Rich, often touring bikes have long chainstays to allow heel to pannier clearance. That need doesn't go away with a small rider. The foot MIGHT get smaller, but it might not.
I think it's still valuable to see if your chainstay tells us anything. But there's a problem, what to measure to. I measure from the BB center to the intersection of teh seatstay and chainstay centers. No CS measurement will be perfect due to the slot, but that technique gets me within a cm of what Trek put in their frame specs.
I'm very surprised by your Super Course short chainstays. Are you sure? It's really really short. If the seat tube is laid back in the same frame, I think they most likely have to be longer. My 53 cm 1973 Super Course has a 73 degree seat tube and 44 cm chainstays. My 51cm (c-c) Masi has a 75 degree seat tube and 40 cm chainstays. Yours at 38 cm are tiny.
On my Woodrup with a Blackburn rack and Madden packs, I got heel strike, and it has 44 cm stays with a 73 degree seat tube. I don't have big feet, 8.5, so it can still be a problem with smaller bikes and riders.
Ken Freeman Ann Arbor, MI USA
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 2:59 PM, r cielec <teaat4p@yahoo.com> wrote:
> hi,
> i have yet measured stay length (or i've forgotten what i did measure) but
> the frame is small approx 48-49 c-t and, this, i assume, will geometrically
> force relatively smaller stay lengths that may or may not synch-up with rule
> of thumb guidelines. example, not witcomb: my raleigh super course mkII has
> a chain stay length of approx 380 - 385; yet, i don't think this was
> marketed as a race oriented model.
>
> as an aside, i realize i tend to ask some peculiar questions regarding
> frames and fitments but with smaller frames, "all bets are off" and much of
> the common wisdom and fixes don't hold. in my limited experience, it is
> indeed rare that one sees a smaller frame that was actually constructed with
> sensitivity. thank goodness for craftsmen such as ernesto colnago and brian
> bayliss who inherently understand small frame requirements. i'm sure there
> are others but, my knowldege is quite parochial.
>
> all the best,
>
> richard cielec
> chicago, illinois; u.s.a.
>
> --- On Sun, 8/9/09, John Wood <braxton72@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> From: John Wood <braxton72@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [CR] Witcomb Giro d'Italia Information Anyone ?
> To: oroboyz@aol.com
> Cc: teaat4p@yahoo.com, classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
> Date: Sunday, August 9, 2009, 12:04 PM
>
> Richard,
> Regardless of frame angles, simply measuring the chain stay length will go
> a long way to determining it's intended use.
> > 435mm indicates a more touring oriented frame, < 435 indicates a racier
> model.
>
>
> John
>
> On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 10:36 AM, <oroboyz@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> <<?My particular bike S/N 2040 578 is fitted with a TA triple but,
>
> because the steer tube was cut without spacer for a Campag road head set,
> center
>
> pull brakes are out of the question thereby ruling out a proper touring
> build. >>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> There is always the option of drilling the stem for the center pull cable
> stop... Some may tremble at the thought but it has worked very well in many
> instances....
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Dale Brown
>
>
>
> Greensboro, North Carolina USA
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: r cielec <teaat4p@yahoo.com>
>
> To: Classic Rendezvous <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
>
> Sent: Sun, Aug 9, 2009 1:46 am
>
> Subject: [CR] Witcomb Giro d'Italia Information Anyone ?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Ahoy !
>
> Re: Witcomb Giro d'Italia, 1979 (U.K. built)
>
> Anyone have any information on this model ?
>
> Regret to admit, I do not know how to measure frame angles so, I cannot
> deduce
>
> the intended use of this model.
>
> I was told it was their top model but, I have not been able to confirm
> this.
>
> Incidentally: My particular bike S/N 2040 578 is fitted with a TA triple
> but,
>
> because the steer tube was cut without spacer for a Campag road head set,
> center
>
> pull brakes are out of the question thereby ruling out a proper touring
> build.
>
>
>
> Thank you.
>
>
>
> Richard Cielec
>
> Chicago, Illinois; U.S.A.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Classicrendezvous mailing list
>
> Classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
>
> http://www.bikelist.org/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Classicrendezvous mailing list
>
> Classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
>
> http://www.bikelist.org/
>
>
>
>
> --
> John Wood
> Missoula, Montana, USA
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Classicrendezvous mailing list
> Classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
> http://www.bikelist.org/
>
_______________________________________________
Classicrendezvous mailing list
Classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
http://www.bikelist.org/