Retrobike Forum Index

It is currently Thu Dec 08, 2016 5:46 am

* Login   * Register * Search  * FAQ



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 34 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Jun 24, 2013 2:32 pm 
retrobike rider
retrobike rider
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2011 1:32 am
Posts: 1595
Location: Worcestershire / West Midlands
As mine was in '96:
Image


And how it is now (PACE stem is most recent shot):
Image
Image

Remember having a picture of a Zaskar blue tacked to the monitor of my first proper PC (386SX 25Mhz) PC BITD and drooling over it for a year or two before I could afford a frame. Loved it then and still do now. Climbs nicely, accelerates like a bugger and as someone else just said always looks a tiny bit of a lout. Beautiful piece of kit. :)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 24, 2013 3:08 pm 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2009 2:09 am
Posts: 799
Location: Runcorn
velomaniac wrote:
Triple triangle is just a gimmick


It's next to impossible for the triple triangle not to have an effect on overall frame mechanics - the relationship between stiffness of top tube and down tube and rear end stiffness, and these things all alter "planing":

Quote:
http://janheine.wordpress.com/2012/08/0 ... ance-bike/

Performance: Our research has shown that the frame determines the performance of a bike. The frame must work with the rider, allowing them to generate more power with less fatigue. Such a frame will encourage the rider to go faster and ride more.

It appears that the stiffness of the frame, and especially the balance of the frame tubes, is crucial for creating a frame that feels “lively” and eager to go. Based on the preferences of our testers, Jeff Lyon used thinwall tubes in standard diameters for our L’Avecaise test bike. The result one of the fastest bikes we have ridden.

Interestingly, the best carbon frames use a similar balance of the frame tubes – relatively flexible top tube, somewhat stiffer down tube, very stiff chainstays. On the other hand, even small deviations from this formula, for example, an oversize top tube on an otherwise standard-diameter frame, do not seem to work well for many riders. Thinwall oversize tubing can offer great performance, as long as all tubes are increased in diameter, and the balance of the frame is preserved.


So...

The triple triangle is going to change how that top tube behaves. The obvious thought is that it will stiffen it - because it acts as a brace it might actually allow thinner flexier tubing in the earlier part of the tube. It also effectively shortens the top tube for structural purposes without changing rider position - so it allows top tube length to be one thing for flex, and another for centre of balance.

So it's very hard to see how the design could NOT have an impact on handling - it would either have to make it better or worse; it can't be neutral. Given that the Zaskar is normally described as having exceptional climbing and acceleration, that GT was a very engineering focussed company before the founder's death (http://sidewaysandfallover.blogspot.co. ... ycles.html) and the obvious purpose of the design is to improve these, it seems reasonable to believe that the triple triangle does exactly that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 24, 2013 3:22 pm 
Dirt Disciple

Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 3:45 pm
Posts: 23
here's mine - bought back in 95 as a frameset and built up originally with parts from my old dyna-tech
and a set of vector II's

recently rebuilt with a slight 'modern' twist (xtr v-brakes and modern chainset). Still my favourite ride and
I will never get rid of her, done countless races and miles over the years

Image

long live the Zaskar :D


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 24, 2013 3:58 pm 
MacRetro rider
MacRetro rider

Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 4:16 pm
Posts: 8658
Quote:
So it's very hard to see how the design could NOT have an impact on handling - it would either have to make it better or worse; it can't be neutral. Given that the Zaskar is normally described as having exceptional climbing and acceleration, that GT was a very engineering focussed company before the founder's death (http://sidewaysandfallover.blogspot.co. ... ycles.html) and the obvious purpose of the design is to improve these, it seems reasonable to believe that the triple triangle does exactly that.




Except that bikes by other bike manufacturers are equally as good/bad without the triple triangle. As for better or worse, whats the comparison, if the Zaskars the benchmark how can you measure it against its self ? There's no way to test it unless you have something to compare it with and it'll thus be better or worse than that example but there are numerous examples to compare with.

Face it, it looks good, end of :D


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 24, 2013 4:47 pm 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2009 2:09 am
Posts: 799
Location: Runcorn
velomaniac wrote:
Quote:
So it's very hard to see how the design could NOT have an impact on handling - it would either have to make it better or worse; it can't be neutral. Given that the Zaskar is normally described as having exceptional climbing and acceleration, that GT was a very engineering focussed company before the founder's death (http://sidewaysandfallover.blogspot.co. ... ycles.html) and the obvious purpose of the design is to improve these, it seems reasonable to believe that the triple triangle does exactly that.


Except that bikes by other bike manufacturers are equally as good/bad without the triple triangle.


Bad logic: there are usually multiple means of achieving the same goal. That doesn't mean the triple triangle is a gimmick. (Although it might certainly have become one - as it spread across the range as trademark it probably wasn't always the ideal solution.) Different designs offer different tradeoffs, and part of an engineer's signature is which ones he chooses. This not gimmickry; it's engineering.

Quote:
Face it, it looks good, end of :D


This sounds a lot like "Something I don't understand can't possibly matter."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 24, 2013 5:18 pm 
MacRetro rider
MacRetro rider

Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 4:16 pm
Posts: 8658
If its so good to have a triple triangle and that this style of frame exists by other manufacturers, none of whom still use it and thus cant be patented by GT why does no one else other than GT use it. Numerous bike manufacturers use the 'Horst link' in their suspension designs because its known to work well but whats the merit of the triple triangle ?

Dont infer I'm stupid just because I dont get it, I work in science where we regard proof as the be all and end all of arguments. Attaching the seat stays to both the top tube and seat tube may indeed do something but is that something better than everyone elses aproach and if it is why does no one else use it because they can as its not unique GT property !


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 24, 2013 6:44 pm 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 9:29 pm
Posts: 1877
Location: Somerset
Hell, I just love the triple triangle look. My Zaskar is super stiff, super comfortable it is not. Very rare to see a broken one, in fact, I can't think of having seen a broken one which is quite surprising as it's a very light frame.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 24, 2013 7:12 pm 
Retro Guru

Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 9:46 pm
Posts: 304
Here's my unfussy build..

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 24, 2013 7:45 pm 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 2:33 am
Posts: 2924
Location: daaan saaaf
I don't think the triple triangle was a GT trademark, it was done quite a lot earlier:

Image

:D


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 24, 2013 9:10 pm 
retrobike rider
retrobike rider
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2011 1:32 am
Posts: 1595
Location: Worcestershire / West Midlands
I started a thread on the triple triangle a while agao and there were some useful answers: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=239917&hilit=+hellenic

All to do with increasing the length of the seat stays and making the rear end more flexible I think. However the Zaskar has the longer stays welded at the seat tube, so effectively makes them shorter - which could explain the stiffness as well.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 34 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

About Us

Follow Retrobike

Other cool stuff

All content © 2005-2015 Retrobike unless otherwise stated.
Cookies Policy.
bikedeals - the best bike deals in one place
FatCOGS - Fat Chance Owner's Group

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group