Chinese Carbon Road Bikes > Road Bike Frames, Wheels & Components

Speeder Cycling SC-R55D

<< < (2/3) > >>

Sakizashi:
Seems nice. Geometry and everything seems like a pretty conservative design, but thats not a bad thing. I do like the shape of the frame as it feels like a blend between the Tavelo Attack and Arow. I also think its an Adapt design. Maybe this one: https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=841101518026184&set=a.227485472721128
 

Speeder seems to get pretty good reviews on here and the SC-ADV09 Bikepacking / Gravel fork is used by quite a few higher end builder as the lower cost fork option offered alongside Enve.

RDY:

--- Quote from: birdofficial on May 20, 2024, 03:53:18 PM ---New frame just popped up on Speeder Cycling's site today. Looks good, but we only get to see a render for now.

https://www.speedercycling.com/Carbon-Integrated-Road-Disc-Frameset-SC-R55D-_p429.html
Material: Toray M40J T700 / T800
Type: 700C Road Disc
Appearance: UDM
Finish: Gloss / Matt (can offer custom painting)
Headset: FSA NO.55R ACR 1.5" Fully-Integrated
BB: Press Fit BB86.5*41mm
Standard Weight: 980g+/-35g (51cm)
SL Weight: 880g+/-35g (51cm)
Frame Size: 45cm / 48cm / 51cm / 54cm / 57cm
Handlebar Size: 370mm / 390mm / 410mm / 430mm (C to C in hoods)
Stem Size: 85mm / 95mm / 105mm / 115mm / 125mm
Cable Routing: Full Internal
Di2 Compatible: Yes
Disc Mount: Flat Mount
Max Tire Clearance: 700 x 32c
TA: 12x100mm / 12x142mm
Test: ISO 4210
Warranty: Two Years

--- End quote ---

Wow ... 2 frames in one week with a 57/58 with head angle below 73deg (other being Incolor).  Maybe the oil tanker is finally beginning to turn.  Not keen on the low BB drop tho.

patliean1:

--- Quote from: RDY on May 22, 2024, 07:57:24 AM ---Wow ... 2 frames in one week with a 57/58 with head angle below 73deg (other being Incolor).

--- End quote ---

How does this effect handling? Both head tube and seat tube angles still confuse me.

Sakizashi:

--- Quote from: patliean1 on May 22, 2024, 09:04:22 AM ---How does this effect handling? Both head tube and seat tube angles still confuse me.

--- End quote ---

Slacker head tube angles typically make for a less responsive bike; but this isnt a good or bad thing since the question is whether or not the overall design is balanced in terms of feedback to actual turning action. One of the concrete benefits of the slacker HT angle is increased front-center and wheelbase for larger riders without increasing reach. Because of current forward trend in bike fitting this has meant that in turns there is too much front weight bias giving bikes a tendency step out.

My opinion would be that they should just increase reach by 2-3% across sizes and call it a day rather than slack out the HT angles, but that creates fit problems for many riders and then you are fighting decades of bike fitting "science" and aesthetic.

RDY:

--- Quote from: Sakizashi on May 22, 2024, 11:29:26 AM ---Slacker head tube angles typically make for a less responsive bike; but this isnt a good or bad thing since the question is whether or not the overall design is balanced in terms of feedback to actual turning action. One of the concrete benefits of the slacker HT angle is increased front-center and wheelbase for larger riders without increasing reach. Because of current forward trend in bike fitting this has meant that in turns there is too much front weight bias giving bikes a tendency step out.

My opinion would be that they should just increase reach by 2-3% across sizes and call it a day rather than slack out the HT angles, but that creates fit problems for many riders and then you are fighting decades of bike fitting "science" and aesthetic.

--- End quote ---

bolded part is all industry marketing mumbo jumbo.  second part is true, but the main thing is about reducing deflection of the front wheel due to riding surface, wind, or manhandling the bike at high power out of the saddle and increasing stability at speed.  taller, heavier riders need this more, not less than smaller riders.

increasing reach (and thus FC) will only increase stability a bit - as it'll be a smaller amount and head angles would still be far too steep.

from a fit, bike handling and geometry perspective there is absolutely no reason for larger frames to have  steeper head angles.  whilst there's plenty for them to have slacker head angles.  the status quo is purely about package size.

also any further increases in reach are going to need increases in seat angle - they're already far too slack in larger sizes.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page