Road Bike, Cycling Forums banner
1 - 20 of 23 Posts

· Resident Curmudgeon
Joined
·
13,390 Posts
I have the DeRosa and absolutely love it. I also have a DeRosa Nouvo Classico, which I like better. It's more like the Merckx - a little more of a "long distance" cut. As far as quality is concerned between the Merckx & the DeRosa I think you could flip a coin.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
474 Posts
I don't know anything about the DeRosa or your fit or shape or riding style but that won't stop me from recommending the Eddy. I love riding mine, which I got from Tom at GVH. This is probably heresy but I've never had a proper bike fitting, I just make impetuous buying decisions after too many Coronas, grab a tape measure, email my specs to someone and they build a bike and it ends up fitting great.

 

· Registered
Joined
·
279 Posts
JohnHemlock said:
I don't know anything about the DeRosa or your fit or shape or riding style but that won't stop me from recommending the Eddy. I love riding mine, which I got from Tom at GVH. This is probably heresy but I've never had a proper bike fitting, I just make impetuous buying decisions after too many Coronas, grab a tape measure, email my specs to someone and they build a bike and it ends up fitting great.

Man after my own heart, 'cep' fo' I build them up myself. I got my DeRosa NeoPrimato from GVH, and would be looking at a 7-11 Merckx if I hadn't just got an SLX Nag in one of my favorite colors. The Neo (and Nag) happens to match my measurements a little better than Merckx geo. But I'm dumb, slow, and retro enough to enjoy just about any steel.
Minstrie
 

· Registered
Joined
·
474 Posts
minstrie said:
Man after my own heart, 'cep' fo' I build them up myself. I got my DeRosa NeoPrimato from GVH, and would be looking at a 7-11 Merckx if I hadn't just got an SLX Nag in one of my favorite colors. The Neo (and Nag) happens to match my measurements a little better than Merckx geo. But I'm dumb, slow, and retro enough to enjoy just about any steel.
Minstrie
That's my next step. My wife is indulgent of my whims but the only way I can probably keep collecting bikes is if I disguise my consumerism as a hobby and start doing my own builds!
 

· Registered
Joined
·
5,844 Posts
My guess is that the De Rosa would probably weigh 1/2-lb less than the Merckx, if that matters to you. Merckx steel frames are very nice riding, but not known for their lightness. The comment about Merckx frames being more stretched out can be misleading. Merckx also have slacker (more relaxed) seat tube angles, which makes them fit shorter across the top. So chances are, the Merckx would probably fit shorter across the top than De Rosa in frames with the same seat tube length. Merkx frames also have very predictable, steady handling, often described as "riding on rails." I don't have the greatest sense of balance in the world, but I have no problem riding my Merkx bikes with no hands, something I wouldn't attempt on most bikes.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
279 Posts
tarwheel2 said:
My guess is that the De Rosa would probably weigh 1/2-lb less than the Merckx, if that matters to you. Merckx steel frames are very nice riding, but not known for their lightness. The comment about Merckx frames being more stretched out can be misleading. Merckx also have slacker (more relaxed) seat tube angles, which makes them fit shorter across the top. So chances are, the Merckx would probably fit shorter across the top than De Rosa in frames with the same seat tube length. Merkx frames also have very predictable, steady handling, often described as "riding on rails." I don't have the greatest sense of balance in the world, but I have no problem riding my Merkx bikes with no hands, something I wouldn't attempt on most bikes.
I'm confused (not unusual for me). Seems like slacker ST angle puts the saddle further back, and for the same HT angle, would mean a longer TT, not shorter. What am I missing? (Geometrically challenged) Minstrie.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
87 Posts
minstrie said:
I'm confused (not unusual for me). Seems like slacker ST angle puts the saddle further back, and for the same HT angle, would mean a longer TT, not shorter. What am I missing? (Geometrically challenged) Minstrie.
I'm sure one of the geometry experts will weigh in, but my take on it ... A slacker seat tube does make for a longer top tube, everything else being equal, but if you're measuring reach from the front of your saddle, the bike with a slacker seat tube could very well have a shorter reach. That's because the slack angle moves the seat back - which is good for people with long thigh bones. A steep seat tube angle means that more of the measured top tube is in front of the saddle, which is good for people with comparatively long torsos.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
480 Posts
minstrie said:
Seems like slacker ST angle puts the saddle further back, and for the same HT angle, would mean a longer TT, not shorter.
Slacker ST angles would put the saddle further back, but would also move the KOP further back.

Seat tube angle has no impact on saddle placement. Saddle placement is based on the BB location, with KOP (or knee slightly in front or behind pedal).

If you kept everything the same except TT and STA, reach would be unchanged. Saddle would be slid forward for slacker angles or slid back for steeper angles. The horizontal distance from the BB to the bars is unchanged.

So if TT remains the same, a frame with slacker angles would required the saddle move more forward on the rails which would reduce the overall reach of the bike.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
279 Posts
Are and Bianchi...

Major thread drift, and apologies to the OP, but I'm still trying to get my mind, butt, hands, and KOP around it. So I get a frame with slack STA. Means I put my saddle more forward to maintain the same KOP. And slacker STA. Frame has longer TT, so in order to maintain same reach, I use a shorter stem. Seems like all the slacker STA has done is to require a shorter stem and move my weight back a little. Bottom line is that it all seems to come down to points of contact for me: ischial tuberosities on the saddle/KOP, saddle to bar drop, and reach. Smaller frame = saddle back/offset seatpost, longer stem with rise/spacers, result stiffer frame feeling like I'm riding on top of the bike and not "in the cockpit." And vice versa for a larger frame. Plus, taller STA, front center back, more weight forward, better racer handling but a little stiffer ride. Last three years I've experimented with smaller and larger frames, steel and Ti, have found I end up with the exact same saddle to bar drop, reach, and KOP (with the usual adjustments), HTA 72-73 degrees, forks 43-45mm rake. And it doesn't seem to make that much difference other than UltraFoco/Italian geo=stiffer, and Life custom steel or Ti stock 3.25=cushier. I guess there's an aesthetic aspect as I think long seatposts, ultra short stems, way too many spacers, and sloping TTs look a little funky, but that's just me, and a few of my bikes have some of the above. Am I missing something? It's not a major issue for me as I'm basically happy on just about any bike, so don't waste your time unnecessarily, but I'm still trying to figure it out. Thanks for you feedsback.
Minstrie (still geometrically challenged).
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,673 Posts
another way to think about slack seat tube angles. On a slack STA frame, when you place the saddle at your comfortable spot which be the same on any angle seat tube in relationship to BB, the slack STA will have the top tube starting further behind the saddle, shortening the reach. if both frames have the same top tube lenght but different STA the one with the slack STA would need a longer stem to have the same reach.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
480 Posts
minstrie said:
And slacker STA. Frame has longer TT, so in order to maintain same reach, I use a shorter stem.
The longer toptube is so that the same stem length can be used, not a shorter one. The top tube extends farther under the saddle on the slacker frame - saddle to bars is unchanged. (This is all assuming that the bikes are within normal dimensions for bikes and not some crazy geometry, and the only changes being made are TT length and STA)

There are no "rules" requiring a building to lenghten a top tube because he wants slacker angles or visa versa with steeper angels.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
5,844 Posts
You adjust fit on a bike by positioning your knee properly in relationship to the crank or BB. So, if two frames have the same length top tube, the one with the slacker seat tube angle will fit shorter and vice versa. Put another way, my Merckx with a 57 top tube and 72.5 STA fits about the same across the top as my De Bernardi with a 56 top tube and 74 STA. The STA also affects your weight balance or distribution. I don't know why, but I feel much better balanced and stable on a frame with a slack STA. Others, however, like steep angles because frames made that way steer quicker. All depends on what you prefer, stability or quickness.
 
1 - 20 of 23 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top