Ruminations on pro tour geometry frames

[SteelRules]

Dear Sanedrin,

Current pro tour frames are designed around extremely short wheelbase, higher than 7cm bottom bracket, less than 45mm fork rake and steep angle seat tube.
These parameters characterise bikes which are short and high. On flat stages, most riders use frames which to my eye, resemble time trial frames.

Evidence: Cavendish won stage 5 on July 3rd 2013. He could barely lift his arms from the handlebar to celebrate victory.
Mebbe this is the reason why there are so many crashes in the TDF pack?

My purpose with this thread is twofold:

1: Enquire whether any quantitative study has been published, as opposed to KGB files,
comparing performance of contemporaneous bikes to the ones designed, up to the 90's, by eminent framebuilders.

2: Lacking number 1, gather thoughts and discussion from owners of both types of bikes comparing confort/performance.

If a thread of this kind has already being posted, I apologise in advance, but would appreciate if you could point me in the right direction to read them.

Many thanks to all for your educated comments,
SteelRules

P.S My Columbus SPX frame is a pleasing pack that offers me everything I need and looks like nothing currently made.

[progetto]

The best design is the one that fits.

[Bobqzz]

I think the inevitable conclusion is that bike geometry doesn't affect the outcome of road races.

[Too Tall]

Chief, you are making some sweeping generalizations. Can you show me some hard facts?

[Jonathan]

I think we had this discussion last year about this time. There were a few framebuilders who were pretty adamant that current bike fits were wonky and a cause or possible cause to these crashes. It's all in the archives.

Specifically with Cav, the man can handle a bike at 60kph. Shoulders, elbows, and head buts can all be thrown at that speed while in a full on sprint. What more does he need?

[Will Neide]

What more does he need?

Hockey pads?

[PJN]

I rode a giant TCR advanced a few years ago. The geo was pretty standard. As are most of the Specialized/Trek offerings.

I think your hypothesis is flawed.

Bike fit DNE bike geometry as the OP has surmised.

QED.

[Freddy Salgado]

220px-Graeme_obree.jpg

The best design is the one that fits.

[cfrisia]

I got a fit before I built my own frame by a very progressive shop that is also consulted by many pro level athletes (the guys are sport physicians that also do a lot diagnostics etc).

They are using their personal and also customer experience to do a fit that concentrates a lot on seat length rather than translating seating height to top tube length.

My frame has a 515 mm top tube, but a 180mm steerer tube (equals about 570 mm height I think). I have no spacers and about 130 mm difference between saddle and bars (before, I read about 50-70 mm is recommended...).

I'm sitting very comfortable and very aerodynamic, so I think this trend of short & high was right for me. (oh and the bike looks very fast)

[Amaro Bikes]

515 mm top tube, but a 180mm steerer tube

¿? Sounds incredibly descompensated to me, sure "comfortable", but far from any performace minded road bicycle (at least for my personal thoughts)

From some time to now, I've begun to be incredibly suspiciuous of any self-named with complex worded services about bike position, etc, being too many times a place where they rise the bars and low the saddle, all well disguised and dreesed up with techie words and ultra complex aerospacial theories on something wich is much more straight forward and "simple" (a right position on a bike)

Call me ignorant, arrogant, sceptic, etc, but most of the times I've more than enough with a couple of measures and a simple view of the rider on the bike to know how it should be like. Not to speak about true references as Dario, whom be able to place your in utterly perfect position even with closed eyes... :o

Cheers

[boots2000]

Most/all pro tour riders are on stock geo bikes.
Average angles and top tube lengths, pretty low head tubes.
Not at all like back in the custom bike days when pros were known for riding bikes with long top tubes.
Look at YouTube videos from races in the early 90's- guys were crazy stretched out compared to now.

[cfrisia]

From some time to now, I've begun to be incredibly suspiciuous of any self-named with complex worded services about bike position, etc, being too many times a place where they rise the bars and low the saddle, all well disguised and dreesed up with techie words and ultra complex aerospacial theories on something wich is much more straight forward and "simple" (a right position on a bike)

Call me ignorant, arrogant, sceptic, etc, but most of the times I've more than enough with a couple of measures and a simple view of the rider on the bike to know how it should be like.

The shop does exactly the opposite.
No advertising, techy words but actual knowledge of anatomy, focusing on individual flexibility, weight on bars and very importantly, posture of shoulders and arms.
I'm not saying this fit is for everyone or even a larger number of riders, but a lot of riders (including me) really benefit from shorter frames, even if the upper body is in a proportionally regular length.

I would take a sports physicist fit over a (excuse my heresy) fit done by a tube welder any day.

Regards

[roseyscot]

this is a good read about the attrition rate in the tour as it relates to the number of starters

Has The 2011 Tour de France Really Been More Dangerous? | Cyclocosm - Pro Cycling Blog