Re: [CR]extended head tubes

Example: Framebuilders:Chris Pauley

From: "Steven L. Sheffield" <>
Subject: Re: [CR]extended head tubes
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 22:59:37 -0000

So what do you do when getting a frame that's 1.25 cm larger reduces your standover clearance to almost nothing, moves you another 1 cm behind the bottom bracket, and lengthens the top tube enough that the stem now required is too short for a properly handling bike because it doesn't put enough weight on the front wheel?

Sometimes head tube extensions are necessary.

----Original Message Follows---- From: Brandon Ives <> To: Mark Poore <> CC: Subject: Re: [CR]extended head tubes Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 17:45:10 -0500 (EST)

What Richard said about headsets is something I'd never though about and it will account for .25"-.5" and stem quills have gotten a little shorter too. Both of these things make that 1"+ of HT extention nessisary if you're using the same size frame you used to. Though I must also add that I think people, in general, have their seat too high and frames too small. Lower your seat .5" and get a frame 2cm taller and again the problem disappears. Anyawy, to each their own. enjoy, Brandon"monkeyman"Ives finally sunny Santa Barbara, CA

"Nobody can do everything, but if everybody did something everything would get done." Gil Scott-Heron

On Wed, 23 May 2001, Mark Poore wrote:

> Richard has a very valid point here. For one he is a frame builder and has
   > been one for many years. He has seen the needs of riders change over these
   > years as a result of equipment changes, the position of riders competing as
   > well as the events they compete in.
   > For Lance the choice is simple, what will allow him to ride faster? He could
   > care less about what the bike looks like. Does it have an ugly (in some
   > folks eyes) sloping top tube? For many on the list to be able to ride at
   > half the speed of one of Lance’s time trials for that given time would be an
   > effort as well as very uncomfortable, different needs for different people.
   > I personally like steel lugged frames and find anything but not too
   > interesting. The one thing that draws me to vintage lightweights, other that
   > having grown up with and raced them, is the geometry. For the most part it
   > is more relaxed than today’s race and some sport bikes.
   > Living here in the mountains and doing many very long climbs I find that I
   > have taken a liken to the new equipment, namely STI-Ergo, dual pivot brakes
   > with light action. When descending for 4-7 miles light action brakes are
   > much easier on my arthritic hands and fingers than Campagnolo NRs and I do
   > love being able to shift on long climbs without having to sit back down.
   > There will always be a down tube-shifting classic in the stable for the
   > rolling rides without the mountains such as I saw at the Cirque.
   > We shouldn’t forget that a person’s needs or wants sometime comes before
   > aesthetics and might different than ours. I am sure next year at the Cirque
   > my Mercian will bring some critical comments, but you know what, I don’t
   > care, it is what I wanted and I love the way it rides. My dog ain’t pretty
   > either, but I love him just the same.
   > Mark, you can’t please everybody so ya got to please yourself, Poore
   > Did Ricky Nelson say that?
   > _________________________________________________________________