# A nice comfy road bike.



## pvd (Jan 4, 2006)

Gemini Beta | Peter Verdone Designs


----------



## G-reg (Jan 12, 2004)

Care to elaborate on the headtube and driveside chainstay?


----------



## pvd (Jan 4, 2006)

Segmented drive side on OX Platnum chainstays. Super lateral stiffness. Custom bent.

IS41/EC44 tapered headtube brings the HT diameter down to 1.500" for improved astetics over 'beer can' headtubes.

Seatstays are bent very slightly.

BB86 bottom bracket.


----------



## febikes (Jan 28, 2011)

pvd said:


> Segmented drive side on OX Platnum chainstays. Super lateral stiffness. Custom bent.


Very interesting. Are you just creating a butt joint where the tubes are joined end-2-end or is there some sort of internal support? I really like the way this looks, do you have any concerns about strength for this type of joint.



pvd said:


> IS41/EC44 tapered headtube brings the HT diameter down to 1.500" for improved astetics over 'beer can' headtubes.


Very nice!


----------



## pvd (Jan 4, 2006)

No concerns. Years ago we debated this technique on this forum. I've done some destructive testing since and belive using proper technique it's an extremely stiff and strong solution.


----------



## TrailMaker (Sep 16, 2007)

pvd said:


> ... using proper technique...


Hmmm;

I would imagine that many people would consider any butt-welded joint in a tube to be _verboten_. That being inferior to an uninterrupted tube for reasons of strength. I would further imagine that your conversation at that time included such opinions. Seems like a pretty simple job on the face of it, but I'd be interested to hear some of the points you would list under the heading of "proper technique" for such tube joinery?


----------



## briderdt (Dec 14, 2012)

Peter -- curious on the front-end geometry here. Your saddle position is very close to my own for road riding, but I'd want another 50mm or so to the bars... Anyway, my curiosity centers on the fairly low trail, with a middling-short stem. For me, I'd have close to 50% of my weight on the front wheel (okay, my CG is 14cm in front of the saddle nose, however that works out on this overall geometry). Not sure where yours lies, but it just seems that short trail + higher percentage of weight on front wheel = not as comfy. Of course this is coming from some one with "book learnin" on frame geometry, and riding experience on about 15 frames or so...


----------



## pvd (Jan 4, 2006)

I've been meaning to do a weighing on this bike. It should be close to 45%F/55%R as I'm a little on the heavy side. That was measured a few bikes ago and saddles have changed a lot since then (I've tried to compensate for that). I do need to measure again though.

Lots of modern seats have longer noses so going by setback is a mistake. You need to base position on the sitting bones. Thus, an older saddle will be 260mm and a fairly centered sitz location. A WTB Silverado is 280 but the nose is extended 20mm not the sitz location. This Cutter saddle is "285mm" with an additional 5mm of nose extention. The point, don't use setback unless all the saddles are the same. Fyi, I'm only running the Cutter as I had it as a donation and didn't want to buy another Silverado for financial reasons. The Siverado is more comfortable.

WTB » Products - Saddles - Racing - Devo
WTB » Products - Saddles - Racing - Silverado
Cutter Bikes » Racing Saddle

I show mechaical trail. Ground trail would be 57mm. It would go up a mm or two by slacking the head tube to 73 degrees.

The bike rides great. The best road bike I've done yet. I'm actually as stretched out as much as I can stand with my toes grazing the wheel. My belly and comfort wont let me go lower. I may move the saddle forward a few mm.


----------



## customfab (Jun 8, 2008)

Did you run out of head tube stock?


----------



## G-reg (Jan 12, 2004)

customfab said:


> Did you run out of head tube stock?


Interpreted as what's with the 25° stem


----------



## pvd (Jan 4, 2006)

What's wrong with a 25° stem on a road bike?

**see update on website.


----------



## G-reg (Jan 12, 2004)

Well, it's an odd choice for a from scratch frame. Why not a longer head tube?


----------



## pvd (Jan 4, 2006)

Is the head tube not long enough to allow the bearings to support the front end loads? Is that what you are saying?


----------



## G-reg (Jan 12, 2004)

Nope, from a headset bearing perspective we could all probably due with 30mm headtubes. Especially with the bearings you're using. 

The question is why use a 25° stem when a few cm longer headtube would achieve the same bar position with a lower rise stem? Question applies doubly when you turn your own tapered headtube for looks (and it does look like a very nice tube!). 

You prefer the look of the stem vs a longer headtube/higher toptube? Or something els ? 

I only continue to ask because you quite obviously don't do things in a just because manner.


----------



## customfab (Jun 8, 2008)

pvd said:


> What's wrong with a 25° stem on a road bike?
> 
> **see update on website.


Everything. You built this bike just for you, with all kinds of custom touches, JUST FOR YOU. Why on earth could you not have added another 2cm of head tube to get rid of that god awful stem. That bike looks like it was built for somebody else and your trying to force it to fit you.


----------



## pvd (Jan 4, 2006)

The reason that I turn this question around is that folks seem to have an 'idea' that a rise stem is a bad thing. I see it all the time, folks with 50mm of spacers so that they can run level stems. Where is the sense in that? Where is the basis folks use for stem selection? Looks. They want it to look the way they are used to. You are right that I do everything for a reason. As my head tube is perfectly adequate to handle the needs of the loads and bearings there is no reason for it to be any longer than it is. Then it's all about placing the handlebar. Simple enough. In engineering we use a little trick we like to call 'a straight line'. An aquantance of mine came up with that a while ago. His name was Pythagoris.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagoras#Pythagorean_theorem.

It's funny that I see the exact sentimate in mountain bike builds. As you may know, I build up a bike with a rise stem and flat bars on all my bikes, even all mountain type bikes. Why run a 90 degree stem and rise bars when you can do the exact same thing directly with a stem and flats? Also givin that flat bars are lighter, stronger, and cheaper than rise bars it leads to the question; Why would you not do it the way I do?

There's even more reasons. It's a lighter setup as there is less steerer and spacer. The mass of the bike is lower than standard. The smaller triangles in the frame make it stiffer geometrically, allowing for smaller diameter tubes to acheive the same desired stiffness. I also get a lot of body room over the bike and space when porting the bike into my house, up stairs, and into the godawful bike trays on the Golden Gate Transit buses I take to work.

So. I've given a few good reasons why I do it my way. I invite you folks to come up with a compelling reason for a longer head tube and flatter stem. I looks like garbage when you think like an engineer. The worst reason in the world is "that's how we've always done it". So....why?


----------



## customfab (Jun 8, 2008)

If your in the business of educating cyclists about what's better that's great. If your in the business of actually making bikes that people want to buy you might want to change your tune.


----------



## jay_ntwr (Feb 15, 2008)

customfab said:


> If your in the business of educating cyclists about what's better that's great. If your in the business of actually making bikes that people want to buy you might want to change your tune.


Peter has always said he doesn't want to sell anything so it's a non-issue I suppose. I like the work PVD does for sure and see his points on the stem thing but it just looks weird to me. He's right though, 95% anyway. I dock him the 5% because you can't get most stems in the rises that he uses but then he always finds a stem that will work.

Nice looking bike, Peter! What size tires are those? I couldn't find that in your description anywhere unless I just overlooked it.


----------



## pvd (Jan 4, 2006)

Why would I want to make a bike that a novice was interested in buying? Iwould I waste my time building commodities. I'm designing and building progressive bicycles. Have you read my wiki? Anybody can just copy old junk or techniques. My style is based on true learning.


----------



## pvd (Jan 4, 2006)

The tires are heavy Continental Gatorskin 25c. Most of my road riding is commuting so a light tire isn't worth it. On my FBR I use the 28c version for more aggressive riding.


----------



## jay_ntwr (Feb 15, 2008)

pvd said:


> The tires are heavy Continental Gatorskin 25c. Most of my road riding is commuting so a light tire isn't worth it. On my FBR I use the 28c version for more aggressive riding.


I like the Gatorskins. I'm sure it rides nicely.


----------



## Francis Buxton (Apr 2, 2004)

I don't mind the stem. I, personally might have used a 10 degree rise stem by adding maybe 100 of head tube above the TT, but I like where the TT is positioned for easy on/off of the bike. It's all about what your goal for the bike is and what your personal preferences are.

I think the bike looks good and the head tube blends very well into the rest of the bike.


----------



## TrailMaker (Sep 16, 2007)

Hey;

Conventions are useful for those to whom it does not occur to think.

Ask yourself why riser stems are frowned upon by so many? If the only thing you can come up with is "that they look funny"... aaah-k. I pronounce it po-TAY-to.


----------



## customfab (Jun 8, 2008)

pvd said:


> Why would I want to make a bike that a novice was interested in buying? Iwould I waste my time building commodities. I'm designing and building progressive bicycles. Have you read my wiki? Anybody can just copy old junk or techniques. My style is based on true learning.


I never said anything about a novice buying your bike. If anything they would be more apt to buy it because they are less likely to realize it's bucking the norm. The more avid a rider gets the more they attach themselves to tradition.

I could tolerate your wacky stem if they were possible to get as quality parts. Last I check no stem manufacture makes anything in that steep of a rise past entry level parts. That alone is enough reason to ditch it. Have you actually done the math to show how much better your slightly more compact front triangle is, how much lighter your setup is. Or are you just throwing out generalized claims like the big bike manufactures do?

Steep rise stems are around in limited supply to get fat people on hybryds more comfortable. Is that what your bike is about?


----------



## pvd (Jan 4, 2006)

I find that Ritchey, Salsa, and Profile make perfectly good stems**. They cost very little, they are light, and they are strong. Why would you pay more? I see lots of people with $200+ stems that don't fit them but they are stuck with as they've invested so much in. Also, these expensive stems aren't much lighter or stronger. Why do you think this is so important?

**Provided the steerer clamp faces have been squared on a lathe.


----------



## customfab (Jun 8, 2008)

pvd said:


> I find that Ritchey, Salsa, and Profile make perfectly good stems**. They cost very little, they are light, and they are strong. Why would you pay more? I see lots of people with $200+ stems that don't fit them but they are stuck with as they've invested so much in. Also, these expensive stems aren't much lighter or stronger. Why do you think this is so important?
> 
> **Provided the steerer clamp faces have been squared on a lathe.


Try and sell the general cycling public on this and let me know how it pans out for you.


----------



## pvd (Jan 4, 2006)

Just because people are stupid doesn't mean that I should act that way.


----------



## shandcycles (Jan 15, 2008)

We spec stems on our AllRoad/Adventure bike with a rise stem. One reason is that if you find yourself getting leaner and more flexible and feel you want to increase your drop, it's a lot easier to do if you're not running a flat stem to start with.


----------



## Eric Malcolm (Dec 18, 2011)

*Functionality vrs Style*

When I first saw the design and picture, I originally dismissed this bike as an ugly effort from a person who should know better. You know, steep sloping top-tube and riser bar stem as pointed out above. However, Peter is smaller than I am, and I have used various means of reducing the size of a bike visually to look not so big.

I understand the rationale, and also can see the view of the 'conventional look' that is contemporary. Is Peter's bike marketable? It would probably be an orphan sitting in the back corner of a display in a bike shop. But, he clearly built it for himself, with a spec suitable for his application, and any builder would do this for his client as a one-off, given the brief received. I just wouldn't publish it........critical public and all.

By the way, there are huge weight savings to be had reducing mass at the head tube by keeping it short. I have done the numbers on a frame that would have needed a 240mm HT to be used to comply with convention. I halved the length to 120mm, steerer stem also halved, which is heavier than the HT and constructed a triangular stem/bar 1 piece that looked much more elegant and saved 300grams in the process, sorry, no picture The seat tube and seat stays were also reduced in length giving an over-all weight of 1750g for a Columbus Zona tubed frame.

Eric


----------



## briderdt (Dec 14, 2012)

Hey Peter, I'm with you on the riser stem. All my customs (one Paul Barkley and two TiCycles, all Softrides) were designed with a riser stem in mind for the very reasons you cited. I might lessen the rise a little bit, but my position is pretty settled after 35 years of saddle time. +10, or even +15, is no affront to my sense of style, but any means.


----------



## customfab (Jun 8, 2008)

briderdt said:


> Hey Peter, I'm with you on the riser stem. All my customs (one Paul Barkley and two TiCycles, all Softrides) were designed with a riser stem in mind for the very reasons you cited. I might lessen the rise a little bit, but my position is pretty settled after 35 years of saddle time. +10, or even +15, is no affront to my sense of style, but any means.


10 to 15 is one thing, 25 is another deal.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

*Pete's not in business*

For what it's worth, I don't have a problem with riser stems, and it might be worth checking to see whether someone is, or isn't actually selling bikes before you criticize them based on marketability. It's fine not to like the look (I don't particularly either) but arguing the point on and on is lame, especially when you're doing so based on false premises.

OT: PVD, as usual, nice work.

-Walt



customfab said:


> Try and sell the general cycling public on this and let me know how it pans out for you.


----------



## pvd (Jan 4, 2006)

@CustomFab, care to put your frames up for critique? How about the bike setups you are riding?


----------



## shirk (Mar 24, 2004)

I think it looks great.

It's a road bike for mountain bikers.

Reminds me a lot of Paul Brodie's personal bike. Paul Brodie


----------



## febikes (Jan 28, 2011)

For most people a road bike should have a sloping top tube. For a long time the sport clung to level top tubes but right now pretty much all the top of the line road bikes have sloping top tubes.

Stems are similar. In time sloping stems will become as normal as sloping top tubes. Basically unless you need a super low position a level stem does not make much sense. I expect that eventually the top pros will be on sloping stems in the larger sizes for all the reasons that PVD mentioned plus it lowers the front end of the bike for better aerodynamic profile in the context of a thinner stem for the raised bit vs the big fat head tube. The bikes are also lighter using this approach. 

Great job on the bike BTW.


----------



## ScaryJerry (Jan 12, 2004)

Any plans to make a custom stem with integrated headset bearing cap?


----------



## pvd (Jan 4, 2006)

@ScaryJerry.
Went through that phase a few years ago. It looks cool, but it's a bad direction to go and is not correct route to go. I strongly recomend not doing it now. The reason is that it tends to trap the bike into one stem or stem/bar situation. Forget about passing the bike on to someone else, a rider will float around various setups as time goes by. During the season you may want low. In the winter you may want high. Best to stick to commercially available parts for ease of change.

PVD WarBird SS - Pvdwiki
PVD TIE Advanced X1 - Pvdwiki
PVD Bird of Prey - Pvdwiki


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

FWIW, I think the the stem looks fine. In fact, I like the look of the whole bike. Screw what all the lemmings think you should have for a stem, that's just stupid.


----------



## NorseRider (Feb 9, 2004)

I like it a lot. Nice work.

Truls


----------



## dr.welby (Jan 6, 2004)

pvd said:


> Simple enough. In engineering we use a little trick we like to call 'a straight line'. An aquantance of mine came up with that a while ago. His name was Pythagoris.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagoras#Pythagorean_theorem.


If you're going to be pedantic you could at least spell it right. The Pythagorean theorem is about calculating the sides of right triangles. It doesn't justify your stem choice - you picked the stem rise first and drew a straight line to your steerer tube at that given angle. You're not using the wisdom of the ancients or doing any sort of mathematical optimization here.



> The smaller triangles in the frame make it stiffer geometrically, allowing for smaller diameter tubes to acheive the same desired stiffness.


Moving the top tube closer to the down tube along the head tube increases the leverage the fork the fork has on the frame. And one could argue that you're adding flex back with the longer stem.

I don't have a problem with it though, I think the bike is very PVD and fits his style and 'terroir'.


----------



## dr.welby (Jan 6, 2004)

Do you have a print or straight-on photo of the chainstays?


----------



## Jon Edwards (Aug 20, 2004)

I'm going to pick up on something a little different from the stem...

Compact road frames. As in properly compact, not "oh lets drop the TT 1/2" at the seatcluster and call it compact". Why so few of them?

Other than aesthetics/tradition, I can't see any advantage to a gate of a frame, when you could make it with smaller, lighter, stiffer triangles and then use a nice long , flexy, comfortable seatpost. The only limiting factor I can see is the ability to fit the rear brake in the conventional position and get the fixing bolt in.

Off the top of my head, I can only think of PVD and English Cycles, Santa Cruz (I have a 2002 Roadster - its lovely) and possibly Giant (original OCR?) who seem to do the job properly.

I had a chat with a well respected South of England frame builder on the same subject, and his response was "it'll ride like crap". When asked why, "it just will".

So what am I missing?

Cheers!


----------



## pvd (Jan 4, 2006)

Two things:
1. Being a respected framebuilder has little to do with knowing how to design a good bike.
2. Most folk in the industry don't even know why top tubes have traditionally been level.


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

pvd said:


> 2. Most folk in the industry don't even know why top tubes have traditionally been level.


Why were they?


----------



## shirk (Mar 24, 2004)

pvd said:


> @CustomFab, care to put your frames up for critique? How about the bike setups you are riding?


What happened to CustomFab's response to this?

deleted?

Cuts up PVD's bike but won't show is own? Lame.


----------



## dr.welby (Jan 6, 2004)

Jon Edwards said:


> Why so few of them?


Structurally you're generally better off with trusses than cantilevered members. Double the length of the seatpost and you double the weight of the shaft. But you've also doubled the stress so you have to make the seatpost even heavier. You save some weight from the smaller frame, but again the loads on the frame are higher so the shorter tubes might also have to be thicker.

Given the narrow range of choices in tubing and components (especially at the OEM level) there might be some combinations that save weight - there might be some that don't.


----------



## One Pivot (Nov 20, 2009)

dr.welby said:


> Structurally you're generally better off with trusses than cantilevered members. Double the length of the seatpost and you double the weight of the shaft. But you've also doubled the stress so you have to make the seatpost even heavier. You save some weight from the smaller frame, but again the loads on the frame are higher so the shorter tubes might also have to be thicker.
> 
> Given the narrow range of choices in tubing and components (especially at the OEM level) there might be some combinations that save weight - there might be some that don't.


Yes... but no. While thats true, theres no such thing as a "compact" seat post... ie, you dont buy a stronger seat post because you have a compact frame with a foot of post showing. The featherweight regular seat posts work just fine in compacts. Also compact frames are light weight.

Theres lots of traditional full size frames that break at the tt/st point, and lots of compacts that dont. Some of those compacts are lighter too..


----------



## dr.welby (Jan 6, 2004)

One Pivot said:


> you dont buy a stronger seat post because you have a compact frame with a foot of post showing


Actually, you unknowingly do. The manufacturer has adjusted for the longer seat post by making the wall thickness thicker to handle the larger load.


----------



## unterhausen (Sep 28, 2008)

when top tubes were horizontal it was a lot less common to see broken top tubes at the seat cluster


----------



## pvd (Jan 4, 2006)

When top tubes were horizontal, a road bike weighed 25 lbs.


----------



## Busdriver1959 (Jul 1, 2011)

I chuckled at the posts predicting that a bike like this won't sell. Take a look at what's on the market these days and compare to a 1970s bike. Custom or production, 90% of today's bikes would have no hope of selling in 1972. The market continually changes. Even the tradition bound Europeans are putting out "radical" designs. The entire market has changed drastically due to the influence of mountain bikes and their disregard for tradition. I think that this bike looks like what conventional will be in 10 years. Just for the record, I'm a traditional level top tube, level stem guy but I like this bike.


----------



## j-ro (Feb 21, 2009)

Pete, I appreciate the thoroughness of the designs, the completion of the builds, the qualaity of the photos and your willingness to explain and defend your ideas.
always a pleasure.

jake


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

pvd said:


> When top tubes were horizontal, a road bike weighed 25 lbs.


If this is an answer to my question why road bikes traditionally had level top tubes, it's pretty cryptic.


----------



## dr.welby (Jan 6, 2004)

kapusta said:


> If this is an answer to my question why road bikes traditionally had level top tubes, it's pretty cryptic.


I think he's trying to convince us that 25 pound road bikes were heavy because they had horizontal top tubes, and not because they had 36 spoke wheels, quill stems, wire bead tires, 9/6/9 tubing...

The answer to "why did bicycles settle on horizontal top tubes" will probably be either cryptic or apocryphal, assuming you even get one. You see sloping top tubes and longer seatposts on many safeties of the 1890s, but over time the seat tube got longer and the head tube shorter. In some cases the top tube ended up sloping in the other direction. This seems to follow a general trend of lower handlebars.

Looking through my collection of 1890s cycling books, I can find discussion of larger frames having lower stresses, and also discussion of reducing seat post stresses on frames (for example with the seat pins that put the seat clamp in front of the seat tube). So I could see perceived strength issues at the seat cluster as being one driving factor.

There might have been some advantage to a level top tube in manufacturing - I'm just waving my hands here but you could determine it was level by using a level or measuring up from the ground. From a sales standpoint it gave you a consistent standover size.

Maybe the addition of motors to the bicycle and the need for a larger frame had something to do with it.

Or it just looked 'right'?


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

kapusta said:


> Why were they?


Road bikes need to be sized based on head tube length. It determines handlebar height and saddle to handlebar drop. The horizontal top tube leads to seat tube length c-c which is related to your legs length and determines head tube length.
All this is changed due to new headsets, stems etc.. it worked around quill stems. I doubt anyone is slower on a 3 hr ride due to riding a traditional design.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

pvd said:


> When top tubes were horizontal, a road bike weighed 25 lbs.


Mine, early 90s steel lugged frame and fork, weighs 21lbs built w/ campy daytona, heavy wheels and heavy pedals.
compact road frames are ugly to begin with. I want to ride an efficient bike, not a light bike. A bike that fits me and looks good. Compact frames eliminated lots of sizes from the range. Good for companies. Bad for riders.


----------



## cataño (Sep 7, 2009)

Peter - It was really nice to meet you at Fourbarrel the other morning. Thanks again for the coffee and the guided tour of the bike. Weirdly, I didn't even notice the stem in person and I am nothing if not an aesthete. 

On the right frame, the very wrong thing can often look very right.


----------



## pvd (Jan 4, 2006)

So...... Nobody knows why bikes traditionally had level top tubes. Amazing.


----------



## pvd (Jan 4, 2006)

cataño, I hope you enjoyed your trip. The ride today was fantastic!


----------



## Rody (Sep 10, 2005)

pvd said:


> So...... Nobody knows why bikes traditionally had level top tubes. Amazing.


I know...but the only reason I build a horizontal top tube is by customer request. Some like to sit on their top tube during breaks without feeling like they are sliding down a banister.

Pete, digging the road bike, but damn, we gotta get you to embrace some more colorful finishes :thumbsup:

cheers,

rody


----------



## shandcycles (Jan 15, 2008)

pvd said:


> So...... Nobody knows why bikes traditionally had level top tubes. Amazing.


Think parallel angles, range of sizes, lugged construction and minimum inventory, there's your answer.


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

pvd said:


> So...... Nobody knows why bikes traditionally had level top tubes. Amazing.


You know, I originally +repped you for your bike. I regret that now.


----------



## doug fattic (Mar 11, 2010)

I must be one of the oldest members contributing to this forum because I certainly remember the bicycle components that dictated the reason we had level top tubes and big frames on road bikes. All seat posts were short back then. Mostly in the 70's that meant Campagnolo and a little later Shimano. They were 180mm long and that means a long seat tube had to come up to meet it. There weren't longer ones for sale. All the road stems like a Cinelli didn't point up so a head tube needs to be long enough to put it in the right position with a seat. And of course almost every frame was built with lugs that confined designs to mostly level top tubes because of the limited angles available.

I might also mention that the foundation bicycles lots of people got started with back in the bike boom era of the 70's was the Schwinn Varsity, Continential and Super Sport (what I got in '65). They came in a 22 and 24 inch sizes. They weren't measured center to center but center to top. The top tube came in an inch lower than the top of the seat tube. The result of the sizing of these first bicycles was that many thought they needed larger frames then necessary because a 24" Schwinn was in reality a 23".


----------



## TrailMaker (Sep 16, 2007)

Let's go a bit farther back;

Very short post.


----------



## pvd (Jan 4, 2006)

So far only one person has gotten close, but it wasn't phrased well enough to get the points for it. It would have to be said in a more deliberate way.

I'm suprised that this is such a mystery.


@Rody. YES! I need fancy color but I'm a cheap and impatient guy. 3 days local for cheap powder always ends up being my choice. One day I'll do a fancy paint job and hit you up.


----------



## shandcycles (Jan 15, 2008)

pvd said:


> So far only one person has gotten close, but it wasn't phrased well enough to get the points for it. It would have to be said in a more deliberate way.
> 
> I'm suprised that this is such a mystery.


It was a hint. I wasn't looking for points.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

*Aaaand... we're done.*

If someone wants to re-start the level vs. sloping toptubes thing in another thread (because that topic has NEVER been discussed on the internet before...) feel free. Pete, if you have more pics or thoughts on stuff not related to stems or toptubes, post a new thread.

Thanks guys.

-Watl


----------

