Re: [CR]short TT

(Example: Framebuilding:Norris Lockley)

Comment: DomainKeys? See
Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2004 18:34:02 -0800 (PST)
From: "r cielec" <>
Subject: Re: [CR]short TT
In-Reply-To: <>

Ahoy !
>From my experience of not many bikes, TT's are to the long side, not the short. I ride a 51.5 - 52 ST and TT usually give me a stretch. Perhaps the small frame height forces the geometery. I can't say. Also, the Raleighs and Witcomb and Paramounts (Raleigh clones?) have very long TT's for me while several Italians - Basso, Bianchi, Tommassini (sp?), Masi - have a shorter read the right size for me - TT's. A long while ago, one of the women listers who rides shorter frames made a similar observation - that English run long in TT's while the Italians run shorter (and fit well the shorter rider). To repeat - this is from my experience from the few bikes I've ridden.


Richard Cielec Chicago, Illinois

Morgan Fletcher <> wrote: I've always wondered why older bikes have such short top tubes too, and always chalked it up to the idea that everyone was shorter back then, including the builders.

I'm 6'2" and most comfortable on a nearly square (60 seat, 59 top) frame with a 13 stem. There are lots of guys like me, now. Maybe not as many post-war? Maybe it was a limitation of the lugs available then, or tubesets, or an attempt to keep the wheelbase under a mile while still providing clearance and geometry suitable for poor roads, or...?

Or maybe they'd have put me on a 68cm (exaggerating for humor's sake) back then, with a finger of seatpost showing.

Sometimes newer is better.

Happy new year!

Morgan -- Morgan Fletcher, Oakland, CA _______________________________________________

Do you Yahoo!?
All your favorites on one personal page – Try My Yahoo!