Bike porn

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEuvSx_-aSo

surely hipster grip + stronger legs > holding the drops and sucking.

Top marks, were you intentionally trying to be funny?

Lovely

^woahhhhh, nice

This belonged to my mate Dan, who did indeed post it to Germany. Funny, we were reminiscing about it just t'other day. Here's the build he had...i never did agree with his decision to build it with all those red parts, and i'm sure many here will agree. That said though, an amazing frame, and incredible clearances. Columbux Max as well if i remember rightly. Hopefully it looks better now.

Yes it was a horrible build. I plead guilty to crimes against Fixiedom. Rode amazingly though; Columbus Max is mint!

for the red parts to make sense you would need silver hubs to match the chrome. Looks like a real beauty of a frame

Aye. I should've gone Campag Record throughout but was obviously insane at the time. Those Max pipes are magical though, and with those clearances handling was amazing. Could pretty much think it round corners!

maybe my misunderstanding or lack of experience but can someone explain what the clearances have to do with handling? also I see a lot of bikes with a small fork rake in the porn- thread. Small foork rake makes steering slow and sluggish. Is it done for good looks?

Tight clearances generally suggest a short wheelbase and/or steep head tube and seat tube angles, which results in less stability and faster steering. Really tight clearances like that are done to look 'serious', yeah.

However, all other things being equal, low fork rake makes the steering slower, not faster.

Thanks! now i understand better.
So now i also understand the bend seattubes a see now and then. And the ultimate "serious" bike would have: short wheelbase and zero clearences, "?" headtube angle and fork rake, and near to zero trail? Any (porn)pics of bikes like that?

About 1233 pages worth..

I aint seen so many with near zero trail yet !

not porn but the wheelbase on this is tiny an those forks have little to no rake

Thanks! now i understand better.
So now i also understand the bend seattubes a see now and then. And the ultimate "serious" bike would have: short wheelbase and zero clearences, "?" headtube angle and fork rake, and near to zero trail?

People do seem to like the way tight clearances look... How they actually ride/handle is a different matter.

This is a decent (if brief) overview of the forces at work:

http://www.cyclingtips.com.au/2011/02/the-geometry-of-bike-handling/

Track bikes with high bottom brackets and short chainstays are actually at a handling disadvantage compared to typical road bikes.

I see. I think I know my newtons but i lack the feeling for fashion and whats in and out. Thats why I dont understand the small rake forks. I now understand the clearance bit, and the short wheelbase and why people want it. But the enormous trail that a fork with small rake has makes for sloppy and sluggish steering. Why would someone care to combine a small wheelbase AND low rake fork in a single bike??

The ultimate rider's ride:

(I'm guessing there are actually limits to how long chainstays should be)

Why would someone care to combine a small wheelbase AND low rake fork in a single bike??

I guess that if your priority is a short wheelbase, decreasing fork rake will help you achieve it.

Yeah, but with stronger counterproductive results.

From the very usefull link by Regal above: "One of the biggest myths out there is that small fork rake dimension is a faster steering bike (fork rake typically varies from 40-55mm). This is completely false. People tend to believe this because most touring bikes have a lot of fork rake. Touring bikes are actually very fast steering bikes. At the other end of the spectrum, track bikes are not fast handling bikes. Contrary to popular belief, they’re very slow steering bikes."

The main difference in how they feel is that road bikes tend to be better balanced in terms of steering front and rear, i.e. they require what feels like a more even steering effort at each end (and they're more stable at high speeds as a result). Track bikes steer quickly at the rear because of the high bottom bracket and slowly at the front to compensate. It's not really something you'd worry too much about when racing but if you were aiming to build a nice-handling bike you wouldn't go the high BB + short chainstay route.

I see what noFrok. is saying as regal said short wheel base gives lower stability but faster steering low fork rake gives slower steering so when we balance the equation we are left with lower stability only. Surely not desirable

not porn but the wheelbase on this is tiny an those forks have little to no rake

Y'know, I really like that.

Longer stem (+ obligatory slam) and clipless and its there.

All this bike geo talk needs to involve rider size.