Re: [CR] Big frames ride better?


Example: Framebuilders:Jack Taylor
From: "Dean Kernan" <dkernan@mindspring.com>
To: <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 09:12:50 -0500
In-Reply-To: <mailman.13623.1295959743.1396.classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
Subject: Re: [CR] Big frames ride better?


List (and especially framebuilders),

I have a related question, and forgive my ignorance but...

Was there a shift in frame-building philosopy/technique so that more recent large frames tend to be built with longer (and proportional) top tubes than they were back in the day?

My original race bike from 1972 is Falcon San Remo that fits me well at 6'. Like a number of frames from that period, although it is fairly large (24/24.5 c-t-c) it has a fairly short top tube (22.5 c-t-c) which works fine for me, since I am more legs than arms.

These proportions seem to be true of others from the period as well (as I have recently been reminded in an off-list exchange), ie. the larger frames tended to have extended seat tubes once they hit the upper end of the size range without a proportionate increase in TT length.

Coming back to the sport, I was surprised to find more large frames that were proportional (often "square") so that I now ride a nominally smaller frame to have the same reach that I had on my original bike. Fitting on my orginal bike gives me the "fistful of seatpost" that was deemed correct for the time; fitting on my newer (~off-topic) Simonetti gives me more seatpost visible.

[FWIW, I am indifferent to the issue of standover height since I don't stand over my bicycle. :>) ]

The resulting loss is something that, if not a "better" ride, was certainly a different feeling on the bike.

Cheers,
Dean Kernan
Pomona, New York