Calfee, Colnago, Parlee?

Discuss light weight issues concerning road bikes & parts.
User avatar
Posts: 1695
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 1:52 am

by cadence90

Excellent reply, Calnago. :thumbup:

That clears everything up, and makes complete sense. The revised chart is so much more understandable.
Thanks much for help to me, and to the Forum in general.

Happy New Year!

"Gimondi è un eroe umano, che viene sconfitto ma che continua la sua corsa fino a tornare a vincere." - Enrico Ruggeri

by Weenie

Posts: 285
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2015 10:10 am

by reedplayer

as an addition to what calnago said: compare traditional and sloping geometrys, best 59 and 56s, because those have identical steering angles and seat angles:

59: 169 scs + 395 reach = 564; 0=577
56s:156 scs + 396 reach = 552; 0=580

you see the difference at 59trad. is much lesser than at 56s.

why is there a difference at traditional geometry at all? (seat angle and steerer angle are nearly identical!) its, because the measuring point of "reach" is higher than measuring point of "0" at the steerer tube, calnago already declared it!

the chart is a bit misleading, because it creates the impression of reach and scs being complementary. but those arent!

btw: didnt read the whole thread, but i vote for the parlee!:-)

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Last post