Also, why is her rear brake on the 'wrong' side of the seatstays? I've never seen that before?

Chris

It looks like she stole some poor grade-schooler's bike on her way to Ironman. It's gotta be a 700c frame running 650c wheels. According to the Specialized website, all their models have approximately a 40cm chain stay length, which I'd presume also means that all their models are for 700c wheels. Her position looks perfectly textbook. And damn.

Those pictures are also a reminder of how much more attractive women's legs are than men's.

Peter's saddle looks low in that picture. Lower than in other race photos I've seen.

Odd.

Many times, bikes for more diminiutive riders have some weird details on them. I recall the C'dale women's bike that the rear wheel looked like it was in a different zipcode.

Not having experience with designing anything other than my own personal geometry (which I have not perfected, by the way), while researching geometric differences in bike frames I have found that more diminutive bike frame sizes have trouble with getting the rider low enough and having a workable wheelbase. Some builders have addressed this in different ways. This seems like an appropriate design for someone under 5'5" tall. Also, her position looks much better than I have seen it in a very long time.

On the subject of the rear brake, this is something that has been brought out many times over the years. I don't remember if it was Harry Hanoovian who brought it out the last time in my memory, but there were a few arguments:

1) shorter cable for better brake modulation (not my words).

2) "Dynamic braking", whatever the f*** that means.

3) Better aerodynamics (?).

A caliper that does not have the stays to back it up will end up failing a lot sooner than one that does have the stays to back it up. I just cannot be sold on this being a good setup, but Lori probably does not pay for her own brakes, anyhow.

I think this was brought up before, but the Specialized transition bikes that we can buy at the store use compact frame geometry. If that's the case, then why wouldn't Specialized build it correctly (wheel closer to the frame). For the record, I like Specialized and my bike was an older M4 s-works until I bought a P3.

---

56-11...the only way to fly

I think 99% of the aerodynamic frame features are rather insignificant in the real world, but they are probably quite important psychologically.

I am guessing that Specialized wanted the bike to have a good chainline.

Going less than 40cm on a 10 speed rear would make for severe chainline in some gears.

"What's up with Lori Bowden's bike?"

i couldn't say. yes, i agree it's technologically underwhelming, just by looking at the view in the photo. maybe there's a good explanation. i seriously doubt it's a 700c bike made into a 650c bike. as to the chainstay, etc., i don't know, but more to the point i'm not too crazy about her position. she's shallower on that bike than on her cheetah. i wonder if she knows it?

when peter and lori were having their hard times, lori had a great year, and peter's performances really suffered. then eventually peter bounced back and has had two very good years. this past year was lori's forgettable year. she's had a lot of personal changes (just stuff i've noticed, i'm not close to her so i don't know very much). she's had a big change of scenery. i just wonder whether it's all the change of routine that's made it a hard year for her athletically. i don't think an extra cm or 2 of chainstay can account for it.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Her riding 650c wheels is the only explanation I can think of to account for the distance between the front of her rear wheel and the rear of the seat tube, given that her's and Peter's bikes both have the same chainstay length and virtually the same seat tube angle (and we know Peter is riding 700c wheels).

Could the position of the rear brake be due to the use of 650c wheels instead of 700c wheels (if this is indeed the case)? The brake in the normal position might not be positioned sufficiently to work with the smaller wheels? Just a thought.

KW

The 1996 Litespeed Tachyon was very similar to Lori's rear triangle. I had this bike and on a 53 frame, it had 41.5 cm chain stays for a 78 degree 650 bike. I found that bike to be really lame. It also had a really long top tube. Someone told me that the only reason for the long stay was so that Litespeed could use the same tubes on 700 and 650 bikes, which would entirely defeat the purpose of a 650 bike with 78 degree angle. If I recall, one of the main reason to use 650 wheels was to pull the back wheel closer to the rider's rear end, so essentially, both the front wheel (with slacker head tube) and rear end (with short stay and small wheel) all move forward as the rider sits further forward on their tribike relative to the BB than they would on a road bike.

Dan, can you comment if I have my understanding of tribike geometry correct ?

The bigger question is why is Lori riding a Specialized at all? I thought she was all sexed up about going back to her Cheetah last year and ended up winning the race. Ok, money to ride the bike, but hey, if your'e not even on the podium why would'nt you just stay with what works ala Natascha? I'm sure NB has had some very lucrative offers to ride bike X, but chooses instead to keep going to the bank with what works.

There was an article on the Specialized website a few months ago about how Lori signed a new deal with Specialized, she liked Specialized because they offered a 'full package'...the bike, helmet, shoes and eyewear. The article also mentioned about how she is working with Specialized to get her back on a 700c bike but that obviously never happened.

if you observe the chainstays heading forward to the bb shell you note that they do not drop, or angle downwards (compare to the black one's). thus, the bike was conceived/built as a 650 wheeled bike.

[reply]The bigger question is why is Lori riding a Specialized at all? I thought she was all sexed up about going back to her Cheetah last year and ended up winning the race. Ok, money to ride the bike, but hey, if your'e not even on the podium why would'nt you just stay with what works ala Natascha? I'm sure NB has had some very lucrative offers to ride bike X, but chooses instead to keep going to the bank with what works.[/reply]

Perhaps Lori has realized it is not about the bike but the engine on the bike. her failure to podium can hardly be laid to the brand of bike she rides - unless she was within a couple of minutes of winning, which she wasn't. Lots of things caan affect a performance. The brand of bike is a minor factor on the overall performance just as the brand of shoes is a minor factor in Michael Jordan's ability to jump.

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

I thought she got stung by a bee or wasp . That ain't good for some folks.

---

Slowtwitch bitchist place on planet earth

It may just be the different angles of the two photos. Specialized's entire line of this frame uses 700c wheels. Maybe she got a one-off frame, but I doubt it.

That's nonsensical. The height of the bottom bracket is entirely dependant on the frame design and not wheel size, i.e. a 650-wheeled bike can have more bottom bracket drop than a 700-wheeled bike, even though the 650 axle is lower than the 700 one.

Diablo is right, and jhendrick correctly points out that Specialized does not build 650-wheeled bikes. Not even in their women's Dolce line. It's alleged by Specialized that this is a stock frame, so I can only conclude that it's modified to accept 650 wheels with a new seatstay brake bridge (which might go to explaining the rear brake mystery) and what looks like a Profile fork, or it's not a stock frame and designed with unusually long chainstays which is counter to modern tri-bike design.

---

___________________________________



http://irondad06.blogspot.com/

http://irondad.blogspot.com/

diablo: the bb drop on any 700c frame will result in a noticeable angle of chainstay relative to the ground. the stay will slope from the axle downwards to the ground.

the axle of a 650 wheeled bike is already lower to the ground, and so to place the bb at ( approximately) the same height relative to the ground ( desireable) there will be less observable slope to the chainstay seen. go look at some. or, consider a bike with say, a 20 inch wheel: in order to place the bb at a suitable height from the ground the chainstay would actually have to slope UP to it. that is the phenomena which is observable in these photo's. and, incidently, explains why your claim that bb drop as being independant of wheel size is ( by definition), in truth, "nonsensical". the bb drop is actually a FUNCTION of wheel size, hence the word "drop" - or, in the case of a 16 inch wheeled moulton, "reverse-drop".



irondad:many a lie has been spoken regarding "stock" frames. a 650 wheel on a stock specialized frame will not allow any modern dual pivot brake to reach the rim.

From her website:

Lori will campaign this year on a new Specialized bike with 700c wheels and a triathlon-specific geometry (to be formally introduced later this summer), plus Designs for Women shoes, saddle, and other equipment. "Last year I was convinced that 26" wheels were the way to go for certain courses," said Bowden. "My thinking about wheel sizes has changed over the year. My 700c S-Works is light and aerodynamically clean -- it's perfect for most situations, even in small frame sizes." (Lori rides a 47cm frame). As for Kona, Bowden's only comment is "let's just say I'm working with Specialized's engineers on something "extra-Specialized" for this race."

Those are not 700c wheels, so I guess the "extra-Specialized" is the 650-wheeled bike we see.

---

___________________________________



http://irondad06.blogspot.com/

http://irondad.blogspot.com/

Your assumptions are incorrect, therefore your argument fails.

well lesse, diablo . . .

bb drop can be defined as "BB spindle centerline below wheel axle centerlines ( in the case of conventional wheeled bikes, see below)."

so, one of the two points of reference for the measurement is the wheel axle itself. the wheel axle position (relative to the ground) is wholly dependant on the diameter of the wheel. hence, bb drop is not independant of wheel size, but dependant and, for practical purposes, defined by it to a large degree. again, to demonstrate, consider a nonconventional wheeled bike such as a 16 in wheeled moulton, where the wheel axle centers are BELOW a suitable bb height, and the bb drop is then a "reverse drop"- as direct result of wheel size. i am not sure what it is you have a problem with here, pretty clear-cut, really.

observe:

http://www.alexmoulton.co.uk/

now then, as we see the chainstay on these bikes slopes UP to the bb - reverse drop. it does so because of the small wheel.

perhaps you are cofusing "bb DROP", with "bb HEIGHT". they are not the same thing. "bb height" would fit your assertions, but not bb drop.

bb drop and its relation to wheel size is observable on that moultan, and on the bikes at the top of this thread, just as i said.

Irrelevant, and you have still provided no support for your argument that bottom bracket height or drop is somehow tied to wheel size. (There are limits, of course, but that's not your argument.) You argue that it is not only "dependent" but "defined" by wheel size. To support your argument you would have to prove that every bottom bracket shell is, for example, 9.5 inches off the ground. Then, and only then, would wheel size affect "drop". Since that is not the case, however, your argument fails. A 650 wheeled bike could have a higher or lower bottom bracket than a 700c bike, and conversly a 700c bike could have a higher or lower bottom bracket than a 650 bike. Depending on the desired handling or ride characteristics, customers' requests, crank length or intended uses a frame designer can raise or lower the bottom bracket regardless of wheel size.

jeez Diablo - ttn has repeatedly and patiently explained that the angle of the chainstay to the horizontal will differ for different sized wheels - with 700c wheels the chainstay slopes down to the BB (put differently, the wheel axle is ABOVE the BB) - with small wheels (eg 20") the chainstay slopes up to the BB (put differently, the wheel axle is BELOW the BB) - all bikes have the BB at roughly the same height - hence, the angle of the chainstay IS dictated by the wheel size

As I have repeatedly and patiently explained to ttn, your argument as well is based on an incorrect assumption.

yep, that is pretty much the reply I expected

yes, ozzy. maybe diablo should telephone a few bike makers, to set them straight. let's see here, a quick check of a few geometry charts reveals the following:

bb drop on (all) 700c wheeled cervelo's = 6.0 cm. 650 = 4.3cm

bb drop on (all) 700c quintana roo's = 6.8 cm. 650 = 4.0cm

bb drop on (all) 700c multisport waterfords = 7.5cm. 650 = 5.0cm

anyway, getting back to original question, this average difference in bb drop between wheelsizes of 2.0 cm DOES result in observable changes in the angle of the chainstay, in a practical sense, to the horizontal. a quick eyeball of that angle of a bike rolling down the road such as the two bikes at the top of the thread will tell a fellow if the frame is a 650 or 700 frame by design. thanks for playing, diablo, vanna white has a lovely parting gift for you backstage.

OK, let's make this simple, you are both wrong. BB drop does depend on wheelsize in a given frame, but not the way ttn says it does. If you take a 700c frameset, it will have a certain drop. Now, if you toss in two 650c wheels, the front and rear wheel axles come closer to the ground (by about an inch) as does the bb. So the bb drop from wheel axle to bb is zero, nada. So in that sense Diablo is sort of right. Except it would be more likely to change the fork into a 650c fork. If you do that, the headtube of the frame drops, while the rear stays at the same spot. The bb drops (roughly by about 1cm), but the front and rear axle stay in the same spot (they are still 1/2 wheel off the ground). So the bb drop increases compared to having that same frame with 700c wheels and a 700c fork.

But the whole discussion is moot, there is no way Lori would ride a 700c frame with 650c wheels. This frame is an obvious custom, just like Peter's bike is.

---

Gerard Vroomen
3T.bike
OPEN cycle

i think you need to read what i said again, gerard.

obviously, if you simply slap a set of 650 wheels into a 700c frame the bb drop will not change in that frame, tho the bb height will. however, if you did that the bb height would be so low as to be a problem in riding the thing. my point is that a 650 wheeled frame needs to have less bb drop designed into it from the get-go, in order to place the bb at a suitable height and that design results in observable aspects. in the case of a cervelo, 1.7 cm less. so then, when fitted with wheels, sitting on the ground and in reference to it, the angle of the chainstay on a 650 wheeled P3 is observably different from that of a 700c wheeled one. the 650 wheeled P3's chainstay will be closer to horizontal. if you made a 16 inch wheeled P3 and placed the bb at a suitable height with that frame for riding, the chainstay would slope UP from the axle, to meet it. all i am saying is that an observer, standing alongside these various bikes, can look at them and see these design features fairly easily - can tell if the thing was designed with 16 inch, or 700c wheels in mind - or with a little extra scrutiny 700 vs 650.

i have a custom bike built with 650 wheels and it sure looks a lot like lori's bike. the frame size are similar 47 cm as i'm 5'6" tall. the bike was designed for ironman distance races and the long stays give a comfortable ride and the chain line is not as severe as a bike with short stays and this equates to a smoother shifting and performance.

gerard, don't worry, ttn tends not to read other's posts well before responding either;-)

In his desperate attempts to prove himself right ttn's arguments are a bit helter skelter because he claims these global absolutes regarding the relationship between wheel size and bb drop (or height), but then as examples only uses a specific frameset.

Regardless, ttn is wrong.

As another poster commented, bottom bracket position is dependant on several things. I'll see if I can make this simple so ttn can understand it. Lets look at it as bottom bracket "height" off the ground. For track and crit bikes the bottom bracket can tend to be higher because of the pedal clearance needed while pedaling in the turns, whereas touring or time trial bikes can tend to have lower bottom brackets. (I'm not going to get into the argument of bikes or companies that vary from that traditional norm because those are exceptions.) That height varies from the extremes of around 9.75 inches to 11.5 inches just based on catalogs I have laying around. Do your math and you'll see that the difference is 1.75 inches. Now, the difference in axle height between a 650 and 700c wheels is less than 1 inch, so there's a lot of room for variance, and a 650 touring bike (for example) could have a greater "drop" than a 700c crit bike depending on how high or low the bottom bracket is on each respective bike. Furthermore, a 650 bike with a low bottom bracket could have it's chainstays slope downwards towards the bb shell (with more "drop") instead of being relatively horizontal, whereas a 700c bike with a high bottom bracket could have chainstays that do not slope downwards and are more horizontal towards the bb shell (having less "drop") instead of sloping downwards. The shorter the chainstay the more accentuated it looks, but we're not talking about kiddie bikes here, we're talking about 650 versus 700c with on average about .9 inch difference in axle heights. Lastly, regarding ttn's latest ridiculous and illogical evidence to support his argument, lets look at another ABG bike, the Litespeed Vortex, which in 700c wheels sizes it's bottom bracket height varies from 6.7 to 7.4 cm.

From the pictures of Lori's bike, all I can tell you is that it's a 650 bike with relatively long chainstays and maybe it's designed that way for comfort and chainline as another poster stated.

sigh.

mojo, yes, if you poke around and find a 650 wheeled touring bike and compare it to a 700c crit bike you can catch me out, you clever rascal ( talk about " desparate need to be right" . . . . . 650 wheeled touring bike ????????? ).

but we are not talking about 650 wheeled touring bikes, and high bottombracketed 700c crit bikes, are we? altho, as you know ( i hope), everything i have said up to now would be equally true by way of comaprison if we were discussing 700c touring bikes and high bottombracketed 650 crit bikes in comparison, respectively.

anyway, getting back to topic at hand from the top of the thread, we are discussing looking at two bikes of identical intent, from the same manufacturer, and using elementary geometry to tell us that such bikes will invariably use different bb drops for different sized wheels and if you put one such frame designed for one sized wheel next to a ( similarly intended) frame designed for another sized wheel you can see the difference of that geometry in the angle of the chainstay. that is all. what is there to argue about, it is a freaking triangle with the dimensions written out in front of you !

finally, as for the vortex . . . . . guess what - if the vortex came in a 650 wheeled version it would have a bb drop about 2 cm less than the ones you list, and if you held the 650 version up alongside the 700c version you could tell the difference from the angle of the chainstay being less as compared to the horizontal. funny how that works, eh?

he come on guys, do you all think gerard knows a damm thing about bikes? please show him how it works! I mean.... he's just.......building them?

Why is it the most band-width seems to be taken up by the most mundane topics. Whatever the bikes configurations, they seem to be doing reasonably well on them.

Do you think that Lori is cruising along the Queen K wondering about the length of her Chainstays!

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

As always, your arguments are fallacious and your logic is flawed. No matter how much you attempt to modify the argument, ignore the facts and peoples' posts, edit your own posts or come forward with more non sequiturs, you were wrong.