BMXmuseum.com Forums

Eric Rupe

All this geometry BS is just that.  it still boils down to a man and his bike.  Are Frames and components better now than 20 years ago? Yes.  But Headtube angles have not changed, chainstays were always random lengths,  and BB heights havent changed.  The only difference is longer TT's are more easily availible now.  I can put you on a 20 year old TNT longfellow with new components and I gaurantee 99% of people out there couldnt tell a difference in a blind test.

Therealpoorboy wrote:

All this geometry BS is just that.  it still boils down to a man and his bike.  Are Frames and components better now than 20 years ago? Yes.  But Headtube angles have not changed, chainstays were always random lengths,  and BB heights havent changed.  The only difference is longer TT's are more easily availible now.  I can put you on a 20 year old TNT longfellow with new components and I gaurantee 99% of people out there couldnt tell a difference in a blind test.

your argument is way off. headtube angles are not the same. bb hieghts do change. new rearends are alot shorter  or longer depending what frame you run then back in the day. you have alot to learn and yes i know what i am talking about . take alook at my collection. it spans from 85 right up till now. my newest bike is not listed yet.

Last edited by SCIVIC94 (2012-12-10 8:43pm)

SCIVIC94 wrote:

Therealpoorboy wrote:

All this geometry BS is just that.  it still boils down to a man and his bike.  Are Frames and components better now than 20 years ago? Yes.  But Headtube angles have not changed, chainstays were always random lengths,  and BB heights havent changed.  The only difference is longer TT's are more easily availible now.  I can put you on a 20 year old TNT longfellow with new components and I gaurantee 99% of people out there couldnt tell a difference in a blind test.

your argument is way off. headtube angles are not the same. bb hieghts do change. new rearends are alot shorter  or longer depending what frame you run then back in the day. you have alot to learn and yes i know what i am talking about . take alook at my collection. it spans from 85 right up till now. my newest bike is not listed yet.

I'm way off?  Lets take a look then,

1988 Auburn   73 deg HT.  11.5" BB height  CS length 15-16"

2013 Redline  74 deg HT.  11.5" BB height   CS length 14.75-16"

so in 25 years we've changed the head tube 1 deg.  WOW thats ground breaking geometry changes.  I would love to see how many people could pick out that difference by just riding the bikes without knowing the specs.  I know i'm not gonna be able to pick that out.  But maybe your a pro and all since you have all them bikes.

Therealpoorboy wrote:

SCIVIC94 wrote:

Therealpoorboy wrote:

All this geometry BS is just that.  it still boils down to a man and his bike.  Are Frames and components better now than 20 years ago? Yes.  But Headtube angles have not changed, chainstays were always random lengths,  and BB heights havent changed.  The only difference is longer TT's are more easily availible now.  I can put you on a 20 year old TNT longfellow with new components and I gaurantee 99% of people out there couldnt tell a difference in a blind test.

your argument is way off. headtube angles are not the same. bb hieghts do change. new rearends are alot shorter  or longer depending what frame you run then back in the day. you have alot to learn and yes i know what i am talking about . take alook at my collection. it spans from 85 right up till now. my newest bike is not listed yet.

I'm way off?  Lets take a look then,

1988 Auburn   73 deg HT.  11.5" BB height  CS length 15-16"

2013 Redline  74 deg HT.  11.5" BB height   CS length 14.75-16"

so in 25 years we've changed the head tube 1 deg.  WOW thats ground breaking geometry changes.  I would love to see how many people could pick out that difference by just riding the bikes without knowing the specs.  I know i'm not gonna be able to pick that out.  But maybe your a pro and all since you have all them bikes.

A small change makes a larger difference then you. Seem to think. It does not take a rocket scientist to feel that in the way a bike steers. Nore the amount of effort to lull up a bike with a longer back end compared to a shorter rear. So yes an ibch off in the back and  one degree in headtube angle will make a noticable change

SCIVIC94 wrote:

A small change makes a larger difference then you. Seem to think. It does not take a rocket scientist to feel that in the way a bike steers. Nore the amount of effort to lull up a bike with a longer back end compared to a shorter rear. So yes an ibch off in the back and  one degree in headtube angle will make a noticable change

Then take into account that almost every fork made has a different height and offset,  Then take into account tire diameters also differ even though they are the same size and its almost impossible to actually put a true number on your true actual steer tube angle.

Forks
Sinz   313mm height 32.2mm off set  actual steer angle 68.5 deg
Answer 315mm height 28 offset  actual 69.23 deg
Supercross  318mm height 28 offset  actual 69.27 deg

Tires
Power block 20x1.75 504.4mm dia.
Powerblock S-spec 20x 1.75 508mm dia.
ITS 20x1.75  494.5mm dia.

These are just a quick shot at some of the most used parts I see.

I could very easily take a 73 deg frame and make it steer quicker than a 74 deg frame just using the parts I've listed. 

Nobody is saying a longer back end isnt as easy to manual as a shorter one,  all Im saying is they haven't changed as much as everyone thinks they have.

And lastly ill leave you with this, If you are steering a race bike your going too slow PERIOD.

Geometry makes absolutely no difference to me whatsoever. I can ride anything. I can do the EXACT same things on my old school bikes that I can on my new school bike(which I got rid of because it was ugly).

If 1 degree of head tube angle makes SUCH A HUGE difference in how you ride, and what you can do, then you are magical. If 1 degree of difference makes SUCH A HUGE difference, that it hinders your abilities, then you probably suck anyhow.

You like some bikes, I like others. You will NEVER convince me that new school is better, and i will NEVER try to convince you that old school is better.

I love cheesy nacho's 

Edit: No T in nacho's, but I spelled the most important part correctly. . .  cheesy

Last edited by bailhard (2012-12-11 3:15pm)

SCIVIC94 wrote:

Therealpoorboy wrote:

spyker wrote:

Absolutely correct!

Alot of NS riders will not even buy a frame if it's one degree off the normal geo they are use to riding or if the frame is a 1/4 inch longer in the rear than what they are use to.

It may not seem much on paper,but it's alot when you're riding it,not everything is about looks these days.....unless you're still stuck on OS ways.

How many of them trig it out with their components to find the true number?

Why do think alot of people stick with the same basic setup when ever they biuld a bike. Stay with the tires,stem, bars,fork. Or extremely close to thier desired setup. They with what the like. They lnow changing a stem length by a few mm will change the feel. And this is at any speed. And at any speed you need to turn your bars even if it is a tiny a mount. Tracks do have turns.

This isnt the 80's anymore we have banked turns now.  Try turning your bars when your pedaling thru a banked turn, I dare ya.

Therealpoorboy wrote:

bailhard wrote:

Geometry makes absolutely no difference to me whatsoever. I can ride anything. I can do the EXACT same things on my old school bikes that I can on my new school bike(which I got rid of because it was ugly).

If 1 degree of head tube angle makes SUCH A HUGE difference in how you ride, and what you can do, then you are magical. If 1 degree of difference makes SUCH A HUGE difference, that it hinders your abilities, then you probably suck anyhow.

You like some bikes, I like others. You will NEVER convince me that new school is better, and i will NEVER try to convince you that old school is better.

I love cheesy nacho's 

Edit: No T in nacho's, but I spelled the most important part correctly. . .  cheesy

He's arguing with math and all he can come up with is he can feel the difference.  I wonder what happens when the bomb gets dropped that most most cruisers still use 73 HT's.  if it was as big of a deal as he makes it alot more people would be complaining jumping from their class to cruiser.

i have had 4 different cruisers and all 4 rode different next stupid line you can can come up with?
i have also had an 94 auburn, 92 p.k.ripper, 80 schwinn sting, 97 peregrine proclass. all race bikes which seems to be all you want to argue over . guess what all 4 rode different. yes math translates directly to how a bike feels when you ride it . does not matter if you jump from 20" to 24" cruiser  or stay on size. geometry does make a difference new or old.

comparing 90s to now, really isn't comparing that much..  as for geometry, unless going from a GT or whatever before 97.   


80s to frames of now on the other hand... very huge difference, not just length, but the angles, and super high bottom bracket heights.



The 95 dirtbike, the frame everyone and their mother had and still hadrons for, has a 73 head angle, 20" top tube, 15" rear with 12" bb height..  A very "wack" geometry compared to today.  It's weird how it's more valuable then any Stardard.  Standards, pretty much all of the standards, except the OX Tao, had the same geometry  of 74ht/71st, 13.75 slammed, 11.5bb height which is pretty much "the standard" of today's frame geometry, and yet no one will even buy an STA or even take one for that matter.  top tubes of course were 18 to 22, whatever custom size you wanted!

I can definitely feel the difference of any bike.   A 88 GT PFT, or really any GT before 98 feels like I'm ten feet in the air due to the high as hell bottom brackets, with the slow as hell 72.5 or whatever it is head angle.



Still, I hear ya on the OP,  you pretty much should just get used to the bike, and work with what you have.  Lately most, like myself, are just anal retentive.

bailhard wrote:

The two sides of this argument will NEVER agree. Seriously, stop trying to convince each other. Inevitably it will turn to frustration, insults, then the thread will be closed and we'll all look like dummy's.

The best part is I race a '09 Anarchy in class and '10 standard in cruiser.  I just dont allow the math to be overpowered by the myths.  I've setup plenty of road race motorcycles and dirtbikes to comprehend how every piece actually effects the overall end result.  But apperently I should have just gone with the 3rd grade responses to try and make my point.