My Design Philosophy Explained

I look at frame specs of all the major bicycle manufactures today, and they all follow each other within certain parameters. Of course the UCI (The governing body of the sport of cycle racing.) lays out certain rules and regulations pertaining to the design of a racing bicycle. However, within these UCI rules there is a pretty wide scope for any individual to do something a little different.

Most take the safe approach and follow what their competitors are doing. It has always been that way, framebuilders do whatever is easiest for them, and bike riders make do with whatever is available. When I got into cycling in the early 1950s, the standard frame of the day was 73 head and 71 seat angle.

Sitting back that far was totally unsuited to my short stature of 5’ 6” (167 cm.) I got into framebuilding trying to build a better frame for myself. I found as soon as I made an effort, I would slide forward onto the tip of the saddle. This was not only extremely uncomfortable, it had the effect of my saddle being too low. The answer seemed simple to me. Make the top tube shorter, and the seat angle steeper, thus moving the saddle forward to where my backside wanted it to be.

Why were seat angles so shallow in the 1950s and before that? It was a throwback to the “Ordinary,” the high-wheeler that was the forerunner of the chain driven bicycle. In 1950 the chain driven bike was only 65 years old. There were still people around that had actually ridden the old high-wheeler.

By the 1960s the parallel angle frame came into vogue. By making the seat and head tube the same angle, the same size top tube could be used over several sizes, tubes could be pre-mitered, and simple frame assembly jigs could be used, thus speeding up production.

First came the 72/72 degree frame, followed a short time later by 73/73 degree angles. The reason being, people were not ready to jump from a 71 seat angle to a 73. 72 parallel was a good compromise. When people found that worked, it was an easier sell to the 73 degree parallel. 73 degrees was a better head angle anyway. That had been established as far back as the 1930s, and is still the standard today, for a road frame.

In the 1970s most Italian builders, and many English builders switched to 73 degree seat with a 75 degree head angle. No one was going back to a 71 seat angle, but having that 2 degree difference in the angle, and with the two tubes getting further away from each other as the frame got taller, was an advantage for the framebuilder. The top tube automatically became longer for the larger frames.

The selling point was, ‘Steeper head angle makes a livelier handling bike.’ It did indeed. Lively to the point of being dangerous for an inexperienced rider. I did not follow this trend, but instead made the top tube shorter. For example a 54 cm. frame (C to T) had a 54 cm. (C to C.) top tube.

A 55 cm. frame had a 54.5 cm. top tube, and a 56 cm. frame had a 55 cm. top tube, and so on. As the seat tube increased by one centimeter, the top tube only increased by half a centimeter.

This simple formula meant that by increasing the handlebar stem length to compensate for the decreasing top tube. It meant the front part of the handlebars was always in the same position directly above the front hub and the point where the tire contacts the road.  This was the case throughout the range of sizes. (See top of page drawing.)

When sprinting out of the saddle, there is always a certain amount of “Throwing” the bike from side to side. If the rider’s weight is directly above the tire’s point if contact, the wheel will remain straight. If the rider’s weight is ahead or behind this point of contact, any sideways movement could translate into the front wheel steering this way and that. I found with this set up, the 73 degree head angle can feel just as lively in a sprint, as the steeper angle, but without the “Squirrely” feel of the steeper bike.

Except for my very smallest size frames, 51 cm. and below. Which had a 72 degree head angle, and 38 mm. fork rake, all other sizes had a 73 degree head angle with 35mm. fork rake. This ensured the same handling characteristics for all sizes.

Above: A small 19" (49 cm.) frame, built in England in 1977. the differance in seat and head tube angles can clearly be seen. However, for a rider of small stature the riding position is more balanced than it would be if the frame were built with a shallower seat angle and a longer top tube.  

The seat angle varied from 76 degrees for the smallest frames, gradually decreasing, 75, 74, to 73 degrees for the largest sizes. This was often a hard sell to a market that had always heard 73 degree seat angles.  

What I had, (And still have today.) is a “Niche” following. I gradually built a network of bike dealers, who once they, or their employees had ridden my bikes, they were sold. It was then an easy sale to their customers, because they truly believed in the product. The proof can also be seen in the number of “Original” owners on my Registry website.

Will my ideas ever become “Mainstream.” I very much doubt it. Frames today either pop out of a mold, or they are welded steel or aluminum. There are no restrictions what-so-ever on angles or tube lengths, but most stick to the tried and safe 73/73. Any slight variation on this I feel is not done to improve handling or ride qualities, but rather to keep a balanced look throughout the range of sizes.  

Large corporations have to sell a lot of product to survive, and you can’t sell a lot of product in a “Niche” market.

     To Share click "Share Article" below.    

The UCI Disc Brake Ban, and the American Market

The UCI (The World Governing Body for the sport of cycle racing.) recently lifted their ban on disc brakes for road racing and allowed them to be used in the Paris-Roubaix race.

Then when Movistar rider Francisco Ventoso suffered a severe cut on his leg, that may or may not have been caused by coming into contact with a disc brake, banned them again just as quickly.

By the way, this is just an observation, but:

Don’t manufacturers see that the fears the pros have might be a little less if the current crop of disc brakes didn’t look like a device for slicing meat. (See top picture.)

I’m sure someone will explain to me why the outside edge can’t be smooth and rounded, instead of resembling the teeth of a circular saw.

After the UCI ban, I read stories about the major bike manufacturers being in a panic, as in recent years they have all invested heavily in the development of disc brakes for road bikes.

Looking back at my own experience coming from Europe to America some 37 years ago, the industry has not a thing to worry about. As far as cycling is concered, the American leisure market drives itself, unaffected by what the European Pros are using.

Not only does the US leisure market drive itself it eventually influences what equipment the rest of the world uses, including the pros. Take helmet use as one prime example of this.

When I first came to the US in 1979, I came from a cycling culture where everyone who was seriously into the sport belonged to a local Cycling Club. Almost all club members raced at some level, either in road races or time-trials at the very least.

No one used a helmet except for the leather hairnet kind (Right.) mandatory for amateur road races, but not time-trials.

Nowhere in the UK or the rest of Europe did cyclists wear helmets for leisure riding or training. In fact the idea was ridiculed.

Everyone had their bike set up like a pro, the club system saw to that. It helped coach and influence newcomers to the sport.

I arrived in the US to find no one had a clue what was going on in Europe, and neither did anyone care. Very few owners of racing bikes actually raced, and across the board everyone rode a frame that was 3 or 4 centimeters bigger than their European counterparts.

Handlebars were up level with the saddle, and brake levers were high up on the bars with the levers sticking out like a pair of six-guns.

And the helmets… Ugly white things that looked like an upturned pudding basin. And everyone had at least one story how their helmet had “Saved their Life.”

So the use of helmets is a prime example of how the American leisure market influenced the rest of the world. The UCI did not make helmets compulsory for the pros until as recent as 2003.

The Mountain Bike is another. Developed entirely in America, caught the imagination of all leisure cyclists and the general public, to the extent it killed the road bike market for a while. It created a huge market worldwide and got the corporations involved.

Index shifting too, brought about by the mountain bike and the large numbers of inexperienced riders it brought in. People who did not know how to shift gears with a friction shift. This then lead to gear levers up on the brake levers, and eventually 10 and 11 speed cassettes.

I am not suggesting these developments have been adverse, many have improved the sport. That is not my point. The technology was not developed in the pro peloton. In almost every sport, equipment is developed at the professional level, but not in cycling.

In fact the UCI bans the use of prototype equipment, thus stifling any useful technological advancement there. Disc brakes first appeared on mountain bikes, and have gradually made their way over to road bikes.

If the pros had more say in the development of disc brakes, their safety concerns would have already been addressed. But the UCI does everything ass backwards.

Meanwhile I don’t see why the big bike corporations are panicking (If indeed they are.) The American leisure rider doesn't give a damn what the UCI sanctions or what the European pros use. He never did, and never will. He is more influenced by what his buddies use on the next Sunday morning coffee ride.     

  To Share click "Share Article" below

Too good to be true

There is an old adage: “If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.” As I reflect on the whole Lance Armstrong saga, in retrospect that old saying should have been applied but wasn’t.

The Fairy Tale story of a young athlete who almost died of cancer then came back to win the Tour de France seven times, has now been proved to be just that, a Fairy Tale.

The thing is I knew it was too good to be true; which is why now I feel pretty stupid. Not because I really bought into the Armstrong story, but because I sat safely on the fence, not having the balls to take one side or the other.

Had I taken the stand that Armstrong had doped; (Which is what I suspected.) back when I started this blog in 2005; LA was just coming off his Seventh TDF win and I probably would have made far more enemies than friends. However, I would now have the satisfaction of saying, “Told you so.”

On the other hand had I preached along the lines that Lance was the greatest cyclist ever who never took dope; I would be looking even more stupid now. So like many others I took the safe neutral ground and said nothing.

It is easy to speak out against the “Big Tex” now that everyone else is, but it brings little satisfaction. We should have all spoken up years ago. When I say “We” I mean everyone who writes about the sport of cycling.

I am just an old guy who used to be in the bike biz, with a blog that gets a couple of thousand hits a day; I am not pretending to have a huge influence on anything. But anyone who writes about cycling has a responsibility; from the independent blogger all the way up to the mainstream media.

It is usually the mainstream media who expose wrong doing; it is their duty to keep people honest. From Watergate to more recently the Catholic Church and Penn State, the media did it.

But Armstrong was different; he manipulated the media. He shut out those who asked tough questions, and silenced others by suing them. It took a government agency to bring LA down.

Those who spoke up about Lance Armstrong doping before this story broke; good for you, you are a hero. If you are a blogger or journalist who supported Armstrong over the years; it is not enough that you jump in the band wagon now and condemn him along with the rest.

There needs to be an apology to the few who did speak up but were ignored even vilified. And if like me you sat on the fence; we are not much better because we did nothing. This is by way of my apology.

This weekend Five major European newspapers – The Times, Belgium’s Het Nieuwsblad and Le Soir, French title L’Equipe and Italy’s La Gazzetta dello Sport – have today joined to launch a ‘Manifesto for credible cycling’

This is huge; these big national newspapers have a real influence on sports, and can hold governing bodies like the UCI accountable.

If I did not speak up about Armstrong, I have always said here that the UCI has failed the sport. (Click on the UCI tag and scroll down to read previous articles.)

The nature of any sport’s governing body is that the mini-politicians who run a sport, are often former failed or at best mediocre athletes who once in office are hard to remove, and become entrenched in their own importance and power.

Pat McQuaid, the current President of UCI, and “Clown Prince” of Cycling, is a typical example. The media was split when USADA report was first released, with many coming out on Armstrong’s side. Most have since recanted, but a few stay on LA’s side.

But through all this I have not read a single article that supports McQuaid or says he is doing a good job; there are calls for his resignation from every quarter. In spite of this McQuaid refuses to step down.

This just goes to show the arrogance and ego of the man, that he would refuse to step down when there is practically a unanimous call for his resignation.

Pat McQuaid (Picture top on right.) and his predecessor Hein Verbruggen (Top left.) looked the other way as Armstrong and others doped; they cannot say they didn’t know.

Like many who have been caught in recent years doing things they shouldn’t have, those who knew they were doing wrong but did nothing are just as responsible. McQuaid and Verbruggen must resign if cycling is to move on from this.

                       

For the love of cycling

I love the bicycle and I love cycling. The reason… Almost my entire life it has given me so much, and to this day continues to do so.

As a child I fell in love with the bicycle, which later lead to some success as a racing cyclist and was instrumental in building my self esteem. This otherwise might not have happened and my life could have taken a totally different course.

My interest in cycling lead to a career in building bicycles, which eventually brought me to the United States, and again affected the course of my life. My bicycle and cycling continue to give me joy and satisfaction to this day, every time I ride.

When something is a passion in someone’s life, it is only natural they want to share it with others, so that they too might find the same joy and passion. I look on it as “Giving Back” in return for something that has given me so much.

For this reason I find the current news stories that are dominating the sport of cycling these days, extremely disturbing; namely the whole issue of doping in professional cycling.

The two main players in this story are Lance Armstrong and Pat McQuaid, who is the President of the UCI, the world governing body of the sport of cycling. (Both are pictured above.) 

If ever there were two people who owe everything they are today to cycling, it is these two.

It can be said that Lance Armstrong has in return done much for cycling, especially in the US; but it is a “Chicken/Egg” situation where the bicycle came first, and cycling made the man.

Pat McQuaid was an average pro racing cyclist who would be for the most part forgotten now if his un-illustrious career as a professional cyclist had not eventually lead to his Presidency of the UCI. Again had it not been for the bicycle and cycling the bold Pat would not be the UCI Pres.

Neither Armstrong or McQuaid would be where they are today, anymore than I would have been a bicycle framebuilder and writing here today, if it were not for cycling.

LA is an extremely wealthy man due to his earnings from cycling. McQuaid draws a substantial salary as President of the UCI. My own financial standing pales by comparison to these two, but I am still grateful for all that cycling has given me and continues to give.  

It irks me to see these two who should be so much more grateful to the sport of cycling, continue to inflict harm with the charade of lies and deceit.

Lance Armstrong has done much to bring awareness to cancer; I just wish he would put the same effort into bringing awareness to doping in sport, so that future generations do not feel they have to do that. I wish he would say, “Okay, I doped, but then so did everyone else.” Then we could move forward.

Pat McQuaid simply says that the doping problem is not his fault or that of the UCI. Well if not the UCI’s problem then whose? It would be like the Federal Government saying the use of illegal drugs is not their problem.

I can only come to the conclusion that Lance Armstrong and Pat McQuaid do not love cycling; or if they do, they love their own importance and their own egos, more than cycling.

Allowed to continue they will do great harm to the sport; the IOC (The Olympic Governing Body.) could bar cycling from the Olympics if the UCI does not get its act together and replace McQuaid soon.

More reading on the subject:

Floyd Landis and the Power of Shuddup

The UCIs failure to silence LeMond

Richard Pound Interview (Former WADA President.)

Lance Armstrong: My Conscience is Clear

                      

Doping then and now

I have written here before how doping has possibly been prevalent in professional cycling probably as long as there has been professional cycle racing.

Possibly as far back as the late 1800s soon after the invention of the bicycle as we know it today.

The picture on the left is from a French magazine article from the 1930s.

I have also mentioned before that when I started racing in the early 1950s it was an open secret that professional cyclists in races like the Tour de France took amphetamines. This is a stimulant that wards off fatigue and keeps you awake and alert.

Amphetamine was discovered by a Romanian chemist named Lazar Edeleano at the University of Berlin in 1887, but was not used clinically until Gordon A. Alles re-synthesized the drug in the 1920s for use in medical settings to treat asthma, hay fever, and colds.

In 1932, Smith-Kline, marketed the first amphetamine product in the US; an amphetamine-based inhaler to treat nasal congestion.

During the remaining 1930s, amphetamines were promoted by U.S. pharmaceutical companies as treatments for a range of ailments, such as alcohol hangover, narcolepsy, depression, weight reduction, hyperactivity in children, and vomiting associated with pregnancy.

Methamphetamine (MA), a variant of amphetamine, was first synthesized in Japan in 1893 by Nagayoshi Nagai from the precursor chemical ephedrine. MA was not widely used until World War II (1940s), at which time German, English, American, and Japanese governments began giving their military personnel the drug to enhance endurance and alertness and ward off fatigue.

Even today, amphetamines are sometimes used by the U.S. military. In 2002, U.S. pilots in Afghanistan killed and wounded Canadian soldiers in “friendly fire.” The defending lawyers argued that the pilots’ use of amphetamines, which is sanctioned by the Air Force, may have affected the pilots’ judgment.

Amphetamine was available in France under the trade name Maxiton. It was still available there over the counter at any pharmacy well into the 1950s; so it was hardly a banned substance. There was no rule banning its use by athletes, certainly not in professional cycling anyway.

It was counter-productive for a Tour de France rider to take too much, as one of its side affects is that it delays recovery, and of course keeps you awake. Something you definitely don’t want in a major stage race where you have to get up and race every day.

So was this cheating? I didn’t see it that way. It was not prohibited by the UCI or any other body; it was looked on at the time as something necessary to compete in an event like the Tour de France. It probably did a better job than coffee, is the way I still look at it.

As far as I remember the main brands used were Benzadrine (US. and UK.) or Maxiton (France.) which were amphetamines, not the more potent and highly addictive Methamphetamines.

Everything changed with the death of Tom Simpson in 1967. Simpson died of heat exhaustion on Mont Vontoux during the Tour de France; his autopsy showed that he had taken amphetamines mixed with alcohol. Whether the amphetamines contributed to his death is open for debate; after all athletes can die of heat exhaustion with or without amphetamines.

However, alcohol mixed with a stimulant is not a good cocktail; especially on an extremely hot day that this was. The amphetamine would mask the effect of the alcohol and alcohol would cause dehydration. Add to that a Tour regulation at that time restricting the riders to two liters of water each.  (Four bidons.) The effects of dehydration not being fully understood back then.

In the end lack of water killed Tom Simpson, amphetamines and alcohol mixed contributed. However, the point was by 1967 amphetamines were now a controlled substance and therefore it was used illegally. The world’s press and media had a field day.

The UCI at some point banned the use of any form of stimulant and instituted drug testing. From this point on it has now gone from the use of amphetamines, a simple stimulant, to the use of Blood Doping, EPO, Testosterone along with Steroids and Clenbuterol that can actually alter an athlete’s lean muscle mass.

Today it definitely is cheating, because the cyclist or the team who has the most money can buy the best doctors and scientists to produce the best possible drugs that not only give that rider or team a definite advantage over other less financed riders, they are always one step ahead of the drug testers.

Those who claim that through the 1990s for example, that everyone was doping therefore the playing field level should consider this: Back in the 1950s and before that when everyone took the same amphetamine tablets, the playing field was level, but in more recent times who knows what “Super Dope” one rider or team might have, when quite often it can’t even be detected.

Because winning at this level is such a huge financial enterprise; money available leads to bribery and corruption so that which does get detected is covered up. The sport will never rid itself of this problem until the top officials at the UCI are held accountable.

The UCI created this problem by allowing amphetamine use to continue into the 1960s, long after governments had placed controls on the drug’s use. Then they followed up by doing a half assed job of controlling doping through the 1970s until the present day. They have let loose a monster that will be difficult to get back in the cage.