# Why are race frames head tubes becoming so long?



## skygodmatt (May 24, 2005)

I don't get it. 
The race frames are all getting really long head tubes. 
It's a race bike-- for riders who race and have good flexibility. I don't know any racers that complain their head tubes are too short. We usually ride with minimal stack in a race.

There's many race bike-ish models geared for a more upright position to choose from.
Why take the top tier race models and make them comfort bikes?
It looks like we're all jumping on the bandwagon and making it a marketing trend. I believe if you want to sit up high, then don't get a Tour de France winning frame. 

I had a size 58cm Cervelo R3 And Tarmac SL with 17.5 and 18 cm head tubes. They were set just right. Now they have 20cm and 21cm head tubes. They're becoming telephone poles. 
Shorter head tubes handle better. I can tell a difference.
Please give me back my perfect geometry.

Why not just buy an RS or a Roubaix if that's what you want?

...or is it the spacer police are out on patrol?


----------



## rx-79g (Sep 14, 2010)

"Race" frames aren't being bought by racers. The nicer, lighter, more exotic, the more likely it will be sold to duffers with cash, not young blades.


----------



## kbwh (May 28, 2010)

Racers just get a smaller frame. Look at Hushovd and Basso's setups for instance. 14 cm stems right on top of the headset.

When Hunter rode the Bianchi Infinito proto he used a -17 degree stem.


----------



## rx-79g (Sep 14, 2010)

kbwh said:


> Racers just get a smaller frame. Look at Hushovd and Basso's setups for instance. 14 cm stems right on top of the headset.
> 
> When Hunter rode the Bianchi Infinito proto he used a -17 degree stem.


They just settle for shorter top tube as well?


----------



## Peter P. (Dec 30, 2006)

One reason the headtubes are getting taller is because wealthy non-racers want to buy racing bikes but can't fit on them. Carrying too many SKUs cuts into a company's profit. So, instead the headtubes get taller and it's the job of the marketing people to convince us it's what we want this year.

Racers buy a very small portion of the market's output, that's why you can't get the frame you want. Well, you can, just in certain brands or through a custom frame.

For what it's worth, I think all this short headtube, slammed stem stuff is stupid anyway.


----------



## ZoSoSwiM (Mar 7, 2008)

If your bike is set up correctly to fit you the head tube length shouldn't really be an issue. The head tube on my 2010 Supersix is taller than my old bike.. Now I run with the stem right on the headset and it looks clean. Less spacers = purdy!


----------



## kbwh (May 28, 2010)

rx-79g said:


> They just settle for shorter top tube as well?


Seems like it. 
Found this from before Cervelo: http://www.bikeradar.com/gear/article/pro-bike-thor-hushovds-look-595-pro-team-edition-17377


----------



## bikerjulio (Jan 19, 2010)

My 2002 CAAD 5 in 58cm has a 17.5cm HT.

My 2010 Supersix in 58cm has a 17.5cm HT.


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

*Follow the money.*



skygodmatt said:


> The race frames are all getting really long head tubes


Not sure if this is actually true. But regardless, you have to put yourself into a bike seller's shoes. The overwhelming majority (it was about 98% some years ago) of people who buy racing-type bicycles have absolutely no intention of racing them and will never race them. Why these bikes get bought is a whole other question, but I'm not going there.


----------



## rockdude (Apr 3, 2008)

Beacsue Dario designs his Peg's with them. After all he is the master frame designer which all other follow.


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

*Confusing market segments.*



rockdude said:


> Beacsue Dario designs his Peg's with them. After all he is the master frame designer which all other follow.


Well, I don't think the people who mass-market racing-type bikes care one whit about "master frame designers." It's all about marketing now. If "x" gives a push to stagnant sales, "x" it will be.


----------



## Richard (Feb 17, 2006)

Many manufacturers (Trek, Specialized, and Giant come to mind) market both short and tall headtube designs.

Name your poison.


----------



## WheresWaldo (Nov 29, 2005)

skygodmatt said:


> I don't get it.
> The race frames are all getting really long head tubes.
> It's a race bike-- for riders who race and have good flexibility. I don't know any racers that complain their head tubes are too short. We usually ride with minimal stack in a race.
> 
> ...


Why do you hate America?

As has been said, the majority of purchasers want to spend money and buy a race bike, but do not want 3-4 cm of spacers. They don't have to be fast, they just want to look fast. I ride with a large group of retirees, all with a lot of disposable income, all well into their sixties and some in their seventies, Thay are riding Lynsky Helixes, Moots Vamoots SLs, Specialized Tarmacs, Cannondale System Sixes and the occasional Cervelo RS/R3. Most of them have quite a few spacers to make the bikes fit. Why should you or I care what they are riding or how tall or short their headtube/spacers are.

Again, look at a lot of the Pros, many are riding 14cm stems and a few even longer, it is workable for them.


----------



## bwhite_4 (Aug 29, 2006)

My "race frame" is a 56cm and has a 14cm headtube.

But most others are right. Most TdF bikes are marketed and sold to overweight middle-aged men who can't slam their stem or even bend over that far.

Whether or not pros need smaller frames is a much deeper discussion. Its all about where the wheels are and what stem/seatback balances them on the bike.


----------



## AvantDale (Dec 26, 2008)

rx-79g said:


> "Race" frames aren't being bought by racers. The nicer, lighter, more exotic, the more likely it will be sold to duffers with cash, not young blades.


^This^

Check out BMC...they offer a "performancefit" (171mm on a 53cm) version of their top of the line Impec, and not on the lower models. I guess if your going to drop the cash...it might as well come with the look also. My 52cm Cannondale has a 120mm HT.
http://www.bmc-racing.com/us-en/bikes/2011/road/model/impec/team/campagnolo.html


Same philosophy as the guy that buys a Porsche GT3 RS and only drives it to car meets on Sundays.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

This is one reason I go custom any longer... 

My race frame has a 57cm top tube and a 11.2cm head tube (14cm total stack height with headset). Even with that I still use a -10 degree stem. The whole...taller HT craze drives me nuts and is mostly due to people wanting an inverted stem...so it's driven by looks more than fit...which is sad to say.


----------



## kbwh (May 28, 2010)

bwhite_4 said:


> Its all about where the wheels are and what stem/seatback balances them on the bike.


Yup.


----------



## bwhite_4 (Aug 29, 2006)

kbwh said:


> Yup.
> 
> https://www.accrovelo.fr/administration/_images/news/Cancellara Roubaix SL3-20100405-101751.jpg



And .. not everyone slams their stem:


----------



## ukbloke (Sep 1, 2007)

Specialized stopped selling the team geometry versions of the top-end Tarmac frame-sets this year. The main difference was length of the head tube, particularly on the mid to larger size frames. Presumably Specialized decided that the volume did not justify the extra SKUs.


----------



## skygodmatt (May 24, 2005)

Good points....

...but then why are you buying a race frame if you are not going to race?
There are a lot of better alternatives out there that are more comfortable and plusher for the rec. rider who desires that. 

I am getting a new 2011 Cervelo R3 but I am going to have to slam it to the HT or use a -17 now. A 20cm HT is way long. I can't size down because then I lose the top tube length. Already using a 120 to 130 stem. So that won't work.

Marketing for the demographic for sure.


----------



## laffeaux (Dec 12, 2001)

skygodmatt said:


> I am getting a new 2011 Cervelo R3 but I am going to have to slam it to the HT or use a -17 now. A 20cm HT is way long. I can't size down because then I lose the top tube length. Already using a 120 to 130 stem. So that won't work.
> 
> Marketing for the demographic for sure.


The other thought is that you're forcing yourself to fit on a Cervelo, which apparently is not designed for someone with our body type and/or riding style. Why don't you look at other frames that fit you better?


----------



## rx-79g (Sep 14, 2010)

Wookiebiker said:


> This is one reason I go custom any longer...
> 
> My race frame has a 57cm top tube and a 11.2cm head tube (14cm total stack height with headset). Even with that I still use a -10 degree stem. The whole...taller HT craze drives me nuts and is mostly due to people wanting an inverted stem...so it's driven by looks more than fit...which is sad to say.


That's some pretty wacky geometry you've got there. If this had a traditional seat tube length for a 57 top tube, your top tube would have to slope down to meet the headtube.

Those were called "funny bikes".


----------



## bikerjulio (Jan 19, 2010)

laffeaux said:


> The other thought is that you're forcing yourself to fit on a Cervelo, which apparently is not designed for someone with our body type and/or riding style. Why don't you look at other frames that fit you better?


like Cannondale? :idea:


----------



## Goodbarsix (Aug 5, 2009)

skygodmatt said:


> Good points....
> 
> *...but then why are you buying a race frame if you are not going to race?*
> There are a lot of better alternatives out there that are more comfortable and plusher for the rec. rider who desires that.
> ...


Beacase folks like the way the frames look...is that really that hard to understand?

Why do everyday people buy a Corvette if they are not going to race it? They like the way it looks/sounds/makes them feel. 

The thing I do agree on, is if all of the race bikes become compromised to make the folks that do not really race fit. That sucks. But as someone said above, manufactuers do usually offer the more "race" fit.


----------



## dcl10 (Jul 2, 2010)

If only racers bought race bikes the industry would be bankrupt. As far as the headtubes are concerned I go a size down and use a -17 stem, but even as far as that it's sometimes hard to find a good stem. When I was sponsored by PRO I would always complain on their little assessment sheets and to the rep they did not make a -17 stem. There response was they didn't see enough market for it. So if the market for these more aggressive setups is so small they wont even make a $50 stem I'm surprised you even see as many aggressive frames as you do. Although truth be told if you look at the research beyond 90mm of drop your basically getting no addition aerodynamic benefits, and I know Pruitt and most other big name bike fitters don't advocate going too deep. I still do because I just like the feel I guess.


----------



## danl1 (Jul 23, 2005)

Because even racer wannabe's are beginning to realize that deep, usable drops are superior to shallow, worthless appendages that look like drops. A few cm's higher bars with a few cm's deeper drops makes for drops that are a useful primary position. 

That is, it's less that they're getting taller, more that they're getting back to where they're belong.


----------



## rx-79g (Sep 14, 2010)

danl1 said:


> Because even racer wannabe's are beginning to realize that deep, usable drops are superior to shallow, worthless appendages that look like drops. A few cm's higher bars with a few cm's deeper drops makes for drops that are a useful primary position.
> 
> That is, it's less that they're getting taller, more that they're getting back to where they're belong.


You've actually seen somebody using the drops lately? The other half of the current position trend seems to have your bars tilted up so far the drops are practically point into space.

Tall head tubes + short stems + tilted back bars = MTB bar ends for the skinny tire crowd


----------



## skygodmatt (May 24, 2005)

rx-79g said:


> You've actually seen somebody using the drops lately? The other half of the current position trend seems to have your bars tilted up so far the drops are practically point into space.
> 
> Tall head tubes + short stems + tilted back bars = MTB bar ends for the skinny tire crowd


The average rider spends less than 10% of their ride time in the drops.


----------



## orange_bikes (Jun 6, 2007)

*Pruitt link?*



dcl10 said:


> Although truth be told if you look at the research beyond 90mm of drop your basically getting no addition aerodynamic benefits, and I know Pruitt and most other big name bike fitters don't advocate going too deep.


I have 9cm of drop on my new race frame (Spec SL3Pro) and I still need 3cm of spacers with a -10* stem. I'd love to see the research on drop and aeroness if you can provide a link.


----------



## rx-79g (Sep 14, 2010)

orange_bikes said:


> I have 9cm of drop on my new race frame (Spec SL3Pro) and I still need 3cm of spacers with a -10* stem. I'd love to see the research on drop and aeroness if you can provide a link.


I have to wonder about that one, too. 9cm of drop is a lot when you're short, but not much at all when you're 6'2" with long arms. A flat number like that can't represent a particular position across the range of people.


----------



## Salsa_Lover (Jul 6, 2008)

rx-79g said:


> You've actually seen somebody using the drops lately? The other half of the current position trend seems to have your bars tilted up so far the drops are practically point into space.
> 
> Tall head tubes + short stems + tilted back bars = MTB bar ends for the skinny tire crowd


fully agreed... that and the other gearing issue


----------



## dcl10 (Jul 2, 2010)

You are right, I forgot where I heard that from and it was from a fit I did with John Cobb, so that probably only applied to me, and I'm 5'11. There are also other considerations there as well like torso and arm length. I think his point at the time was I was going so low I was disengaging the muscle groups in my core. Also my position was low enough that my body was angled down and funneling air into my upper torso rather than allowing it to flow around my midsection. I believe he emphasized a position that did not try to steer the air. By moving my body up and focusing more on head and arm position I could get both a good aero position and maximize power output.


----------



## chase196126 (Jan 4, 2008)

danl1 said:


> Because even racer wannabe's are beginning to realize that deep, usable drops are superior to shallow, worthless appendages that look like drops. A few cm's higher bars with a few cm's deeper drops makes for drops that are a useful primary position.
> 
> That is, it's less that they're getting taller, more that they're getting back to where they're belong.



I agree with this wholeheartedly. I think its absolutely ridiculous when you have riders (of any level, fro PRO to rec riders) who have their bars slammed so low that their drops are all but unusable. Having a slightly higher head tube allows for the use of bars with deeper drops, which allows for a wider variety of positions. Tops for climbing, hoods for general riding, drops for descending or sprinting/attacking. 

Having fewer spacers below your stem makes a noticeable difference in how the front of your bike feels. It always makes me laugh when you have people complaining about how they can tell their bars or crank is slightly less stiff than some other offering when they have 3 inches of spacers under their stem.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

because 'race frames' are predominately NOT purchased by racers?

what do I win?


----------



## 2silent (Dec 26, 2009)

rx-79g said:


> You've actually seen somebody using the drops lately? The other half of the current position trend seems to have your bars tilted up so far the drops are practically point into space.
> 
> Tall head tubes + short stems + tilted back bars = MTB bar ends for the skinny tire crowd



and by this you mean that you think that they are uncool yet still work (and often find their way onto the fastest riders and professionals bikes, likely despite the fact that their sponsors would prefer otherwise)? I hope not because tall head tubes, short stems and tilted back bars sounds to me like a combination that wouldn't work.



I have a -17 stem with a spacer underneath it on my Look 585, no clue what that means for me after reading this conversation.


----------



## rx-79g (Sep 14, 2010)

chase196126 said:


> I agree with this wholeheartedly. I think its absolutely ridiculous when you have riders (of any level, fro PRO to rec riders) who have their bars slammed so low that their drops are all but unusable. Having a slightly higher head tube allows for the use of bars with deeper drops, which allows for a wider variety of positions. Tops for climbing, hoods for general riding, drops for descending or sprinting/attacking.
> 
> Having fewer spacers below your stem makes a noticeable difference in how the front of your bike feels. It always makes me laugh when you have people complaining about how they can tell their bars or crank is slightly less stiff than some other offering when they have 3 inches of spacers under their stem.


How do you know they are "slammed"? The drop position is supposed to be low enough to be aerodynamic, but also allows easy breathing. It isn't a "comfort" position. That's what the other positions on the bar are there for. Pros don't use drops unless they are going fast away from the peloton. 

Tall people with long arms are going to have some pretty noticeable drop to accomplish that, but that doesn't mean their position is in any way poor. Long arms require a longer drop to get the same back angle as shorter people get with much less drop. It's all proportional.

Bring the bars up high enough and you have to tilt the bars back to use the hoods because they are no longer beneath you. That's a big compromise in my book.


----------



## kbwh (May 28, 2010)

Drops are my gofast comfort position. To get more aero I use the hoods with my arms parallel to the ground. It's less comfortable, though.


----------



## skygodmatt (May 24, 2005)

rx-79g said:


> How do you know they are "slammed"? The drop position is supposed to be low enough to be aerodynamic, but also allows easy breathing. It isn't a "comfort" position. That's what the other positions on the bar are there for. Pros don't use drops unless they are going fast away from the peloton.
> 
> Tall people with long arms are going to have some pretty noticeable drop to accomplish that, but that doesn't mean their position is in any way poor. Long arms require a longer drop to get the same back angle as shorter people get with much less drop. It's all proportional.
> 
> Bring the bars up high enough and you have to tilt the bars back to use the hoods because they are no longer beneath you. That's a big compromise in my book.


+1

That's the key. Tall people like me at 6'2" need more drop. If I am too high in the front, my gluteus and low back muscles won't engage and I lose power on climbs. I use my core muscles to hold my body. My arms don't tire out since there's not much weight on them. I also found that I am "pulling down" to keep my power over the crankset if I am not low. 
I found a photo of me on a training climb. That Specialized has a 17cm tube and I am using 2cm spacers with a -8 stem. Climbed like a mountain goat. A 20.5 cm head tube is just too darn long--like the new Specialized.


----------



## C-40 (Feb 4, 2004)

*thoughts...*

One of the problems with the Specialized is that they are trying to cover too large a range with too few sizes. The jump in the head tube length between a 56 and a 58cm is a huge 35mm, when it should be 20mm. Cervelo has done the same thing, increasing the total range of head tube length, but not the number of sizes.

At least 7 sizes are needed, not just 6. 

In the small 52cm size that I ride, the head tube is a touch on the short side at only 120mm.

http://www.specialized.com/us/en/bc/SBCProduct.jsp?spid=52897&scid=1001&scname=Road

Another issue with tall riders is that their legs are not always as long as you might think. At 169cm tall, I have an 83cm cycling inseam and 73cm saddle height. At a height of 188cm, you'd need a saddle height of about 82cm to match my proportions. If your saddle height is 82cm, then the 205cm head tube should easily produce an 11cm drop to the bars, using a 73 degree stem, since the total head tube, headset and spacer height could be 235mm. 

I use a total of 145mm with a 73 degree stem to produce an 11cm drop with my 73cm saddle height.


----------



## PlatyPius (Feb 1, 2009)

The Answer(s):

1. Demand

2. Convenience

3. The Economy


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

skygodmatt said:


> +1
> 
> That's the key. Tall people like me at 6'2" need more drop. If I am too high in the front, my gluteus and low back muscles won't engage and I lose power on climbs. I use my core muscles to hold my body. My arms don't tire out since there's not much weight on them. I also found that I am "pulling down" to keep my power over the crankset if I am not low.
> I found a photo of me on a training climb. That Specialized has a 17cm tube and I am using 2cm spacers with a -8 stem. Climbed like a mountain goat. A 20.5 cm head tube is just too darn long--like the new Specialized.


you realize that taking out the spacers and getting a steeper stem would be a five minute fix, right? I'm guessing you must live in some place with a lot of snow and aren't getting enough riding in since you've been whining about bikes a lot on recent threads...


----------



## terbennett (Apr 1, 2006)

Goodbarsix said:


> Beacase folks like the way the frames look...is that really that hard to understand?
> 
> Why do everyday people buy a Corvette if they are not going to race it? They like the way it looks/sounds/makes them feel.
> 
> The thing I do agree on, is if all of the race bikes become compromised to make the folks that do not really race fit. That sucks. But as someone said above, manufactuers do usually offer the more "race" fit.


Yes it is hard to understand.. well for me anyway. I used to ride Specialized road bikes with my last being an '04 S-Works E5. When I was recently looking for a road bike, I gravitated toward Specilized because I was familiar with them and the Tarmacs looked hella-sweet. Well that went down the drain because I spent two hours trying to be fitted on a Tarmac and I just didn't feel comfortable enough on it. That was using my pedals and my saddle. They would tell me that this is the correct fit for you but I didn't feel like it was. Buying it based on looks first is ridiculous. You'll never truly be happy riding it. You aren't now. That's why you can say that the bike doesn't fit. It's always in the back of your mind. I ended up staying with my other choice.. Felt. However, they've changed their geos somewat for 2011 model year. Cannondale is about the only thing that fits like my Felt and older Specializeds so maybe that new CAAD10 I've been drooling over recently isn't too far away in the future? Their geos have remained the same for a long time from what I've been told.


----------



## DaveG (Feb 4, 2004)

*generalization*



bwhite_4 said:


> My "race frame" is a 56cm and has a 14cm headtube.
> 
> But most others are right. Most TdF bikes are marketed and sold to overweight middle-aged men who can't slam their stem or even bend over that far.
> 
> Whether or not pros need smaller frames is a much deeper discussion. Its all about where the wheels are and what stem/seatback balances them on the bike.


Not sure why you feel the need to put these buyers doiwn as overweight and not fit. I think these are cycling enthusiants (just like most folks on this board) that want a nice bike. As many have pointed out you cannot stay in business long by selling to racers only - there just aren't enough of them


----------



## PlatyPius (Feb 1, 2009)

DaveG said:


> Not sure why you feel the need to put these buyers doiwn as overweight and not fit. I think these are cycling enthusiants (just like most folks on this board) that want a nice bike.* As many have pointed out you cannot stay in business long by selling to racers only - there just aren't enough of them*


And most of them want a discount or a free bike. You don't make much money off of those sorts.

The 40s-50s guys who make good money and want a new bike, though...they kept the Cervelo R3s and RSs flying out of the shop I used to work for. At full retail.


----------



## skygodmatt (May 24, 2005)

stevesbike said:


> you realize that taking out the spacers and getting a steeper stem would be a five minute fix, right? I'm guessing you must live in some place with a lot of snow and aren't getting enough riding in since you've been whining about bikes a lot on recent threads...


I live in California and ride 250-300 miles a week--even in Winter. 
Yes, I have been whining a lot. I apologize for that..I think I am becoming too meticulous and want everything perfect. I'll try to back it down. 

All of these posts are really great!

My saddle height is 79.5cm --nowhere near 82cm. As pointed out, I do think the HT length jump is too big between sizes. 
Remember the days when frames sizes were always in a 1 cm jump?

I have to commend TREK for producing three different fits for each frame size -H1,H2 and H3. That has to be rough on a company but great for us.


----------



## ukbloke (Sep 1, 2007)

skygodmatt said:


> My saddle height is 79.5cm --nowhere near 82cm. As pointed out, I do think the HT length jump is too big between sizes.


And have you seen the HT length on the 61cm Specialized Tarmac. I checked yesterday and the difference between the discontinued team geometry and the standard geometry was something like 75mm, both in size 61. Hard to believe.

At 6'5" I'm pretty close to that 82cm number, and somewhere around 11cm of drop. The standard Tarmac 58cm model works perfectly for me - I have about 1cm of spacer and a 120mm 83 degree stem inclined down, so I am nicely in the middle of the range.

In your case you are not all that far off. Currently you have a 17cm head tube with 2cm of spacers, which is 1.5cm less than the 20.5cm head tube with no spacers. A 74 degree stem would get you in the ball-park I would think. Conceivably you could also size down to the 56cm bike and go with a 130mm or 140mm stem - this would truly be pro styling it.


----------



## estone2 (Sep 25, 2005)

WheresWaldo said:


> Why do you hate America?


I don't care what goofy bike somebody else rides. Whether they have a HT that's a 40cm or 40cm of spacers, 15mm of spacers, or slammed... I really don't care.

BUT, I do get pissed when, because of these goofs, I am no longer able to get a bike whose fit I like. As a younger racer with exceptional flexibility, a 5 inch drop is perfectly reasonable to me. But none of my bikes (save the TT bike) have more than a 3.5 inch drop, despite all of their stems being slammed.

That pisses me off. But, 3.5 inches is still a decent amount of drop, and although I could go lower, it isn't the end of the world.

BUT, now Trek offers only their goofy Performance fit with a MASSIVE headtube on anything short of their 6 series Madones! Say that I wanted to get a Madone - I _have_ to get the 6 series now! On the 5, I would actually be _uncomfortable_... So now I can't buy that.


----------



## estone2 (Sep 25, 2005)

PlatyPius said:


> And most of them want a discount or a free bike. You don't make much money off of those sorts.
> 
> The 40s-50s guys who make good money and want a new bike, though...they kept the Cervelo R3s and RSs flying out of the shop I used to work for. At full retail.


I dunno... Discounts don't mean less profit. Case in point - I'm sponsored by Zipp. Zipp makes a top-tier product, but everybody rides them, so I've always shied away from them. But, with sponsorship, that suddenly changes. I have a ton of different Zipp stuff, and I love all of it, and I tell my friends how much I love it.

They're making money off me, still - I get dealer pricing (roughly). But they're actually making WAY more off me from sponsorship than if they weren't sponsoring, because 1) I advertise for them and 2) I buy stuff from them that I would not otherwise purchase.

I have a feeling that racers create a huge amount of revenue - I know I spend more than most non-racers, despite riding a cheaper bike; things break. It's just that you, as a bike-shop owner, don't see the profits, because I bypass you.


----------



## estone2 (Sep 25, 2005)

I personally spend less than 10 minutes at a time in the drops. If I _really, really_ wanted to, I could spend an hour in them, but I'd not be the happiest camper. And I like it that way.

I have the top of my bars for general training, cruising, and climbing. The curves of my bars to rest my hands on when we go a bit faster. The hoods for actual fast riding or racing. My hands wrapped around the hoods, shifting with my pinkies/ring fingers, forearms on the bars for when I'm going really hard, and finally, for when I am really, really hurting, attacking, or sprinting, the drops.

I'm betting I spend <10% of my time in a race in the drops - I probably spend an even amount on the tops as I do in the hoods.

I feel like that's what the drops are for - I have low, aerodynamic, and comfortable positions everywhere else, but that one extra position where I can turn it up to 11.

I guess what I'm saying is that drops shouldn't be comfortable to be in. They shouldn't be _un_comfortable, but they are there for going fast, not cruising.


----------



## JChasse (Sep 16, 2005)

AvantDale said:


> Same philosophy as the guy that buys a Porsche GT3 RS and only drives it to car meets on Sundays.


Not really. 

Except the GT3 RS in NOT a racing car. It's got AC, stereo, no cage, no fuel cell etc. If the guy can drive it legally on sunday, it's not a factory race car, so the guy is using it for its intended purpose - cruising around on the street. 

I thought we were talking about people buying race bikes but not racing them.


----------



## kbwh (May 28, 2010)

skygodmatt said:


> I live in California and ride 250-300 miles a week--even in Winter.


 You lucky bastard! :thumbsup: 



skygodmatt said:


> Remember the days when frames sizes were always in a 1 cm jump?


Yeah, but those were also the days of 18cm seat posts, saddles with short rails and uncomfortable hoods.

BTW: The pros put less weight on their hands back then, didn't they?


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

and consider this from Cervelo (on their R3 page)

"Pros love maximum front-end stiffness, but - for the same handlebar height - a short headtube with a minus-6 stem provides less stiffness than a longer headtube with a minus-17 stem."


----------



## bwhite_4 (Aug 29, 2006)

kbwh said:


> BTW: The pros put less weight on their hands back then, didn't they?


I don't know about that. If you look at their position on the bike then and now - they all pretty much have a flat back while riding. Back then, they might have been in the drops more though rather than on the hoods like today (drop today are mostly seen used for sprinting and break-aways).


----------



## hikertoo (Jul 7, 2010)

I bought a Fisher Cronus because it had a taller head tube( 180cm on a 56)
http://fisherbikes.com/bike/model/cronus
My main reason was long legs, short torso, I have to raise the seat up so high, I need the extra head tube length to keep the drop within reason.
Most other bikes I tried were racer wannabees..
BTW, I am 48, skinny, 160 lbs, athletic and make enough money to buy what ever bike I want


----------



## rx-79g (Sep 14, 2010)

hikertoo said:


> I bought a Fisher Cronus because it had a taller head tube( 180cm on a 56)
> http://fisherbikes.com/bike/model/cronus
> My main reason was long legs, short torso, I have to raise the seat up so high, I need the extra head tube length to keep the drop within reason.
> Most other bikes I tried were racer wannabees..
> BTW, I am 48, skinny, 160 lbs, athletic and make enough money to buy what ever bike I want


This is one of the best things that are coming out of this trend - people with long legs don't have to buy a custom to get an appropriate drop with a shorter top tube.

But it also means that the rest of us are using bikes with headtubes appropriate for taller people.

Well, I hope tall head tubes don't become so universal that those of us who are both flexible and like the way traditional bikes fit continue to have that option. I guess it is surprising that people get upset that some Specialized or Trek isn't available the way they want it. There are what, 100 different brands of bike out there. Pick the one you like.


----------



## PlatyPius (Feb 1, 2009)

estone2 said:


> I dunno... Discounts don't mean less profit. Case in point - I'm sponsored by Zipp. Zipp makes a top-tier product, but everybody rides them, so I've always shied away from them. But, with sponsorship, that suddenly changes. I have a ton of different Zipp stuff, and I love all of it, and I tell my friends how much I love it.
> 
> They're making money off me, still - I get dealer pricing (roughly). But they're actually making WAY more off me from sponsorship than if they weren't sponsoring, because 1) I advertise for them and 2) I buy stuff from them that I would not otherwise purchase.
> 
> I have a feeling that racers create a huge amount of revenue - I know I spend more than most non-racers, despite riding a cheaper bike; things break. It's just that you, as a bike-shop owner, don't see the profits, because I bypass you.


I'm not talking about sponsored racers... I'm talking about Joe Blow racing Cat 3-5 who buys all of his own stuff. They ALWAYS want discounts (my experience from working in Indy, not so much here).


----------



## ukbloke (Sep 1, 2007)

rx-79g said:


> I guess it is surprising that people get upset that some Specialized or Trek isn't available the way they want it. There are what, 100 different brands of bike out there. Pick the one you like.


I think it is a reasonable development, and brings bike geometries more in line with the reality of real riders rather than being dictated by racers and pros. And it suits me because I'm very tall and very leggy. It does seem to be an industry-wide trend, perhaps led by the big manufacturers, but by no means limited to them. Hopefully other vendors will make hay in the void left behind. I am sorry to see the top-end team geometry Specialized bikes get cut though, and also for Trek to push their pro-fit up to just the 6 series. Presumably it makes sense for their bottom line. I liked knowing that I could buy the same frame that the pro rides, even though I actually wouldn't. I also bet Specialized got stuck with a butt load of 2010 SL3 team geometry framesets at the end of the year. 

The other likelihood is that in a few year's time the major manufacturers will have a revelation and start promoting the new 2013 top-end frames with new race-optimized geometry ... and the circle of "innovation" will be complete.


----------



## rx-79g (Sep 14, 2010)

ukbloke said:


> I think it is a reasonable development, and brings bike geometries more in line with the reality of real riders rather than being dictated by racers and pros. And it suits me because I'm very tall and very leggy. It does seem to be an industry-wide trend, perhaps led by the big manufacturers, but by no means limited to them. Hopefully other vendors will make hay in the void left behind. I am sorry to see the top-end team geometry Specialized bikes get cut though, and also for Trek to push their pro-fit up to just the 6 series. Presumably it makes sense for their bottom line. I liked knowing that I could buy the same frame that the pro rides, even though I actually wouldn't. I also bet Specialized got stuck with a butt load of 2010 SL3 team geometry framesets at the end of the year.
> 
> The other likelihood is that in a few year's time the major manufacturers will have a revelation and start promoting the new 2013 top-end frames with new race-optimized geometry ... and the circle of "innovation" will be complete.


What gets me with this new "innovation" is that road bike geometry has been slowly refined over the last 100 years. All of sudden, all the old head tubes are too short. It's a little strange.


----------



## skygodmatt (May 24, 2005)

rx-79g said:


> What gets me with this new "innovation" is that road bike geometry has been slowly refined over the last 100 years. All of sudden, all the old head tubes are too short. It's a little strange.


That's what I mean. All you have to do is flip your stem upward if you want to go higher. 
The standard head tube make a frame stiffer and lighter than a extended one...provided your stack is low.
I know riders that already use a -17 stem and zero stack. What are they gonna do now?

EDIT: Matter of fact - Boonan had a hell of time fitting the Tarmac for this reason. Specialized had to make a special frame just for him. Tom was perfectly happy on his Time before he switched.


----------



## skygodmatt (May 24, 2005)

ukbloke said:


> And have you seen the HT length on the 61cm Specialized Tarmac. I checked yesterday and the difference between the discontinued team geometry and the standard geometry was something like 75mm, both in size 61. Hard to believe.
> 
> At 6'5" I'm pretty close to that 82cm number, and somewhere around 11cm of drop. The standard Tarmac 58cm model works perfectly for me - I have about 1cm of spacer and a 120mm 83 degree stem inclined down, so I am nicely in the middle of the range.
> 
> In your case you are not all that far off. Currently you have a 17cm head tube with 2cm of spacers, which is 1.5cm less than the 20.5cm head tube with no spacers. A 74 degree stem would get you in the ball-park I would think. Conceivably you could also size down to the 56cm bike and go with a 130mm or 140mm stem - this would truly be pro styling it.


Hey! Maybe that would work. Wouldn't that size be twitchy due to the short wheelbase?
On my new TCR, I'm running an 18.5 HT -6 stem on the top cap. It's perfect.


----------



## rx-79g (Sep 14, 2010)

skygodmatt said:


> Hey! Maybe that would work. Wouldn't that size be twitchy due to the short wheelbase?
> On my new TCR, I'm running an 18.5 HT -6 stem on the top cap. It's perfect.


Why not just get a different bike? Cannondale's head tubes are lower.


----------



## kbwh (May 28, 2010)

It is possible to compensate with deeper drop bars, of course.


----------



## skygodmatt (May 24, 2005)

I was wondering if anyone was going to mention this but...

If a rider wants to raise the front end up really high and have a high back angle, then the weight distribution will be shifted rearward and a race frame with short chain stays may handle poorly --especially on descent. 
So to compensate, shouldn't the frame's chain stays be made longer to distribute the weight more evenly?


----------



## rx-79g (Sep 14, 2010)

skygodmatt said:


> I was wondering if anyone was going to mention this but...
> 
> If a rider wants to raise the front end up really high and have a high back angle, then the weight distribution will be shifted rearward and a race frame with short chain stays may handle poorly --especially on descent.
> So to compensate, shouldn't the frame's chain stays be made longer to distribute the weight more evenly?


Generally, yes - but the bikes we're talking about aren't that high, and chainstays on most bikes really aren't that short. 40.5 and 41cm are the most common stay lengths on today's racing bikes, but some of the older bikes with really short wheelbases were less than 39 - and they handled fine that way. So sitting up a little bit isn't doing much to the handling that shorter stays would have.

Some of the endurance bikes do have longer stays - like 42 or so.

I don't think this sort of thing is much of a factor unless your seat position is very far aft of "normal". That's when weight distribution gets funky.


----------



## Gimme Shoulder (Feb 10, 2004)

skygodmatt said:


> If a rider wants to raise the front end up really high and have a high back angle, then the weight distribution will be shifted rearward and a race frame with short chain stays may handle poorly --especially on descent.
> So to compensate, shouldn't the frame's chain stays be made longer to distribute the weight more evenly?


Exactly the concept of Cervelo's RS. Here is an excerpt from their website regarding the RS geometry.

"•Longer headtube, to match a higher handlebar position.
•Longer chainstay length. Because a higher handlebar position rotates the rider’s torso and therefore his center of gravity backwards.
Longer chainstays ensure the weight distribution between the two wheels remains balanced for optimal handling characteristics".


----------



## skygodmatt (May 24, 2005)

Gimme Shoulder said:


> Exactly the concept of Cervelo's RS. Here is an excerpt from their website regarding the RS geometry.
> 
> "•Longer headtube, to match a higher handlebar position.
> •Longer chainstay length. Because a higher handlebar position rotates the rider’s torso and therefore his center of gravity backwards.
> Longer chainstays ensure the weight distribution between the two wheels remains balanced for optimal handling characteristics".


Looks like Cervelo really knows what their doing. But then why did they have to mess with a thoroughbred like the R3? They had both worlds.


----------



## rx-79g (Sep 14, 2010)

skygodmatt said:


> Looks like Cervelo really knows what their doing. But then why did they have to mess with a thoroughbred like the R3? They had both worlds.


I think Cervelo more often "looks like they know" then actually knows. Some of their geometry stuff makes sense, other stuff is horse hockey.

In this case they added 5mm to the stays, making them 41cm. Since almost everything fast is either 40.5 or 41 already, this is not much of a change.


----------



## wetpaint (Oct 12, 2008)

For me, I ride a team geometry Tarmac, when the day comes I'll probably have to drop down to a 52cm frame to get the proper drop and I'm 5'10". The normal 54 Tarmac doesn't have enough drop for me even with a -17* stem


----------



## Gimme Shoulder (Feb 10, 2004)

rx-79g said:


> I think Cervelo often "looks like the know" then actually knows. Some of their geometry stuff makes sense, other stuff is horse hockey.
> 
> In this case they added 5mm to the stays, making them 41cm. Since almost everything fast is either 40.5 or 41 already, this is not much of a change.


I think Sky is talking about the changes they made to the R3 from 2010 to 2011, which is a case in point relative to this discussion. They lengthened both the head tube and chain stays. On a 56cm they changed the head tube from 16cm to 17.3cm, and the chain stays from 40cm to 40.5.

The 56 RS has always been 18cm and 41cm respectively, so in 2010 the difference between to RS and the R3 was fairly significant. Now not so much. (As to geometry).


----------



## rx-79g (Sep 14, 2010)

Gimme Shoulder said:


> I think Sky is talking about the changes they made to the R3 from 2010 to 2011, which is a case in point relative to this discussion. They lengthened both the head tube and chain stays. On a 56cm they changed the head tube from 16cm to 17.3cm, and the chain stays from 40cm to 40.5.
> 
> The 56 RS has always been 18cm and 41cm respectively, so in 2010 the difference between to RS and the R3 was fairly significant. Now not so much. (As to geometry).


But my point was that 41cm isn't by any means "long", and they no longer make any R series bikes with shorter than 40.5, including the $9800 R5ca which contains "all [their] knowledge".

Some very accomplished road bikes come with 41s - it just isn't a long stay and hardly an adjustment for weight distribution. 

A lot of Cervelo's blah-blah about geometry is marketing or nice on paper, but nothing is really going on here.


----------

