Bike porn

Squashing the tube like that reduces stiffness in most directions, maybe a tiny gain in bending in plane but that's pointless - the big issue with down tubes is torsion, for which a circular cross section is best. This kind of ovalising is done only to reduce frontal area in a slightly pointless gesture towards reduced aerodynamic drag.

^This. That kind of pressing does nothing positive for torsional stiffness.

Nuno has a similar frame and it is NICE!

That kind of pressing does nothing positive for torsional stiffness.

stop pretending you know what it means

=))

Nice try, but I do have a basic understanding.

well i don't =((

Readers wives' doppelgangers.

do you mean with the seat slammed all the way in?..

You 2 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_lWsm82FmBTc/SoMoRhL0h0I/AAAAAAAAASc/so5InS8F-bc/s1600-h/DSC00400.JPG

That's one of my all time fav road frames. Absolute mint.

Squashing the tube like that reduces stiffness in most directions, maybe a tiny gain in bending in plane but that's pointless - the big issue with down tubes is torsion, for which a circular cross section is best. This kind of ovalising is done only to reduce frontal area in a slightly pointless gesture towards reduced aerodynamic drag.

But Jorj, I have never ridden any frame, steel mind, that behaves like this one. In all honesty, you can bet that stiffness is the word, the frame doesn't flex one mm. Comparing to other track frames I own (all steel), this is the most 'alloy' of all.
The methods were quite primitive, wood-press like, the tubing is just 'nice' Czech made lightweight steel, the welding is quite peculiar in places, the final result is astonishing.
I absolute love my frame*.
Important to mention, regarding torsion, that the central trapeze has all but the TT ovalised. This has to be of some effect to the final flex resistance.

*Not readers wives intended, at all.

so nice, whats with the downtube, why is it ovalised this way???

Contrary to what Mdcc_Tester wrote, I'll go for the stiffness reason. The aerodynamic advantage obviously, has to be considered, but the frame is too old and 'prototype'..
It was actually called (the one pictured) - 1979 Favorit F2 aerotubes prototype.
Mine is a - 1980 F2 aerotubes prototype. Loads of differences.
1979 - Campy drillium track ends, 'normal' stays, no crown chromed forks.
1980 - Favorit track ends, Aero stays, twin plate fork crown, Campy forks, lighter steel.

you can bet that stiffness is the word, the frame doesn't flex one mm

You can't get around the fairly simple mathematics. Increasing the stiffness of a steel tube is quite easy - increase the OD, increase the wall thickness, maximise the moments in the required directions (at the cost of those in non-preferred directions). The particular steel in use is all but irrelevant until you get to such thin sections that UTS becomes problematic, e.g. you need 753 to make usable tubes 0.3mm thick, but at 1mm thick mild steel is strong enough. You can get clever with FEA to ensure that you get the butts in the right proportions, and you can make surprising large changes to lateral stiffness of the rear triangle with quite subtle adjustments to the geometry and the bridges/gussets/fillets, but really it's 90% down to just using more metal if you want more stiffness. All that being said, people's subjective impression of the stiffness of a particular frame is very nearly the worst possible guide to how stiff it actually is, only marginally second to looking at pictures on the internet.

That's one of my all time fav road frames. Absolute mint.

this ones inches it for me

this ones inches it for me

^ Sold recently. Posted in classifieds, went for something like 200 euros... steal.

You can't get around the fairly simple mathematics....only marginally second to looking at pictures on the internet.

I failed maths all through school, and as much as I agree with you (albeit feeling a bit dumb reading your post...), the frame itself behaves beautifully, handles perfectly. Enough for me there.
Thanks for the enlightenment though.
Mdcc_testipedia as usual.

the frame itself behaves beautifully, handles perfectly

I'm not saying it doesn't, just that the tube squashing is not responsible for that. If I had to guess, I'd say the frame would have handled better without the tube manipulation, but not by enough to be subjectively perceptible in a blind test.

^ Sold recently. Posted in classifieds, went for something like 200 euros... steal.

Last week there were 2 of these Gazelle 731 for sane on Marktplaats.nl
I placed links in Current Projects, page 731.
BTW, no chrome plating, but stainless steel from P&P Noblex.

I'm not saying it doesn't, just that the tube squashing is not responsible for that. If I had to guess, I'd say the frame would have handled better without the tube manipulation, but not by enough to be subjectively perceptible in a blind test.

Lesson learned, very much appreciated ;)

my cinelli mash porn bike fucker

http://www.flickr.com/photos/47098652@N04/5151433577/

my mash

my cinelli mash porn bike fucker

Let's hope you never learn how to embed images, nobody comes to this thread to see Mash shit

Iklo, posting your own bike in the porn thread is bad form. Posting a "cinelli mash porn bike fucker" in the porn thread is bound to go down like a bacon sarnie in a bar mitzvah.

Plus it's epic gashery.

i would read anti porn thread to see how people around here feel about mash frames.

As far as I'm concerned, this is the beginning and end of MASH porn