-
Not knowing much about the geometrys, whats the differences mainly between your audax ed, that geekhouse tourer and say a geekhouse CX ?
they all look fairly similar to me!
It should come down to their intended uses I'd guess.
An audax is just a slightly more comfy and practical road bike. So they're usually a little more relaxed and have slightly longer chainstays to allow for 'gaurds.
A tourer needs to carry weight, so lower BB, longer wheelbase, more stable with weight stiffer/stronger tubing to reduce flex, etc.
A proper CX bike is just a road bike that's able to go off road (I think), ie still has aggressive geo but with mud and tyre clearance. (if you look at something like the PX road frames compared to the uncle john they've got similar angles. CX bikes seem to often have slightly lower TT's/head tubes especially in smaller sizes.... I'd guess to make getting on/off easier.
But a lot of these bikes seem to get a bit mixed up nowadays. The term "CX" often seems to mean drops and canti bosses.
-
On the wikipedia page for CX bikes there's loads of interesting design features listed:
Frame materials are selected with an aim to produce a lightweight, yet stiff and responsive frame. Lightness is prized for ease of carrying while running. A cyclo-cross racer may lift or carry his bike as many as 30 times in one 60 minute race, increasing the desire for a lightweight bicycle. Aluminum frames were popular in cyclo-cross bicycles long before they became commonplace on the road. Today the most popular material is aluminium with carbon fiber being popular at a professional level and steel and titanium being favorites amongst riders searching for a smoother ride and a longer lasting frame.
Cyclo-cross frames require clearance for slightly wider (generally 30–34 mm) tires and the debris and mud that is picked up by them. They are typically very simple, often eschewing bridges between the rear stays. Compact geometry frames with sloping top tubes are less common than on road bicycles due to the need to carry the bicycle easily on the shoulder. Top tube (rather than bottom bracket) routed derailleur cables help combat the build-up of mud. Some specialist cyclo-cross bikes also have a higher bottom bracket to aid clearance over rough ground; extra clearance could prevent toe clips from dragging while re-mounting after an obstacle. This is less common as clipless pedals have become the norm for cyclo-cross.
Typically, the frame geometry is a bit more relaxed than that of a road bike, not as upright in the seat tube, which allows for more shock absorption. Also, the wheelbase is a bit longer, which provides a more stable feel over rough terrain, and helps keep the rider's feet from contacting the front wheel during a tight turn....
There are slight geometry differences between road and cyclocross bicycles; cyclo-cross bikes tend to have slightly higher handlebars for a more upright position as aerodynamics have little importance in a cross race. A second set of brake levers on the tops, called top mount brake levers, are favored by some competitors. The top tubes of cyclocross bike frames typically have an ovalized or flattened bottom profile to provide greater comfort when riders need to shoulder and carry their bikes. In general, with a change of tires and gearing a cyclo-cross bike can double as a perfectly adequate road racing machine. However, most cyclo-cross racers prefer clipless mountain bike pedals for their easy dual-sided entry and mud-shedding abilities.
-
My CX has a steeper seat tube angle than my road bike, toe overlap and a high bottom bracket.
It's also quite old.
-
Not knowing much about the geometrys, whats the differences mainly between your audax ed, that geekhouse tourer and say a geekhouse CX ?
It been said already, especially with CX and tourer but I'd like to says more about the Oak's function.
The tubing itself is a very important aspect of the frame, it can make a frame feel great, or feel like crap regardless of the geometry.
On the Oak Cycles bike, it have a thin walled normal diameter tubing, closer to a steel road racing bicycle than a moderate touring bicycle, it can't exactly handle a lots of weight, just the rider + a bit more, the choice of tubing, wall thickness and diameter mean that the Oak feel lively and forgiving, if a person who's a lots lighter than I rode it, it'll feel unresponsive and harsh*.
The Oak bridge the gap between a performance bicycle and a touring bicycle as hugo pointed out, unlike the British whom just take a performance bicycle, increase tyres clearance, maybe have a thicker tubing, mudguard and rack mount and bingo, the French (which Ryan based the geometry on) start from scratch by building an entirely different bicycle than a performance bicycle, meaning that it's not compromised (see Ribble Audax, Tifosi CK7, Condor Fratello, Pearson Easy Come Easy Go, Bob Jackson Audax** etc.), so it feel great to ride, very nimble, extremely forgiving and does not feel fragile unlike the Colnago SL I used to have.
The downside is that it have a tenancy to shimmy due to the choice of tubing and tyres, luckily it's never as pronounced as it sound and I never feel the need to cancel it out by clamping my hand onto the top tube to cancel the shimmy, I used to get an almighty shimmy on the Colnago SL that even clamping the top tube does only so much, the Oak isn't exactly designed to be ridden moderately laden, just idea for a front end weight, and the lack of panniers/rack on the rear mean that it's a joy to get out of the saddle and not feel it "tail wagging" when sprinting, just like my unladen Colnago.
When I go touring again, I would rather have a bicycle I'll give little consideration to (apart from making sure it's mechanically fine), as long it get me from A to B without any problem, does not enable I to go into the bathroom and cry wank all night once I get a scratch on the top tube, able to take a lots of abuse and hugely fun to ride (bikepacking naturally).
While I love to go on a proper tour with my Oak, I would be more precarious about it.
*My Genesis CdF have 520 tubing (thick walled and oversized), and it feel harsher and numb compared to the Oak, the 725 Croix de Fer have a noticeable flex in comparison, the main reason is that the frame need to be stronger to compensate for the strength of the disc brake.
**My dad's Bob Jackson Audax have only enough clearance for 23mm tyres with mudguard, it flex badly when he have a rear rack with two panniers, sadly almost quite normal on a British Audax bicycle, the Ribble Audax claim to accept 23mm with mudguard as well.
(Pearson Carbon Audax). -
-
I have been wondering what the internally geared Di2 bike was, surprised to learn it's a Specialized.
-
Saying that, it seemed to be in direct competition with the new Genesis Day One Di2;
Model: : Day One Alfine Di2
Frame: : Reynolds 853 w/ double eyelets & Di2-specific routing
Fork: : Double Butted Cr-Mo Unicrown w/ double eyelets & lowrider bosses
Headset: : M:Part Elite 1-1/8" Sealed Cartridge
Shifters: : Shimano 105 ST-S705 Alfine Di2
Rear derailleur: : N/A
Front derailleur: : N/A
Chainset: : Shimano FC-S501 Alfine w/ 42T Chainring
Bottom Bracket: : Shimano SM-BB71 Press-Fit (86.5mm)
Chain: : KMC K810-SL (1/2 x 3/32")
Cassette / Freewheel / Sprocket: : Shimano Alfine 8sp Hub Gear w/ 21T Sprocket
Rims: : Alex Volar 2.4 Disc, 32H w/ TRS (Tubeless Ready System)
Hubs: : Shimano SG-S501 Alfine 8sp / KT MHGF 6-Bolt Disc
Spokes: : Double-Butted Stainless Silver w/ Brass Nipples
Tyres: : Continental Sport Contact 700x32c
Brakes: : Hayes CX Expert w/ L1 160mm Lightweight Rotor
Brake levers: : Shimano Alfine ST-S705
Handlebars: : Genesis 0.3 Road Compact, 125mm drop x 70mm reach
Grips / Tape: : Microfiber Anti-Slip w/ Silicon Gel
Stem: : Genesis 0.3 Road, 31.8mm, +/-7° Rise
Saddle: : Madison Prime
Seatpost: : Genesis 0.3 Road, 27.2 x 350mm
Pedals: : VP-363S w/ Toeclip
amey
rogan
BlesUp
Steves
hugo7
fizzy.bleach
Verbs_&_Nouns
edscoble
Lynchman
Gaston
noiser
psee
Chris.
Edestrong-
Post a reply
About
Functional bikes. Not Porn not Anti
Posted by
@lessmann
^^^^ is like the big brother of mine.