-
the downside would be the stem flex more due to it's being set higher (do seatpost flex noticably? I somewhat doubt it).
Long seatposts put a lot of stress on a frame if its not designed for it. How this translates into a feeling of flex, I dunno.
-
Could it be that someone was trying to save weight by using a smaller frame but longer seatpost/stem? My understanding is that it would be at the cost of stiffness, which may not be so much of an issue in case of a triathlon bike.
Well, it's not a triathlon bike for a start, it's a time trial bike. Yes, you can bodge a too small frame to fit, and maybe the extra stiffness of the small frame (in the olden days, pretty much everything was built with the same guage tubing, so small frames ended up stiffer) compensated for the less stiff extended contact points, but it is not quite that simple, especially with a short wheelbase (24" front, remember) lo pro which has been fitted with tri bars for which it was not originally designed. I put tri bars and the necessary long stem on my lo pro back in the day, and once you get into the race position the weight balance is ridiculously front heavy. This only gets worse with a too small frame and the correspondingly even longer stem. The forearm rests on that thing are even in front of the base bar, and almost in front of the front axle. When these things were new, the great Helms drew a cartoon showing somebody tipping over forwards on the start line on such a bike, and he wasn't far from the truth. My bike would lift its rear wheel over any little kicker thanks to the weight distribution, and that was on a 26" front wheel bike designed for me. It also lifts the back wheel if you get a bit heavy handed with the brake, another trait which will be worse on the above bike with its even longer stem and smaller front wheel.
If you look at it, with the conveniently placed brick coursing as your guide, you can see that using the same seat tube length, you could have a horizontal top tube and a 700c front wheel and still easily achieve exactly the same forearm and hand grip positions, and you'd have a much better handling bike. As originally built, for a smaller rider and before tri bars were permitted in UK time trials, it was probably pretty sweet. If LFGSS had been around in 1988, you could have posted it in porn without adverse comment; Dronfields were well regarded in those days. As set up now, it's a relic whose glory days are long past being forced to live out its dotage in much reduced circumstances, like some old thoroughbred race horse now saved from the glue factory only by a sentimental totter prepared to lash it to his cart with an ill fitting harness.
-
Can't see anything there that I'd keep
-
What a disaster that frame is! I think I know a manufacture in Poland where they build very similar, low-end fyxey framez.
-
Not even the stem/seatpost?
Definitely not the stem, maybe the post if I had a frame which needed an inline post but with my long femurs that's not going to happen.
-
http://s03.trixum.de/upload2/F/o/FoO8ihZwXYJB129042413848S.jpg
welcome to clearance country.
-
Fixie pops FTW!
They're skidalicious.
http://urbanvelo.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Duro-Fixie-Pops.jpg
amazing!
-
yeah.
-
peeeeeeeeeeeeeeroast
Not a repost, it's been potatochopped
edscoble
Smallfurry
MaxC
gbj_tester
irish_mick
yahou
jetski
nuknow
DFP
rpm
Sumo
Tenderloin
spotter
loafheads
-
Post a reply
About
Bike Anti-Porn - When Things Go Wrong
Posted by
@flickwg
Could it be that someone was trying to save weight by using a smaller frame but longer seatpost/stem? My understanding is that it would be at the cost of stiffness, which may not be so much of an issue in case of a triathlon bike. Do correct me if I'm wrong, please.