Is the beauty of a bicycle in the way it rides, or the way it looks?
Mon, May 24, 2021 When I built my first frames in England in the late 1950s, early 1960s, I was trying to build myself a better frame. A typical frame of that era had a very shallow, 71-degree seat angle and a long top tube. This did not suit my small stature of 5’ 6”. (167.64 cm.)
When making a maximum effort, I found myself sliding forward and consequently sitting on the narrow nose of the saddle. The result was it was extremely uncomfortable and had the effect of the saddle being too low.
The answer seemed obvious to me, if this was the natural position my body wanted to adopt, put the saddle where it needed to be to accommodate it. I also looked at the way the bike handled at speed, there was a tendency to wobble on fast descents. Also, the bike tended to feel sluggish when getting out of the saddle sprint, or to climb.
Over the next 10 or 15 years I built several different frames with varying angles, and each frame had extra front forks of various rakes, (Offset.) Some of these experiments improved the bike’s performance, and others made things worse. It was a long, slow learning process.
By the early 1970s I had pretty much got my own frame geometry figured out. But now I was being asked to build frames for other local cyclists. By now the trend in Italy and in England was the build road frames with 75 or even 76-degree head angles. I went against this trend as I had experimented with these angles years before and found it did not work too well. The handling was skittish or squirrely.
73-degree head had been established as the ideal head angle as far back as the 1930s, and it still worked. However, the old idea was to have a very long fork off-set, and zero trail. This is what lead to the speed wobbles of those old bikes. I had found that I ¼ inches (32 mm.) fork rake worked better and finally settled at 1 3/8 inches. (35 mm.)
With feedback from other riders, I found that a 73-seat angle worked fine for the taller riders, but I would gradually steepen the seat angle as the frame got smaller. The top tube was lengthened as the frame got taller, but at a lesser amount than the seat tube. This was offset by a longer handlebar stem on the larger frames. The idea was to always have the front part of the handlebars directly over the front hub. This meant the handling was consistent throughout the range of sizes.
Having spent many years designing and building a better bike, it became my main selling point.
Here was a frame that would fit better and handle better. (See the advert (Left.) from the British Cycling Magazine from 1975.)
Strangely, I have seen few framebuilders or manufacturers advertising their product on the premise that it rides and handles better than their competitors.
I feel proof that my frame design is valid, is the fact that I still have a following 28 years after I built my last frame. Many owners are original owners and will not part with their bike. I regularly receive emails from owners saying their FUSO or other bike I built is their favorite ride.
I was recently asked, “What do I think of the current American builders?” I don’t really know enough to answer that. I only know what I see at NAHBS each year. I see beautiful pieces of art, outstanding paint and metal work, but how do they ride? Or does anyone even care? No one will ever go out and race on such a machine anyway. Race bikes are no longer made of steel.
As far as I can see, the corporations who today build the carbon fiber bikes that are raced, are doing little that is innovative as far as geometry. They still build the basic 73-degree parallel frame that dates to the days when it was easier for a builder to build a lugged steel frame that way.
It is difficult to find a CF fork with a 35 mm. rake anymore. Today frames come out of a mold, angles and geometry could be unlimited. Within UCI rules of course, but even within those rules there is room for change. The UCI will also follow what the manufactures want. Disc brakes was an example of that.
To Share click "Share Article" below
Reader Comments (4)
"I see beautiful pieces of art, outstanding paint, and metalwork, but how do they ride?"
I have often wondered this myself.
I reckon that the artists mostly don't know how to answer it.
Both I'd say.
This as a classic form vs. function argument. It all depends on your priority. Does one necessarily negate the other? A C-Record crankset is arguably the most beautiful chainset that will ever grace a spindle. It is a balance of form and function. It had style and aerodynamic benefits despite being heavier than its predecessor. A bicycle is a tool of conveyance, yes. But it is also an object of desire and aspiration. The savvy (solvent) custom builders of today understand that it is that aspirational quality of a custom bicycle that keeps the lights on and the shop dog fed.
Less rake would increase the trail and ride more stably, wouldn’t it?
If it’s me, I would take more help holding a straight line on steep grades than carving sharp turns on the way down. Maybe one day suppliers and consumers will finally catch up to that and the realization that they don’t really need a 53/11.