Re: [CR] Big frames ride better?

Example: Framebuilding:Norris Lockley

From: "paccoastcycles" <>
To: "Dean Kernan" <>, <>
References: <>
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 07:11:00 -0800
Subject: Re: [CR] Big frames ride better?

Has this subject morphed from what I wrote about someone selling his favorite bike because it was "too big"?

To keep this subject on topic, I'll go on record by saying that Specialized was the first company I was aware of that made each frame with a clean slate design. In spite of my distaste for their recent business model, I give them credit for giving the industry that. It forced (or enabled?) other manufacturers to do the same or close to it.

Also, being 5'8", I can only speak from what I've deduced with regard to my tall customers over the years. There have been two developements I have seen for tall riders. First, oversize tubing seems appropriate for most very tall frames. That also enables the frame to be made with a more generous top tube which seems proportional. Second, the tendency to put riders on smaller frames seems to have resulted in fewer truly good fitting tall frames (by this, I mean over 60cm). I think that is down to the reluctance of dealers to stock frames in the 63cm range.

This is veering off topic so I'll invite off list discussioin with anybody who wishes to further discuss it. I think it is one of the true tragedies of the bicycle market place.

Chuck Hoefer
Pacific Coast Cycles
Oceanside, Ca.

---- Original Message -----
From: "Dean Kernan"
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 6:12 AM
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