I am looking into various bike geometries, tubes and materials – still undecided on which route but I am learning a lot in the process. I guess the main question as always is what material, Ti, Carbon, Alu or steel. I have considered all and each has its own merits, for me the most exciting is steel as it provides the greatest choice of custom build but ride quality aside it sucks in aesthetics. Ok I am sure that there are plenty out there that like the “classic wire frame” look but not me – so what has steel to offer for guys like me. In my search I have not come across any frames that use an oversize oval tube anywhere near the size of Carbon or Alu. I know it will make the bike heavier, perhaps unnecessarily but hey bikes are a compromise – you compromise ride quality for fastness, uphill for downhill, tarmac for trek, touring for circuit so why not weight for looks? Besides if I love my bike I will shed much more pounds of my 220 than the extra pound or so such set up would add.

So common guys need some help, advice & experience with this project, I am 6’4”, 220 lbs and 42 and Audax will be what the bike should be good at delivering an equal blend of performance, comfort and looks. I would be interested to hear from anyone with experience on Reynolds oversized oval 853 or similar triangle mated to carbon fork & rear. I want to know what would be the largest tube size and what will be the weight penalty and how would it perform in the set up, ok so it’s a lot more complex than that and the geometry will have a huge say so but that’s for later.

oversize tubes are used in Alu because the material is weaker than steel.Al bikes used to be wire framed as well (see old Vitus and Alans) but they were absolute noodles. To compensate for what the material lacks in strength they compensated by oversizing it, thus using design and engineering to equalize. It is not really necessarry to have radically oversized steel pipes as it does nothing but add weight and remove some of what steel bikes are famous for (road feel). There are some more custom pipes though available. Check the Columbus Steel Tube sets (also True Temper and maybe Reynolds), I have a custom steel Carl Strong and it has an ovalized Columbus DT that is teardrop in shape. It isn't anywhere as dramatic as Al pipes but it's there and it helps in stiffness and not much of a weight penalty. (I'm 230 FYI)
So crazy oversize steel pipes don't exist in most cases as there is no function to them.
No function, no need. So Mfrs aren't going to draw pipes that there is no market for. Yes bikes are compromises but what you seem to be desiring is aesthetic (look) at the cost of weight, ride quality and overall function. This is kinda unusual as most folks find thick tubed bikes less attractive than the 'wire framed' rides. So if the aesthitic of oversized pipes floats your boat I'd suggest a frame where that is part of the functionality.
If you do choose Steel, a CF fork is fine but IMHO a CF rear triangle is a waste of time and money. CF rears were originally designed to soften the harsh rear end of Al bikes. The stiffer (by design) Alu rears were sometimes uncomfortable on longer rides so they used CF rears to absorb some of the road shock, still be stiff but transfer less to the rider. Steel already has this quality in it so there is no need to alter it. A CF rear triangle doesn't save much (if any weight) and mostly abosrbs chatter (high frequency road vibrations) where steel absorbs almost all vibration. So you get a poorer performing rear end, with more chances to fail (connecting different materials always poses problems) and if CF gets damaged it is prone to failure. (steel bends CF chips, cracks and snaps)
So in all honesty, what this appears is your desire for a ride is driven more by current marketing trends than actual functionality with a slight mix of personal eccentricity. You want to have a trendy looking bike in a non trendy material.
I think you should demo some rides and make your decision after you decide what feels best.

Most tubesets on standard corporate frames made of any steel will feel whippy under your weight and size. The drawback to being a big guy is that the cycling world leaves us out to dry most of the time. I have found that even under "full throttle attack" I can flex the living **** out of my bottom bracket to the point where I can hear the chain rubbing the plates of the front derailleur...by the way it's a wide cage triple and I'm running an aluminum oversized frame with carbon seat stays. Only the heaviest custom steel frames would hold up to the amount of torque our legs can and do dish out. Stick with Aluminum. Sure steel can ride better, for the right person and in the hands of a capable builder it could for you but at what cost? Little secret...the finest riding frame I have ever ridden in all of my years was 7005 Aluminum and sold by Chucksbikes. It is still sold today. The MTB singlespeed Tsunami frame. NO BB flex EVER and the rear triangle was damn near PLUSH!!! I could not believe it was ALU!!!! My Steel KHS was waaaaay springy under acceleration and felt downright unnerving in high speed downhill turns. Now...I'm only 180 and 6 foot tall.

let's see

Merckx MXL
Pegoretti - GGM, Love 3 and Big Leg Emma

there's lots of custom builders out there who can get it done for ya, some cheaper than others.

do agree about flexing frames due to size and torque BTDT. Any larger rider knows well the bottom bracket "OUCH YER FRICKIN' KILLING ME" squeak.

To continue on ATP’s comments above.

The head-tube on the majority of bikes used to be a 1 inch, this was standard. The 1 1/8 ; 11/2 and larger have come about only because the AL and other tubesets ( including Carbon) are being made so thin-walled to reduce weight that the tube diameters have to be increased tremendously to give satisfactory cross-sectional strength.

The continuing trend in this regard is the new Cannondale System 6 which has a 11/2 (?) inch head tube ( to my eye it is as ugly as sin) but allows them to use even thicker top tube and down tube, which means the tubes can be even thinner walled and yet still retain the cross sectional strength.

If this is the type of look you are looking for – steel is not for you.

As ATP said, some steel tubes are shaped or oversized but you will not find tubes the size of what the new Cannondale is offering up. My CX bike has a “flattened” or “ovalized” down tube coming into the bottom bracket but that is a small section of the overall tube and is designed to increase stiffness in a lightweight steel tubeset.

My vintage De Rosa has shaped chainstays but in the standard sizing, not oversized. I believe ATP has a Merckx MXL which is a steel tube-set but with over-sized / shaped tubing for strength, even that is nowhere near what you seem to be looking for in terms of tube sizing though.

For Audax or loaded touring it will be hard to beat a steel frame-set and I would question the carbon rear triangle if you plan to go very far afield.

Who did your cx bike? I've thought about using that ovalized (bi-ovalized) pipe for the TT as well so there's a flatter tube profile where you shoulder. I'm gonna go check yer gallery.

agree for loaded touring, go steel, go strong and hell ditch all the CF. A steel fork will be much nicer for a large rider and gear. Who cares about weight at that point.

Colnago MXL is my choice at 6'2" 200...

Who did your cx bike? I've thought about using that ovalized (bi-ovalized) pipe for the TT as well so there's a flatter tube profile where you shoulder. I'm gonna go check yer gallery.

agree for loaded touring, go steel, go strong and hell ditch all the CF. A steel fork will be much nicer for a large rider and gear. Who cares about weight at that point.


The CX bike is from Curtlo - $900 and change for frame and steel fork.

I don't think it's in the gallery - I need to post some piccies - try and do it tonight.

ATP:

I'll ask the store owner here if he knows who will be going on the SD ride.

My Curtlo is made from True Temper OX Platinum and they are some large diameter steel tubes. Definitely not a traditional looking steel frame in terms of tube diameter.

Stick with an all steel frame with an OS tubeset. The True Temper OX Plat tubeset mentioned above comes in a tubeset with 1 1/8 ST, 1 1/4 top and down tubes, and it also comes in a tubeset with a 1 1/8 ST, 1 1/4 TT, and a 1 3/8 DT.
The latter will be stiff enough for you.
.
PS. Oval tubes aren't any stiffer than round tubes.

I need to point out that I am not looking for the way oversized overkill in the mold of Cervelo Soloist Team or some of the other alu & carbon bikes that are currently popping out so there is a limit, but what will it be? I have considered various tubes and Reynolds 853 seems a good option as the tube will need to be as light as possible to minimize the weight penalty for the oversize – of course the larger the tube the stronger (and harsher) the ride so the idea was to have Carbon forks and rear to take the sting out of it and compensate for the extra trianle tube weight, but I have not ruled out using a softer tube such as 631 or 525 and it would be nice to hear some views on various tubes used for the rear section. As for the main triangle, 953 seems to be the lightest tube available with thickness of 0.3mm followed by Columbus Spirit at 0.38mm. True temper S3 & OX platinum have a thickness of 0.4 with butts of 0.5 & 0.7 respectively. I am pretty much settled on 853 as it is part of most frame builders portfolio and hence very accessible, of course 953 is attractive in principal but I have not heard anything about the ride quality and besides I don’t want to make it too stiff. Question is what size? Does anyone have a picture of a steel frame with 1-1/2 inch oval down tube if so please post.

You've got a number of different considerations here. All the steel tubing, whether 853, OX Plat, or plain cromo, will have the same modulus of elasticity. So, going to a very thin wall will increase the flexibility in the frame. The oversized diameter tubes will bring back some of the stiffness lost in going to thinner wall. All the fancy steels get you is dent resistance when you use a very thin wall. If you use a reasonable wall thickness, like 0.9/0.7 or 0.8/0.6, plain cromo will have sufficient dent resistance.

The type of tubing will not have any effect on ride quality. Two things will primarily affect the ride: wheelbase and the fork. A longer wheelbase in any vehicle will give you a smoother ride. The fork is the only part of the frame that is cantilevered off of the main structure. So, it can move and flex. Some carbon forks ride roughly. Some ride smoothly. Same with steel forks. I've experimented quite a bit with my own Heron frames and feel that a good carbon fork can match, but not surpass, the ride quality of a good steel fork.

The other consideration for audax riding is geometry. Handling should be stable enough to allow one-handed downhills at night when you've already been riding for 48 hours. No crit bikes. On the other hand, the handling need not be touring-bike slow. You also want a position that will be comfortable for many hours in the saddle. Your arms, neck, and shoulders will likely give out before your legs.

Looking to countries like the UK and France will give you a good idea of the type of bike that has served well for audax or randonneuring. They have developed these bikes over decades. Of course, a number of manufacturers in the US, Heron included, offer bikes specifically for this purpose.

Coat-tailing on HeronTodd's rideability insights, tires have a tremendous effect on ride quality. I don't think the difference between 20, 25, and 28mm is strictly a matter of personal preference. There is a size-appropriate issue here. A rider with greater body mass needs a tire with greater air volume to get the equivalent ride quality that a lighter rider gets with a smaller tire. I don't think that anyone who weighs over 180 should ride anything smaller than a 25 outside of competition. Anyone who weighs over 210...and that includes me...should consider 28's standard fare. Not all frames will fit them; it's worth making sure that the clearances are there. Bike fashion is a lot like women's clothing fashion: the glitterati labels that anemic runway models exhibit are unflattering for the average human female if they fit at all. Bike fashion is driven by world-class racers who are looking for an advantage of a second or two over a 50 mi. course. Most of us don't need that, and have sold out comfort and everyday performance for style and gram count.
Some frame manufacturers are also embracing the size-appropriate design for frame tubing. The 2007 LeMonds feature proportional tubing sections in their CF frames, and a few other manufacturers do as well. The 61 cm. LeMonds are bigger than they sound; try one if you haven't already. I think the 63 cm. Cannondale Synapse has to be one of the best bigger bikes out there as well. In my view, it has the best solution to BB flex with its oversized custom-made FSA bottom brackets. If your height is primarily in your torso , you might scope out Ebay and craigslist for a 63 cm. Airborne Zeppelin. They have an insanely long top tube - 63.5 cm., C-T-C. A nice one (frame only) sold on Ebay last week for just over $600 - not bad for a titanium ride. I think 2001 was the last year that size was made. CF and titanium probably have the smallest proportional weight penalty for larger frames.
If you're set on custom-built steel, don't get specification mania over any particular label or tubeset. Your builder will have a better idea about what will work best for you. Trying to finesse your way into the lightest tubeset possible might just get you a performance penalty of some other sort. I'd rather ride a heavier frame that is appropriately stiff than a featherweight frame that saps my strength by wasting the energy input through tubing flex. Having long femurs and riding 175 mm cranks gives a mechanical advantage that makes up for the weight penalty.

Thanks Heron, I was getting my stiffness & strength mixed up, all those steel tubings have a stiffness of 207 GPa and same stiffness to weight ratio of 26, however the strength various from the 525 to 953 (800 - 2000 MPa) ... so are you saying that this only translates to dent resistance?

The larget Oval tube diameter Reynolds 853 come in is a 30 x 40 mm , which is approx 1-3/16 x 1-9/16 .... anyone seen or ridden a frame with those tubes?

Bismark ... I agree on everything you said wholeheartedly and yes I did consider all the readymade stuff as well as custom builders, The Synapse as well as the Roubaix are great carbon options and by all accounts have great rides but aesthetically they are not what I want and for 3000 bucks I expect to get what I want and not make a compromise. On the other hand I have not seen a single custom built steel bike that even remotely comes close to what I want. The closest (aesthetically) is an Argon 18 - Radon (pic below), its a happy bike, it has a soul and none of that go faster stripes which I feel is what Audax is about but it has the wrong geometry - too short wheelbase, too steep an angle - perhaps more suited to a club rider and also not sure about Alu. What makes it even harder is that being in UK we do not get as much value or pre-sales service that you guys have in states and me being 6'4 and 220 lbs with a longish torso and stuck in London means that I do not have the luxury of even finding a demo bike in my size let alone taking it out for a cruise in the country lanes to get a feel. So here I am attempting to tap in to the combined experience of the riders on here to figure out the perfect bike. I actually intend to discuss every component, tube & geometry on here and of course frame tubing is the starting point, geometry will come next and then the forks, wheels, tyres, groupset and so on but lets get the tubing sorted otherwise we end up discussing various topics without actually getting anywhere. So to get back on track - 30 x 40 mm Reynolds 853 tubing, what do you think, any experience, pictures?

Toonraid,

I think the biggest problem you will have is finding builders that want to use an oversized downtube made from steel. This is because a smaller sized tube will work just fine unless you are absolutely huge, which you are not.

I'm bigger than you, by a fair amount at 255 pounds (started this year at 270ish) and my downtube is of fairly normal size. I requested a very stiff bottom bracket on my custom frame and got just that with a smaller tube size (well, it's fairly large for steel 1 3/8" if I remember correctly).

Even though I went with a very stiff bottom bracket, I was still able to get a very good ride out of the bike. I'd go as far as to say it's the stiffest bike latterally I've ever owned, while at the same time one of if not the most vertically compliant frame I've ever owned. I get zero chain rub regardless of whether I'm out of the saddle or not (well unless I'm cross chaining a lot, but then it's steady and not from flex in the bike).

Personally, I'd say give up a little on big tube asthetics and go with a ride that's going to work for you all around. Either that or go with a builder that works with Aluminum or Ti since they will use bigger tubes than steel.

Thanks Heron, I was getting my stiffness & strength mixed up, all those steel tubings have a stiffness of 207 GPa and same stiffness to weight ratio of 26, however the strength various from the 525 to 953 (800 - 2000 MPa) ... so are you saying that this only translates to dent resistance?

It's not just dent resistance, but also failure of the tube for other reasons. It's just that those failures are so rare anyway, that they aren't worth mentioning. When you are going to a thin-walled tube, it's nice to have the extra margin. A ham-fisted welder will be less likely to create a problem that will surface down the road.

Well, I guess it's all about looks. And if this is ugly, you're in the wrong sport...

<img src='http://www.richardsachs.com/images/signatureblue_large.jpg'>

Well its not ugly but Wookiebiker's Curtle is much nicer but then again taste is very personal and the most important is for u to like it. Wookie .... what tubeset is your bike made from?

Well its not ugly but Wookiebiker's Curtlo is much nicer but then again taste is very personal and the most important is for u to like it. Wookie .... what tubeset is your bike made from?

It's made from True Temper OX Platinum, that's what Doug Curtiss uses as his primary tube set. He also works with S3, which is supposed to either have a thinner wall or maybe just butted differently (I'm not completly sure other than it's lighter than OX Platinum). If it's thinner walled, they may use a larger diameter tubing for larger riders. Could be somewhat in the direction you are looking towards.

Your best bet is to talk with custom builders and see what they can do. I'd be willing to guess a downtube with 1.5" diameter would give you the look you desire, which may or may not be available with steel tubing.

Well, I guess it's all about looks. And if this is ugly, you're in the wrong sport...


Granted, that's a beautiful bike, but I understand where toonraid is coming from. Small tubed bikes look funny under bigger riders, and yes looks/aesthetics do matter to pretty much every rider I've ever met. A smaller to average size rider would look great on that Sachs, but a big guy like myself and toonraid would look a bit funny on it.

Myself, I prefer a thicker looking bike, however in my case I didn't ask for larger diameter tubing and just trusted the builder to make the bike I wanted. Needless to say, I wasn't disappointed.

The thing to remember, especially when it comes to custom, is to get the bike you want regardless of who you have making it for you.

Granted, that's a beautiful bike, but I understand where toonraid is coming from. Small tubed bikes look funny under bigger riders, and yes looks/aesthetics do matter to pretty much every rider I've ever met. A smaller to average size rider would look great on that Sachs, but a big guy like myself and toonraid would look a bit funny on it.

Myself, I prefer a thicker looking bike, however in my case I didn't ask for larger diameter tubing and just trusted the builder to make the bike I wanted. Needless to say, I wasn't disappointed.

The thing to remember, especially when it comes to custom, is to get the bike you want regardless of who you have making it for you.

hey - just caught this while perusing the cyclocross board.
wookiebiker, that blue bicycle has modern OS dimension tubing and
it is the same size(s) as what is on your curtlo. i'm not sure why that
is not obvious from the picture above.
anyway, have a nice weekend. we're off to the races!
e-RICHIE

It's made from True Temper OX Platinum, that's what Doug Curtiss uses as his primary tube set. He also works with S3, which is supposed to either have a thinner wall or maybe just butted differently (I'm not completly sure other than it's lighter than OX Platinum). If it's thinner walled, they may use a larger diameter tubing for larger riders. Could be somewhat in the direction you are looking towards.

Your best bet is to talk with custom builders and see what they can do. I'd be willing to guess a downtube with 1.5" diameter would give you the look you desire, which may or may not be available with steel tubing.

All of those things you've mentioned are alloys, not "tube sets." Your builder will choose a tube s/he believes is appropriate for your weight and riding style.

With all due respect, when it comes to frame/bike design, most cyclists don't know their arseholes from their earholes, so suggesting that "the thing to remember, especially when it comes to custom, is to get the bike you want regardless of who you have making it for you" is a little ambitious. You chose Curtlo because he knows what he's doing.

...That could also be read as, "you didn't choose me because I don't know what I'm doing." You could have made fairly arbitrary and unfounded demands from me as a builder (which I'm not, save for a few frames for myself) regarding a frame, and I could have built it for you, and you'd have gotten "what you wanted," but chances are it would ride like sh!t at best, not ride at all at worst. You told Curtlo what you thought you wanted, and he built you a bike that rode like a good bicycle should.

Suggesting you can design your own bike isn't far from suggesting you can design your own car. You might want leather, a very large and very loud stereo, and an automatic transmition for ease of use, and a giant, thirsty motor, but it's a slim chance you'd call Ford and say, "I want three cyclinders to measure XxYxZ, and eight to measure QxRxS, for a total of eleven, in a T-shaped configuration, and a nineteen speed manual transmition for high mileage, and I want a leather interior, etc." Experienced framebuilders design and build bikes; you (and me, and lots of other folks) buy them. And something tells me if you called Richard Sachs and ordered a bike for YOU, and waited the requisite three years or so to receive your frameset, you wouldn't detect a lick of so-called "flex," despite his frighteningly-skinny and surely under-capable 32 mm downtube.

Well, I guess it's all about looks. And if this is ugly, you're in the wrong sport...

<img src='http://www.richardsachs.com/images/signatureblue_large.jpg'>

Faux antique, tasteful..

I have found some info on Columbus spirit, a frame based on top tube 27 x 33.5, down tube 29 x 43.5 & seat tube of 35 would weigh 1 kg (for all 8 tubes) for size 54 which is the same as a frame based on Columbus Altec 2 tubeset with TT 35, DT 42 & ST 31.7. OK so the tubeset is sorted with NO weight penalty, now for Geometry .... shall we start with Wheelbase, as the bike is going to be for Audax what do u think 104? (XL)

Actually frame design is not as complicated as you make it sound, the knowledge is fairly public & most club riders or experienced cyclists know what geometry works for their style and shape and thats why there is very little difference between various manufacturers for a given discipline. In actual fact if you like you can even design & build your own bike http://www.daveyatescycles.co.uk (which I am looking at) in a week while it took me 4 years to become an aircraft engineer! As for Ford ... well its a little different its not made up of 8 tubes!

sorry for the thread drift, but somebody mentioned aesthetics. i think the mx leader is one of best looking bikes made, even with non-matching rims. posted without owners permission. i have a hard time believing you could flex it. just looking for an excuse to post a pic.
http://forums.roadbikereview.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=58913&stc=1&d=1152691439

Here are some examples of a steel OS lugged bike with a sloping top tube. To my eye this builds up into a great looking larger bike.

http://www.llewellynbikes.com/thegallery/Compactanglelugs

35mm DT
31.6mm ST/TT
~6 degree sloping top tube

Interesting discussion in his Materials and Parts section as well. He is an Aussie builder and the designer of the lugs but the lugs are easy to get in the US.

-Nate

I tend to agree with the OP on aesthetics. Sorry, guys, but I just don't have the taste for the old school looking thin tubing. Actually, I can live with the tubing but I really don't care for the spaghetti-thin forks they sport. I'm sure they're just as safe/strong/whatever, but just to my eyes (important in cycling, no?) they're an eyesore.

My latest purchase is an 03 Orbea Mitis in EE colors. It's a steel frame with a cf rear (agree with cf rear assessments of ATP and others) and I think the tubing looks fantastic. With a wider than traditional steel downtube and a teardrop-shaped top tube it turns me on in the looks dept. I'm a luddite when it comes to "road feel" so I don't feel a whole lot of difference between my Look 585, Orbea or a CAAD 8. Also, at 135 on a heavy day I won't comment on BB stiffness. Really, it's just an excuse to post the photo. :)

I might get stoned to death, but somehow the Sachs bikes doesn't do it for me aesthetically.

The Merckx, on the other hand, looks very nice.


sorry for the thread drift, but somebody mentioned aesthetics. i think the mx leader is one of best looking bikes made, even with non-matching rims. posted without owners permission. i have a hard time believing you could flex it. just looking for an excuse to post a pic.

I might get stoned to death, but somehow the Sachs bikes doesn't do it for me aesthetically.

The Merckx, on the other hand, looks very nice.

Yer right - you are gonna' get stoned to death.

Report for punishment - 9 am sharp.

I think itsa' stunner.

Actually frame design is not as complicated as you make it sound, the knowledge is fairly public & most club riders or experienced cyclists know what geometry works for their style and shape and thats why there is very little difference between various manufacturers for a given discipline. In actual fact if you like you can even design & build your own bike http://www.daveyatescycles.co.uk (which I am looking at) in a week while it took me 4 years to become an aircraft engineer! As for Ford ... well its a little different its not made up of 8 tubes!


I would agree, to an extent...

The basics to frame design are pretty easy to figure out and any avid/club cyclist should be able to figure it out on their own. I'm talking about basic angles, top tube length, heat tube length, seat tube length and desired ride characteristics.

When it comes to chain stay length, bottom bracket height, and a few other less talked about measurements people are a bit less knowledgeable. When it comes to tube diameters and tube butting most are clueless.

However, that doesn't mean one still can't design a bike that's aesthetically appealing to the rider with thicker tubes etc.

SDizzle,

I went with a custom builder for several reasons.

1) I don't have the ability to weld anything: Tools or ability for that matter
2) I knew I needed custom geometry because I don't have normal body dimensions
3) I knew the basic geometry that I needed, but was less familiar with the rear end of the bike and tube thickness, butts, etc.
4) A custom builder knows the small things that I don't know

If I actually had the ability to weld, had a frame jig available, and the time to do it, I'd definitely give it a try. But since I don't, I defer to the pros and let them work their magic. And yes, I did have a lot of input on how my bike was designed, it wasn't all the custom builder. In fact I didn't have a custom fitting done before having the frame made, I knew pretty much what I wanted and after discussing dimensions with Doug Curtiss, I ended up with almost the exact bike I was wanting in the first place.

It's not a magic science and yes, if you really want to read and learn there is enough information on the net that even an amateur builder can design their own bike and do a good job of the design. Now the actual building process may be another question, but design, sure...

Hey Lemon ... Do you have any idea what tube sizes are used on your bike?

You could always use tandem tubes as in this steel Bohemian:

I have considered all and each has its own merits, for me the most exciting is steel as it provides the greatest choice of custom build but ride quality aside it sucks in aesthetics. Ok I am sure that there are plenty out there that like the “classic wire frame” look but not me – so what has steel to offer for guys like me. In my search I have not come across any frames that use an oversize oval tube anywhere near the size of Carbon or Alu. I know it will make the bike heavier, perhaps unnecessarily but hey bikes are a compromise – you compromise ride quality for fastness, uphill for downhill, tarmac for trek, touring for circuit so why not weight for looks? Besides if I love my bike I will shed much more pounds of my 220 than the extra pound or so such set up would add.

So common guys need some help, advice & experience with this project, I am 6’4”, 220 lbs and 42 and Audax will be what the bike should be good at delivering an equal blend of performance, comfort and looks. I would be interested to hear from anyone with experience on Reynolds oversized oval 853 or similar triangle mated to carbon fork & rear. I want to know what would be the largest tube size and what will be the weight penalty and how would it perform in the set up, ok so it’s a lot more complex than that and the geometry will have a huge say so but that’s for later.Have a look at Pegoretti's Big Leg Emma. I'm only 170lb so my Marcelo is plenty big tubed for me.

Why do you want carbon in the rear triangle? If you are building in steel you don't need to add complexity to the frame. Alloy may need help being compliant, steel doesn't. If you want big tubes he does it. GGM had a 44mm DT with 35mm ST & TT. Big Leg Emma has the same I think.

Dario will build your frame the best way for your needs and won't keep you waiting years for the finished article. If you're a rider who needs a small frame that dictates a slope to the TT, he will. But asked about carbon stays his reply was emphatic. His opinion was that if you select the appropriate stays you don't need to use carbon, it's a lazy option. Plus it adds weight and more joins, hence it is a solution to a problem that does not exist. When asked about sloping TT's, he replyed "The name on the frame is P-E-G-O-R-E-T-T-I, not Giant!" This is from the man who Dedacciai had doing their tubing evaluation and brought TIG welded steel to the peleton.

He was good enough for Indurain, Delgado, LeMond, Pantani & Van Der Poel to pay for his work

Well, I guess it's all about looks. And if this is ugly, you're in the wrong sport...

<img src='http://www.richardsachs.com/images/signatureblue_large.jpg'>The frame is a beauty.
But it has been built up very ugly.

Pegoretti's Big Leg Emma has huge chainstays, larger than average seatstays, not my cup of tea but if you don't any rear flex. this thing will out live your entire family line.......Merckx has nicer porportions

But it has been built up very ugly.

I don't know what that means, but is this one any better? Do you need flashier wheels?!

<img src='http://www.richardsachs.com/images/signaturered_large.jpg'>

You could always use tandem tubes as in this steel Bohemian:

HOLY CRAP. A Hallebrink on a Rohloff-equipped hardtail, with 500mm-ish chainstays? Must be one tubby owner...

I don't know what that means, but is this one any better? Do you need flashier wheels?!No, this one is even uglier.
I would get rid of all the black parts, especially that beefy stem and the Record crank with it's beefy spider.

HOLY CRAP. A Hallebrink on a Rohloff-equipped hardtail, with 500mm-ish chainstays? Must be one tubby owner...

Not exactly. The owner, Chalo Colina, is a HUGE, GIGANTIC guy at 6'8" or 6'9", 300 lbs, and doesn't exactly look fat based on pictures of him riding some of his creations (http://home.comcast.net/~carlfogel/download/tallride4.jpg). He's a machinist and one of the better contributors to rec.bicycle.tech.

Not exactly. The owner, Chalo Colina, is a HUGE, GIGANTIC guy.

Yeah, I guess I didn't mean to say tubby. What I meant was "HUGE, GIGANTIC." That bike doesn't look like it's built for someone who's pushing 7', but I'll take your word for it! Maybe those are 29er wheels and I just can't tell?

...post a farking pic of that Marcelo- please. :D