# 1970s vs 1980s handling differences



## samh (May 5, 2004)

Does anyone know if the 1980s handling is faster, as i read someone felt it was too fast,
and I agree. I dont know head angle, but rake is 4.5 and I feel too alive, too stimulated going downhill. Why the change? Is it meant for criteriums?


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

*"Criterium geometry"*

I have no basis for comparison, other than general knowledge, and the DeRosa I purchased back in '85 and still ride when I'm feeling spunky. It has 73.5 or 74 degree parallel angles, which puts the saddle up over the crank for some hellacious foot stomping fast pedaling. The steep head angle, relatively shallow rake, and short trail provides quick handling. I have to adjust to it after riding my 73 angled other bike, somewhat like going from a Cadillac Coup deVille to a Ferrari, but its far too predictable to characterize as skitterish. On a descent the bike will scribe through the turns with confidence. Once, coming down off Mt. Wilson near Los Angeles, I was scared out of my wits about wiping out at 45-50 mph, but the bike disappeared beneath me, like a motorcycle. At no time did I feel like a slight shift in weight, a slight sideways pressure on the handlebars, would upset the rocket-like trajectory of the bike.

The only time I've ever had problems was at stops, when I've routinely over-corrected the front wheel trying to track stand or unclip. Moving faster than 10 mph, the bike has always been aggressive and stable, worthy of the legendary name. Its handling really shines in all-out sprints and fast descents, the faster the better, as I happily discovered screaming down Mt. Wilson. You just have to relax on it and let it do its magic.

Earlier DeRosas might very well have had slacker angles. When the American market opened up in the late 70s, European builders all thought steeper angled bikes were what the Americans wanted, as they only raced criteriums and had no road races. "Criterium geometry" is steep angles and short wheel bases, approaching track bikes, to zip full throttle around those circular courses. But I haven't seen any specs on pre-80s DeRosas.


----------



## bismo37 (Mar 22, 2002)

I'm glad you asked this question because i have the same question. I recently built up a 1980s DeRosa Super Prestige and had only done rather flat rides on it and thought the bike was pretty stable and balanced. This past weekend, i thought I'd take it climbing and found that it climbed surprisingly well (even compared to my regular ride, a Klein Quantum Race). But the descent was a bit scary. The bike was a bit too lively and the steering was too responsive making me think this frame was angled for crits. The Klein is a nice crit bike with steepish angles but descends smoothly like its tracking a rail in the road. The DeRosa will take some getting used to for me. Definitely need to pay attention to my line of descent and upcoming road hazards like gravel-strewn corners. Not sure if i'll keep the frame if i don't get used to the descending. 

I did have the rear wheel pretty tight with a 40 cm chainstay length. I did lengthen the wheelbase by 1 cm, but the bike was still lively on the way down.


----------



## steel515 (Sep 6, 2004)

*derosa handling*



jeebus said:


> I'm glad you asked this question because i have the same question. I recently built up a 1980s DeRosa Super Prestige and had only done rather flat rides on it and thought the bike was pretty stable and balanced. This past weekend, i thought I'd take it climbing and found that it climbed surprisingly well (even compared to my regular ride, a Klein Quantum Race). But the descent was a bit scary. The bike was a bit too lively and the steering was too responsive making me think this frame was angled for crits. The Klein is a nice crit bike with steepish angles but descends smoothly like its tracking a rail in the road. The DeRosa will take some getting used to for me. Definitely need to pay attention to my line of descent and upcoming road hazards like gravel-strewn corners. Not sure if i'll keep the frame if i don't get used to the descending.
> 
> I did have the rear wheel pretty tight with a 40 cm chainstay length. I did lengthen the wheelbase by 1 cm, but the bike was still lively on the way down.


yes I have slx professional (bought around 1991) with 4.5 fork rake. I tried kestrel 4.3mm fork to slow handling, but now it feels lethargic on flats, calm(er)/OK on descents.

So I feel you either set it up to ride on the flats or the mountains. I agree it went well uphill.
The head angle is "proprietary" but its very interesting in your comparison to the Klein.

When I first had itI used to go uphill a lot but I'm now thinking of using it on flats/tri with original fork, where the faster handling and greater weight isn't a problem.

In comparison to 3 of my other 56cm frames the head tube is shorter.
So I wouldn't for climbs where I prefer higher position for better visibility and breathing.
Each bike has there strengths and weaknesses, I think.


----------

