Jump to content

Perfection Is A Beautiful Thing!


monkeyseemonkeydo

Recommended Posts

Haha, yeah maybe Mark...

In practice the stem option isn't the same as a 35deg stem long enough to put the bars at an equivalent height would mean a longer reach.

Not really, you could just use, say, a 110x35 stem instead of a 95x10 and a load of spacers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Istill think that either having to run a load of spacers/wierd stem makes the design fundamentally flawed. That said, this bike looks awesome!

That's what I was thinking at first, but then I thought about the fact that I'm currently running over 8" rise bars on my BMX :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I should point out that the main reason I run soooo many stackers is that the fork steerer is internally threaded for the topcap. I didn't want to cut the steerer down too much in case I ran out of thread, particularly as I don't have access to a tap to extend the thread. I don't need that many and it does look OTT but I'm happy with it and can't be bothered changing it now :P.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't mean to start a steerer tube debate - was just thinking and typing!

Not really, you could just use, say, a 110x35 stem instead of a 95x10 and a load of spacers?

Yes, I agree for longer stems/reach and as a compromise to use with the current design....but to me neither option looks right on a streety bike and I must be old-school as 95mm to me still feels like a loooong stem I was thinking of something shorter!

It's obviously not a huge problem in terms of selling the bikes but in future development (not specifically the inspired but 24" trials/street crossover bikes in general) it's something that could be corrected/developed in frame design...

That's what I was thinking at first, but then I thought about the fact that I'm currently running over 8" rise bars on my BMX :P

Do you think a handlebar specifically designed for the bike would work? Something like a low BMX bar (to use with BMX stem) but with more reach built into the shape of it?

Lastly...

...but I'm happy with it and can't be bothered changing it now :P.

Sorry to use your bike as a point of criticism....it looks amazing. I can't help thinking about solutions to design problems, it's all I've ever done for the past 10 or so years, so it's inbuilt! I took your advice on the easton bar and stem by the way but haven't had a chance to ride it yet.

Edited by Dan81
Link to comment
Share on other sites

it's something that could be corrected/developed in frame design...

How would you do it, other than compromising the geometry by dropping the BB height? A super long head tube would probably look even more weird (and reduce strength at the head tube join).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How would you do it, other than compromising the geometry by dropping the BB height? A super long head tube would probably look even more weird (and reduce strength at the head tube join).

Dunno, I'd have to draw it in CAD to really work it out...also depends how much front end height there is to gain.

Thinking and typing again:

I totally agree adjusting BB height for the sake of stem stackers can be ruled out as an option. The headtube could be slightly longer (not stupid long) assuming the rest of the design is sympathetic to it. Just having the headtube taller 'at the top' and without repositioning any of the tubing or reinforcements would weaken, like you say but if you repositioning the top tube/look at the tube profile where it meets the headtube could add some height. Maybe a frame/fork combo would work better?

Another thought - what looks wierd doesn't really matter. Mod bikes look wierd (especially ridden by grown men)....to some people a bicycle with no seat is wierd....it's just perception, people just get used to what they see. Design development always has to come before perception.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How would you do it, other than compromising the geometry by dropping the BB height? A super long head tube would probably look even more weird (and reduce strength at the head tube join).

Wouldn't you be able to ovalise the tubes more to give them more weld area? And wouldn't having the tubes attaching to the headtube a bit further apart give them more stiffness and strength? Just thinking about it in terms of, say, weight lifting where you try and spread your hands apart to even out the load and balance it better (as well as provide a stiffer structure), whereas if your hands were right by each other the bar it'd be easier to have the weight twist down to either side? I'm aware that's a wank description, but I couldn't really think of any other way to put it...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wouldn't you be able to ovalise the tubes more to give them more weld area? And wouldn't having the tubes attaching to the headtube a bit further apart give them more stiffness and strength? Just thinking about it in terms of, say, weight lifting where you try and spread your hands apart to even out the load and balance it better (as well as provide a stiffer structure), whereas if your hands were right by each other the bar it'd be easier to have the weight twist down to either side? I'm aware that's a wank description, but I couldn't really think of any other way to put it...

...same as what I meant and explained just as badly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wouldn't you be able to ovalise the tubes more to give them more weld area? And wouldn't having the tubes attaching to the headtube a bit further apart give them more stiffness and strength? Just thinking about it in terms of, say, weight lifting where you try and spread your hands apart to even out the load and balance it better (as well as provide a stiffer structure), whereas if your hands were right by each other the bar it'd be easier to have the weight twist down to either side? I'm aware that's a wank description, but I couldn't really think of any other way to put it...

Yeah but you also lose some of the strength/rigidity that the slight join in the top/down tubes provides, I'd have thought. Not going to be a huge difference either way really.

Personally I see no reason to need to do it - running a slightly different geometry stem puts the bars in the same place, job done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah but you also lose some of the strength/rigidity that the slight join in the top/down tubes provides, I'd have thought. Not going to be a huge difference either way really.

Personally I see no reason to need to do it - running a slightly different geometry stem puts the bars in the same place, job done.

If there's still a gap you can have a little plate in there. All I was saying is that either a 100x10 stem with a mountain of spacers or a longer/much higher stem don't looks right on a streety bike...it's just something that looks like it could be corrected in the frame with some development.

Edited by Dan81
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah but you also lose some of the strength/rigidity that the slight join in the top/down tubes provides, I'd have thought.

It doesn't mean much, but none of the BMX frames I've ridden have had a sort of join there. Tree even specifically made their newest frame with a gap there...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...