Have you guys seen Tyler Hamilton’s new Team Phonak BMC SL01 team bike? It is in the center of the current issue of Velonews. That bike is fully pissed. the way the carbon seat tube is integrated into the “exoskeleton” of the frame, that has gotta work killer.
Anybody know who sells these? I’ve seen them on video but never in person. That design seems to have merit and the frame geomety is promising. Anybody have one? Is there a U.S. distributor?
It is a nice bike. At Interbike, I briefly talked with the makers/distributors(?) of the bike about the frame and about the unusual and strange seat cluster lug. I asked what the function was of its wild ‘see-through’ design. They rambled about this and that, but the real answer?–basically looks and ‘product differentiation’.
Goofy. But it sells bikes.
Hmmm. I didn’t even see the thing at Interbike. Duh. That speaks to the “star” quality a guy like Hamilton weilds. I had seen the bikes before and thought, “That’s weird” but didn’t give it much thought. As soon as Hamilton was on it it winds up in Velo-News as centerfold, bikemate of the month, and I suddenly “re-notice” it.
The most prominent feature to me is the “isolation” of the seat tube from the rest of the frame by the seat lug area. Very interesting. I have to believe that has an effect on ride quality, comfort. The key thing is, when I went to their website and looked at the geometry:
http://www.bmc-racing.com/bikes.cfm?lang=ger&catID=4&modID=23
I saw that the 47 cm. had a 52 cm top tube. I could ride a 47cm in this frame depending on how its measured! That’s killer! Also, the published seat angle on that little 47cm is a pretty darn steep (good for me) 74.5 degrees, on only a 47cm frame! The heat tube is 115 mm too, perfect for me, no spacers required. A pair of 175mm cranks and a 120 stem and I’d be dialed.
I’d be all over those dimensions.
Tom:
I think you’re falling for a bit of visual trickery here. It is just a carbon seattube glued into the Alu frame, and then there is a normal carbon seatpost. Really no different in concept than a Seven Odonato for example.
Good point.
I saw that the 47 cm. had a 52 cm top tube. I could ride a 47cm in this frame depending on how its measured! That’s killer! Also, the published seat angle on that little 47cm is a pretty darn steep (good for me) 74.5 degrees, on only a 47cm frame! The heat tube is 115 mm too, perfect for me, no spacers required. A pair of 175mm cranks and a 120 stem and I’d be dialed.
I’d be all over those dimensions.
Nothing against BMC (in fact they are a pretty cool company if you know the background) but your comments above show exactly what is wrong with the geometries for most bike companies. And as a fitter I am sure Tom will appreciate this.
Here we have a guy 5’8 or so for whom the perfect size in the BMC line-up is the 47cm frame. He’s right, you look at the geometry and that size makes sense for him. Maybe he rides a little bit compact compared to some people his height, but never mind.
The question is, more than half of the world’s adult population is shorter than Tom. What are they going to ride if he is already on the smallest frame? The answer is of course they would also ride the 47cm, it won’t fit properly but it sounds like the right size just because it is called a 47cm size. But really, a 47cm frame with a 52cm toptube (which normalized to a 73 degree seattube angle is even a 53.5cm toptube), that’s pretty crazy.
Why don’t manufacturers start looking at cockpit length, that would prevent these stupid geometries.
That also addresses a substantial business obstacle. A customer comes in the store for a bike, say, for instance, a Look KX Light. We measure him, he is 5’8" give or take and we have all his other dimensions. We do the math: “Yes Sir, the KX Light does come in a size that will fit you nicely, it is a 49cm.” The guy freaks. “WHAT!?!, I don;t ride a 49cm frame! My trek is a 53cm! I got it form the shop up the street. I stood over it and test rode it an everything. There is no way I am on a 49 cm.” So we spend the next hour and a half educating the guy on why his current bike may not be optimal, why the size is called what its called, etc. I am all for educating people, I have no problem with that. That is what the majority of the content on our website is for (along with selling bikes). But having to include a basic “bike geometry 101” class with every purchase is time consuming and, therefore, expensive. Also, it is kind of rude to other customer who are waiting for their fit appointment.
Anyway, my point is that geometries like this make it tough to sell bikes. And what is an “average” size guy doing on a campanies 47cm frame anyway? If I went up even one size the top tube becomes too long…
Looks pretty interesting.
My question is what is the Phonak team is going to use for TTs? Could we see some more bikes like the “Look” TT bikes from the '02 TdF?
Hmmm. I understand what you mean. -Seems like an arrangement like that may benefit all parties…
I’d have to agree with Gerard here Tom. Remember the carbon fork vibrating steerer tube thing I showed you? I think the same thing applies here
A metal bell will ring even if there is a small hole in it. It will also ring if you fill the hole with carbon fiber, but if you make the whole thing from carbon fiber, it may not ring at all.
I’ve had the chance to try to beat some product designers over the head with cockpit length. Why do I have to explain that a 51cm top tube is not that short when the seat tube is 75 degrees? (on a road bike)
I think every company needs a 5’1" woman on the drawing board staff, and a 6’3" guy for that matter
-SD