Regarding the previous article,
I've received a lot of comments.
I thought I'd get completely trashed for it,
but that didn't happen.
Among them, I received a comment about Anchor's head tube angle (head angle):
"Anchor expresses head angle and seat angle in degrees and minutes, so
30 minutes is 0.5 degrees, and 45 minutes is 0.75 degrees."
Oh wow! I really apologize for that!
Indeed, for example, it wasn't 72.0° but
72°00′ (degrees and minutes).
Degrees, minutes, and seconds are units used for latitude and longitude on maps.
X°Y′Z″ (degrees, minutes, seconds) is how you read it,
but frames don't go down to seconds.
By the way, sensitive track cyclists
can apparently tell if a builder made a mistake on the seat angle by 5′ (0.0833…°)
when they ride the frame.
Recently Selle Italia has been allowed, but
until not long ago, the only saddle available was Kashima's Five Gold,
which had absolutely no cushioning, so
when you insert the saddle and seatpost assembly to the usual position
as always, you'd notice a difference of less than 0.1°.
From the geometry table of the Anchor in the previous article,
I'll list the conversions from degrees and minutes
where the minutes aren't exactly 00′
to decimal degrees (where a circle is 360°):
The following is degrees/minutes → decimal degrees:
RP9 (RP8)
72°18′ → 72.3°
72°48′ → 72.8°
RIS9
72°30′ → 72.5°
RL8W
70°30′ → 70.5°
71°30′ → 71.5°
However, the decimal degree values work out to exactly 0.1° increments,
so there's a possibility that the frames were made using decimal degrees
and then converted to degrees and minutes for display following track bike conventions.
For example, 71°35′ would be 71.5833…°, but
I don't see any examples where the decimal degree value is a messy number
outside this range (though I might have missed something).
On the other hand, 72°48′ working out to exactly 72.8°
seems to me like they must have made the frame using 72.8° as the basis.
Next,
I received a comment saying:
"Short people should probably give up on riding road bikes."
That's not right—that's an extreme conclusion.
It's true that road bikes, for Japanese people and especially men,
are a sport where the frame sizes expected from wheel size are larger than the average height.
If the average height of Japanese men were around 120cm
and Dutch men, the world's tallest on average, were 135cm,
road bike wheel size would absolutely not be 700C.
With smaller wheel sizes,
a corresponding geometry would have been established.
And regarding whether road bikes exclude short people as the comment suggests—
they don't.
If they did, across all sizes they'd only use a 73° head angle,
43mm fork offset, and basically say "I don't care if short people find road bikes hard to ride,"
making frames that way.
But in reality, frighteningly enough,
there are frame brands with geometries close to that, so
the previous article was about giving hints on how to distinguish between
legitimate manufacturers and brands and those that aren't.
Factor, for example, has 57mm fork offset on their smallest size,
and what's more, it's a bend amount provided only for that smallest size,
with smaller sizes having less trail value—they're quite something.
Just because you're into the Bianchi Celeste color, or because it's the brand that won the Tour de France,
or because the frame weight is light for the price—
how about we stop buying frames based "only" on that kind of shallow reasoning
(not that I'm completely denying that sort of thing).
There are a lot of shop staff out there who don't know much about frame geometry
(in fact, overwhelming majority, I'd say,
and conversely, people who received detailed geometry explanations when buying frames or complete bikes
must be an overwhelming minority),
so just arming yourself with a little theory
means you won't get fooled by the smooth talk of those kinds of people,
and your frame selection quality, or shopping quality overall,
will improve dramatically.
※To industry colleagues:
When you find a customer with a measuring tape hidden in their pocket,
give them a heads-up: "Just in case it might scratch the frame,
please don't measure the front center."
※To those who say "I don't give a damn":
Prepare a sewing or body measurement measuring tape
with no possibility of rubbing with metal parts.
By the way, the one in the image above is my personal one.
I'm not sure exactly what range "short people" in the comments refers to,
but while the selection of wheels and tires and stable supply become dramatically narrower,
andmany shops won't even service them, if you include
the option of Canyon's 650B wheelset frames or complete bikes,
I don't think it comes down to short people having to give up on road bikes.
Next,
I received a comment:
"Now I understand that Gusto's isn't a frame at all
but a component display mount stand. lol"
Wh-what a terrible thing to say! ←You're one to talk
It's like with a Christmas tree—the ornaments are worth more than the fir tree,
or like with sashimi—the daikon garnish outshines the main ingredient,
as I often say.
Gusto is a frame brand started by Attaquer, a carbon rim/wheel brand, thinking
"Everyone else is doing frame business, so it looks easy enough,
why don't we give it a try too?"
That's basically the vibe.
The RCR Duro Team Limited complete bike that started this whole discussion
came with a full R8000-series Ultegra groupset from 2019
without mixing in Tektro or FSA brake or crank components,
topped with Attaquer's 45mm-deep tubular carbon rim wheels
priced at 268,000 yen before tax, 294,800 yen with tax.
When you strip everything except the frame from that,
the frame's internal valuation is basically worth nothing.
Even just selling off the wheels would be significant.
Even without being able to choose crank length or front and rear gear tooth counts,
between a frame and Ultegra full groupset here,
which holds its price better against MSRP and has smaller size issues,
making it easier to sell to more people? Obviously the groupset.
Such leftover frames—the complete bike came with Control Tech stem, handlebar,
and seatpost, but even those got stripped out, and the remainder
wasn't being bought because customers wanted it,
but was being pushed on them for the shop's convenience,
so I strongly objected at the time.
They ended up buying it anyway,
maybe there was some loyalty involved.
Though they did get rid of it pretty quick after that.
Thanks for the comments.
Also, I'm really not writing "How to Read Geometry Better (Reach Edition),"
so requests are pointless.
I've received a lot of comments.
I thought I'd get completely trashed for it,
but that didn't happen.
Among them, I received a comment about Anchor's head tube angle (head angle):
"Anchor expresses head angle and seat angle in degrees and minutes, so
30 minutes is 0.5 degrees, and 45 minutes is 0.75 degrees."
Oh wow! I really apologize for that!
Indeed, for example, it wasn't 72.0° but
72°00′ (degrees and minutes).
Degrees, minutes, and seconds are units used for latitude and longitude on maps.
X°Y′Z″ (degrees, minutes, seconds) is how you read it,
but frames don't go down to seconds.
By the way, sensitive track cyclists
can apparently tell if a builder made a mistake on the seat angle by 5′ (0.0833…°)
when they ride the frame.
Recently Selle Italia has been allowed, but
until not long ago, the only saddle available was Kashima's Five Gold,
which had absolutely no cushioning, so
when you insert the saddle and seatpost assembly to the usual position
as always, you'd notice a difference of less than 0.1°.
From the geometry table of the Anchor in the previous article,
I'll list the conversions from degrees and minutes
where the minutes aren't exactly 00′
to decimal degrees (where a circle is 360°):
The following is degrees/minutes → decimal degrees:
RP9 (RP8)
72°18′ → 72.3°
72°48′ → 72.8°
RIS9
72°30′ → 72.5°
RL8W
70°30′ → 70.5°
71°30′ → 71.5°
However, the decimal degree values work out to exactly 0.1° increments,
so there's a possibility that the frames were made using decimal degrees
and then converted to degrees and minutes for display following track bike conventions.
For example, 71°35′ would be 71.5833…°, but
I don't see any examples where the decimal degree value is a messy number
outside this range (though I might have missed something).
On the other hand, 72°48′ working out to exactly 72.8°
seems to me like they must have made the frame using 72.8° as the basis.
Next,
I received a comment saying:
"Short people should probably give up on riding road bikes."
That's not right—that's an extreme conclusion.
It's true that road bikes, for Japanese people and especially men,
are a sport where the frame sizes expected from wheel size are larger than the average height.
If the average height of Japanese men were around 120cm
and Dutch men, the world's tallest on average, were 135cm,
road bike wheel size would absolutely not be 700C.
With smaller wheel sizes,
a corresponding geometry would have been established.
And regarding whether road bikes exclude short people as the comment suggests—
they don't.
If they did, across all sizes they'd only use a 73° head angle,
43mm fork offset, and basically say "I don't care if short people find road bikes hard to ride,"
making frames that way.
But in reality, frighteningly enough,
there are frame brands with geometries close to that, so
the previous article was about giving hints on how to distinguish between
legitimate manufacturers and brands and those that aren't.
Factor, for example, has 57mm fork offset on their smallest size,
and what's more, it's a bend amount provided only for that smallest size,
with smaller sizes having less trail value—they're quite something.
Just because you're into the Bianchi Celeste color, or because it's the brand that won the Tour de France,
or because the frame weight is light for the price—
how about we stop buying frames based "only" on that kind of shallow reasoning
(not that I'm completely denying that sort of thing).
There are a lot of shop staff out there who don't know much about frame geometry
(in fact, overwhelming majority, I'd say,
and conversely, people who received detailed geometry explanations when buying frames or complete bikes
must be an overwhelming minority),
so just arming yourself with a little theory
means you won't get fooled by the smooth talk of those kinds of people,
and your frame selection quality, or shopping quality overall,
will improve dramatically.
※To industry colleagues:
When you find a customer with a measuring tape hidden in their pocket,
give them a heads-up: "Just in case it might scratch the frame,
please don't measure the front center."
※To those who say "I don't give a damn":
Prepare a sewing or body measurement measuring tape
with no possibility of rubbing with metal parts.
By the way, the one in the image above is my personal one.
I'm not sure exactly what range "short people" in the comments refers to,
but while the selection of wheels and tires and stable supply become dramatically narrower,
and
the option of Canyon's 650B wheelset frames or complete bikes,
I don't think it comes down to short people having to give up on road bikes.
Next,
I received a comment:
"Now I understand that Gusto's isn't a frame at all
but a component display mount stand. lol"
Wh-what a terrible thing to say! ←You're one to talk
It's like with a Christmas tree—the ornaments are worth more than the fir tree,
or like with sashimi—the daikon garnish outshines the main ingredient,
as I often say.
Gusto is a frame brand started by Attaquer, a carbon rim/wheel brand, thinking
"Everyone else is doing frame business, so it looks easy enough,
why don't we give it a try too?"
That's basically the vibe.
The RCR Duro Team Limited complete bike that started this whole discussion
came with a full R8000-series Ultegra groupset from 2019
without mixing in Tektro or FSA brake or crank components,
topped with Attaquer's 45mm-deep tubular carbon rim wheels
priced at 268,000 yen before tax, 294,800 yen with tax.
When you strip everything except the frame from that,
the frame's internal valuation is basically worth nothing.
Even just selling off the wheels would be significant.
Even without being able to choose crank length or front and rear gear tooth counts,
between a frame and Ultegra full groupset here,
which holds its price better against MSRP and has smaller size issues,
making it easier to sell to more people? Obviously the groupset.
Such leftover frames—the complete bike came with Control Tech stem, handlebar,
and seatpost, but even those got stripped out, and the remainder
wasn't being bought because customers wanted it,
but was being pushed on them for the shop's convenience,
so I strongly objected at the time.
They ended up buying it anyway,
maybe there was some loyalty involved.
Though they did get rid of it pretty quick after that.
Thanks for the comments.
Also, I'm really not writing "How to Read Geometry Better (Reach Edition),"
so requests are pointless.