Regarding the front geometry article I wrote the other day,
I received the following rather pungent comment:
「That's wonderful. Just by looking at the geometry,
you must be able to see exactly how
this bike will behave on downhills,
how it will extend in corners,
and how far it can lean over.
I can't figure out anything without actually riding it.
If you understand that much,
wouldn't it be better to become a frame builder?
I'm sure you'd create a frame that anyone can ride fast on.
It's just full of theory and I'm amazed.」
It looks like a comment written by someone on the left end of the bell curve, someone who barely understands the meaning of the text strings,
Or, perhaps it actually is that way,
but it might be a carefully crafted sentence made to look that way.
That article received many comments like 「This was really helpful!」
but I anticipated that comments like the above one
would be much more likely to get me riled up enough to respond,
so I'm slightly suspicious whether they carefully crafted
a sentence that seemed intellectually low-level.
But let me answer anyway.
Regarding the part that says
「Just by looking at the geometry,
this bike will behave on downhills～」
it's true that a considerable amount of it
can actually be grasped without actually riding it.
That's what it means to be able to read geometry.
The part that says
「If you understand that much,
wouldn't it be better to become a frame builder?」
is the kind of thing someone with a weak intellect
would twist themselves into pretzels trying to come up with an insult.
I can't make frames myself, but
fortunately I know a frame builder
whose precision is such that I never have to doubt alignment issues,
and in the past I've ordered several frames from them.
I specify the important parts of the geometry (what I think are the important parts),
so I have no complaints on that front.
Regarding the part 「I'm sure you'd create a frame
that anyone can ride fast on,」
that's not correct.
As I also wrote in that article,
I only explained and discussed various aspects
of front geometry—
I didn't write anything good or bad about
frame stiffness, compliance, or weight.
Two of my custom frames
are made with Dedacciai SC61.10A aluminum tubing,
which in the old days was used by Pinarello and Bianchi
with custom-butted versions of that tube.
On a tangent, Bianchi ordered what was called
mega-tube at the time—
large-diameter, thin-walled aluminum tubing—
from Columbus as Bianchi-exclusive products.
It wasn't quite a joint development,
but Bianchi specified the specs in detail on their end,
and when Columbus provided it to other manufacturers too,
Bianchi got absolutely furious
and switched their tube supplier to Dedacciai.
Dedacciai was originally one of Columbus's
partner manufacturers,
but because they provided better service to major frame-building customers
（they strictly honored the contracts for manufacturer-specific original tubes）
they rapidly gained market share
from the late 1990s through the early 2000s during the aluminum frame boom.
Among those, one of the major brands that continued to support Columbus
was Colnago.
For non-custom-butted SC61.10A tubing,
examples of manufacturers and brands that made frames from it
include DeRosa, Gios, Intermax, and Tni,
and while they differ in price due to brand premium and such,
assembly precision in terms of alignment quality,
and of course in the fine details of geometry,
if frames use the same tubing,
there's no dramatic difference in performance—
in terms of how fast they run.
Frame weight will be roughly the same if the size and
the top tube slope are identical.
And including the frame I ride,
SC61.10A aluminum frames are definitely inferior
to today's cutting-edge carbon frames in terms of weight and performance.
Otherwise, the results of all the companies developing frames
over the past 20 years or so wouldn't be showing any progress,
and we'd still see carbon and aluminum frames mixed together
in top pro races,
but in reality, that's not what we're seeing.
This is something people who've ridden quality custom frames
all say the same thing about:
a frame with proper alignment has a 「straight-running」 feeling.
This is something that can't be quantified,
but it's something you can feel in your body.
It's not occultism.
No manufacturer could tolerate the shocking yield losses
from large-scale carbon frame manufacturing facilities,
so mass-produced carbon frames from manufacturers
that push lightness and stiffness to their current limits
can never achieve the precision of a proper frame builder.
As an exceptional case,
Orbea's Aqua with its miraculous precision
I rode despite knowing its head angle was an abnormal value,
but if that had been the flagship Orca model instead,
it would have been a frame that combined
performance close to the world's highest standards at that time
with the precision of a proper frame-builder-made frame.
For non-carbon frames, there are exceptions.
Panasonic's custom frames are trustworthy in terms of precision.
They're less a mass-production manufacturer
and more 「a group of frame builders employed as company staff.」
Anchor's Neo-Cot was similar,
but they stopped doing it a while back. Too bad.
The ride quality of a frame without alignment issues
is something that can't be quantified,
but for me in terms of importance regarding frames, it ranks high.
For instance, if I were to buy a Tarmac or Madone,
and if you could prepare 10 each of
frame and fork units from the same model, size, and color,
and I could outfit each with hand-made wheels that are
center-adjusted with a pseudo-ruler transferred from a center gauge,
and could examine them all,
then even if among those 10 frames and forks,
there wasn't a single one where I couldn't detect alignment issues,
I'd choose the most tolerable one
and make peace with it, but that's not realistic either.
The story about the Aqua above was an abuse of authority.
If I were still doing racing activities,
from the perspective of which elements matter most in choosing race-winning equipment,
I'd overlook alignment and choose the latest technology,
but that's not the case. To put it indelicately,
when it comes to satisfaction in cycling where you're
in dialogue with your frame,
a frame you can trust for precision
is worth more than a light or stiff frame.
「Worth more」 means, in other words,
「hard to come by.」
In this day and age, people who deliberately order a custom frame,
especially those choosing a heavy steel frame,
whether they put it into words or not,
have noticed that kind of value, haven't they?
Since the beginning of this year I've been thinking
of starting a series called 「Gravel Bike First Year!」
but I still haven't written a single article.
It's a bike with SRAM Carus on it,
but I keep taking photos so the frame never appears in them.
In one sentence, what this is about is
「a fair punishment for the sin of buying a mass-produced frame.」
You might ask, does frame alignment really get that bad?
Whereas carbon frames only get one chance
to slide the rear triangle into the front triangle with a little 「pshoo,」
even completed wheels, where adjustments via nipples
can be made endlessly,
as I often write about here,
are shipped out misaligned as a matter of fact.
Also, just because a frame is expensive
doesn't mean it has fewer units with alignment issues.
Regarding the part 「It's just full of theory and I'm amazed,」
theory is important, you know.
If it relates to the laws of physics.
But you need to be careful about the relative significance of factors.
The wheels I regularly build and rebuild,
and the various theories backing them up,
I believe I was the first to openly advocate many of them,
and in the case of rebuilds, nearly 100% of the time
people say they're better than before,
but that's because of the difference in the theories hanging on the wheel.
「Theory」 that has nothing to do with the laws of physics
would be things like
「that's the frame brand Pogačar used to ride,」
or 「it has Sagan's signature on the rim side,」
things like that.
If you can't understand that kind of important theory
and don't want to,
then as your comment says, 「I can't figure out anything without actually riding it,」
please go ahead and continue
your low-grade shopping experiences,
which are on par with your intellect.
You're a 「good customer」 for the shop, aren't you?
While I'm at it, let me give an example of a 「bad customer.」
It's someone who comes into the shop with a tape measure hidden in their pocket.
I received the following rather pungent comment:
「That's wonderful. Just by looking at the geometry,
you must be able to see exactly how
this bike will behave on downhills,
how it will extend in corners,
and how far it can lean over.
I can't figure out anything without actually riding it.
If you understand that much,
wouldn't it be better to become a frame builder?
I'm sure you'd create a frame that anyone can ride fast on.
It's just full of theory and I'm amazed.」
It looks like a comment written by someone on the left end of the bell curve, someone who barely understands the meaning of the text strings,
Or, perhaps it actually is that way,
but it might be a carefully crafted sentence made to look that way.
That article received many comments like 「This was really helpful!」
but I anticipated that comments like the above one
would be much more likely to get me riled up enough to respond,
so I'm slightly suspicious whether they carefully crafted
a sentence that seemed intellectually low-level.
But let me answer anyway.
Regarding the part that says
「Just by looking at the geometry,
this bike will behave on downhills～」
it's true that a considerable amount of it
can actually be grasped without actually riding it.
That's what it means to be able to read geometry.
The part that says
「If you understand that much,
wouldn't it be better to become a frame builder?」
is the kind of thing someone with a weak intellect
would twist themselves into pretzels trying to come up with an insult.
I can't make frames myself, but
fortunately I know a frame builder
whose precision is such that I never have to doubt alignment issues,
and in the past I've ordered several frames from them.
I specify the important parts of the geometry (what I think are the important parts),
so I have no complaints on that front.
Regarding the part 「I'm sure you'd create a frame
that anyone can ride fast on,」
that's not correct.
As I also wrote in that article,
I only explained and discussed various aspects
of front geometry—
I didn't write anything good or bad about
frame stiffness, compliance, or weight.
Two of my custom frames
are made with Dedacciai SC61.10A aluminum tubing,
which in the old days was used by Pinarello and Bianchi
with custom-butted versions of that tube.
On a tangent, Bianchi ordered what was called
mega-tube at the time—
large-diameter, thin-walled aluminum tubing—
from Columbus as Bianchi-exclusive products.
It wasn't quite a joint development,
but Bianchi specified the specs in detail on their end,
and when Columbus provided it to other manufacturers too,
Bianchi got absolutely furious
and switched their tube supplier to Dedacciai.
Dedacciai was originally one of Columbus's
partner manufacturers,
but because they provided better service to major frame-building customers
（they strictly honored the contracts for manufacturer-specific original tubes）
they rapidly gained market share
from the late 1990s through the early 2000s during the aluminum frame boom.
Among those, one of the major brands that continued to support Columbus
was Colnago.
For non-custom-butted SC61.10A tubing,
examples of manufacturers and brands that made frames from it
include DeRosa, Gios, Intermax, and Tni,
and while they differ in price due to brand premium and such,
assembly precision in terms of alignment quality,
and of course in the fine details of geometry,
if frames use the same tubing,
there's no dramatic difference in performance—
in terms of how fast they run.
Frame weight will be roughly the same if the size and
the top tube slope are identical.
And including the frame I ride,
SC61.10A aluminum frames are definitely inferior
to today's cutting-edge carbon frames in terms of weight and performance.
Otherwise, the results of all the companies developing frames
over the past 20 years or so wouldn't be showing any progress,
and we'd still see carbon and aluminum frames mixed together
in top pro races,
but in reality, that's not what we're seeing.
This is something people who've ridden quality custom frames
all say the same thing about:
a frame with proper alignment has a 「straight-running」 feeling.
This is something that can't be quantified,
but it's something you can feel in your body.
It's not occultism.
No manufacturer could tolerate the shocking yield losses
from large-scale carbon frame manufacturing facilities,
so mass-produced carbon frames from manufacturers
that push lightness and stiffness to their current limits
can never achieve the precision of a proper frame builder.
As an exceptional case,
Orbea's Aqua with its miraculous precision
I rode despite knowing its head angle was an abnormal value,
but if that had been the flagship Orca model instead,
it would have been a frame that combined
performance close to the world's highest standards at that time
with the precision of a proper frame-builder-made frame.
For non-carbon frames, there are exceptions.
Panasonic's custom frames are trustworthy in terms of precision.
They're less a mass-production manufacturer
and more 「a group of frame builders employed as company staff.」
Anchor's Neo-Cot was similar,
but they stopped doing it a while back. Too bad.
The ride quality of a frame without alignment issues
is something that can't be quantified,
but for me in terms of importance regarding frames, it ranks high.
For instance, if I were to buy a Tarmac or Madone,
and if you could prepare 10 each of
frame and fork units from the same model, size, and color,
and I could outfit each with hand-made wheels that are
center-adjusted with a pseudo-ruler transferred from a center gauge,
and could examine them all,
then even if among those 10 frames and forks,
there wasn't a single one where I couldn't detect alignment issues,
I'd choose the most tolerable one
and make peace with it, but that's not realistic either.
The story about the Aqua above was an abuse of authority.
If I were still doing racing activities,
from the perspective of which elements matter most in choosing race-winning equipment,
I'd overlook alignment and choose the latest technology,
but that's not the case. To put it indelicately,
when it comes to satisfaction in cycling where you're
in dialogue with your frame,
a frame you can trust for precision
is worth more than a light or stiff frame.
「Worth more」 means, in other words,
「hard to come by.」
In this day and age, people who deliberately order a custom frame,
especially those choosing a heavy steel frame,
whether they put it into words or not,
have noticed that kind of value, haven't they?
Since the beginning of this year I've been thinking
of starting a series called 「Gravel Bike First Year!」
but I still haven't written a single article.
It's a bike with SRAM Carus on it,
but I keep taking photos so the frame never appears in them.
In one sentence, what this is about is
「a fair punishment for the sin of buying a mass-produced frame.」
You might ask, does frame alignment really get that bad?
Whereas carbon frames only get one chance
to slide the rear triangle into the front triangle with a little 「pshoo,」
even completed wheels, where adjustments via nipples
can be made endlessly,
as I often write about here,
are shipped out misaligned as a matter of fact.
Also, just because a frame is expensive
doesn't mean it has fewer units with alignment issues.
Regarding the part 「It's just full of theory and I'm amazed,」
theory is important, you know.
If it relates to the laws of physics.
But you need to be careful about the relative significance of factors.
The wheels I regularly build and rebuild,
and the various theories backing them up,
I believe I was the first to openly advocate many of them,
and in the case of rebuilds, nearly 100% of the time
people say they're better than before,
but that's because of the difference in the theories hanging on the wheel.
「Theory」 that has nothing to do with the laws of physics
would be things like
「that's the frame brand Pogačar used to ride,」
or 「it has Sagan's signature on the rim side,」
things like that.
If you can't understand that kind of important theory
and don't want to,
then as your comment says, 「I can't figure out anything without actually riding it,」
please go ahead and continue
your low-grade shopping experiences,
which are on par with your intellect.
You're a 「good customer」 for the shop, aren't you?
While I'm at it, let me give an example of a 「bad customer.」
It's someone who comes into the shop with a tape measure hidden in their pocket.