the new road bike
Here's the drawing, rip away!
Got the tubes from HJ for my 50th birthday.
7/4/7 DT (34.9mm) and TT (31.8mm), OX platinum
9/6 ST (28.6mm) Verus, (will 'walt sleeve')
1.0 HT (36mm), OX plat.
27x20 mm oval CS, Ox plat.
16 mm vht SS
It's a bit thinner than the first frame so I'll be doing some practice brazing that's for sure!
I'm impressed that you can still ride with that much bar drop at age 50.
At 6'5" I'm a huge sail. When I was riding with the club I often rode in the drops while everyone else was on the hoods.
It's funny, 12 years ago my back was so bad I was bed ridden and now I'm fine in the drops except that it is hard on my neck and difficult to see forward.
Riding on the hoods is no problem at all.
I'm going with the 210 mm HT because it is hard to go lower if the HT is too long. Going the other way I have lots of choice for spacers and stem.
Yeah, that looks like the position I used to ride on the track!
Overall, looks great to me. I mean, it's a road bike. If it kinda fits you and rides straight, you're pretty much good. It's not like you'll be doing drops or hopping barriers on it.
Thanks Walt. With this frame I'm worried about warping more than anything else. Although the main tubes are only a bit thinner than my 1st frame the headtube is way thinner.
I'm guessing heating that puppy all the way 'round will help keep it straight when I'm doing the DT and TT joints?
Nothing twitchy in the geo. numbers? I was beside a guy who got a bad headshake at 60 km/h (down a hill) a few years ago. I don't want that kind of handling.
You can get into an endless argument about shimmy but there's really nobody that will say that the trail number or head tube angle is the determining factor as far as I know. 57mm trail is totally normal for a road bike and it'll work fine. If you happen to end up with something *just right* to create that harmonic...doh. But AFAIK there is no way to know in advance what frame or component configuration will cause problems, you've just gotta cross your fingers and build it.
I'd agree with the "it's a road bike so it should work" attitude, but seeing that you're 6' 5" (and not knowing how much of that is in your legs) I'd throw out this out just for the sake of thinking about things:
I've known other really tall guys who rode with low bars, but that's because they were used to riding stock frames that topped out at 60 or 62 cm and that was the only way to get a flat-ish back. These frames also seemed to be stuck in traditional proportions limited by 24" long tubes. So the position that worked for them wasn't really the best position, it was the best they could achieve based on limits on what the market had to offer.
I ran into a similar problem: once I was old enough to have to wear nice clothes every now and then I figured out that I couldn't wear off-the-rack dress shirts because my arms are 2" longer than average. Once I started taking this into account I realized that what I thought was a good position on my bikes was actually kind of jacked up. I had always slammed my seat back so I could fit my upper body on stock frames and didn't realize the tight hip angle was working against me. Now that I have longer bikes I've moved 1-2" forwards and opened up my hip and things are much better. But if you had asked me 10 years ago I would have sworn my position was perfect, just because that's how I had to set up every single stock frame I've ever ridden. It was, what, confirmation bias?
So, how about moving the bars a decent amount up and forwards? Do you have access to a fit stem by any chance?
You'd probably want longer stays too just to keep things balanced.
Yeah, let me clarify - fit is paramount here. I was attempting to say that worrying about half a degree of head tube angle or 5mm of chainstay length isn't going to matter, because it's a road bike so it will mostly just be going in a straight line on smooth pavement.
I'm all legs-38" true inseam, and super long arms.
I had always slammed my seat back so I could fit my upper body on stock frames and didn't realize the tight hip angle was working against me.
That lankiness has me running a 120 mm stem on a 630 mm TT El Mariachi with a straight post (73 SA), and a 110 mm stem with a 650 mm TT on my 1st frame using a straight post (72 SA). In both cases I did exactly what you said and brought the saddles on the MTBs forward over the past few years. I don't have front end traction if I run shorter stems, and the bikes are cadillac comfy due to my long arms. Bars are about 2" below seat height.
For this new road bike I want the same the saddle position of my mountain bikes.
At one time I had my road bike's saddle more than an inch further forward than one of the MTBs and it felt really weird switching back and forth between the three bikes. At this point I set the saddle position of all three bikes in the exact same place: MTB seats came forward, road bike saddle came back.
The old road bike (1985 Raleigh) has a seat angle greater than 75 degrees. To copy the MTB saddle position I needed the saddle all the way back, on a post with 28 mm of offset.
As for the bars on the Raleigh, they are 3 3/4 inches below seat height. I actually could go a bit lower which would help my aerodynamics. The TT on the old beast is a very short 570 mm and I'm running a 135 mm stem as a result. The stem is maybe a cm too long to be honest, but I had no issues at all doing a 4 1/2 hour club ride at 30 km/h with this set up.
The drawing puts the new bike's bars about 1 cm further back, and considerably lower (using a 120 mm stem and 10 mm of spacers), however there's room on the steerer for another inch of spacers.
This is what I'm wondering, is my TT length long enough? If I do bring my saddle forward, I'll end up with a 140 m stem on the thing. I can get hold of a fit stem, yes, but that won't help after she's built.
So, how about moving the bars a decent amount up and forwards? Do you have access to a fit stem by any chance?
I'm liking what Welby is saying here. When you build it yourself, FOR yourself, always take the opportunity to open up the front center on your bike, Tall Man. Ditch all those things we've gotten used to having to PUT UP WITH in off-the-rack stuff. I don't know shite about road bikes, but if the same principles apply in general, it is the best thing I've ever experienced on my MTBs. The feeling of sitting, and having my hands, well behind the front axle is not to be missed, and the ability to fiddle with the cockpit without doing something that wonks out some aspect of ergo/geo is truly a joy.
As a for-instance, I am the same height, 36" inseam, 37" sleeve, and my ETT is 660mm. You don't show WB, or more importantly FC ( Eyes opened, thanks to Walt.), but my FC is 744mm. It has been nothing short of liberating.
Last edited by TrailMaker; 11-01-2013 at 06:56 PM.
Reason: Punctuation for Clarity
Most people ply the Well Trodden Path. A few seek a different way, and leave a Trail behind.
- John Hajny, a.k.a. TrailMaker
+1 on longer chainstays, wont be a negative on the shimmy issue imho.
We're all susceptible to confirmation bias! Good to point that out Dr. W.
I agree, but I have thought about it and went a different route. Since I know how the old bike fits I copied a lot of measurements. Distance from the BB to the bars on the X axis is what I used. The old Raleigh has this at 513 mm, and the Bike CAD drawing has it at 507 mm.
You don't show WB, or more importantly FC ( Eyes opened, thanks to Walt.), but my FC is 744mm. It has been nothing short of liberating.
You think I could make the TT a bit longer too?
EDIT FC is 618 mm
It's a poorly dimensioned print. It's missing all of the fit dimensions that you would need in designing a custom bike.
Take a look at the print on this page for an example: PVD TRON Light Cycle | Peter Verdone Designs
I really don't get why you'd show ETTL, it doesn't mean anything. You can just remove that to free your mind.
You may also want to move up to a 1.5" DT.
I didn't print all the dimensions on the drawing because the free software had a lot of the figures overlapping making them difficult to read.
Believe me, I have enough on notepad to do the trig required for the front triangle.
I've also got a whole slew of stems, bars, and bikes in the basement that I'm comparing and working with. I've measured all their dimensions and fit numerous times today so it's not like I'm walking into this blind.
(I'd be in way over my head if I hadn't done this, or if I was doing it for someone else)
I showed ETT because the free program won't show the actual TT. I need to calculate its length (and the DT) with the data provided.
A 1.5 DT would stiffen things up a bit more wouldn't it?
I did end up lengthening the ETT by 25 mm to 625 mm so I don't end up needing a huge long stem on the finished frame.
I'll wade in and agree with Dr Welby. I also used to race Team Raleigh's of early 1980's vintage before liberating myself on my own frames.
I will point out that a road bike should be different to a MTB and needs to be set up to suit the role for what they are rather than being the same across the range. Having said that, I made a multi-purpose bike for all disiplines and change over wheels for where I ride, my secret is in the multi use h/bar that I designed.
Just to be different, I also went 75 degrees on seat tube, ISM saddle which equals 20mm behind the BB on a conventional seat and its a dream. But this is what works for me. I used Strawberry Cycles bike set-up site to look at variables. 50mm saddle to h/bar drop is not much for a person of your height, I am a little less at 6'2" but run lower and 5 yrs older. It is all in the hips that Dr Welby refers to. Fixes back problems too!
Last edited by Eric Malcolm; 11-02-2013 at 03:03 AM.
If I don't make an attempt, how will I know if it will work?
Thanks Eric. Actually I agree with you and the good doctor. This movement forward with saddle position is very recent for me and happened on my MTBs almost by accident trying to match the seating position of my 3 bikes. 15 years ago I was just like Dr. W., with a set back post and the rails slid all the way back.
In getting my Salsa El Mar. seat position correct I now have a zero offset Thomson and the saddle even in the rails.
This same bike I monster-crossed a few years ago but had the seat way back and an offset post. I needed a tiny little 45 degree stem because I couldn't reach the hoods. I just assumed the poor fit was because it was a MTB frame.
Last night I went to the basement and slapped a 100 mm 6 deg stem and some road bars on it and it fit perfect.
Go figure, I had moved my seat that much forward over the last few years.
I stretched out the plans a bit over the last 24 hours. HT is now 220 from 210, and the TT has gone up from 600 to 625. Hopefully that's it for changes.
I have long legs and built this my new monster road commuter
I had to use the shortest possible stem there was. and a short/shallow bar. and max amounts of spacers.
I could easily go 2-3cm longer or 2 cm lower, but probably not both.
and yah you get used to the short stem in like 2 seconds.
I doubt it. You have what I would call a rough start rather than a final if you are still swapping stems and think it fits 'perfect' in your basement. It sounds like you have a lot more design work to do on the frame. There's more to learn that it sounds like you haven't. Not to worry, learning is good. Also, design doesn't cost you anything so you can do it all night long. In the end, it will result in a better bike.
Originally Posted by dru
Most folks think they know how to design a bike. They spend a few minutes throwing some lame numbers on a page then the next 4 months building the frame. Completely in reverse of what would be done if they knew.
It's clear by the way you have your print dimensioned that you still haven't figured it out. You don't need to rush. Learn to design a bike before you build it.
I know people that have fancy names and have loyal followings that have no idea how to design a bike, so you can make the choice you like. I just don't see why someone would want to do this as a hobby just to slap some tubes together randomly.
Another thing I think about is scaling.
Let's say that at this point the frame of the average cyclist (5' 10" male) is just about perfect. And for this thought experiment we'll agree that it's a 56 square frame with 410 stays.
If we scale up this 70" tall rider to 6' 5", that's +10%.
That would give you a 61.6 frame with a 61.6 top tube. But most frames larger than 56 are shorter in length than their effective frame size. Also traditionally they get slacker seat tubes, so their front centers are even shorter. So the top tube doesn't seem to scale.
Stems - our average rider might ride a 90 or 100, going up 10% to a 100 or 110 seems normal, maybe short.
Cranks - if the average rider is on 170s, the tall rider might be on 180s, but certainly not 187s. If you assume scaling and a similar KOPS position, this means the tall rider would have to move their seat back to keep the same position relative to the pedal spindle. The slacker seat angle takes care of this, I guess.
Chainstays - with the exception of Jobst Brandt, you're not going to see too many stock 'race' bikes with 451 chainstays. They're usually around 420 on the bigger sizes. I guess the question is then whether the weight distribution has changed. It's quite possible that the stays have increased in length to match the increase in front center. Maybe bikes have scaled more in the Y direction than X?
So then my question is, why don't bikes scale uniformly? I can see than in getting smaller you run into toe clip overlap as a limitation. For bigger bikes I assume the traditional limit was tube length (pre-mountain-bike). At either end of the bell curve the builder has less opportunity for testing and feedback, and the consumer has less options to try something 'right' to begin with, and you end up with a bad feedback loop.
Maybe something about bike handling is non-linear? Lets assume 'stability' is a linear function of the height of the center of gravity and of the wheelbase. If we scale up a bike 10%, then does 'stability' go up 21%? So we scale more in the vertical dimension for fit?
Disclaimer, I'm 6' and this is just random stuff I think about.
You are a funny guy Peter. You are super talented (I've seen your work too) as many here have commented, yet you lack civility and tact more often than not. Many who are just as talented are quite gracious by comparison. A change towards this behaviour on your part will pay you much in dividends in your personal life.
As for my own experiences building, my 1st frame turned out exactly as I planned with respect to geometry. It works far better than I expected to be honest. Sure lots of things are out of alignment, as one would expect for a total noob, but my geometry is spot on.
The bit about throwing a road stem on my MTB has little to do with the new road frame but was part of a conversation about saddle position started by Dr. Welby.
As well, I mentioned that I have a road bike that fits. I know its dimensions and the length of the stem it has. It isn't too hard to extrapolate these data to another frame, nor is it very hard to extrapolate the data I have for saddle position from the three bikes I own.
I'm more than capable of figuring out far away the bars are from the BB on the X axis, and as I stated I know where my saddles sit in relation to the BB as well
None of this stuff is rocket science, Peter, especially since I am using very conventional geometry.
My move to 625 mm from 600 has to do with stem length as you already know. As for HT length I added a cm because I don't want a bike with 35 mm of spacers.
I'm not even mentioning all the math needed in figuring out how long to cut the tubing after the mitering is accounted for.
None of this stuff equals 'slapping tubes together randomly', and you are insulting probably everyone here aside from myself.
I've seen a photo of you and you have a look of smug arrogance on your face. Sadly I suspect it is a true representation.
I don't know man, i think pvd has lots of knowledge and is therefore allowed to complain a bit. I see no poblem with it. remember this the ****ing internet and anyone is free to write whatever the **** they want. I'm not holding back either. I just don't give a fuk.
And this is what the internet is for imo!!!! Isn't it better you get critique from people that know their **** than keep thinking its all good?
i love this "free word" mentality of the internet. No where else would you get the info. Bad and good. but you have to remember its still just one persons opinion. Although some persons opinions are a lot better and accurate than others.
Do what you like. Be careful of what you think you 'know'. I was hoping to inspire you to find out what you don't. Obviously, that has so far failed.
Sigh. Another interesting thread doomed to be locked.
By Agwan in forum Commuting
Last Post: 09-02-2014, 03:17 AM
By trumpus in forum Cyclocross
Last Post: 05-31-2013, 09:48 AM
By nycstripes in forum General Discussion
Last Post: 05-30-2013, 11:15 AM
By katoom400 in forum Commuting
Last Post: 04-01-2013, 04:59 PM
By wheels_replace_horses in forum Bike and Frame discussion
Last Post: 12-29-2009, 07:12 PM