Re: [CR]extended head tubes

(Example: Racing:Jacques Boyer)

Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 18:25:48 -0500 (EST)
From: "Brandon Ives" <monkey37@bluemarble.net>
To: stevens@veloworks.com
Cc: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
Subject: Re: [CR]extended head tubes
In-Reply-To: <F65vZXqimrMh0R1hY55000113fb@hotmail.com>


I'm getting really tired of this, and maybe Brian Baylis who started this might want to chime in, but I'll answer this. Agian if any of the three things you're talking about happens you have a poor fitting frame. In the past I've always been of the school of two fingers clearance with the top tube and have had to rethink this in relation to comfortable fit and level toptubes. Most importantally is a tt height that doesn't hurt you. So whatever goes. Second, if you can't move your seat forward 1cm your TT is too long or seat angle is too shallow. This is also the same answer to your third question. I must also add that when designing frames smaller than 48cm or larger than 62cm many of thease things go out the window. I just think extended headtubes are freakin ugly and that's my opinion and after fitting thousands of people I've never found a standard case where anyone NEEDED an extended headtube. There are cases where they may be needed, but they're not something that needs to be standard. If you bike fits you great that doesn't mean that I can't think it's ugly. We can also sit here a debate this for months but it's just stupid. I've said this before and I'll say it again every fit on every bike is different for every person and if it fits and you ride your bike great. I'm going to stop talking about bikes and go to a "bike to work" day celebration.enjoy, Brandon"Monkeyman"Ives

"Nobody can do everything, but if everybody did something everything would get done." Gil Scott-Heron

On Wed, 23 May 2001, Steven L. Sheffield wrote:
> So what do you do when getting a frame that's 1.25 cm larger reduces your
> standover clearance to almost nothing, moves you another 1 cm behind the
> bottom bracket, and lengthens the top tube enough that the stem now required
> is too short for a properly handling bike because it doesn't put enough
> weight on the front wheel?
>
> Sometimes head tube extensions are necessary.
>
>
>
> ----Original Message Follows----
> From: Brandon Ives <monkey37@bluemarble.net>
> To: Mark Poore <rauler47@hotmail.com>
> CC: Classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
> Subject: Re: [CR]extended head tubes
> Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 17:45:10 -0500 (EST)
>
> What Richard said about headsets is something I'd never though about and
> it will account for .25"-.5" and stem quills have gotten a little shorter
> too. Both of these things make that 1"+ of HT extention nessisary if
> you're using the same size frame you used to. Though I must also add that
> I think people, in general, have their seat too high and frames too
> small. Lower your seat .5" and get a frame 2cm taller and again the
> problem disappears. Anyawy, to each their own.
> enjoy,
> Brandon"monkeyman"Ives
> finally sunny Santa Barbara, CA
>
> "Nobody can do everything, but if everybody did something everything would
> get done." Gil Scott-Heron
>
> On Wed, 23 May 2001, Mark Poore wrote:
>
> > Richard has a very valid point here. For one he is a frame builder and
> has
> > been one for many years. He has seen the needs of riders change over
> these
> > years as a result of equipment changes, the position of riders competing
> as
> > well as the events they compete in.
> >
> > For Lance the choice is simple, what will allow him to ride faster? He
> could
> > care less about what the bike looks like. Does it have an ugly (in some
> > folks eyes) sloping top tube? For many on the list to be able to ride at
> > half the speed of one of Lance’s time trials for that given time would be
> an
> > effort as well as very uncomfortable, different needs for different
> people.
> >
> > I personally like steel lugged frames and find anything but not too
> > interesting. The one thing that draws me to vintage lightweights, other
> that
> > having grown up with and raced them, is the geometry. For the most part
> it
> > is more relaxed than today’s race and some sport bikes.
> >
> > Living here in the mountains and doing many very long climbs I find that
> I
> > have taken a liken to the new equipment, namely STI-Ergo, dual pivot
> brakes
> > with light action. When descending for 4-7 miles light action brakes are
> > much easier on my arthritic hands and fingers than Campagnolo NRs and I
> do
> > love being able to shift on long climbs without having to sit back down.
> > There will always be a down tube-shifting classic in the stable for the
> > rolling rides without the mountains such as I saw at the Cirque.
> >
> > We shouldn’t forget that a person’s needs or wants sometime comes before
> > aesthetics and might different than ours. I am sure next year at the
> Cirque
> > my Mercian will bring some critical comments, but you know what, I don’t
> > care, it is what I wanted and I love the way it rides. My dog ain’t
> pretty
> > either, but I love him just the same.
> >
> > Mark, you can’t please everybody so ya got to please yourself, Poore
> > Did Ricky Nelson say that?
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Classicrendezvous mailing list
> > Classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
> > http://www.bikelist.org/mailman/listinfo/classicrendezvous
> >