Do I want a steel frame?

[Crackle]

The Kinesis are all alu frames. Apologies, I was just thinking of decent frame manufacturers when I posted that and forgot the steel premise. That said, bear them in mind as a possible if you don't find a steel frame that suits.

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong but I'd always assumed Women specific geometry is marketing speak for a smaller frame with correct relative proportions across the frame, including seat angle adjustment which was once not the case. These days, most manufacturers change their frame dimensions as they change their size. You only need to look at a geometry chart to see that on smaller frames, not only tube lengths are smaller but seat angles change too.

 

[lulubel]

I think the biggest difference in women specific frames is that the top tube tends to be shorter because women have shorter torsos and arms relative to leg length, which is why I wondered if a unisex audax/tourer intended to be ridden in a more upright position would be similar in geometry to a women's race bike.

I had noticed the changes in the angles - by the time you get to the large sizes the seat and head tubes are often the same angle - but just assumed that was more to do with creating the necessary wheel clearance on small frames (but that was a guess, though).

Anyway, my point (which seemed to get lost somewhere) was that I'd probably be mad to not put the Condor top of my list of options when the frame geometry seems so perfect for me.

 

[MacB]

You're right it does have a lot to do with clearances and avoiding toe overlap etc, they may also have increased offset for forks on smaller frames. If you're trying to compare it's useful to understand(if you don't already) the difference the angles makes.

Assuming you are going to keep your saddle to BB/Pedals relationship static then the ST angle is needed as well as ETT, or you need the Reach number. This is the measure of the ETT forward of the BB centre and allows for more direct comparison. So if you look at a bike geometry diagram and imagine a vertical line from the centre of the BB up through the ETT line. For example:-

2 frames both with 500mm ETTs but frame A has a ST angle of 75 degrees and frame B 74 degrees. If you built the frames up with identical parts and set the saddle the same distance back of the BB then frame A would have approx 10mm more reach to the bars than frame B.

Some of the frame geometry diagrams show the reach and quite a few of the charts list it as a measurement, I know Specialised do.

 

[Crackle]

Know any steel frames in Lulubel's size MacB?

 

[lulubel]

So, we're looking at 4mm more reach on the Condor frame (the difference between seat angles of 75 and 74.6)? Plus the 6mm longer ETT, so that's 10mm more in total, which I could lose off the stem if it bothered me.

 

[MacB]

My gut reaction is a custom job but that costs, but I'm also aware that she's not in a position to try out multiple bikes. I did wonder if it was worth trying to pick up a cheap/freebie donor steel frameset that could be built up using her existing parts. That fills the gap for a bike for the time being, gives an idea of what steel would be like and allows a lot more time for refining the new bike plans.

I think a small frame will be harder to find but it's worth posting a wanted ad on the forums and seeing what happens. I'd be happy to help facilitate shipping over to Spain if someone has a frameset but doesn't want to try and sort out international shipping. I'm thinking total spend here, frame and shipping, of no more than £50-60.

As for recommendations on the new bike/frame that depends on what direction Lulubel wants to go. Looking at this thread I can see desires for versatility creeping in. In which case I would recommend something like the Xcheck but I'm not familiar with the smaller sizes, I need to read up a bit. For example I like the Salsa Vaya as an allround frameset but the smallest sizes are 26" wheels not 700c, it has 135 rear spacing and is disc brake only, so all things that would require enough new parts that a complete bike would make more sense. From Surly I think the LHT disc version would be a better bet than the Xcheck. But again I think the smaller sizes got to 26" wheels.

I'll have a nose at cyclocross offerings as well, they tend to have shorter top tubes for a given size.

 

[Crackle]

If you're considering the Condor, look at the Thorn Audax frame and forks (499).

 

[kishan]

i have a steel frame, it is heavy but its great for making your body work hard and its stronger compared to most light weight frames

 

[MacB]

Hmmm, so looking at the geo for the Fratello in the smallest(46) size then it's pretty much identical to the Condor Bivio Cyclocross frameset except the cross frame has an ETT of 495 so 18mm shorter than the Fratello. Yes I know it's not steel but just thought I'd put this up as an example of the difference.

 

[lulubel]

I'd looked at the LHT when I was looking at Surly, and the geometry of the smaller frame sizes looks good, but I'm really put off by the 26in wheels. It wouldn't matter if I was buying a bike just for touring because it isn't really about going anywhere fast, but I think I'd soon get frustrated at not being able to go as fast as I thought I should be able to! I also like the fact that Surly use steel forks with their frames (I'm not binning my old forks because they're broken, but because they're carbon and I'm assuming they've had it given the state of the wheel and frame). Maybe this is something I should address with Condor if I decide to go for the Fratello. Presumably they use carbon forks to reduce weight without compromising the ride quality, but I'd rather have the weight penalty of steel forks than wonder if my forks are going to fail on the next descent after a minor crash. Not that I seem to do minor crashes - I'm an all-or-nothing kind of girl!

I think I've pretty much ruled out the cross check. The idea that I'd want to take it off-road is probably quite unrealistic. I've got a MTB that I can take off-road, and I've taken it off-road once in the last 2 years! So, buying a frame that would need quite a bit of fiddling to get it to fit right just because I might take it off-road once in a blue moon seems rather silly.

That's interesting about cross frames. That gives me something else to research.

 

[fossyant]

Steel forks are great, despite the weight. Much better for shock than carbon

 

[MacB]

Well one thing that did crop up when I was working on my own frame design were the options around a second wheelset or ensuring plenty of tyre clearance. This may fall more into the category of info for future ideas, but thought it worth mentioning, especially if you end up looking at a more rugged frameset. My road frame borrowed heavily from the geometry of a Spesh Roubaix coupled with the more upright position of a Spesh Tricross. The design only ever had 700c wheels in mind and has clearance for up to a 700x42 tyre with guards and 700x45 without. This is a disc brake only frame by the way.

What I then discovered was that if I want to I can run a 26" wheelset with 1.9 or 2" tyres and it gives almost identical geometry numbers to running a 700x23-28 tyred 700c wheelset. By that I mean the trail and the BB height are the same or as near as dammit.

Obviously I'm not sure how this would translate to a smaller frame re clearances etc. Also it only really works easily if the frame has 135mm rear spacing and disc brakes. I just thought it worth throwing into the mix as an idea. I was getting the idea that you're not really into full on MTBing anymore but don't want to give up offroad capacity totally either. If the frame is rugged enough you could have a reasonable tourer/rough stuff bike with 26" wheels that, just by switching the cassette over became a 700c wheeled road machine.

 

[bobcat]

I have a thirty year old steel frame road bike, it always make me smile!

 

[lulubel]

What I then discovered was that if I want to I can run a 26" wheelset with 1.9 or 2" tyres and it gives almost identical geometry numbers to running a 700x23-28 tyred 700c wheelset. By that I mean the trail and the BB height are the same or as near as dammit.

The LHT disc specifies: Rear dropouts - Vertical, 135mm O.L.D. and tyre clearance of 2.1". Does that mean it could either run 26" wheels with "fat" tyres or 700c with "skinny" tyres (say 25mm)? Or am I getting that all wrong?

 

[RecordAceFromNew]

The LHT disc specifies: Rear dropouts - Vertical, 135mm O.L.D. and tyre clearance of 2.1". Does that mean it could either run 26" wheels with "fat" tyres or 700c with "skinny" tyres (say 25mm)? Or am I getting that all wrong?

You won't be able to change wheel size because the brake bosses won't allow that, and they don't have disc mounts. The smaller frames will only work with 26" wheels, the larger only with 700c.

Regarding tyres, it says (in Frame Highlights) 26": 2.1" with or without fenders; 700c: 42mm with fenders, 45mm without fenders. Individual tire and rim combos affect tire clearance.