short, tall frames, was; RE: [CR]re: ebay outing: gios super record..sad

(Example: Bike Shops:R.E.W. Reynolds)

Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 17:39:48 -0500
From: "HM & SS Sachs" <>
To:, Classic Rendezvous <>
Subject: short, tall frames, was; RE: [CR]re: ebay outing: gios super record..sad

Steven Willis asks <snip> Why would any builder make a 62cm frame with such a short 57.5 top tube. Is it me or should it be longer. Hell with my legs and arms I could ride this frame but they do not make a stem long enough for me, not that I would want to ride a stem that long. ++++++++++++ All I can say is that the bike is not a unique "freak of nature." I've measured a bunch of tall vintage frames that were way "under-square." As one example, my 73? Cinelli SC is also 62.5 ctc and 57.5 cm top tube (ctc also). I suspect that part of the answer is that folks wanted relatively short wheel bases. To make a tall bike with a fairly short wheelbase and a long top tube would require a very relaxed seat angle and/or a very steep head angle, and/or ultra-short chainstays. The wheelbase on mine is just over 40"/102 cm, with 42.5 cm chainstays (bb center to wheel position, measured parallel to the bike's long axis). So the seat stays are already pretty short.

Of course, my situation is the opposite of Steve's: I'm only 5'10, but can still straddle the bike. With a 9 or 10 cm stem, it has the same riding position as my other road bikes, except slightly (!) less seat post shows, and the handlebars are high enough that Grant Peterson at Rivendell would approve... I like the bike, and have done very long rides (RAGBRAI) on it.

your mileage may vary, but Happy New Year anyhow!

harvey sachs
mcLean va