Re: [CR]short TT


Example: Production Builders:LeJeune

In-Reply-To: <1104442449.24513.211740974@webmail.messagingengine.com>
References: <1104442449.24513.211740974@webmail.messagingengine.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2004 13:36:16 -0500
To: "Jason Moore" <jason_moore@fastmail.fm>, smwillis@verizon.net
From: Sheldon Brown <CaptBike@sheldonbrown.com>
Subject: Re: [CR]short TT
cc: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org

Steven Wills asked:
>Can I start this off in another direction? 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.

Jason Moore replied:
>Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this was "standard" geometry for
>bikes of this era. I have a 1971 63cm Mercian with a 58cm TT that I
>have been fretting over for a little while now (I'm 6'5" with longish
>arms). From my research into this frame, a short TT was common.

That's true, and it's one of the main reasons I like older frames better than newer ones! (I have very long legs and a short torso for my height.)

Back in the day, before the advent of m**nt**n bikes, seatposts and handlebar stems were quite short by modern standards. Frames were sized tall to get the saddle and handlebars up to an appropriate height.

If you bought a frame that was not tall enough, you might be able to get the saddle high enough, but there was no way to get the handlebars to a comfortable height.

Sheldon "22 Inch Top Tube" Brown Newtonville, Massachusetts +------------------------------------------------+ | What was the real cause of the 1861-65 war? | | http://sheldonbrown.net/slaverywar.html | +------------------------------------------------+

--
Harris Cyclery, West Newton, Massachusetts
Phone 617-244-9772 FAX 617-244-1041
http://harriscyclery.com
Hard-to-find parts shipped Worldwide
http://captainbike.com
Useful articles about bicycles and cycling
http://sheldonbrown.com