more here:
RAW PRE-WAR CYCLOCROSS
http://api.ning.com/files/iJy2PFKBnepozlH5tfklZE62odmY671cKk0kNXUfG98XebI23Wczqdl87kridRaI5kIP2sIxtTuARrTFdPJ3I07*usNTfp/headdivecropped.png
That’s a shit hot bike … says Gerber but I think it’s an Alan, no? Great looker 
Anyway, wanted to ask about sizing for cross. Might be wrong but are peep’s riding bikes just that tiny bit smaller than a regular road bike?
Oh, yeah … CX Pron!!
The guys I looked after in England’s cross bike were always about a cm shorter in the top tube to there road bikes. I think it helps getting the weight over the front wheel and also being short hard events comfort is not so important.
MOD: THIS IS GOOD INFO PLS ADD A PIC BEFORE BLAKEY DELETES
Mod2: Aww come on, I just would have put in a snarky comment at the bottom.
My dream cross bike besides a custom ti rig
This seems to be the traditional theory, but I’m also seeing and hearing about more people riding the same size (and sometimes a little bigger) frames and using a slightly positive rise stem (which i’m guessing previously werent as common in the quill stem days) as well as higher mounted brifters.
This allows the same more upright position, but gives you a closer fit to your normal bike and takes advantage of the recent developments in cross-specific frame design/geo. There seems to be a lot of effort going into keeping a lot of clearance at the wheels and allowing easy shouldering, without adding slackness to the rest of the frame. Like frame design everywhere else it is subject to a lot of debate.
This seems to be the traditional theory, but I’m also seeing and hearing about more people riding the same size (and sometimes a little bigger) frames and using a slightly positive rise stem (which i’m guessing previously werent as common in the quill stem days) as well as higher mounted brifters.
This allows the same more upright position, but gives you a closer fit to your normal bike and takes advantage of the recent developments in cross-specific frame design/geo. There seems to be a lot of effort going into keeping a lot of clearance at the wheels and allowing easy shouldering, without adding slackness to the rest of the frame. Like frame design everywhere else it is subject to a lot of debate.
(searched cyclocross on flickr and came up with a shot of a very good friend - stoked)
not strictly CX but perhaps a style influence by Coppi, his brother (Serse?) and a few mates.
more ice cream of our favorite flavor
Vanilla’s awesome SS cyclocross machines by mathowie, on Flickr
Timely article on 'cross fit at Mud & Cowbells
And the 2011 Chilli Con Crosso:
the comments on the velonews link and the link to myersons detailed fit review (in the comments of the VN post) are much more important to read.
Road racing has Tom Boonen, 'Cross has Niels Albert. Both Belgian and both ‘bad/play boys’
(look at the snow/slush on his seatube)
Hard to care about porn when you date a pornstar… but this gets a semi mongol going…
Needs a setback post, and that bar setup won’t cut it. But what puzzles me is the tyre clearance. That fork has scads of room, so did the frame mods go past just fitting canti studs and a cable stops? The rear is slammed back and still tight which makes sense.
From Prolly
mckenny, i think i just blue myself.
I appreciate your ArrDev joke, but add a CXPorn pic plz.
Hey Nexus - what is that bike? I think I want one (if it’s steel? - tho it looks like it’s alu with a crabon fork)
The UCI legalising disc brakes is so awesome - now every new CX frame could be my new commute/light touring bike. 
