Limace
journeyman
Reged: 03/09/05
Posts: 54
Loc: Oregon
|
|
After having seen several of the new and newer carbon bike offerings a disturbing thought has occurred to me. All of these bikes seem to feel the need to made the tubes in "interesting" designs and shapes, but Calfee still looks like a bike.
If you could pick a spacey design for Calfee tubes, what would it be?
If you think changing the design of Calfee's tubes is not an important enought topic to waste time responding to, fine. Silence is golden.
If you think changing the design of Calfee's tubes is just wrong, the variety of words which come to mind to express that sentiment would be interesting to read.
|
beegeddie
new member
Reged: 02/24/04
Posts: 9
|
|
The shapes of the various tubes of many of the new carbon fiber bicycles is interesting and aesthetically pleasing, but I don't see any major advantages structurally over Calfee. I have to say that I'm not an engineer though.
One interesting development I've noticed lately is that the design of Colnago's CF bikes seems to be moving toward Calfee's including carbon fiber lugs.
|
Pintsized
journeyman
Reged: 02/27/05
Posts: 90
Loc: Corvallis OR
|
|
My first reaction to changing the tube shapes may be rendered in perfect Valley-ese: "Oh that is SOOO wrong!"Anything stronger and I would lose my claim to being ladylike. I like Calfee road frames because they are such a traditional shape. I liked my Cannondale for the same reason...no gimmicks.
On reflection, though, I wondered at first whether the edges of the gussetts (on the Luna and I think on some other models?) would get chipped or hit the rider in not so good places. I have never seen edges like that on a lug, i don't think. I wondered why they risked it. But if carbon is not so easy breakable, maybe it's at most a deceiving appearance, like paired spokes being fragile. Is that all it is?
|
Insightdriver
captain
Reged: 03/07/04
Posts: 472
|
|
The gussets rather than being thin as they may appear are surprisingly thick and substantial. I have looked at all the pictures in the gallery and I could not tell the thickness of the gussets. The edges of them are also relieved. I ran my finger over them and found no sharp edges on the bike anywhere.
Getting back to shapes I think there could be improvement by going to finite element analysis of the optimum shapes for each tube and shaping them in that way. The bike would look like those aluminum bikes with the hydro-formed tubes. A tubeset like that would be substantially more expensive, though. Filament-wound tubes like the ones Craig uses are made by machines so the costs can be lower. Shaped tubes would require hand layup most likely. I think a monocoque frame using the optimum tube shapes would make a frame as strong yet lighter than one made with round tubes and gusseted lugs.
|
skagwayroadie
contributor
Reged: 12/20/03
Posts: 141
Loc: Alaska
|
|
I agree with others here - I like the more traditional look and design, if the gusseted joints can be called traditional, but I think I would like the look of Calfees better if they had larger diameter tubing. I loved my Klein becuase it looked so substantial, without looking chunky or obnoxious. Kinda like comparing a fine fillet brazed steel of common small diameter tubesets to a Klein...to me the Klein is much more sleek. I think Cannondales take it too far to my eyes, but not by much. Parlees have that look too...to be honest, it is the main reason I am so drawn to them!
I always thought the Kestrel EMS roadbike line was very classy, in a high performance, Ferarri sort of way. Substantial, swoopy and clean...just my style. The seat-tubeless frame (can't remember the name at the moment) wasn't bad either, but was more odd looking than forward thinking or spacey.
Corima track frames are really nice looking as well. Very organic and curvy. Not unlike the new '05 Renault Formula 1 cars being raced this season!
|
Limace
journeyman
Reged: 03/09/05
Posts: 54
Loc: Oregon
|
|
My second bike is a Klein, and I understand exactly what you are talking about. Looking from the Klein to the Calfee always triggers interesting mixed feelings.
That being said, I put a set of Reynolds stratus on my Calfee this weekend hoping that the rain would let up. It didn't, but my Calfee now has a strangely unbalanced look to it. The frame disappears between these two honker wheels. I can't imagine what a full deep dish wheel would look like.
I keep wondering whether sitting on this set-up is going to look like I'm riding one of the little scooter cars my kids had when they were young. Fortunately, I don't have to look at myself when I'm riding. (And as general sentiments go, my wife wishes she didn't have to either.)
|
flythebike
captain
Reged: 08/26/04
Posts: 272
Loc: N. Virginia, USA
|
|
I'll see if I can get a pic of my d-fly with zipp 404s up soon. It does look a little weird.
Right now I'm wishing I had a Cervelo Soloist to double as a TT bike/windy RR/Crit bike. Aerodynamics do make a difference. And look what Bobby J rides: http://www.cyclingnews.com/tech/2005/probikes/?id=julich_csc_cervelo
|
Pintsized
journeyman
Reged: 02/27/05
Posts: 90
Loc: Corvallis OR
|
|
Hey, that website with what the pros are riding this year is super! I like the detail they give about what the different parts are. The best window-shopping in the world, and it "don't cost a thing", to paraphrase you know who.
Actually, I didn't think Julich's bike looked all that funny. I mean, I think the Cervelo has a very distinctive shape and I thnk it is sort of odd. But having the Zipps on there didn't look out of place.
The funniest (to me, anyhow) site like that I ever saw was the one about Australian cyclist Oenone Wood's Nurnberger team issue bike. It's a Fuji of all things, in size 45! God love her, a pro can be 5"2'' and under.
|
skagwayroadie
contributor
Reged: 12/20/03
Posts: 141
Loc: Alaska
|
|
Those Fuji's are great bikes...I have owned 2 of the Team Fuji's...one was steel and the other Al and they are every bit as good as any other highend ride I have owned. They are eaily the best value in the market IMHO.
The wheels almost seem larger than the frame...hehehe!!
|
bike_boy
new member
Reged: 03/09/05
Posts: 10
Loc: East Texas
|
|
Sure, there are some cool looking carbon bikes out there w/ gorgeous shaping of the tubes. But in a matter of a few years, many of these will begin to look dated. What aged road frames look as good today as they did 5, 10, 20 years ago (you get the picture)? Lugged chromoly. 
I think Calfee is doing exactly what he needs to do. Nice, clean, classy designs that will age well. Let's not forget the repairable aspect of a Calfee.
Keep up the good work.
|
skuke
captain
Reged: 12/22/03
Posts: 321
|
|
Quote:
Insightdriver wrote:
Getting back to shapes I think there could be improvement by going to finite element analysis of the optimum shapes for each tube and shaping them in that way.
Time trial bikes were going that direction until the UCI created some rules governing the "look" of a bike in competition.
Ultimately, aesthetics aside, all you need is for the handlebar, seat and pedals to be in the correct place for any given rider. And as long as the material was rigid enough to transfer pedaling energy to the drive wheel with minimal loss and turn the bike with acceptible handling qualities, it doesn't matter what the bike looks like.
Take for example Miguel Indurain's time trial bike, The Sword. It basically had no downtube. Chris Boardman's TT bike had no top tube. Early Cervelo TT bikes and production Kestrels (don't recall the model) have no seat tube. Many full suspension mt. bike don't effectively have a seat stay. Cannondale has a one bladed fork. I'm sure the list can go on. I'm also sure FEA was used in the design of all those bikes.
Granted, much of the reason for the shape of the TT bikes was for aerodynamic efficiency, but the point is that a bicycle need not look like two triangles (which is very rigid) stuck together with some wheels at the ends.
Regarding gussets. Look at some Aluminum mt. bikes. On the bottom side of the down tube, right up against the head tube is an additional piece of material welded on. Sorta beveled tube section looking thing. It's basically a gusset. Not planar like the Calfee ones, but a strengthening member none the less.
--------------------
Skuke
95 Carbonframes Tetra Pro
92 Bridgestone MB-1
90 Moser 51.151
|
Insightdriver
captain
Reged: 03/07/04
Posts: 472
|
|
I started thinking about an optimum shape for a bike. I was thinking about how we adjust seat height for proper disance to pedals and setback for proper angle, then length of stem for proper reach. This got me thinking of a beam bike that has a steerer that is moveable along the side of the beam to adjust for the virtual top tube length. This could make a one-size-fits-all frame, in theory. I'm thinking of how the steerer tube could move along a couple of rails and the headtube angle could be adjusted through a couple of degrees.
I think the different forces that are applied to a bike are pretty well understood now. The downside to thinking too far outside the box is you lose the economy of all the standar parts that are made by so many manufacturers of components. I'm thinking of what I spent on my custom Tertra Pro and realize a radical shape could be a lot more expensive if a lot of the components are not standard ones.
|
skuke
captain
Reged: 12/22/03
Posts: 321
|
|
Quote:
Insightdriver wrote:
I started thinking about an optimum shape for a bike.
<snip>
This could make a one-size-fits-all frame, in theory.
... you lose the economy of all the standar parts that are made by so many manufacturers of components.
I'm thinking of what I spent on my custom Tertra Pro and realize a radical shape could be a lot more expensive if a lot of the components are not standard ones.
I'm not sure a one size fits all is the way to go. A few sizes fits most would be better and that's the idea behind compact frames with sloping top tubes. Having said that, I can't stand the "look" of compact frames. I think they're ugly. To each his own. Anyhow, the concept of "few fits many" would reduce the cost and I'm all for that.
Regarding economy of scale for components. That is the trick isn't it. To make a bike that utilizes readily available components to maintain cost controls, but is versatile enough to be all things to all riders of all sizes.
What on your custom Tetra Pro (other than the frame itself) is not a standard size, commonly available component. You didn't have anything specially made for your bike?? Yes, you may have some esoteric, exotic part(s), but that part is a production item and reasonably available, cost notwithstanding.
--------------------
Skuke
95 Carbonframes Tetra Pro
92 Bridgestone MB-1
90 Moser 51.151
|
superunleaded
captain
Reged: 12/22/03
Posts: 223
|
|
Quote:
skuke wrote:
I Having said that, I can't stand the "look" of compact frames. I think they're ugly. To each his own.
Ditto on that but for me, this one is nicely done.
http://www.bikefanclub.com/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=1595&size=big&password=&sort=1&cat=509&page=1
And who was that guy who said he won't ride those girly bikes?  :):)
--------------------
***Regular Unleaded - 4.99
***Special Unleaded - 7.99
***Superunleaded - Arm & a Leg
|
Insightdriver
captain
Reged: 03/07/04
Posts: 472
|
|
In answer to what's on my bike, the frame is the only custom thing on it. I have an Easton fork, a King headset, FSA compact crank and Kwing handlebars. Drivetrain is 2005 10-speed Ultegra. Wheels are Mavic Ksyrium Elite. Seat is WTB and bottle cages are carbon-fiber Exhustar. Seatpost is Thompson and pedals are Time Atac Carbon. Wow, as I write it I realize I have a real mongrel of a bike. A mix of everything with hardly anything from the same manufacturer.
For the composite bike I have in mind I'm thinking of an S shape that is a u shape for the rear wheel analogous to chain stays then sweeping up to above the front wheel. I'm thinking of a sliding arangement for the steerer that could adjust the reach and steerer angle. The seatpost can angle up and to the rear from around the middle of the S shape. I don't know if I described it well enough for someone else to envision it. Sorry if I failed at that.
|
Dave_Thompson
prophet
Reged: 12/19/03
Posts: 717
Loc: Spokane, Washington
|
|
Not meaning to dis you, but isn't what you propose sort of 'reinventing' the wheel? The bicycle is one of the most elemental and successful pieces of machinery ever and you're trying to make it more complex, and not to mention heavier. Trying to make one fit all seems like an exercise that would not go anywhere. Plus the adjustability feature could be misused by a few and create legal problems if something were to go awry.
--------------------
Steel lover, but then I like Ti with carbon too.
Licensed bike geek.
|
skuke
captain
Reged: 12/22/03
Posts: 321
|
|
Quote:
Dave_Thompson wrote:
Not meaning to dis you, but isn't what you propose sort of 'reinventing' the wheel? The bicycle is one of the most elemental and successful pieces of machinery ever and you're trying to make it more complex, and not to mention heavier. Trying to make one fit all seems like an exercise that would not go anywhere. Plus the adjustability feature could be misused by a few and create legal problems if something were to go awry.
Naw, I like the exercise of discussing/creating new things. But then I'm a machinist and have worked in research and development most of my career (22+ years). I don't think Insight is reinventing the wheel as much as refining and improving it. Even if all the thoughts and ideas are futile, it's still a great exercise to go through. If it weren't for people like Insight et al, you'd still be riding a high-wheel bicycle (or worse).
Nobody needs a super adjustable bike. You only need the one size that fits you. But during the development of that super adjustable bike, you just may discover something useful. Just like going to the moon spawned off many of the things we commonly use today. Sure we may still have gotten them, but it may have come at a much later time or not be as developed today.
--------------------
Skuke
95 Carbonframes Tetra Pro
92 Bridgestone MB-1
90 Moser 51.151
|
skuke
captain
Reged: 12/22/03
Posts: 321
|
|
Quote:
Insightdriver wrote:
Wow, as I write it I realize I have a real mongrel of a bike. A mix of everything with hardly anything from the same manufacturer.
LOL! Here's what's on my bike:
White Industries 32 spoke front hub.
TNT Ti 32 spoke rear hub.
Mavic UB Reflex rims.
Wheelsmith bladed spokes in front and mostly DT spokes (double butted) in the rear.
American Classic skewers, seat post & headset.
ITM handlebar and chromoly stem.
Selle Flite seat.
Erikson Ti bottom bracket.
Topline cranks.
Speedplay pedals.
Campy Carbon Record Ergo 8sp shifters, brakes, & deuraillers. The cogset is Shimano Dura Ace with Campy spacers between the gears (to maintain shifting accuracy).
Shimano DA compatible chain and chainrings.
Carmichael jockey pulleys.
Custom made: lock rings for the Erikson BB; cable adjustment stops; seatpost clamp; bottle cage nuts; front deurailler clamp; and most bolts on the bike have been modified (weight weenie thing).
Did I redefine "mongrel"?
--------------------
Skuke
95 Carbonframes Tetra Pro
92 Bridgestone MB-1
90 Moser 51.151
|
Lon
sage
Reged: 12/20/03
Posts: 595
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
|
|
Skuke...it is probably age but I'm having trouble following the thread.
However the bike you described...if I only saw that list and somebody said what do you think...my reply would be it looks like a bike mechanic's bike. Bike shop employees don't make much but they love bikes. Often the mechanics can get parts "here and there." They then end up with odd mixes on the bike. The one element in all that equipment it is good stuff.
Just thoughts from my age addled brain...  
|
Insightdriver
captain
Reged: 03/07/04
Posts: 472
|
|
I understand where you are coming from as far as the efficiency of a double-diamond design for a bike. One must realize, though, that this is the optimum design while taking into account the limitations of the materials used to make the machine. Keep in mind, also, that the UCI banned any bike that was not a double-diamond frame because of the fear that radical new designs would have an edge over traditional designs.
I have a book,Bicycling Science, third edition, by David Gordon Wilson. This is a book full of science and engineering, certainly not an easy read. Take the bicycle chain, for example, the reason why we still use a chain is nothing else anyone has come up with is as efficient and as light as a chain for transmitting torque from the cranks to the rear wheels. That doesn't rule out some advanced technology in the future. One that comes to mind is super-stiff and light torque driveshaft and gears made from carbon composites. There may be a slight loss in efficiency and a slightly greater weigh, but imagine not having to change a change nor keep it lubed.
Everything before carbon composites are isotropic materials. You can do a lot more with anisotropic materials like composites. Where hydroforming is now being used on tubesets for some bikes, composites have a greater freedom of shaping. I would think that engineering something I envision that is not a weight weenie would be quite feasible.
|
skuke
captain
Reged: 12/22/03
Posts: 321
|
|
Quote:
Lon wrote:
Skuke...it is probably age but I'm having trouble following the thread.
However the bike you described...if I only saw that list and somebody said what do you think...my reply would be it looks like a bike mechanic's bike. Bike shop employees don't make much but they love bikes. Often the mechanics can get parts "here and there." They then end up with odd mixes on the bike. The one element in all that equipment it is good stuff.
Just thoughts from my age addled brain...
Hey Lon,
I'm jumping around this topic replying to different sub-threads. However, I always try to quote whomever it is that I'm replying. I would hope that makes for easier reading and following.
I've never worked in a bike shop. I did work in the REI bike department (gopher/schlep/mechanic apprentice) for about six months in the late 80s, long before my Tetra. It was a second job to save some money for a trip I was going on. Unfortunatly, REI is not a good place to work and try and save money at the same time :-) I actually spent more than I grossed and that was with my employee discount!
--------------------
Skuke
95 Carbonframes Tetra Pro
92 Bridgestone MB-1
90 Moser 51.151
|
skuke
captain
Reged: 12/22/03
Posts: 321
|
|
Quote:
Insightdriver wrote:
I have a book,Bicycling Science, third edition, by David Gordon Wilson. This is a book full of science and engineering, certainly not an easy read.
Take the bicycle chain, for example, the reason why we still use a chain is nothing else anyone has come up with is as efficient and as light as a chain for transmitting torque from the cranks to the rear wheels.
I have that book too! Mine is the 2nd ed. and literally read to death. My copy has chunks(!) of pages falling out from the spine and way too many pages folded and dog eared. Great book and a double thumbs up from me.
Re: chains. I believe the cog belt is slightly more energy efficient than the bicycle chain. ...something like under .5% better. The problem is shifting with it. Also, the sprockets tend to be heavier and even though the belt is lighter than the chain, total weight is greater. None the less, seems like it should be a great application for fixies.
--------------------
Skuke
95 Carbonframes Tetra Pro
92 Bridgestone MB-1
90 Moser 51.151
|
Insightdriver
captain
Reged: 03/07/04
Posts: 472
|
|
Quote:
skuke wrote:
Re: chains. I believe the cog belt is slightly more energy efficient than the bicycle chain. ...something like under .5% better. The problem is shifting with it. Also, the sprockets tend to be heavier and even though the belt is lighter than the chain, total weight is greater. None the less, seems like it should be a great application for fixies.
Yeah, I forgot about that. Your idea that it would be good for a fixie is right on. But on the other hand, a 0.5% improvement when carried out to overall efficiency isn't much. The slightest headwind would wash that out.
It is true that through years of refinement the bicycle is a very efficient machine. Needs to be considering the motors we put on them, eh? 
|
skagwayroadie
contributor
Reged: 12/20/03
Posts: 141
Loc: Alaska
|
|
Skuke...
I totally agree that the looks of the compact frames are ugly, but they are starting to grow on me. Well, I accept them more rather than liking them, actually. I respect thier stregnths in design, but a standard frame just looks right, perhaps more balanced. I think that is the reason why I prefer fatter tubed frames over smaller ones...especailly when the deep profile wheels are on, like others have mentioned!
One other thing about belts...they need tension to work well, and that reduces efficiency and also wears out the bearings more quickly. So despite the weight issue, that aspect bothers me. Getting a little of track...the comment about belts over chains reminds me of the internal geared hub, Rohloff. There was a great idea, that never took off. No doubt due to price, but I wonder if other issues were at play. Yes, it is a heavy hub, but it seems to be well thought out and executed. The ability to change gears without spinning was a nice touch. I really like the simplicity in asthetics it gave the bike. It looked like a fixie, but wasn't. It was oxymoronic and I love that!
...Mark
|
skuke
captain
Reged: 12/22/03
Posts: 321
|
|
Quote:
Insightdriver wrote:
But on the other hand, a 0.5% improvement when carried out to overall efficiency isn't much. The slightest headwind would wash that out.
It is true that through years of refinement the bicycle is a very efficient machine.
I think 0.5% would make all the difference to elite track racers. And knowing that you have a mechanical advantage is probably worth another 0.1% psychologically :-)
According to Bicycle Science 2nd ed., pg. 283, Whitt and Wilson claim "When new, clean, and well lubricated, a chain transmission is highly efficient (about 98.5%) and very strong..." So another 0.5% makes for a pretty gosh darn efficient drive train. The losses come from friction and slippage (which there is very little in a bicycle).
BTW, 0.5% was a WAG. I remember the value being much less than 1% but was surprised at how "high" it was. Anyhow, belt is more efficient, but not by much.
I agree that the bicycle has evolved into the MOST efficient means of transportation ever invented. You cannot spend less energy and go further or faster or carry a greater load than on a bicycle.
--------------------
Skuke
95 Carbonframes Tetra Pro
92 Bridgestone MB-1
90 Moser 51.151
|
skuke
captain
Reged: 12/22/03
Posts: 321
|
|
Quote:
skagwayroadie wrote:
One other thing about belts...they need tension to work well, and that reduces efficiency and also wears out the bearings more quickly. ...Mark
Tension?? You mean as in an idler to minimize play?
If a fixie, for example, tightened the rear axel along horizonatal dropouts as tight as reasonably possible to minimize slippage, isn't that enough to make the system 98.5+% efficient without undo wear on bearings? I guess I'm asking you why does the system need to be tighter than what is required to eliminate slippage?
--------------------
Skuke
95 Carbonframes Tetra Pro
92 Bridgestone MB-1
90 Moser 51.151
|
skagwayroadie
contributor
Reged: 12/20/03
Posts: 141
Loc: Alaska
|
|
Hey Skuke...yup, but not necessarily from an idler pulley, though you certainly could use one and still maintain a high level of efficiency. And absolutely, I assume that the most tension neeed would be enough to minimize slippage...but thinking on it further, I realized that that also depends on the rider and how strong he/she may be. A chain does not need the tension a belt requires to eliminate slippage, for obvious reasons. While it is debateable if even an elite rider could tell the difference of .5% efficiency, to my way of thinking, the contrast between belt and chain would mainly revolve around maintenance and weight issues, in a fixie situation that is. It makes for interseting bench racing.
I personally like the idea of a belt over a chain. Belts can be quiet, smooth and very maintenance friendly, not to mention very unorthodox in a bicycle application. I wonder how they handle wet conditions or winter environments though. Any thoughts?
...Mark
Edited by skagwayroadie (04/03/05 04:59 PM)
|
skuke
captain
Reged: 12/22/03
Posts: 321
|
|
Quote:
skagwayroadie wrote:
Hey Skuke...yup, but not necessarily from an idler pulley, though you certainly could use one and still maintain a high level of efficiency. And absolutely, I assume that the most tension neeed would be enough to minimize slippage...but thinking on it further, I realized that that also depends on the rider and how strong he/she may be. A chain does not need the tension a belt requires to eliminate slippage, for obvious reasons. While it is debateable if even an elite rider could tell the difference of .5% efficiency, to my way of thinking, the contrast between belt and chain would mainly revolve around maintenance and weight issues, in a fixie situation that is. It makes for interseting bench racing.
I personally like the idea of a belt over a chain. Belts can be quiet, smooth and very maintenance friendly, not to mention very unorthodox in a bicycle application. I wonder how they handle wet conditions or winter environments though. Any thoughts?
...Mark
Mark, I think you're misunderstanding what a cog belt is. It's not a 'V' belt like what drives a cooling fan on cars (old style). A cog belt is toothed like a timing belt for a camshaft. Wet, dry, whatever, there is no slippage in the manner you're thinking. The slippage I refer to is in the thousandths of inches (mm) that occur as a result of bending around the sprocket.
But yes, you're correct in that there is little maintenance, is quiet, no lube and thus clean.
Re: elite racers. I agree that they probably couldn't "feel" 0.5% more efficient, but all else being equal, the clock wouldn't lie. I'm not sure how the efficiency would translate into actual distance on the hour record, for example. But imagine if Armstrong tried for the record and was .5% more efficient!
--------------------
Skuke
95 Carbonframes Tetra Pro
92 Bridgestone MB-1
90 Moser 51.151
|
SAVAGEP
new member
Reged: 11/13/04
Posts: 7
|
|
Re the old frames.
I keep my (circa 1980) Colnago just to look at.
Re tube shape. It would seem that some advantage from non-round tubing could be obtained. Max Strength would probably be reduced or weight would increase - but it might be possible to reduce lateral compliance (good) and increase vertical compliance (also good) with oval tubes.
That however might then increase drag .... No free lunch.
For a climbing bike, where weight and lateral stiffness are all that matter (provided the bike doesn't break) I suspect that round tubes win.
The new Scott frame does look slick. And is it light.
My Calfee (plus heart, lungs and legs) have got me 4 podium spots in hill climbs in the last two years so I'm happy.
|
jaleel_da_sheik
new member
Reged: 02/25/05
Posts: 19
|
|
I would be curious to see a poll based on people's bike geometry preferences based on their age.
My guess would be that the preference for compact frame geometries would grow the younger the age. This being due to what type of road bike look you grew up with. I'm in my early 20's and don't mind the look of a compact frame - the older standard frames look more traditional, but they don't look "sporty" enough for my taste. Some manufacturers have gone too far though, sloping the top tube so much that it begins looking almost like a bmx frame!
The other side of my unsupported theory being that the people who grew up dreaming of that standard style frame with the horizontal top tube (when it was most popular) will tend to have an affinity for that type of geometry.
To each his own. . .
|
Previous
Thread Index
Next
Threaded
What shape should Calfee be in?
Edit
Reply
Quote
[Re: 
Re: What shape should Calfee be in?
Re: What shape should Calfee be in?