Frames with big head tubes "ugly"

Back by popular demand, the general all-things Road forum!

Moderator: robbosmans

jever98
Posts: 1172
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 12:02 pm
Location: Seattle

by jever98

Marin wrote:
Most of the super-long headtubes comes from wanting to avoid spacers, which is stupid if the tradeoff is lengthening the head tube :roll:


Not at all! A longer head tube and no spacers are much preferable to a shorter head tube and a stack of spacers: the longer head tube is more structurally sound than the short head tube over which you create a lever through the spacer stack.
----
No longer in the industry

Marin
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2014 11:48 am
Location: Vienna Austria

by Marin

Many things would be more "structurally sound", but in a bicycle - which should be an exercise in efficiency - you don't build things unneccessarily strong like e.g. in furniture.

If your fork shaft breaks, it will probably be at the lower end - where we now have a taper. And even here, the smaller 1.25" is often preferred over the "more structurally sound" 1.5".

by Weenie


Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓    Broad Selection ✓    Worldwide Delivery ✓

www.starbike.com



User avatar
BRM
Posts: 817
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2014 3:43 pm

by BRM

Marin wrote:Most of the super-long headtubes comes from wanting to avoid spacers, which is stupid if the tradeoff is lengthening the head tube :roll:


"Super long headtubes" Can you give examples of super long headtubes or is it only something living in your brain? When framesizes go up, headtubes grow with them, comptletely normal. Super long headtubes, its a joke right?

Only people with a bodyratio short legs/ long torso maybe complain. Just because they have a lot of reach in their bodies. The majority is the opposite. In practise often headtubes are too low. And dont look to pro's because they often have totally other requirements than most consumers. Pro's also not choose bikes but get them.

When you think that there are too many with a too long headtube for you , you probably simply are looking to the wrong bikes.

It Always amazes me that many people here give money out as water to expensive bikes and are busy with it on the most tiny detail levels, and think they are superimportant (weights, Aero etc) Trying to discuss all kinds of things on advanced levels, but . . . . . they hardly have a clue how to proper choose a bike that is a match with their purpose and requirements related to fit.
Popular format is still: you look to what bikes appeals you , choose one, and then look which size you need. :roll:

TurboKoo
Posts: 651
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 7:55 pm

by TurboKoo

[UPWARDS BLACK ARROW]️ everyone should read and understand that post.
Cannondale SuperSix
Shimano 9270

snaaijer
Posts: 15
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2016 11:30 pm

by snaaijer

4ibanez wrote:I agree with Xena about tall headtubes. I'm 6'3, so don't have much choice. I run a 58 (XL) frame with a slammed -17° 120mm stem. Although it works fine for me - I'm in the drops 90% of the time - if I had a fitting, I suspect I may be told to ride a bigger frame.

If the downtube was angled more to meet nearer the top tube that would have the desired effect, but might affect the ride...


So if you can ride such a low geometry the limiter here is not the stack but the reach of the bike? With a slammed -17 you'd think you could move down a size, unless you wouldn't have enough reach. Maybe a more racey bike geo is what you need (if by racey we mean long and low).

Marin
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2014 11:48 am
Location: Vienna Austria

by Marin

BRM wrote:
Marin wrote:Most of the super-long headtubes comes from wanting to avoid spacers, which is stupid if the tradeoff is lengthening the head tube :roll:


"Super long headtubes" Can you give examples of super long headtubes or is it only something living in your brain? When framesizes go up, headtubes grow with them, comptletely normal. Super long headtubes, its a joke right?

Only people with a bodyratio short legs/ long torso maybe complain. Just because they have a lot of reach in their bodies. The majority is the opposite. In practise often headtubes are too low. And dont look to pro's because they often have totally other requirements than most consumers. Pro's also not choose bikes but get them.

When you think that there are too many with a too long headtube for you , you probably simply are looking to the wrong bikes.

It Always amazes me that many people here give money out as water to expensive bikes and are busy with it on the most tiny detail levels, and think they are superimportant (weights, Aero etc) Trying to discuss all kinds of things on advanced levels, but . . . . . they hardly have a clue how to proper choose a bike that is a match with their purpose and requirements related to fit.
Popular format is still: you look to what bikes appeals you , choose one, and then look which size you need. :roll:


You're confusing me with the thread starter, right? :D

User avatar
4ibanez
Posts: 556
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2014 4:54 pm
Location: Norwich, UK
Contact:

by 4ibanez

snaaijer wrote: So if you can ride such a low geometry the limiter here is not the stack but the reach of the bike? With a slammed -17 you'd think you could move down a size, unless you wouldn't have enough reach. Maybe a more racey bike geo is what you need (if by racey we mean long and low).


Well it's a Supersix Evo, which I think is considered by the masses to be "racey". I guess reach is the problem really. Couldn't lose another couple of cm going down a size - it'd be like an armchair! I am planning to eek out a touch more drop with an ultra low stack Veloflyte dust cover I'm yet to install, which should get me a tiny be longer and lower.

AJS914
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 6:52 pm

by AJS914

This thread brings up a lot of issues I find annoying. I'm getting at the whole slam that stem idea.

We used to ride bikes with a giant gooseneck of a traditional stem. Then road bikes followed mountain bikes and went aheadset. After that we added spacers and set up our bikes exactly as they used to be. Some people took it to extremes - 6cm of spacers with an upward sloping stem so manufacturers responded with things like H2 & H3 fit for normal people who don't want to ride any drop. STI and Ergo came out and then people really wanted a shorter reach so they could ride the hoods all day comfortably. Unfortunately we got a lot of levers pointing up to the sky. In the mean time, the pros figured out that aero was the best and started riding tiny frames with long stems and maximum drop. I think some went too far to the point that they ride the whole race on the hoods and never use the drops. Fortunately, it seems like this trend is pulling back a little.

So here we are and so many people think that spacers are evil. They would rather ride a too large of a frame with no spacers than the right sized frame.

Back to the topic - big frames with "big" head tubes. From a personal taste point of view, I think a severely sloping top tube exaggerates the look of the head tube length. I'll throw my bikes out there as an example. I think my Colnago looks nicely balanced. Despite being setup up almost identically, my Parlee Z4 had the too long headtube look. The drop on the Colnago is only 1cm lower. I blame the extra slope of the top tube on the Parlee. A couple of other things may factor in. The Colnago has a shorter top tube but a longer stem.

Image

Image

User avatar
dadoflam08
Posts: 951
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 11:25 am
Location: Southern Great Southern Land

by dadoflam08

tall headtubes don’t even rate compared to the other crimes against cycling beauty unleashed in recent times:

 2016 Venge – the prosecution rests
 ‘Sculpted’ headtubes as per Trek, Pinarello etc with ridges and bulges everywhere – whats wrong with a simple tube - or tapered tube if you must
 Overly sculpted carbon frames with curves, swishes and bulges in the name of efficiency etc etc – just because you can doesn’t mean you should
 Integrated headset/stem with ‘aero spacers’ a’la Trek Madone and Venge
 Curvy swirly ‘comfort’ seatstays – with or without shock absorbing devices
 Ultegra crankset – look like pressed galvanised sheet metal
 Trek Madone seatpost toppers – current version excepted
 SMP saddles – although unfortunately they are the only thing I can use
 Any frameset graphics with the brand repeated more than three times
 Any bike with less than 50mm of headtube between the top tube and the downtube
 Blended top tube/headtube/downtube junctions
 Small frames with 130mm stems and extreme setback seatposts


Give me a simple tall headtube anytime
'83 De Rosa+'11 Baum Corretto+'08 BMC Pro Machine >6kg+'86 Pinarello Team +'72 Cinelli SC +'58 Bianchi+'71 Cinelli SC+'78 Masi GC+'83 La Redoute Motobecane+'94 Banesto Pegoretti+'88 Bianchi X4 +'48 Super Elliott+'99 Look Kg281+'18 Pegoretti

User avatar
tymon_tm
Posts: 3651
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 4:35 pm

by tymon_tm

they're OK as long as the overall fit "looks" OK. but having too big of a frame or riding a too small bike (with a Pisa tower of spacers) is just yucks. pity you often get to see some really nice rigs set up like a piss pot for a shitting bulldog. oh, and any orthopeadist will tell you, spine issues are becoming more and more common, even amongst 'fit' people. so there you have it, negative drop, short crumbled reach, but tones of light aero gear :noidea:
kkibbler wrote: WW remembers.

fromtrektocolnago
Posts: 1145
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 10:15 pm

by fromtrektocolnago

bike industry has been hitting us in the head with stiffer is better, so this is an obvious direction to satisfy that need. personally i don't agree that stiffer is necessarily better.
Colnago C-59 (Dura Ace)
Firefly(Ultegra)
Colnago C-64 disc(ultegra) with Bora 35 wheels

fogman
Posts: 1066
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 10:36 pm

by fogman

At what point (how many mm) is it considered a tower of spacers?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It's all downhill from here, except for the uphills.

jever98
Posts: 1172
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 12:02 pm
Location: Seattle

by jever98

fogman wrote:At what point (how many mm) is it considered a tower of spacers?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I personally draw the line at a 15mm top cap + 20mm spacers. Purely subjective, of course.
----
No longer in the industry

bm0p700f
in the industry
Posts: 5777
Joined: Sat May 12, 2012 7:25 pm
Location: Glermsford, Suffolk U.K
Contact:

by bm0p700f

I need long hesdtubes to have a comfortable position and my back is nearly flat on the drops. For me its long headtubes or a shorter one and risk a cracked carbon steerer... that happened once. I ride my bike more than i look at them.

by Weenie


Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓    Broad Selection ✓    Worldwide Delivery ✓

www.starbike.com



Post Reply