Re: [CR]E-Bay outing Stark frame - my bad

(Example: Framebuilding:Restoration)

Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 10:45:45 -0700 (PDT)
From: "David Ross" <dlr94306@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [CR]E-Bay outing Stark frame - my bad
To: CR discussion list <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>


My apologies to Chuck Schmidt and the list... I wrote that the reason for the 52x57 geometry of this frame was given in the ebay item (no. 330122658668) description as "sloping top tube" when it is actually "compact design."

I've seen this non-square approach in a few other frames which were probably not custom builds. I owned a 1980 Austro-Daimler Ultima that was 53x57, and many of the pre-WWII frames I own have a seat tube 3cm to 4cm shorter than the top tube. Was the idea that a rider would choose a frame fit based on top tube length, then show as many fistfuls of seat post needed to get the right seat height? Or was the fashion to use long top tubes and short stems? Most of the photos I've seen of early 20th century bikes and riders show stems that would be very short by today's standards. Very early "safety" bicycles had virtually no stem extension at all.

Dave Ross
Portola Valley, CA USA