Equipment - Aerodynamics and Frame Fit

The other day I saw this article on aerodynamics, a kind of "ramble in font" by Chris Boardman. He explains, in very layman terms, his very layman way of reaching his optimal position on his bikes.

I knew, from his GAN days, that he rode about a 53 cm frame, meaning a frame with a 53 cm seat tube length. Nowadays that doesn't mean much what with compact versus regular frame set ups, seat tubes measured in all sorts of different ways, and of course the fact that the seat tube has nothing to do with length/reach, very little to do with saddle to bar drop, or even very little to do with the saddle height. The basic 53 cm frame size immediately says a few things though - you can expect a top tube length of about 54 cm and a head tube length of maybe 14 cm.

What's surprising on Boardman's regular looking 53 cm track bike (with drop bars) are the other dimensions.

63 cm top tube?!
17 cm stem?!

To look at him on the bike he doesn't look wrong at all - in fact he broke the non-aero hour record astride the machine.

He came to the position using a couple basic principles plus an open mind. He wanted to keep frontal area to a minimum (although this is technically flawed it's better than nothing) and he had to be able to put down reasonable power (i.e. threshold, since, by definition, he'd be making a 60 minute effort).

(Which makes me realize that his threshold lets him ride at over 31 mph. His threshold! I'm so far into the red at 31 mph it's crazy. Jeepers creepers and holy canolies. Wow. Okay, fine, he was a great short distance time trialer, he broke the hour record, but he was, with all due respect, basically nowhere in the big races. Wowsers. Anyway, back to the post...)

He pointed out that he avoided measuring things until after he set up a position that worked for him. He used a powermeter and pedaled at 50% of his threshold, give or take. By not measuring he let himself let go of any preconceived notions of what would or wouldn't work.

(Incidentally if I rode at 50% of my threshold I'd be doing about 100w, which, honestly, I could do in almost any position. I guess he just kept his pedals turning so anything they tried would be somewhat reasonable.)

One thing you'll notice is that if you look at Boardman on the hour record bike versus a road bike (even a TT bike) you'll see that the head tube on the road bike is much shorter. This is because the bottom bracket on a track bike is higher, by about 1.3 cm. Since frame "size", i.e. seat tube length, is measured from the bottom bracket, if you move the bottom bracket up 2 cm then the frame suddenly looks about 2 cm higher.

As an example look at my 50 cm track bike, which, I have to point out, can't do 31 mph for even 3 km:

Note head tube length.

I wonder if a 63 cm top tube would help.

This head tube looks shorter.

Saddle height is the same. 56.5 top tube.

The Riggio has a 16 cm total head tube height, with headset. The Tsunami is 11.5 cm with the headset too. With spare bars on the track bike, the same make/model as the bars on the Tsunami (Mavic 315 bars, crit bend, circa 1997), I need a slight rise to fit the Riggio properly.

I'm veering hard off my original thoughts though, that of Boardman's approach to fit. The most important thing was that he threw out any preconceived notions on what should or shouldn't work. He admits in the article that if he took measurements while changing stuff around he probably would have ended up with a more conservative set up.

That BikeRadar article made me go "hm." Boardman's had a good approach to his fit, unconcerned about staying within his comfort zone, open minded as far as possibilities.

Equipment - Road vs Track geometry

Over the past few years the "fixie" trend has permeated the cycling industry. Although it involves all aspects of life, the focus on the fixie is riding a fixed gear bike, usually on the road. Until now fixed gear bikes belonged in the velodrome ("track bikes") or under fearless bike messengers (although, truth be told, many messengers simply used converted bikes, i.e. not a "track bike").

Since road bikes have slightly different needs from track bikes the cycling industry set about to fill this new gap in the product line - the road going fixed gear bike.

True track bikes have a few features that prevent them from being ridden safely on the road. Two stand out over the rest, other than the fact that a track bike has no brakes.

1. On a real track bike the fork blades were round. Since there are no potholes on a track, the frames were not designed to resist impacts very well.
2. On a real track bike the fork is so slickly packaged there isn't even room to drill a hole for a brake. Most track forks are not drilled for a brake.

If you're looking for a real track bike it's tough to find those tidbits when looking at a spec sheet. There isn't a column that says "round or oval fork blades", and in many pictures it's tough to tell if the fork is drilled for a brake (unless there's a brake mounted on the bike already).

There are other ways you can check a potential candidate frame - you can compare geometry specs. Focus on headtube angle, fork rake ("offset"), trail, chainstay length, and BB drop.

I've found two bikes, from the same line, as an example.

Track
Road

For a 52 cm track vs a 52 cm road bike check out the differences:

HT angle: 75 deg vs 72 deg
Rake: 35 mm vs 45 mm
Trail: 61 mm vs 63 mm
Chainstay length: 380 mm vs 410 mm
BB drop: 45 mm vs 69 mm

The steeper head tube angle allows for quicker steering, meaning to actually turn the bike right or left. On a road bike it might be much, even if outfitted with a proper fork. The Spago team in the late 80s used such steep angled head tube Rossins that I thought Scott McKinley (on a long solo break) had crashed his bike and partially collapsed his frame.

In order to make the bike stable with a steeper head tube angle you need LESS rake (to give you about the same amount of trail; however, most track bikes have less trail). In the case of the two geometries above the track bike is only slightly less stable than the road bike, with just 2 mm less trail.

(The idea of less rake for more trail is counterintuitive, but think of a shopping cart - it has a really steep "head tube angle" of 90 degrees. When you push the thing forward the wheel drops back behind the pivot - that is what trail does, sort of auto-aligns the wheel for stability. Well a shopping cart wheel has something like negative 50 mm rake because the "fork" that holds the wheel actually points back, not to the front.)

Shorter chainstays means you have a bike that's more maneuverable, especially out of the saddle. Once you're seated it's not as noticeable. It also allows you to put more weight on the bars without having the rear wheel get loose under you.

A higher BB (meaning less BB drop from the axle height) means more clearance, necessary when riding slower on a steeply banked track. You can see the difference is substantial here - about an inch. This means your whole bike sort of moves up the same amount, since sizing is taken off the BB. Due to the higher BB height, everything else is taller. My 50 cm track frame looks like a 53 cm because both the head tube and seat tube are so much longer than what I'm used to.

Any "track" or "fixed gear" frame that has normal looking numbers is meant for road use.

Track bikes are different creatures.

Tsunami - 1.0, Take Two (1.1?)

A while back I got that first wonderful custom-fit frame from Tsunami Bikes.

It changed my world.

That year I found I could train longer, race harder, and, for the first time ever, managed to get a Cat 2 upgrade.

Even so I found a few details that I could change. The biggest was the chainstay length - with a front end so much longer than before, the geometry unweighted the rear wheel significantly. I found that going through corners under power I could almost always break the tire loose. On particularly fast laps I could break the tire loose even without pedaling.

Okay, fine, I could move my weight back a bit and anchor the rear wheel more, but after seeing a few pictures of me cornering I realized that it would be better to bring the wheel closer in to the bottom bracket. If Mohammad can't go to the mountain, move the mountain to Mohammad.

This led to the second Tsunami frame, the black one. Although its aero styling made it look different, it fit exactly like the orange frame. Out back, though, the stays were shorter. 39 cm for the chainstays to be exact, the shortest the builder could do without massive tire rub.

It's tight. I'm going to file/sand it down a bit.

(I get some pretty horrendous sounding scraping going when I ride over sand and such - the sand sticking to the tires scrapes the frame, jamming into it. I can feel the grit jamming my tire and frame, slowing me down. It's that tight.)

The second frame gave the nod to aerodynamics over weight. I asked for it with the thought of running just a CamelBak, i.e. no bottles, and trying to get more aero by eliminating the big clunky things in the frame. Real world experience led to me installing two cages - my aero bike experiment failed, mainly because I found it so cumbersome to take a sip of water with the CamelBak on.

The experience made me look at my lighter (by over 200g) orange frame with a different eye. I wanted the slightly lighter frame back but with the shorter stays.

This is where Tsunami Bikes made the difference.

Joseph Wells, the welder behind the name, agreed to modify my frame with shorter stays. He'd have to cut off and replace the seatstays to accomplish this, in order to relocate the brake bridge. He would be sending the frame back unpainted (I asked him to strip off the rest of the paint).

Just unpacked after it arrived.

After several weeks I got the frame back. Shorter stays, no paint, and looking admittedly a bit sad. No glowing Candy Orange paint, no decals, no battle scars.

 I weighed it out of curiosity. Without a rear dropout, without the cable adjusters, no bottom bracket cable guide, the frame weighed in at 1210g, a full 230g lighter than in its original form. I'll weigh the small pieces but I don't think they'll break 50g, leaving the frame at about 200g lighter. I'm guessing the shorter tubes will count for about 40-60g (based on the 30g I saved by cutting down my heat treated aluminum bars), so the luscious paint probably weighed about 150g.

After talking with a few people I decided to make some unauthorized changes to the frame. I started by drilling holes in the bottom bracket shell, swiss-cheesing the dropouts, and even the back of the head tube. I also honed the inside of the head tube and bottom bracket, thinning the tube diameters. Finally I acid etched the tubes with muriatic acid to thin them out.

(pause)

Okay, I didn't do any of that.

I did start filing down some welds, shaping some of the cable stops, and and basically trying to get rid of any superfluous material. I gained a new appreciation for the artisan frame builders; I also realized that I could do this shaping stuff for a long, long time and not be satisfied until it was perfect.

(I realized I was paralleling another rider's experience, albeit in a slightly different way. When Chris Boardman was laid up for a while after breaking a bunch of bones, he whittled away at a Mavic crankset. It looked beautiful when he was done but, based on seeing and feeling others done the same way, it was probably super-flexy. Nonetheless the idea of "honing" a finished product appeals to me in some way, I guess the same way I want to mod a brand new car.)

I've been filing a little at a time, after my trainer rides, maybe once a week. I weighed the frame after a few filing sessions - 1190g, or 20g lighter than before. I wanted to get rid of any excess weight but not reduce strength. I even looked at pictures of the frame bits before they got welded (I looked them up) so that I'd have an idea of what I was working with.

A friend happened to be painting his Mini a bright red color. He is doing part of another project for me, and when I realized he was painting yet another Mini (this is his fifth one), I asked if he could maybe shoot some paint on my frame. Since I had to work around his schedule I had to accelerate mine - I dropped off the frame at about 80% complete.

My friend promised me some miracles, using a really heavy (gulp) primer that puffs up and fills stuff out. He'd then sand it down. I must have looked a bit alarmed because he looked at my face and mentioned that he'd try and keep the weight down.

(On an aside I realize now that I could have spent months filing and sanding the frame, and if I were selling the thing under my own name I'd feel somewhat obligated to do that if the finish was an issue.)

With Junior occupying my time a bit, I kinda sorta forgot about the frame. Then I realized, oh, he's probably done with it. I went to call him and saw that I had a missed call on my phone.

From him.

"Dude, your frame's all set."

I headed over.

With Junior in the car too, of course.

 Frame hanging up.

Mini is in the background, with "Actual Size" already in the window. Right now he's doing the jambs and stuff, the stuff that isn't visible until you open doors.

Painter is off to the right.

My painter friend said he brushed on the primer around the joints so as not to spray too much of the heavy stuff on the frame, then went over it with a bunch of different sandpaper, then shot the whole frame. I haven't weighed the frame yet so no report on the total paint weight.

I had to take this shot. Expo Wheelmen's sponsor Manchester Cycle sells Bell helmets, and because of Expo I now race in a Bell. That Bell sticker is on the Mini.

The frame is now red. It happens to be a Hyundai color (I think).

Originally my friend was going to paint the mini a Viper red. Even though that would have dovetailed nicely into my "what car should I buy" post because I briefly contemplated a Viper, ultimately it was his choice. If he picked yellow my frame would be yellow.

 Note the smoothed out welds.

 I also filed away at the base of the cable stops. I wanted them to be more "formed" than just triangular blocks.

 Another view of the front end, with the formed cable stops on the downtube.

 The bottom bracket got cleaned up a lot.

So did the welds around the rear drop outs.

The Missus said "Wow" when I opened the door holding the frame. I'm psyched to build it up now. I have all the frame's small parts downstairs (dropout, seatpost collar, stuff like that), a lighter fork, and the actual parts kit. I also have a second SRM crankset, including the special 104mm spindle, for this frame.

I hope to incorporate a couple pieces off other frames - I have a Ti seat collar, for example, that I'd like to use.

We'll see how it goes. It's not that I don't have the stuff to put the bike together - it's just finding the time that'll be the trick.

Equipment - Frame Fit Session

As planned I made it to the local shop just down the street. Of course, as usual, I was running really late, and instead of getting there at 10 AM, I got there at about 1 PM.

I set up the fit bike thing myself, puzzling over the different settings and such. I brought my pedals, bars, shoes, saddle, and a kit.

For the record, my current bike is a SystemSix Liquigas Replica, 52 cm, with its standard geometry. To save you from flipping back and forth to the geometry page, the important numbers are as follows:

Seat tube: 52 cm, 50 cm to the top of the top tube
Top tube: 53.5 cm
Seat tube angle: 74 degrees
Head tube angle: 73 degrees
Head tube length: 11.5 cm

I look something like this on the bike:

On the green/black Cannondale. My arms hang straight down.

Okay, once you get past my doughy build (perceived 175 lbs on my optimistic scale, which was actually 185 lbs), you may notice that the bike seems really, really short in length. My goal is to get my bike a bit longer.

That other night I took to my bike with a tape measure.

First, I want my saddle to be in the middle of its rail adjustment, not shoved all the way forward. I held my tape measure to the center of the rails, and the line went 2 centimeters further forward than the present seat tube. This meant I needed a substantially steeper seat tube angle.

How much steeper I didn't know, but that's what a builder is supposed to figure out.

The steeper seat tube would move the whole top tube forward by 2 cm. However, based on my current set up, I figured I need at least another 5 centimeters in length - I could put my hands a full Ergo lever in front of the actual Ergo lever.

Based on that number, I figured a 58 cm top tube would work well. It would move me forward a total of 6.5 cm (2 cm from the steeper seat tube angle and 4.5 cm from the 53.5 current length to the new 58 length). This would let me play with a shorter stem, an 11 or a 12 cm stem, not always having to search for the longest possible stems out there.

I also want a short head tube, shorter than the current 11.5 cm, so that I can go buy an 80 degree stem. This would free me from just 73 (-17) degree stems. There are lots of 80 degree stems out there, not a lot of 73s.

And, finally, while I was at it, I wanted to get a short seat tube, something like the 44 cm seat tube (as I remember) on my size S Giant TCR aluminum frame.

Armed with this information, I emailed Joseph at Tsunami Bikes. His initial response seemed a bit hesitant - my ideal frame, after all, would resemble an oversized BMX bike.

We started talking and I described how I arrived at all the numbers. Again, he seemed a bit hesitant. He asked for some pictures of me on the bike, and ones of just the bike itself.

I sent pictures and called to follow up.

Now he seemed a bit more receptive to the whole "tiny frame" concept (as named by Hans). I told him that I'd want to do a sanity check, one where I actually have a regular bar to hold onto, not resting my hands on a plastic tote bin.

I strolled into the shop and got down to business. This new fangled gizmo was a new experience for me, so Hans would occasionally tell me "do this" or "do that".

Fit starts at the bottom bracket, goes up to the saddle, and then forward to the bars. Therefore I started with the seat tube at 75.5 degrees. I raised the saddle (that I brought into the store) to my right height, centered the saddle on the rails.

Then I got the top tube to a more reasonable 56.5 cm. I borrowed a 14 cm stem, a -5 degree stem and mounted a spare set of 3ttt crit bars (Gimondi bend, bars I got thanks to RTC's detective work).

Finally I put my Keos on, trotted off to the bathroom to change, and trotted back in my new kit. I even brought the long sleeve jersey because I didn't want to get cold in the shop.

I jumped on the bike and, BAM, it felt awesome.

I fiddled a bit with the stem height, played around, and realized that, hey, it's pretty much perfect.

On the tops. Left foot forward.

My arms are bent a bit, but outwards. I wanted to keep my arms out of the way of something, not sure what I was thinking. I'm sitting square on the saddle, and the saddle is square on the post. w00t!

On the "hoods". Foot at bottom.

My legs look bulky.

Reminds me of something. I made a comment at the track last summer - I was watching the As and watched as powerful looking racer rocketed off the front. He looked freakin' powerful - big legs, big arms, aero carbon frame, aero carbon wheels, and, man, he was flying.

"Holy smokes, look at that guy's legs."

The guy next to me looked at me and said something unusual.

"Don't underestimate yourself."

Hm.

Drops, and right foot sort of forward.

Imagine, my arms point forward. And my back is kinda sorta level. The position in the drops feels really secure, really good.

I thought I forgot my camera so Hans took a few pics and sent them to me.

I sent the pictures to Joseph and left him a message. An hour later he called back. He said the pictures really helped, and things looked good. He kind of laughed - I'm still not really forward, relatively speaking, and I'm sitting on a 75.5 seat tube angle.

We went over a few details, things like ride quality and such. I have no knowledge about tubing materials so I'm leaving it up to him. I just want a ride that's as rigid as the Cannondale - I'm good for 6 or 7 plus hours on the frame, and I don't want to have something more flexy.

Paint will be later, but I think some kind of a red. I haven't had a red bike since forever ago, and my first race bike, a Basso, was red. It would match the kit and it would look kinda cool.

The other choice would be a blue to match the blue car, but I don't have anything blue in my kit so that's out.

After our talk Joseph emailed one more question - one about seat tube length. I went and checked my two Giants, since I like the aluminum one a lot, and since the carbon one is "fine" (the Cannondale is a bit high for me).

Seems that I remembered wrong. The aluminum Giant has, get this, a 40 cm seat tube to the top of the top tube (44 to the top of the seat tube). The carbon Giant is 4 cm longer.

Whew. I sent my preferences (40 c-to-t, but 44 c-to-t is fine), along with payment.

And now it's up to them.

Equipment - Dream World (Custom Frames)

For the longest time I've wanted a custom frame. At first it was because I wanted to get a frame that was especially designed for me, for my needs. I had no idea what that meant, but I wanted a frame that was, well, unique.

As I learned more and more about bikes, I started dreaming of some of the extreme bikes I saw in bike magazines. The one that really caught my eye was a specialty crit bike. This thing was insane, with super steep angles, high bottom bracket, and, get this, such a short chainstay that the tire wouldn't clear a normal seat tube.

In fact, it wouldn't even clear a grooved or indented seat tube.

Therefore, in order to make the thing work, the builder put two chainstays in place of the seat tube and stuck the rear wheel through the opening between them.

(To my ultimate badness, I cannot remember the name of the framebuilder of this dream bike. He was featured in Bicycling and one or two other magazines in the early 80s... Anyone?)

Back then that was the absolute schnizzle, the top of the heap when it came to US style bikes. No laid back positions here, no mid-foot cleats (or so they appeared), no traditional lower saddle heights. This was an era of change, inspired by wind tunnels and such.

At that time Lemond rode on his tippy-toes on his bike (and won the '83 Worlds like that), his teammate Marc Madiot rode 180s to a stage win (and he rode a 55 cm frame), and "aero" became the new catch-phrase.

So in this age of change, of innovation, and in my time of "exploration", I dreamed about land speed records and crit bikes in alternate fashion.

Of course, like slot cars and Lamborghini Countachs, things which I dreamed about literally for decades, the dreams remained dreams.

Then some surprising things happened. Over the course of 15 years, two friends invited me to sit in Countachs in their possession. I even got a ride in one. I have to tell you that no one could wipe the grin off my face after those magical moments. The drive, holy smokes, that was crazy insane.

Then reality sunk in.

Although it's all exotic and all that, I've realized that the Countach has the aerodynamics of a brick and a cobbled together engine. Seriously. They used layered cylinder head gaskets to increase displacement, and they regularly provided significantly up-powered cars to journalists so the cars would be fast "in print".

As it is, my blue car is faster than a Countach. Less powerful, yes, but faster. And it has almost-as-wide tires (the Countach had the widest production tires for a long time). But, still, as dreams go, if you offered me a chance to drive a Countach... Look, just count me in, okay? I'll work out my schedule and fit in a Countach drive.

Then, a couple years ago, the missus (and her mom) got me a beautiful slot car set, with F1 cars even.

And now I'm starting to think about the possibility of seeing through that custom frame dream.

To be frank, my frame dreams have evolved over the years. At first it had to do with short wheelbases and insanely short chainstays. Later, as I realized what I'd been missing on my smaller-sized frames, I started dreaming about more normal things, like a 73 degree head tube angle.

On a short frame like mine, my shoes (and toe clips) would hit the front tire when I turned the bars. In order to avoid such contact, manufacturers would use slack angles and lots of rake. This reduced foot overlap but resulted in lazy, pain-killer haze handling. Once I realized this I wanted to experience a more responsive front end. Steeper angles and a normal rake, in other words.

Those head tube angle dreams then morphed into top tube dreams. My ape-like stance, with short legs and long torso, made it necessary to use a short seat tube, but my torso forced me to go with long stems. On the 50 cm frames I rode forever, I typically used a 14 cm stem, then a 14.5, and just before quill stems withdrew from the spotlight, I briefly contemplated using a 15 cm stem.

For me, a 51 or 52 centimeter top tube seemed short. I could sit comfortably on friends' 54-56 cm bikes, with long stems and everything, and the reach felt reasonable, even comfortable. But my feet dangling a couple inches above the pedals, I couldn't fix that part of fitting myself to their bikes.

I thought maybe a 55.5 cm top tube would be the best I could do. I bought a size M Giant TCR, with its 55.5 cm top tube. As a bonus it had a 73 degree head tube angle, or something close to it.

The bike felt great, my arms finally doing something other than dangling downwards, with a reach about 3 or 4 cm longer than before. I could steer while hammering out of the saddle, thanks to the steeper head tube angle.

But the dream rapidly crumbed. The head tube was too long, the bars too high.

I experimented with bar positioning, now emphasizing height as well as length. After some convoluted calculations, along with a bunch of Sharpie marks on my bright yellow frame, I decided I could ride a size S Giant just as well.

I moved to the size S, happy with the lower bars. They made a huge difference in my sprint, but they felt too close.

In a fit of "fulfilling a bunch of other stuff", I bought my current steed, a Cannondale SystemSix. Now, if I was someone like a Bennati, I could just get a custom version of my frame. Talk about a dream bike for me - a 52 seat tube with a 58 (!!) top tube!

But I'm a lowly Cat 3, and even with some begging and pleading, I couldn't score the most blemished, unrideable Bennati frame.

I priced out and contemplated a lugged carbon tube kit, a Dedaccai-made "kit", but the bottom bracket-seat tube angle on my long, low frame wouldn't work with their stock sizes. Fortunately, as it turned out, because the lugs in these kits failed regularly. When I heard this I went to my now-unused "carbon frames" bookmark list and found that virtually all the bikes I'd bookmarked had disappeared.

No one wanted to admit to making such a frame.

Dedaccai ended their kit production, now making only full frames, or at least front triangles.

So, for the last year or so, I meandered aimlessly in the frame geometry jungle, looking for that perfect situation, that perfect scenario.

Let's see, exactly what would it be like?

First, the frame would be made by someone I could communicate with, a racer maybe, one that does crits, track, and doesn't climb that much. But he'd climb more than I did so he could tell me, "Oh, you really don't want to do that, it would climb horribly".

Second, the frame would be unlimited as far as geometry goes. 44 cm seat tube? Fine. 58 cm top tube? Fine. I'd forgive the lack of availability of weird things, like a split seat tube that allows a 35 cm chainstay, but for all round tube design possibilities, they ought to be available.

My fantasy numbers include the following (assuming a reasonable 73 degree head tube angle):

1. 44-46 cm seat tube, as short as possible and still fit in a tall bottle on the seat tube, with room for a pump or a Down Low Glow just above it. This would let me clamp my seat post in a workstand (a normal one). It also feels better in general, the shorter seat tube.

2. A seat tube angle that allows me to move the seat-tube-slash-top-tube junction point forward by 2 cm on my 52 cm frame. This would let me center the saddle on the post, not slam it all the way into the stops.

3. A 58 cm top tube, maybe a 56 based on the fact that the top tube will be 2 cm forward based on #2 above.

4. At most a 12 cm head tube, maybe an 11 cm one.

5. BB30, so I can keep my mega-expensive SRM cranks, and so I'd have a lighter, stiffer bike.

6. 1.5" lower headset race, so I can use a Cannondale fork (I think they rock the house).

7. A non-noodle frameset.

8. Shorty chainstays so my rear tire stays planted with the long front end.

Finally, price. I can't afford a $4000 frameset, and I seriously doubt I'd ever buy one anyway. It's my "low buck, high performance" mindset, the functional way of approaching things. I appreciate handmade things, like a 1955 Aston Martin. Things of beauty, incidentally, with gorgeous aluminum bodywork.

But compared to a modern sports car? Or even a modern "sporty" car?

Fuggitaboutit.

Give me parallel A-arm front suspensions, a sophisticated multi-link rear, independent on all corners, big honkin' brakes, and a smooth, efficient engine mated with a smooth shifting transmission. My car illustrates that point, at least the blue one does. It's a low-buck way of having fun driving a car. And it doesn't have very much of that "old fashioned craftsmanship" in it, just good design and proper procedures. The body may look sleek, but it was pounded out by robots, not artisans.

Heck, my car doesn't even have a throttle cable! It's got an electronic wire attached to a computer.

Anyway, my point is that I don't need the exquisite workmanship of the frame building "masters". Give me a frame with the right geometry and durable construction and I'll be happy.

And of course all that could never, ever happen. I felt safe in my little dreamworld.

Then, to my utter dismay, RTC let it slip that there's a framebuilder that offered something like that stuff above - Tsunami Bikes, out in the west somewhere. They make aluminum frames, from $600 to $1500+.

And they do custom geometry.

Okay, I can handle $600 framesets to start. I can handle the $50 upcharge for BB30. I'm good with aluminum tubing, because as I've written before, fit > material. Look, if it was good enough for Tom Boonen, it should certainly be good enough for me.

So I'm good with the basics. What's the custom geometry upcharge? I was figuring at least $300 or so, based on conversations with frame importers and such.

So I emailed the folks, half seriously. I don't want to waste their time, and if the frame ended up at even a paltry $1000, it'd be hard to justify in a cash-strapped environment.

I got a response. Things looked good, too good even. I called the guy up. We talked on the phone.

$600 is the frameset price, built to whatever geometry agreed upon by the builder and buyer, painted some normal range of colors.

NO upcharge for custom geometry.

Since I want to keep my BB30 SRM, and I like BB30 anyway, I'd want BB30. $50 upcharge.

Now we're looking at $650.

For a full custom, BB30, custom painted frame.

Well now.

Not only that, I could take delivery just before my California training camp. Now wouldn't that be the end all? 30 or 40 hours on a brand new frame, just enough time to really get used to it.

I spoke with the missus. She gave approval.

So next I'll be visiting the local shop, one that has a fit bike thing on the floor. I'll experiment with sizing and report back to the builder.

And we'll see what happens from there.

Equipment - Riggio Track Bike, Numbers

I'm a bit tired but I ran some numbers to satisfy my own curiosity. They are rough but reasonably accurate.

Measured Item Riggio Cannondale
Seat tube, c-c 50 cm 48 cm (it's a "52 cm")
Top tube, c-c 52 cm 52 cm (it's a "53.5 cm")
Head tube length 11.7 cm, 16 w/hdst 12 cm
Chainstay length 38.5 cm min, 39.5 cm 40.5 cm
Saddle-BB height 67.8 cm 67.7 cm
Stem length 14 cm 13 cm
Stem drop, approx 2.5 cm 0 cm
Bar width, c-c 39 cm 40 cm
Bar drop, approx 18 cm 15.5 cm
Front center (BB-hub) 56 cm 57 cm
Crankarm 170 mm 170 mm
BB drop, approx 5.2 cm 6.5 cm
Wheelbase 95.5 cm 97 cm
Seat-bar drop, approx 28 cm 25 cm
Seat center to drops 82 cm 77 cm

Some of the values are approximate since I don't have a super accurate way of measuring certain things. One measurement is variable - the track bike's chainstay length (BB to rear hub) differs based on chain length and gearing (you move the axle to take up chain slack). Currently it's 39.5 cm. If I went to a 52x15, I'd shorten it by 0.5 cm. A 53x16 may not fit, or it would put me at my minimum 38.5 cm (and make it virtually impossible to get the wheel in).

The huge differences are in the "aggressiveness" numbers - wheelbase length, chainstay length, BB drop (or lack thereof), short front center, and big saddle-bar drop. All are different by a centimeter or more, unusual for such critical frame specs. However the difference between track riding and crit riding is also different by such magnitudes, and the bikes simply reflect what works for what.

Interestingly enough the Cannondale is a very conservative race bike. It's equally at home on long rides, steady climbs, and harrowing descents. My first (racing) road bike had a much shorter chainstay, I think in the 38.x cm range, the same length as the minimum on the Riggio.

This means the Riggio is also a conservatively designed bike. Although it has some steep angles (long ago I used a protractor and convinced myself I had a bike with a 74 degree head tube angle and a 75 degree seat tube angle, but I think this is about as accurate as a day dream) it's otherwise a very forgiving and easy riding bike. My ham-fisted handling of the bike never put me in the pavement nor did it ever freak out on me. The only thing I wish it would do is turn faster in a full sprint.

For now though, like all the problems I have with the Riggio, the main issue is the nut that holds the seat down.

Once I get that working reasonably well I should be all set.

Equipment - I Want This Bike!

The BIKE

So as not to freak out the missus, no, I have not tried to get one. Yet. But, man, talk about a bike that would fit yours truly.

52 cm seat tube. Not a big deal - I have one now.

58 (!) cm top tube.

Holy smolies. That's 5 cm longer than my current top tube. I might even go down to a 12 cm stem! Maybe even an 11 cm stem.

And it's stiffer and all that.

Look, the mold's already there. It wouldn't take much to just, you know, lay a few pieces of carbon in there, some resin, do whatever hocus pocus they do, and then borrow a bit of carbon fiber oven time to cure the thing.

Heck, it's made in Pennsylvania. That's only, what, a 7 or 8 hour drive away? I could do the lay up. Just give me some of that carbon fiber... wait, I could even buy the stuff. Well, I could at least pay for it. I think you can buy that stuff on the internet. If you can buy steroids, you should be able to buy carbon fiber.

Then I could do the work in the Bedford factory. You know, on the real workers' lunch hour. They'll be munching on sandwiches or going on their ride or doing both at the same time and I'll be carefully laying down one of hundreds of pieces of carbon into whatever a mold is.

Or however all that works.

Abracadabra and all that too.

I promise I won't reveal any production secrets to anyone.

Maybe they could justify it as a spare bike for Bennati. If that's the case, I'll hold two for him. Just in case he needs a bike in, say, the Nutmeg State Games. Or whatever other Pro race he might enter in the area. If he does one of those big races we could put one of the bikes on the team car, the other on the neutral support car. And afterwards, for safe keeping, I could take care of the bikes.

For safe keeping, of course. I could even bring myself to ride the bikes, to make sure everything keeps working.

So, Cannondale, what do you say?