>"the seat tube is the only tube on a bike that can lower the drag of a frameset. frames don't "churn" the airflow, wheels churn the air flow because of their spinning. frames disrupt it. that is why wheels have a bigger effect on a bike's drag then a frame (and account for more time savings if you have good ones)."

This makes sense to me and is consistent with what my non-engineer mind already thought. Therefore, I ask: what is the theory behind the Kestrel KM-40 and the new Airfoil? If you are right, this frame should be the worst of both worlds. (BTW, I was checking out an Airfoil frame at the LBS yesterday -- looks pretty sweet)

---

__________________________________________________
What a drag it is getting old. -- Stones

ken wrote: My definition of "masher" is one who exerts a lot of force over a small portion of the pedal cycle.

Could call them "hammers"? "Hammerers"? Suppose Hammegel people would object?

You may be right. Or, you may be right only under certain circumstances...I don't know. I think that a rider fitting your definition of a masher would show up as one of those riders that is a bouncer on a beam. I guess someone could do an experiment and see if they are faster or slower or unchanged in speed after training on a beam long enough to become "unbouncy". Still, it wouldn't really mean anything to the general riding public.

---

Quid quid latine dictum sit altum videtur
(That which is said in Latin sounds profound)

I hope Softride is reading this, as I agree 100% with your comments about the headtube length. I have a 650c Rocket (medium) and love the bike. Superior aerodynamics and comfort far outweigh any weight disadvantages. The one thing that annoys me is the fact that the head tube is 15cm!!! I have to run a declined stem and will need to invest in an Ergostem to get any lower (I run a 16cm drop at present). For such a well thought-out bike, I am amazed at this oversight. I have not seen anything to suggest that they have changed this on the new FasTT version (if they have, let me know and I might buy one)

Is the head tube longer to add stiffness to the bike?

---

Quid quid latine dictum sit altum videtur
(That which is said in Latin sounds profound)

We're reading it and getting some great feedback! The headtube length on the med Rocket TT is designed for the average/competitive rider in mind(dimentionally). Some will find the headtube length to short and others will find it to long, but most find it perfect.

The new Medium FASTT will have a headtube that is slightly shorter then Rocket TT. The web site will have all the new specs and will up and running before Christmas.

Thank you,

Adam

Softride Bike

rather than running a neg degree angle stem...run a Cinelli Angel..I swear the first time I rode mine I felt like I was pointed downhill the whole time. I'm almost scared of what my first downhill experience on them will be (nahhh not really...gonna be fun). For the record..I own two Powerwings and hope to one day up the ante to one of the newer versions..and I don't see myself going back to a regular frame any time soon.

no, the beam "emerges" from the head tube well below the top of the headtube - the top 5cm or so does not appear to be "structural"

Hey Adam - good to see you guys have your finger on the pulse. FYI, with Carbon X bars, the maximum drop I could achieve was a very modest 9cm. I changed to Hed bars which gave me another 3cm of drop with a flat stem. I have since installed a negative stem which gives me another 4cm of drop. I plan to go lower as I have not yet detected any loss of comfort or power. I know that the average person does not ride with 16cm of drop, but a headtube of 15cm is way excessive. Have a look at what your competition is doing (eg Cervelo, QR, etc). They are all going for minimal headtubes. Bill

don't go too much lower Bill..your knuckles will start to drag on the front tire...painfull and ugly...but it sure is aero;-)

actually, i was thinking i could avoid punctures if i used my chin to wipe the front tire :)

as an afterthoought..you could fasten a pair of Profile GT Jammers to your front forks...or maybe swap them out for your QR skewer..that oughta get you low enough..and shouldn't you be riding with your chin down? That can't be aero with your head up so high

you're right - I will use my forehead instead

seriously, 16cm drop is not extreme. i would guess Bjorn A rides with 25-30cm drop - now that's extreme!

I may of course be wrong, but I would venture to say you would have a tough time on any production tri-bike since you seem to ride really aggressive. Not that it is bad, but overall at the races I have been to including races where professionals were, very few people have their front end lower than their headtube would normally allow. As a manufacturer they have to produce what will work for the greatest range of people.

Softride is a unique bike that will attract certain individuals. I used to have a p2k that was very sexy and fast, but to me there is no amount of sexy and fast that makes up for a numb or just plain beat up crotch.

Softride:

Comfort= possibly the best except, maybe a titanflex.

Aero= certainly among the best

Adjustability= greater than any other, again with the exception of the titanflex.

And for the design being what it is, the bike on a whole is very structurally stable. I think they have done what is necessary to have the best performance possible in all aspects of riding.

most TT bikes in production now have a very short headtube. for example, take a look at

http://www.cervelo.com/...005/P3.html#Geometry

as you can see, they make only one frame (large in 700c) which has a head tube which is longer than the 15cm headtube on my (medium 650c) Rocket

Yes, I see what you are saying, but your proportions or needs may just be outside what they spec. I have a large 650 rocket (80 degree seat angle, 79cm bb to top of saddle)with 14cm of drop with the beam loaded and 2 cm of headset spacers. I have ridden it lower but found it not as comfortable, especially as I approach 60 miles. At what point does too low affect the quality of your run since you do not just run with your legs?

This will probably be one of those topics with no real conclusion, but it was enjoyable just the same.

Each manufacturer has a particular niche in mind, I am happy the bike was made precisely the way it was.

"This will probably be one of those topics with no real conclusion, but it was enjoyable just the same. "



It was never ment to. I just wanted to hear your opinion. And really enjoyed it, too.



Best regards



Martin

I just had an unexpected experience on the rollers. Just dusted the rollers off since I haven't been on them since last winter. Rode my double diamond bike on them a while, after a little shakiness, settled in and did OK. Then I put my beam bike on the rollers...I was much smoother as far as side-to-side motion. I thought I would dart back and forth more because I'd sometimes bounce slightly, therefore affecting the steering input. I guess the opposite happened, less unwanted steering input, because of the beam attenuation of any wiggling. Maybe people that don't bounce too much actually ride straighter on beam bikes for this reason? I don't know...I was just surprised by what I observed on the rollers.

---

Quid quid latine dictum sit altum videtur
(That which is said in Latin sounds profound)

Adam - a belated follow up thought - Softride's business plan is based around building a bike which has superior aerodynamics relative to traditional double diamond frames - the bikes are not cheap - you are selling to people who want to buy the fastest bike around and who are prepared to pay - but then you build a bike which makes it hard to set the bike up with more than about 10cm of drop without using a declined stem - let's see...build an aero bike...and then force the rider to sit up like a bloody great big sail - it doesn't make any sense - this is intended to be constructive criticism and I hope it is received that way - cheers, Bill

Bill,

The feedback and comments that are made on this forum is the best research that manufactures such as Softride can receive. So yes! We are taking this as constructive criticism and take all of these comments into account when we begin our design process.

The head tube length in relation to your drop from the saddle is dependent on a few different variables. Variables such as rider inseam, aero bar selection, and stem choice will all affect drop. I realize that the other manufactures you mentioned have shorter head tube lengths and that is the configured into the design of their bikes, such as ours is designed to fit with our geometry.

The new FASTT and FASTT7 have come down in cost and are now more affordable. The price for frame, fork, and beam is $2,250.00 down from $2,600.00. If you or anyone else of this forum would like more info on the design of the new FASTT please contact me.



Thank you,

Adam

Softride Bike

adam.greene@softride.com

Don't forget that the flip side of the coin of a shorter head tube is having shorter chainstays. The idea is to rotate the body position forward in order to get lower, not just to drop your head and shoulders and thus make the hip angle severe.

The idea of the tri position is to have a steep seat angle in order to aid in getting an aero position without collapsing the hip angle. This steep seat angle is achieved mostly by moving the bottom bracket back and thus making the chainstay shorter. Pushing the seat forward to achieve a steep seat angle doesn't work since it puts too much weight on the front wheel, thus compromising handling.

I would definitely give a Softride a try for my next bike, if your geometry supported a better aero position. I realize you can't be all things to all people or have 100 different models though.

Art - I don't think I agree with you here - you say that the BB is pushed back and that makes the chainstays shorter - with respect, the shortness of the chainstays is limited by the need to fit the wheel in there. Most makers already have the chainstays as short as possible. In fact, many makers are now adopting the rear-facing dropouts in order to shorten the chainstays a couple more mm and allow the wheel to get as close as possible to the seat tube.

Conceptually, I like to think of the BB as being fixed in space and I make this my "datum point". Hence, I prefer to think of the saddle being moved "forward", rather than the BB being moved "back".

When you move from a road position to a TT position you (a) rotate the seat tube to a steeper position, (b) lower the front end, and (c) slacken the front end to more of a touring geometry to account for the forward transfer of the rider's weight. The back end remains essentially unchanged - Bill.

My Cerveo P3 certainly has the chainstay just about as short as they can get it. Road bikes do not. Softrides, at least every time I have looked at their geometries, have road bike geometry, especially in their 700c bikes.

If you could just shove the seat forward without moving the BB, then road bikes with a forward seatpost would make great tri bikes. The reality is that, at least for most people, that doesn't work. I tried it with my road bike many moons ago, and it never worked for me, so I bought a P3. I couldn't handle the bike since way too much weight was on the front wheel.

Though I haven't looked at Softride geometry in the last year or two, I will wager that they could shorten the chainstay by 3 cm or more on their 700c bikes.

This is not a tough piece of information to find out. Just compare the Softride chainstay length to a 700c P3. You will find that the chainstay is a lot longer and the headtube higher. Correct me if I am wrong.

What I say is valid for me, and I think for most people. Those who are built like cats can get a great aero position without a steep seat tube and without being compromised by a severe hip angle. I don't qualify there since I am too fat and inflexible. I am sure Lance would have no problem though.

I never ceased to be amazed by the TdF breakaway riders when I see the beautiful, relaxed aero position they achieve on their road bike with a slack seat angle and no aerobars. I can get in that position too, but I would have to put in traction afterwards.

Chainstay length on the 650c frames is 37.4cm - I agree they could tighten that up a little - maybe they have done so on the new FAST frames?? I also agree that they make their headtubes too tall - if you scroll back thru the thread, you will see that was my original "gripe". One good thing about Softrides is that you can get as far forward as you want - they are very adjustable in that sense. I ride well forward (~81 degrees) and fairly low (16cm drop). I couldn't handle that much drop on a slack road bike.

I am going by memory here, but I recall the chainstay length for the 650c bikes was reasonable, but that the 700c bikes was much too long. Again, please correct me if I am wrong.

I agree with the headtube comment. My response was that, at least in general, a shorter chainstay is the flip side of a shorter headtube.

Sure, you can shove the seat way forward. The question is what does that do to the handling? Maybe you can handle such a bike, but I generally can't.

Shoving the seat way forward obviously makes the effective top tube that much shorter as well, so again you have handling and fit issues.

Enough memory. Softride 700c Rocket TT chainstay length is 41.5 cm vs. 38 cm for the comparable P3.

Dropping the headtube is not enough for riders like me. I need a shorter chainstay to have a bike I can handle with a steep seat angle.