All I want is a horizontal top tube...

[wajcgac]

http://www.tweekscycles.com/Product.do?method=view&n=3594&p=341054&d=124&c=4&l=2&utm_source=Google&utm_medium=Base&utm_campaign=Hybrid%20&%20City%20Tyres&gclid=COfz3ZqgqsoCFc8aGwodJnMK_g

May be of interest ?

[Mr Larrington]

Fifty posts in and no-one has suggested buying a bike with a sloping top tube and fitting a small front wheel inna-hot-rod-stylee?

This place is going to the dogs

[mzjo]

I would have thought the solution was even more simple. Don't find what you want - build it yourself  If you don't have the confidence a certain mr D Y does very good courses. (And if you build it yourself you know who to blame if it ain't right)

[Morat]

  In any case (IMHO) Schwalbe don't make fast tyres narrow doesn't always mean fast and certainly not in 26" size.   Having said that Specialized used to make a superb 1" cover for those of us with a yen for smaller wheels but it seems these days that uk distributors have decided that the only folk riding on 26" wheels are mountain bikers. 

Schwalbe Ones are pretty darn quick...
http://www.acycles.co.uk/schwalbe-one-folding-tyre-26x090-black-12908.html

[rr]

Why are you after frame only? Do you have all the rest?
Only asking because you can change nearly everything of you buy a rose.

[Highlander]

Why are you after frame only? Do you have all the rest?
Only asking because you can change nearly everything of you buy a rose.

I've never bought a complete bike, prefer to build it myself.  I suppose I could buy one complete and sell the components I don't want but I don't see why I should have to.


Regarding tyres, I maintain that Schwalbe do not make fast tyres folk that buy Schwalbe do so because they have a reputation for puncture resistance.  I don't know anything about this "one" tyre but I suspect it's an attempt to rebrand the Ultremo ZX which looked as though it should be a fast cover but wasn't/isn't.   Continental, Vittoria, Veloflex, there are much better choices.  What I yearn for is something like the Conti 4000s in 26", ironically you can get it in 650c but what Continental produce for 559 is nowhere near as good as the 4000s.   It's just my humble opinion but I reckon lots of cyclists would be faster/more efficient on smaller wheels, but there's not enough market force (yet) to stimulate widespread production of decent rims and tyres.   Things can and probably will change in time, look at the resurgence of 650b for example.




 

[TimC]

Why are you after frame only? Do you have all the rest?
Only asking because you can change nearly everything of you buy a rose.

I've never bought a complete bike, prefer to build it myself.  I suppose I could buy one complete and sell the components I don't want but I don't see why I should have to.


Regarding tyres, I maintain that Schwalbe do not make fast tyres folk that buy Schwalbe do so because they have a reputation for puncture resistance.  I don't know anything about this "one" tyre but I suspect it's an attempt to rebrand the Ultremo ZX which looked as though it should be a fast cover but wasn't/isn't.   Continental, Vittoria, Veloflex, there are much better choices.  What I yearn for is something like the Conti 4000s in 26", ironically you can get it in 650c but what Continental produce for 559 is nowhere near as good as the 4000s.   It's just my humble opinion but I reckon lots of cyclists would be faster/more efficient on smaller wheels, but there's not enough market force (yet) to stimulate widespread production of decent rims and tyres.   Things can and probably will change in time, look at the resurgence of 650b for example.




 

I'd be interested in whatever science you can bring up to back your opinion that the One and the Ultremo ZX are not fast tyres. The cycling press doesn't share your opinion, and neither do I.

[IanDG]

The way this threads dragging there'll be a new batch of Stragglers in the country soon 


Will switching 700c/26" wheels in a frame built for 700c have any effect on the handling characteristic of the bike?

[sojournermike]

The way this threads dragging there'll be a new batch of Stragglers in the country soon 


Will switching 700c/26" wheels in a frame built for 700c have any effect on the handling characteristic of the bike?

You can probably still pick up a Straggler from Triton or Charlie the Bikemonger, though maybe not in all sizes;) Also, they produced both a 700c and a 650b version.


Handling will be influenced by the overall rolling radius of the wheel, so not much difference between skinny 622s and fat 559s, and tyre width/pressure. Fatter tyres and lower pressure make it feel a bit slower handling and steering, but probably more secure in corners. When I had a surly LHT I played with all sorts of tyre width combinations and it was interesting how different you could get the bike to feel.

[Samuel D]

I doubt many people give it much thought, I don't think aesthetics come into it for most buyers.

I think almost everyone considers aesthetics when they buy a bike. When possible, they get something they think looks good. But most people haven’t thought a lot about aesthetics or design and don’t have a well developed sense of what looks harmonious and in keeping with the function of the object (consider the ridiculously aggressive sheet metal of every five-door family hatchback in the UK). Additionally, there are valid differences of opinion even among people who think about design.

But I agree a horizontal top tube is pleasing on a road bicycle that is meant to go fast. The farther you depart from that type of bicycle, though, the less it matters. If you’re storing a bicycle on a narrowboat and riding it on tow paths, I’m not sure a sloping top tube is a big problem.

[sojournermike]

I doubt many people give it much thought, I don't think aesthetics come into it for most buyers.

I think almost everyone considers aesthetics when they buy a bike. When possible, they get something they think looks good. But most people haven’t thought a lot about aesthetics or design and don’t have a well developed sense of what looks harmonious and in keeping with the function of the object (consider the ridiculously aggressive sheet metal of every five-door family hatchback in the UK). Additionally, there are valid differences of opinion even among people who think about design.

But I agree a horizontal top tube is pleasing on a road bicycle that is meant to go fast. The farther you depart from that type of bicycle, though, the less it matters. If you’re storing a bicycle on a narrowboat and riding it on tow paths, I’m not sure a sloping top tube is a big problem.

Interesting point was raised earlier about harmonious appearance and stem angle. I have a 17 degree stem on my GF Ti and I'm not quite sure it gels with the slightly sloping top tube. On the other hand it does get the bars down far enough.

[Mr Larrington]

If Schwalbe Ones are good enough to permit my grate frend Mr van Dijken to ride at almost 80 mph then I suggest they do merit the adjective "fast".

[LittleWheelsandBig]

What I yearn for is something like the Conti 4000s in 26", ironically you can get it in 650c but what Continental produce for 559 is nowhere near as good as the 4000s.

If you push the "Tyres with similar performance" button on http://www.continental-tires.com/bicycle/tyres/race-tyres/grand-prix amongst the list of similar tyres is the Grand Prix 4000 S II. I don't think the difference between them is as great as you suggest. The 28-406 Grand Prix is also quite fast.

[Samuel D]

The Schwalbe One is a fast tyre, make no mistake. It’s true the Ultremo ZX before it was mediocre for speed (despite its market position), but the One has a new and significantly improved compound.

[Mr Larrington]

Back in 2003 a man from Conti told me they were going to stop making the 28-406 GP coz world+dog were all buying Schwalbe Stelvios.  Stelvios were generally held to be faster and their sidewalls were much less fragile.

Then they changed their minds

[LittleWheelsandBig]

They changed the construction of the Grand Prix quite a while ago. The sidewalls are much less delicate now.

[Kim]

I doubt many people give it much thought, I don't think aesthetics come into it for most buyers.

I think almost everyone considers aesthetics when they buy a bike. When possible, they get something they think looks good.

Agreed.  A hard bash on the pubic area will trump aesthetics for most people.

But most people haven’t thought a lot about aesthetics or design and don’t have a well developed sense of what looks harmonious and in keeping with the function of the object (consider the ridiculously aggressive sheet metal of every five-door family hatchback in the UK). Additionally, there are valid differences of opinion even among people who think about design.

This is where I get lost.  My sense of aesthetics is more 'engineering' than 'design'.  I don't give a stuff about lugs, which are something that people seem to squee about, but can appreciate a quality weld.

Frame angles are another one.  Obviously clean lines look good, but a bicycle is only half of the system.  I recall velovoice OTP coming under attack for the geometry of her custom frame build, from people who didn't seem to understand that the whole point in a custom built frame is to fit the rider, and we don't get to chose our parents.

A more extreme example: Barkata's wonky handlebars look awful, until you see her using them.

Family hatchbacks?  Meh, they're just cars.  The beauty is mostly in the process that churns them out.

[Highlander]

We're getting off the point a bit here but it's all interesting stuff.

I hear what people say about the Schwalbe One but you will have gathered I have a somewhat jaundiced opinion of Schwalbe.   

Citing examples of tyres used in speed record attempts where the vehicle is a faired recumbent and the road is billiard table smooth with no corners doesn't have much relevance in the real world of everyday cycling.  Alex Moulton has a tyre specially made by Wolber to fit his small wheel creations which IIRC he claimed had the lowest rolling resistance of any tyre available at the time - on a drum tester.  When was the last time anyone saw a 17" wheel Moulton?

I don't have any "science" to back up any of my assertions, it's my opinion based on my own experience.  Many disagree, clearly, so be it.   But, FWIW, for a couple of years  I rode a recumbent trike, nothing else,  and tadpole riders discuss tyres constantly.  It's because there's 50% more rolling resistance.  Like others, I tried a variety of Schwalbe tyres - they actually make one specifically for trikes -  and nothing came close to a set of cheap Kendas that I nicked off my Dahon folder. 

BTW I notice the Schwalbe One is heavily discounted in many stores.

The trouble is there's a dearth of real world research when it comes to bicycle tyres, and a lot of often confusing anecdotal lore which I admit I am contributing to...

The handling implications of changing wheel sizes isn't a big deal if we're comparing narrow 700c and wide 650b as you end up with negligible drop.  Going 700c to 26" would obviously lower the BB and the trail, other things being equal but if you change tyre sizes as well as the wheel size... the results, I'd suggest, aren't always predictable.  I'd be interested in hearing more about Soujournermike's experience with the LHT.     

Samuel D - couldn't agree more with the appalling state of modern car design and it's an interesting point you make about aesthetics. I totally disagree with Kim, I find the effect of modern vehicles on the landscape/streetscape in this country quite offensive.  How often have you been to a charming rural village the appearance of which is completely ruined by godawful looking modern machinery parked everywhere.  Just to get back on track though, if all I was bothered about was a bike to trundle up and down towpaths then fine who cares what it looks like but I still like to pretend I am a racing cyclist again it's pathetic really. 

I'm going off the Straggler BTW, the geometry's all wrong for me.  The Condor Fratello disc currently has my attention even though the tt isn't quite level those bikes really do look classy.  Just my opinion, of course...       

[Kim]

I totally disagree with Kim, I find the effect of modern vehicles on the landscape/streetscape in this country quite offensive.

Okay, I really wasn't thinking about it in those terms, which would seem to contradict what I'd said about bikes in the previous paragraph.

I suppose you do have to consider the aesthetics of a car in context.  Since the primary purpose of a car is to sit around on the street in case its owner might need to go somewhere, there is plenty of scope for improvement of the design to that end.  Personally, I'd prefer an engineering solution - solving the mobility problem in a way that doesn't involve cluttering everywhere with cars - but if that's not practical maybe there's scope for improving the aesthetics.  A bit like making crisp packets that look better when lying in verges.

As a thought experiment, I'm imagining the likes of Bournville Village Trust mandating that residents can keep as many cars as they like, as long as they be of an approved model and colour.  The list of approved models being left as an exercise for the reader.

[Cudzoziemiec]

Why not? There are places where you have to paint your doors and windows a particular colour, after all.

Aesthetics can mean two things, I reckon. One is "It looks nice because I like it," the other is a scientific or artistic understanding of what shapes, colours, etc are pleasing (or displeasing) to the human eye and brain and why they have this effect. For instance, the golden ratio or "divine proportion". The first sense is not really deserving of the name aesthetics, but the label gets used. In Highlander's case, he has said he likes horizontal top tubes. He just likes them. I don't think we need seek a reason and it's not something to argue about, though we might agree or disagree – but that's just our opinion. Had he said he believed horizontal top tubes were structurally superior, there would be something to argue about. But he didn't.

[TimC]

If a horizontal top tube is what Highlander wants, then it's what he should have - if it's available. Doesn't float my boat, and I suspect I'm in the majority there, and, like Kim, I tend to go for things that make engineering sense.

I'm a bit (and only a bit) curious about the concept that 'it looks faster' and that you want a bike that will, at least for some of its life, will be wearing fat tyres (but not Schwalbes for some prejudicial reason!) yet you want to look and feel like a 'racing cyclist'. This, I think, alludes to an era of racing cycles and cyclists that I'm not familiar with! Are there similar idiosyncrasies when it comes to the choice of the other components?

I must admit I'm intrigued to see the built outcome of this selection process.

[Cudzoziemiec]

I must admit I'm intrigued to see the built outcome of this selection process.

Very much.

[Biggsy]

All the information you really need to assess a tyre's speed can be got through your fingers before fitting it.  If it's smooth, thin and very flexible, then it's got to be fast, innit?  (And I mean thin rather than narrow, necessarily).

I've yet to cop a feel of Schwalbe Ones, so can't comment on them.

[zigzag]

a good illustriation regarding sloping vs horizontal top tubes is in recent posts in "my bikes" thread. windy's bike's top tube is horizontal, but requires lots of spacers under the stem to keep him comfortable. blodwyn's bike has sloping top tube and looks nicely proportional. now imagine blodwyn's bike's top tube would be going horizontally where the two boards on the wall overlap. the seatpost would need to be almost fully inserted!
in my opinion road bike geometry evolved to it's current shape for very good (practical and aesthetic) reasons.

[Highlander]

I totally disagree with Kim, I find the effect of modern vehicles on the landscape/streetscape in this country quite offensive.

Okay, I really wasn't thinking about it in those terms, which would seem to contradict what I'd said about bikes in the previous paragraph.

I suppose you do have to consider the aesthetics of a car in context.  Since the primary purpose of a car is to sit around on the street in case its owner might need to go somewhere, there is plenty of scope for improvement of the design to that end.  Personally, I'd prefer an engineering solution - solving the mobility problem in a way that doesn't involve cluttering everywhere with cars - but if that's not practical maybe there's scope for improving the aesthetics.  A bit like making crisp packets that look better when lying in verges.

As a thought experiment, I'm imagining the likes of Bournville Village Trust mandating that residents can keep as many cars as they like, as long as they be of an approved model and colour.  The list of approved models being left as an exercise for the reader.

It is not unusual these days for newly built housing estates to have restrictive covenants against caravans, motorhomes, and "trade" vehicles so why not some similar prescription for cars.  I've lived most of my life in/around national parks and it's a complete mystery to me why the authorities go to great lengths to control development but allow visual mayhem in the form of too many ugly road vehicles.  Some of the honeypots have had to control car access by necessity but it's often more to do with lack of space than aesthetics.

If a horizontal top tube is what Highlander wants, then it's what he should have - if it's available. Doesn't float my boat, and I suspect I'm in the majority there, and, like Kim, I tend to go for things that make engineering sense.

I'm a bit (and only a bit) curious about the concept that 'it looks faster' and that you want a bike that will, at least for some of its life, will be wearing fat tyres (but not Schwalbes for some prejudicial reason!) yet you want to look and feel like a 'racing cyclist'. This, I think, alludes to an era of racing cycles and cyclists that I'm not familiar with! Are there similar idiosyncrasies when it comes to the choice of the other components?

I must admit I'm intrigued to see the built outcome of this selection process.

You can take the engineering factor too far - anyone remember the "Kirk Precision..?"

However, I'm willing to accept my view may be a generation thing, I well recall when the first compact frames appeared on the Sunday club run and not a small number of us derided these "girls bikes" as a passing fad.  I have my dignity to preserve...  Also I suspect many of us banging on about bikes of yesteryear being better looking hold the same opinions regarding modern "rock" music, probably best not to get onto that subject. 

But I look at pictures of the TdF from say the 1970's/80's with the classic frames, black shorts, black shoes white socks, and to me the modern peloton by comparison looks like a bunch of circus clowns.   Maybe to younger cyclists it's a bit like watching the England 1966 World Cup team with their tiny tiny shorts that look quite ridiculous now.  I'm not convinced.  Bikes and cyclists 30-40 years ago just looked so much better, the essential simplicity still preserved.

 http://www.bikeraceinfo.com/images-all/photo-galleries-images/racers-images/hinault-bernard/1981-tour-prologo-Hinault-i.jpg