Re: [CR]Re: Undersquare Frames

(Example: Framebuilders:Doug Fattic)

From: "David Feldman" <feldmans1@earthlink.net>
To: <Ritzmon@aol.com>, <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
References: <7DCF3DE5.55BC826B.0019F2A3@aol.com>
Subject: Re: [CR]Re: Undersquare Frames
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 15:29:09 -0600


Were there ever any "stock" Confentes? Legend says not; so couldn't this have been built for a customer with "Spiderman" proportions? Re Santana solos, met a customer @ 1979 who had ordered an Eisentraut touring bike from Bud's and after an unreasonably long wait the owner of both Bud's and Santana had a fillet brazed solo bike made for him.
David Feldman
Vancouver, WA


----- Original Message -----
From: Ritzmon@aol.com
To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 5:01 PM
Subject: [CR]Re: Undersquare Frames



> Harvey Sachs wrote: What fascinates me is that this is another large frame with greatly undersquare design. My Cinelli SC is 64 cm (c to top) x 57 cm top tube. From this I'm beginning to believe that these designers, back then,(still?) thought that the thin-air breathers were all leg and no torso. Are most "oversize" frames that undersquare?
>
> My experience bears this out. Most of my early bikes (late 60's through early 90's) had top tubes no longer than 58cm. I believe that neither Reynolds nor Columbus made top tubes any longer than this. After years of riding bikes like this with 14cm+ stems and seats kicked all the way back to fit, I was amazed when I got my first bike with a 61 toptube and a "normal" position on the bike. Damn, that bike rides GOOD!
>
> Mark "Long Torso" Ritz
> in Arcata CA
> with a track bike with a 62.5cm top tube!