smartyjones
new member
Reged: 07/08/04
Posts: 20
|
|
Anyone know why Calfee does not offer any assortment of toptube slope options on its "custom" frames? This does not seem very "custom" IMO. :-)
|
rocklandbike
new member
Reged: 06/17/04
Posts: 16
|
|
Calfee has a long bit of information on this in a FAQ they have, and I'm sure they'd be happy to send it to you if you call them.
Basically what it boils down to is this: the compact frame design was invented for bike manufactures to be able to reduce the number of frames they build. Instead of bikes at a 1 or 2 cm increment, the bike companies can simply build 3 frames. They then leave the bike "fit" up to stem length, seatpost height, etc.
The problem here is that a compact frame doesn't really add anything to the ride; the supposed weight savings from a compact frame are usually lost by needing a longer seat-tube, the stiffness can be designed into the frame by the layup of the CF and more stress is put on the seat tube.
Since Calfee does true, traditional custom bikes, they don't see a need to build one "custom" that was designed to make bikes less "custom".
|
smartyjones
new member
Reged: 07/08/04
Posts: 20
|
|
If compact is a way for manufacturers to reduce the # of sizes, then why does a company like Specialized for example make the S Works road frame in a compact design in a multitude of sizes including 1 cm increments?
Companies like Serotta, Spectrum, Strong, Seven, Moots, Parlee all make custom bikes with sloping toptube options so the argument or reasoning that it is simply used by manufacturers to reduce the number of sizes available seems to hold little to no water.
There a other custopm builders who offer an array of sloping toptube options for custom bikes, including Teschner, Sycip, Merlin, etc... :-)
|
Dave_Thompson
prophet
Reged: 12/19/03
Posts: 717
Loc: Spokane, Washington
|
|
I believe it has more to do with the lugs. As in steel bikes, the lugs determine what the angles are. To have many different lugs that would allow a variety of top tube angles, would be very costly to a small builder like Calfee.
It also may be that Calfee doesn't see a need for compact frames. I suspect he is more than very busy filling orders far into the future.
--------------------
Steel lover, but then I like Ti with carbon too.
Licensed bike geek.
|
bfd
journeyman
Reged: 12/22/03
Posts: 77
|
|
Smarty responds:
<If compact is a way for manufacturers to reduce the # of sizes, then why does a company like Specialized for example make the S Works road frame in a compact design in a multitude of sizes including 1 cm increments?
Companies like Serotta, Spectrum, Strong, Seven, Moots, Parlee all make custom bikes with sloping toptube options so the argument or reasoning that it is simply used by manufacturers to reduce the number of sizes available seems to hold little to no water.>
I believe the *original* intent of compact frames were for mfrs to reduce the # of sizes. I'm not sure, but I believe Giant was one of the first to come out with compact frames and they were offered in very limited sizes.
However, the concept of "compact" frames as a design choice has been adopted now as the *standard*, and currently used by the pro teams, and thus, has now become more of a trend/fad. Therefore, most mfrs now offer this design.
It should be noted that not all mfrs have adopted the compact design. For instance, the "most successful" pro team currently riding the Tour does NOT use or offer a compact frame.
Like 1" headtube, I know that's another issue, Calfee has given good reason why he doesn't offer it. Personally, I agree with his decisions.....
|
superunleaded
captain
Reged: 12/22/03
Posts: 223
|
|
Me too think its in the lugs. It cost a lot to make a lot of molds with different angles that's why we're seeing a lot of wrapped joints lately to accomodate most of those "customized" frames.
--------------------
***Regular Unleaded - 4.99
***Special Unleaded - 7.99
***Superunleaded - Arm & a Leg
|
Lon
sage
Reged: 12/20/03
Posts: 595
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
|
|
bfd...Smarty doesn't like to listen. You see he is always right because he is so smart.
You hit the nail on the head. It is a fad/trend and people want it for that reason and that reason only. There is absolutely no reason or rationale for the compact frame. Just like the 1 1/8th head tube it was for cost savings by the big manufacturers. Giant was first. I read Bicycle Retailer and that is the exact reasons given to the merchants.
It wasn't too long ago that Ti was the big in thing. Everyone wannabe was buying ti frames, ti bolts, ti water cages etc. and paying way more than most of it was worth. Now it is carbon and folks are doing the same thing. Campy and their $800 crank that was such a poor design that they redid it in one year is a perfect example. Whoever paid that much just wanted the newest and hottest crank out there not any performance increase. The water bottle cages are another example. The Record ones are an unreal price. However I have seen now where if you buy the group they throw in the cages.
The person I know who has forgotten more about bikes and racing than most know is completely against the compact frame as they tend not to be as stable in high speed descents...50 mph up over 60 mph. He feels Beloki's problem stemmed from the frame acting up and he grabbed the brake and it locked up the rear brake and it takes hardly any time at all to melt the glue and roll a tubular off. Watch carefully next time they show it and watch his hands. Lance was the only one to say he locked up his brakes and he had the best view. He said that right after that stage and it kind of went unnoticed. I'd suspect that since he saw the brakes lock up that he immediately was looking for a place to bail out. I'd guess that is why he was able to avoid him. Without any warning at all he would have not been able to do that.
Take care.
|
smartyjones
new member
Reged: 07/08/04
Posts: 20
|
|
I agree Dave and Super, its in the lug cost, not anything else.
Lon, stop crying like baby, you sound like a kiddie. :-) 
|
smartyjones
new member
Reged: 07/08/04
Posts: 20
|
|
1 18 headtubes and compact frames are fads, but you think a different seatpost is creating a different ride?
I think you have been perhaps hitting the sauce a bit too much Lon dear, too funny. :-)
Edited by smartyjones (07/08/04 11:07 PM)
|
smartyjones
new member
Reged: 07/08/04
Posts: 20
|
|
Hey Lon:
I suggest you go have a good talk with Tom Kellogg at Spectrum about compact frames being less stable on high speed descents, because that guy has in fact forgotten more about bikes than you or your anonymous pal have in probably 10 or 20 of your lifetimes.
And how you determined that Beloki's crash was the result of a compact frame, well, only you and the Tooth Fairy know the answer to that, talk about reaching for a conclusion????????
I have a feeling old Tom would laugh immensely at a generalization like compact frames being inherently less stable at high speed descents than traditional frames. That generalization is almost as laughable as your seatpost drivel. Now lay off the sauce young man. And please do post another "brilliant" response so I can laugh at something else. Compact frames are inherently less stable, LOL.
After you get done being laughed at by Tom, go pose the same theory about compact frames being less stable to Carl Strong, Mark VanDeMark, Brent Steeleman, or perhaps Ben Serotta. That should be good for a few more laughs on their part. 
Edited by smartyjones (07/08/04 11:06 PM)
|
HeadAngle
new member
Reged: 06/30/04
Posts: 14
|
|
A couple things:
bfd, you should note that Calfee does indeed offer 1 1/8 head tubes - it's noted on their web pages, and my new Calfee has 1 1/8. It may not be their standard choice but you can get it.
Calfee may not think 1 1/8 is necessary, engineering wise, and I'd agree (just like Marzocchi is saying no to 1.5 on the mtb and still producing some of the finest and strongest forks, etc.), BUT, they need to at minimum offer 1 1/8, and potentially consider standardizing on it going forward simply because it's where the industry has gone, and it will afford their riders more stem and fork options.
As for compact frames, I suspect there are multiple reasons/varying reasons among companies. I'd suspect Specialized is doing it simply because it's hot right now, and maybe they can do some cooler looking designs with it, etc. Giant might have done it for cost reasons, seems completely plausible, and it probably didn't hurt in the weight department, something they're excelling at these days (being lightweight that is).
I find it pretty hard to believe that Beloki's compact frame caused his crash. It looks more to me like a tire or equipment (other than frame, i.e. maybe brake pad + rim choice), but who knows, it's possible.
I'd be interested to know what the real reasons behind folks like De Rosa, and some others who are doing compact frames say. I've heard they're stiffer, but typically they do yield less sizes, and sometimes in larger sizes they simply don't make them (i.e. the largest compact De Rosa King isn't big enough for me).
And finally, while it is absolutely not the kind of sloping/compact frame you see on things like a Giant, at least some Calfees do have a sloping top tube (but again, you wouldn't even notice it if you didn't know or look pretty close. Look at the pictures on their web site. Obviously though these aren't "compact" frames. I don't know if Calfee lugs are limited though, because with custom geometry I don't see how you'd do that and use stock lugs in all cases. If you change say the head tube angle (as was done on mine), it will throw off the downtube, which would then throw off the BB height, and various other domino effects.
|
Lon
sage
Reged: 12/20/03
Posts: 595
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
|
|
Smarty it appears that your reading comprehension skills rank right up with your IQ. I guess that makes sense.
I did not say it was my theory but rather someone else. He was referring primarily to the Giant Compact Frame.
If you think the bike industry started into compact frames because they are a better idea you have a great deal to learn about business and marketing. That is if you are capable of learning anything.
You are wonderful at name dropping. Since it took you a very long time to reply I can only assume it took awhile for you to look all those names up on line.
If you really think because you drop some names that we will think you know them you are very mistaken. Now before you profess to know Tom K. let me tell you another friend of mine does know him well. Now just what is your name? We will pass it along to Tom.
Maybe you should tell Tom to tell his brother that he should race a compact frame since smartyjones says to do so. His brother races on the senior circuit but then I guess you would know that. I had lunch with him last year when we bumped into one another riding.
Poor smarty gets hurt easily and then comes up with such a poor return as blaming alcohol. My, My, My. I guess you really were not up to anything better.
Now you never did respond specifically to what I said. Where is the 16 pound 57 cm bike you think is so easy to build up? Just what seat posts do you own and have you compared first hand for long periods of time. Just what does Huffy spec these days? 
|
rocklandbike
new member
Reged: 06/17/04
Posts: 16
|
|
I'm not saying that's what *I* think, I'm saying that's what Calfee's FAQ on compact frames says.
|
Dave_Thompson
prophet
Reged: 12/19/03
Posts: 717
Loc: Spokane, Washington
|
|
My reply was to Smarty's post, not yours. 
--------------------
Steel lover, but then I like Ti with carbon too.
Licensed bike geek.
|
Jas0n
journeyman
Reged: 01/26/04
Posts: 62
Loc: Westchester, New York
|
|
the issue of compact frames is an interesting one. it is historically accurate to suggest that compact frames were indeed created by giant so as to be able to produce bikes in a narrower array of sizes. there are, however, practical benefits which include comfort and to an extent, stiffness. the idea behind a compact is that for any given saddle height, more seatpost is exposed in a compact frame with a shorter seat tube than in a traiditional frame. this allows more flex of the seatpost, and therefore, more comfort. this WAS particularily the case for Al frames, and is now a lesser concern with compact carbon frames. the stiffness arg. is as follows: shorter tubes (seat tube, for example) can resist force better than longer tubes (given leverage) and the frame will therefore be stiffer. to me, however, this arg. seems flawed because of two things. the leverage issue works the opposite way for the seatpost. if a shorter tube is harder to flex and a longer one is easier, then instead of the seat tube (as in a traditional frame) causing flex, in a compact frame the seatpost will now flex. any flex is a loss of effieciency; flex = energy. therein lies my second objection: i dont necessarily believe that it is the seat tube which causes flex as much as it is the bb area. engineers, please chime in here. that said, i think compact geo. is great for AL and ti bikes, but carbon, particularily custom carbon, doesn't require it (except, perhaps, for people requiring extra standover, etc ...). as for why calfee doesn't offer it, i too belive it has to do with the lugs. i also believe it has to do with calfee's design philosophy. but then again, who knows. ill ask dean the next time i speak to him.
--------------------
eat to live, live to ride
if it ain't rainin, it ain't trainin
|
smartyjones
new member
Reged: 07/08/04
Posts: 20
|
|
I have decided to get rid of my compact frame in place of a traditional geometry frame so that I can achieve downhill stability.
NOT!
Anyone who thinks that a compact frame creates an unstable or less stable bike than a traditional frame is either very misinformed, or a kook. Take your pick folks.
I'm sorry for making fun of you too Lonny, but between your silly post of your imaginary pal and his "theory" about compact frames being less stable to your even more ridiculous drivel about Mr. Experts claim the compact frame being the cause of Belokis crash, combine these with your "oh I can feel the seatpost difference" and it's just too funny. It would be a howl I imagine discussing all your theories on bikes purely for the comedic aspect of it. ROTFLMAO
 
PS - I have also heard that Lon is very scared of the 2% toptube slope Calfee puts on his road frames, his imaginary pal expert told him the 2% makes the bike unrideable on descents. Bad move Calfee, should have nixed the 2% slope , LOL.
|
smartyjones
new member
Reged: 07/08/04
Posts: 20
|
|
I don't necesarily agree or disagree with the compact frame stiffness argument. However, the few statements in here by Lonny who "claims" his anonymous very knowledgeable pal thinks compact frames are unstable on descents is full of it to say the least. His discussion concerning Belokis crash and a compact frame is utter trashola, and that's being kind to call it only that. :-)
And actually Lonny Boy there are in fact good reasons for sloping toptube frames contrary to your belief that NONE exist. Sloping toptube bikes provide an excellent way to get more headtube length for a given toptube standover height without using a long headtube extension above the toptube. And yes, smaller triangles in a bike frame just like in any other structure are inherently stiffer than larger triangles in a similiar size frame using the same tubesets, this is basic mechanics! Will it make a difference for the typical rider? Who knows, but it certainly will not be less stiff than a same size traditional frame using the same tubeset.
As far as the longer seatpost flexing more than the seatpost in a traditional frame, well, that I buy into also, but when you are climbing out of the saddle, there isn't any seatpost flex in either case so in this instance you do theoretically get a stiffer performance enhancing ride with a compact versus traditional geometry frame for a given tubeset and overall frame geometry. 
|
smartyjones
new member
Reged: 07/08/04
Posts: 20
|
|
Actually Lonny, the reason it took me a while to reply is because unlike you, I don't live in here?
It's also amazingly funny how you have no issue at all in attempting to lamely "support" your side of an issue by stating bullsheot about your anonymous, "very knowledgeable" friend having his opinions on compact frames. But when I turn around and name, real names, real builders who would laugh at your anonymous pals theories, all of a sudden using other people to support my side of the argument does not seem to sit well with you. At least i provide real names of people who would laugh at your friend, all you can provide is an anonymous Mr. X.
Can you say Hypocrite Lonny? LOL 
|
Dave_Thompson
prophet
Reged: 12/19/03
Posts: 717
Loc: Spokane, Washington
|
|
smartyjones:
As a disinterested observer I'll say that your personal attacks on this forum are very unwelcome. They are childish, demeaning to both you and the target, and are creating a hostile environment.
If you can't rebut what Lon is saying in an adult and civilized manner, I would politely suggest that you abandon this forum and take your attitude elsewhere. This is a forum for people who like bikes, not for flame fests. Everyone has, and is entitled to, their opinion whether it be right or wrong. A person's perception is their reality, even if another doesn't share that view.
Again, politely, knock off the flames or take it elsewhere.
Thanks.
--------------------
Steel lover, but then I like Ti with carbon too.
Licensed bike geek.
|
vaxn8r
contributor
Reged: 12/19/03
Posts: 222
|
|
Smarty, you probably do have some good knowledge to contribute so don't go away. We need all kinds of bike fanatics here or this place will die. Just tone it down and don't be so "attacking".
|
doubleD
new member
Reged: 05/06/04
Posts: 13
|
|
As a new member, I don't really know any of the players, but I have to say I've stopped reading Smarty's posts b/c they bore me. The attempts to bait arguments are a turn off, and the nasty tone ends up sounding like a politcal ad (which I also don't pay attention to).
So Smarty, if you have valid points to make, that's great but I'm not getting them b/c I can't get through your insults to find them. As for everyone else, I suggest that if Smarty continues to sling insults, just don't respond any more. Some people get off on drawing others into pissing contests, and if you ignore them long enough, they'll eventually look elsewhere.
|
smartyjones
new member
Reged: 07/08/04
Posts: 20
|
|
I'm not joking. Calfee blew it with the 2% toptube slope. Mr X thinks it makes the bike unstable. ROTFLMAO 
Interesting that the comment that sloping toptubes add no meaningful benefit or use because the same exact thing can be said about traditional toptubes. Other than the fact some tall riders like the higher TT to lean on occasionaly, there is no other compelling advantage of a traditional TT over a sloping TT design. In fact for out of the saddle climbing, comparing frames built with the same tubesets, smaller triangles should result in a marginally stiffer and more efficient frame. This is exactly why smaller frames of a given tubeset will build into stiffer bikes than larger frames of the same tubeset, smaller triangles. To compensate for the larger triangle to achieve a given stiffness, the builder inevitably ends up using stiffer, more built up and HEAVIER tubes.
As far as the weight issue goes, with a sloping TT design you are shortening 4 pipes, the TT, the ST and seatstays and lengthening 1 pipe, seatpost. Hard to imagine some negligible benefit is not gained there in the weight to weight comparison for the sloping design - a point of interest to all weight weenies.
Now, anyone with a 2% sloping Calfee frameset, please turn in your steed to me before it falls apart on a descent because it is unstable according to Mr. X. LOL
|
smartyjones
new member
Reged: 07/08/04
Posts: 20
|
|
For someone who claims they don't pay attention to my posts doubleD, you sure seem to be paying them enough attention to feel compelled to post about them???? LOL
I'm sure Lon is a big enough boy to handle himself without you playing protective mommy for him.
Edited by smartyjones (07/14/04 04:31 PM)
|
Bruce
contributor
Reged: 12/27/03
Posts: 133
Loc: North of NYC
|
|
I'm not convinced compact frame design has any advantages in my size (60), so I have not bothered to look into those frames. I do know my seatpost is not as strong as my seatpost tube due simply to the diameter of the tubes, so why would I want more of a weaker tube. Also, I notice no stiffness issues, so why do I need a stiffer frame? Other bikes I have ridden have stiffness issues, not Calfee.
As for SJ, we've seen him before. Same writing style. It is kind of fun watching him make a fool of himself again, but then that is his right.
|
smartyjones
new member
Reged: 07/08/04
Posts: 20
|
|
I do not recall ever saying you needed a stiffer frame Bruce, did anyone in here suggest you did? Because you do not notice stiffness issues in your frame as a result of your "power" Bruce, does this mean this applies to everyone else??
Is a 2 degree TT slope technically a compact frame?
It is good that you laugh at my posts because I certainly laugh at many posts I see in here including yours, laughter is good for the soul.
Perhaps we should start a new thread for some more laughs, what shall we discuss? Perhaps:
a) "I Just Bought a Digital Scale to Weigh My Components" -that would be a Calfee Forum classic, the amateur rider who weighs his components!
or b) "Don't Paint that Frame, You'll Save Weight"
Yeah, like any amateur rider who isn't a complete NUTCASE would tell someone not to paint a frame because of weight saving issues, LMAO. Maybe Lance should have Johan strip his OCLV so he can ride fast like guys in here who promote not painting their Calfee in order to save weight, sound good Bruce?
or c) "I Can feel the difference in my carbon seatpost, I really Can."
Let me know which new thread we'll have some fun with. Laughter is healthy. And of course, if those classics above do not work, we could always send a group email to Tom Kellogg and tell him how silly he is building inherently less stable compact frames according to Lon's Mr. X. frame genius, LOL. Maybe I can get Kahuna to sell me his "compact" Spectrum Ti at a bargain price so he doesn't crash on a big descent as a result of its compact frame design instability??? Maybe we could get Belocki in on the conversation too?? Now we are talking some comedy.
|
Nev
captain
Reged: 05/03/04
Posts: 375
Loc: Never where I want to be
|
|
In suggesting all you Calfee folks are "nutcases."
One look at all the threads on this site clearly shows THIS is the only group of truly obsessive bike freaks that live and chat and don't care about anything else in life.
I gotta get me a Calfee.
Yum!
|
Bruce
contributor
Reged: 12/27/03
Posts: 133
Loc: North of NYC
|
|
Well now we know SJ is the same flammer we had in the old forum. I thought my post would flush him out and I was certainly right. Good to have him back livening up the debate.
I seem to recall this was the guy who was going to be the Westchester area, but then never wrote me to meet him for a ride around our hills. Oh well, he probably had some technical reason he could not bring his bike. Too bad, he missed some really great riding around here.
|
smartyjones
new member
Reged: 07/08/04
Posts: 20
|
|
I couldn't help it Bruce. You have to admit some of these threads and the comments are wonderful comedy.
What we really need to do is start a fun thread such as: Why I Continued to Ride My New Carbon Frame Even Though I knew the Rear Wheel was Rubbing the Chainstay. I think you are familiar with this one Bruce.
Guy buys new carbon frame. Guy rides new Carbon frame. Guy notices rear wheel rubbing on carbon frame chainstay. Guy keeps riding carbon frame anyway (maybe he thought the magic carbon fairy would somehow make the problem disappear on its own???LOL). After enough damage is done, Guy calls Calfee and says, something ain't right with my frame????
Craig Calfee, being the great guy he is graciously helps and fixes the problem quickly. But you just know, Craig had to be thinking to himself: What kind of complete friggin moron would continue to ride a carbon frame AFTER he knew the rear wheel was rubbing the chainstay??? That thread was a riot. LOL
|
smartyjones
new member
Reged: 07/08/04
Posts: 20
|
|
I just read a Calfee forum thread where a guy was asking about advice on buying a Tetra Pro vs a Dragonfly and 1 inch vs 1 1/8th inch headtube options?
One Calfee board regular responded that he should definitely go with the 1 inch model because of the weight savings (this is almost as classic as the Calfee classic "please don't paint your frame, you'll save weight drivel). Yeah, like any even SEMI RATIONAL amateur rider is gonna worry about weight savings in their HEADTUBE DIAMETER SELECTION?????????????? ROTFLMAO Only in here would you see this type of comment! Yes,honey, I have 10+% body fat, but I did sleep in a Holiday Inn last night and man, saving that 15 grams on the smaller headtube diameter made all the difference baby!
BUTTTT, the same thread gets even better if you can believe it! Next, another one of the esteemed board regulars attempted to convince the poor guy that the 1 inch headtube bike would ride more comfortable, but the 1 1/8th model would climb and descend better , LMAO!!
ONLY on the Calfee owners site could you have amateur riders providing advice on weight savings on a headtube diameter selection, advice not to paint a frame to save weight, talk about feeling the difference in a carbon seatpost, and of course that famous - "choose the 1 inch headtube idea" - because its more comfortable, but the 1 1/8th will climb better. Last, we must never forget the board beauty where the guy claimed when he put different wheels on his Calfee, yes because of better wheel AERODYNAMICS, he claimed he increased his speed on a STATIONARY, yes a STATIONARY trainer from the low 20's to over 30 mph, ROTFLMAO!!
You have to admit Bruce, some of these posts are funny with their wild exaggerations and BS. Cmon, have a sense of humor bud, it'll be ok, smile.
Good weekend fellas, do not take this stuff sooo seriously, your posts may in many cases be completely ridiculous, but they are fun, and that's what its all about.
---- Don't worry guys, I'm still trying to reach Johan so that he can strip Lances bike of paint before the AD TT so he'll have a shot. Gotta get rid of that terrible frame paint weight penalty.
|
smartyjones
new member
Reged: 07/08/04
Posts: 20
|
|
Well, I tried my best to convince Postal and Lance to strip that frame of paint before todays ITT. I was shocked that Lance was able to ride up that climb at that speed with all that paint on his frame. Admittedly they had to tweak his ride for weight regs, but the "Save the weight, don't paint it" stuff still remains a comedy classic.
Maybe Ullrich should have stripped his frame??????
|
skuke
captain
Reged: 12/22/03
Posts: 323
|
|
Quote:
smartyjones wrote:
Well, I tried my best to convince Postal and Lance to strip that frame of paint before todays ITT. I was shocked that Lance was able to ride up that climb at that speed with all that paint on his frame. Admittedly they had to tweak his ride for weight regs, but the "Save the weight, don't paint it" stuff still remains a comedy classic.
Apparently, they did listen to you and stripped the paint only to learn that they failed to make minimum weight (doh!) and had to quickly apply decals to look like paint since it wouldn't have had time to dry. :-)
--------------------
Skuke
95 Carbonframes Tetra Pro
92 Bridgestone MB-1
90 Moser 51.151
|
Nev
captain
Reged: 05/03/04
Posts: 375
Loc: Never where I want to be
|
|
Quote:
skuke wrote:
Quote:
smartyjones wrote:
Well, I tried my best to convince Postal and Lance to strip that frame of paint before todays ITT. I was shocked that Lance was able to ride up that climb at that speed with all that paint on his frame. Admittedly they had to tweak his ride for weight regs, but the "Save the weight, don't paint it" stuff still remains a comedy classic.
Apparently, they did listen to you and stripped the paint only to learn that they failed to make minimum weight (doh!) and had to quickly apply decals to look like paint since it wouldn't have had time to dry. :-)
What is all this?
What I do know is when I let my road machine sit for too long (making up quality time with my mtb honeys) and then go for a ride I'm always thinking "What happened? Why you angry? Why so slow?" But then I remember I forgot to get the dust off...all that slowing me down.
-------------------
Nev
ROAD:
Carbon fork and steerer tube
Carbon seat post (for more comfy-ness)
Carbon stem risers
MTB:
Carbon bars
Carbon shoe soles
|
Previous
Thread Index
Next
Threaded
Calfee Compact Frame Options
Edit
Reply
Quote
Re: Calfee Compact Frame Options
[Re: 
Re: Calfee Compact Frame Options
Re: Calfee Compact Frame Options
Re: Remember this recent thread people?