to see what longer chainstays, more trail or a longer wheelbase will feel like.
There is definitely an element of doing things because that’s how it was always done as well as reasoning that if X is good, more X is more better, and it is good to question the norms and try out things outside them. However, it is important not to get seduced by being the outsider and start believing that there is no reason and thought behind the convention. Especially an extreme outlier like yourself needs to recognise the difference between bad design and a design that simply doesn’t match your personal parameters.
Lots of frame builders have experimented with various geometries, and a lot of them still do. It is not by accident that most end up within a similar set of parameters.
We do look at bike geometry from a similar perspective, and I too feel that too much focus is being placed on fitting the contact points, but not how the rest of the bike fits under the rider. We really do agree on the basics, but there are some areas where to me it seems like you let your skewed perspective (unavoidable as an extreme outlier) and personal preference lead you too far in one direction when trying to formulate a general rule. Case in point, chainstay length and your definite claim that it is too short for all the sizes on conventional mass-produced bikes.
You mention Pegoretti, yet his stock geometry has chainstay length range of 40.5-41 cm, perfectly in line with big name bikes. That said, I’ve seen a Pegoretti custom size 55 bike with 42.5 stays. Does this Pegoretti dude even know what he is doing? Or could it be that there’s more to the whole story? (Richard Sachs, by the way, makes his stays 42+ cm primarily for better chain alignment and less friction and wear – his words.)
When I said that one person’s twitchy is another person’s agile, I didn’t talk about a 180 cm person vs a 200 cm person, both on a size 56 bike. What I’m saying is that a bike that you personally find twitchy might be considered agile by someone of similar height and proportions (as rare as that might be). Different people have different preferences, different bikes have different “styles” of handling, and different road conditions put different demands on both the rider and the bike.
Take Gianni Motta and Eddy Merckx for example. They were contemporaries, relatively close in height, and they both rode bikes designed by Ernesto Colnago. A bike designed for Motta had a 62.8 cm front-centre and 43 cm chainstays. A bike designed for Merckx bike had a 595 cm front-centre and 41.5 chainstays. The differences are much bigger than just the different frame sizes would warrant – yet do you think either of them had a bike that was wrong for them? And we’re talking 1960s steel here, exactly the material that would supposedly benefit from shorter stays for stiffness purposes if that simplified narrative was all there was to it. So when Mr Colnago designed bikes with shorter chainstays than these two, was it because he suddenly forgot how to design a bike? Colnago bikes today have chainstay lengths ranging from 39.7 to 41.4 cm across the size range, does that imply no thought being put into the design?
Here’s an anecdote from personal experience. I had a chance a few months ago to test ride several bikes back to back, including a Pinarello and a Merckx. Both of these were what I would consider the proper size for me. The Merckx felt steady and sure-footed. Keep the handlebar straight and it goes straight, turn the handlebar and it turns, always very predictable. The Pinarello had a very different character. If you try to steer it by turning the handlebar it’s easy to over steer, then overcompensate and get into trouble. But if you relax the hands and let them just keep the handlebar steady while you steer the bike by leaning it from the hips (like riding no-handed), that’s when you can stop thinking about the bike and just go where you want to go.
On my test ride, the Pinarello felt more lively and agile than the Merckx when the road surface was good, but more twitchy and chattery when the road gets bad. They are both well-designed, purpose-built bikes. The Merckx is a true Belgian bike, made for roads of variable quality, with strong winds and rain that’s never far away. The Pinarello is a true Italian bike, made for smooth paved roads, long climbs and twisty descents with frequent sequential corners and curves. Which had the longer chainstays? The Merckx. Which one was better? For me personally, the answer is “It depends.” For anyone else, it’s up to them to decide.
Sadly, most big manufacturer’s don’t put as much thought into the geometry of their bikes, especially at the ends of the size ranges. There are manufacturers of bikes that are extremely advanced and well-designed in some areas, but which show a lack of understanding of some very basic concepts when it comes to bicycle geometry. But, again, this very much doesn’t mean that nobody in the bike industry knows what they are doing other than a few choice custom builders, not that the basic design elements that most modern bikes share are misguided and wrong. You prefer relatively longer chainstays. That really does not mean that anything shorter than what you like is wrong.
Thank you very much for sharing so much knowledge. It’s been a pleasure learning from your articles here.
Perhaps the followiing bike-motorbike analogy is simply wrong and I’m asking nonsense… but as I just don’t know, I ask. Hope you don’t mind me asking.
As a former motorcyclist, I have understood that a lower center of gravity requires more leaning (for the same turn, same speed, that is), this being increased the wider the tire.
For this reason, a sport bike motorcyclist will need to lean more (or shift more body weight inwards) than his trail bike fellow at the same speed, same turn, while the lowrider motorist, with low cg and wide tires, would need to lean more than the sport bike… if his bike allowed such leaning.
This makes me wonder if the common assumption of higher bottom brackets requiring more leaning and the adjacent bigger tires require more bb drop, shall be reconsidered, specially as bicycles tires are getting wider… and more specially as I like to keep pedaling on turns… and pedal scraping is an unpleasant experience.
Sorry for my English and thank you for your time,