No I did not read it in any catalogue but simply as a trained engineer looking at frame design. It is backed up by several scientific studies and research into stresses in bike frames - some of which was published in scientific journals in the 1980s but some of which can be found in Sharps Bicycles and Tricycles published in 1897. Basic engineering principles do not change though the analysis and understanding of structures such as bike frames which receive quite complex loading improved greatly in the 1980s. This theoretical understanding was backed up by the extensive test riding I did whilst technical editor of Cycling Plus. Have you ever tried a frame with a 1 1/8in top tube? You won't necessarily go any faster with a 1 1/8in top tube but given other design features being constant you will find the handling of a frame to be more precise. Where this is most of benefit is on bumpy downhills - but on any road that is not smooth the benefits will be felt. Riders in the past of course managed with the frames available then but so did riders manage with ordinaries when that was all that was available. Steel frames are great and the latest ones with the best tubing from Columbus and Reynolds almost all use 1 1/8in top tubes due to the advantage they impart. That is not to say the old frames perform poorly just that some modern innovations are ones that truely work. Not all so called innovations truely impart any benefit but 1 1/8in top tubes are one that definitely does. Steel frames definitely still have their place - my son races on a Reynolds 853 tubed road frame as it is sufficiently robust enough to survive the rough and tumble of youth racing here and on the continent. Last year it was ridden over twice after crashes - carbon fibre frames are great if you get given a replacement or can afford one after every similar mishap. There has been undoubted progress in frame construction and handling properties over the last fifteen years or so. Carbon fibre frames can be built to be less than 1kg in weight yet still perfectly reliable and stiff enough to offer excellent handling whilst offering a ride comfort far better than steel or aluminium. That is simply not possible with steel.
Hilary Stone, Bristol, England
> From: <vergrandis@tesco.net>
> Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 21:14:18 +0100
> To: Hilary Stone <hilary.stone@blueyonder.co.uk>
> Subject: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
>
> I am baffled this would obviously seem a non cyclists answer. Sound more like
> a marketing mans dream answer to me. Could be very wrong.
> Frank Southall, Alf Engers, Stan Butler all used normal size top tubed frames
> and had no trouble steering in TT's when dead turns were still common.
> Could I ask since you seem so knowledgeable and scientific in your answer
> what difference a fat tubed top tube frame made to your PB. Did it make it
> possible for you to go under?
> Sure a 1 1/8" top tube made no differnce to my times or ability to steer but
> head angles and fork offset most certainly did. Didn't Peter Post do one of
> the fastest rides ever in the Paris Roubaix on a conventional sized tube
> frame? Now this is where you want great responsive steering as any of us can
> vouch who have ridden on the same pave.
> Would be very interested to hear from the likes of Doug Smith and Norris
> Lockley who were both fast men in their day what they think on this subject. A
> 1954 1h 01m 21s and a 25m 57s by one of these was no mean ride back then or
> today with all the road and equipment improvements!
> I was only ever a middle-marker.
> Totally confused and baffled riding the Hoxton stones. Did you read this stuff
> in a catalogue?
> Kind regards Frank.
>
>
> Frank Cohen Hoxton UK