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
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
| What was the real cause of the 1861-65 war? |
Harris Cyclery, West Newton, Massachusetts
Phone 617-244-9772 FAX 617-244-1041
Hard-to-find parts shipped Worldwide
Useful articles about bicycles and cycling