The trouble with a longer quill stem is that there aren't very many available, and they tend to be mid-priced Japanese models. If you want an all-Italian or all-French, or even top line Japanese equipped bike, such a stem may seem to ruin the consistency of the components. I know that on a 53 or 54 cm frame, which has a moderate amount of seatpost showing (by 70's standards), I often have to raise the stem above the minimum insertion mark to get the top of the bars even with the saddle. This is true with Cinelli stems and most other 70's/80's European and top quality Jaapanese stems. While the insertion marks may be conservative as dictated by liability lawyers, and while I am not a large rider, it's not very comforting to have the minumum insertion line showing. I can ride a 55 cm or even 56 cm ctoc frame, but this usually results in very little exposed post and almost no standover clearance. While this won't prevent me buying a used frame at a bargain price, it seems silly to have a custom frame deliberately built this way. The other problem with larger frames is long top tubes, though perhaps a custom frame could be built with a 55 cm ST and 54 cm TT without having to reduce the head angle for toe clip clearance. I guess a sloping TT is OK too, except I don't think I'd like the appearance of one that sloped much more than that on a Rivendell.
I suppose a master builder like Brian could avoid an extended head tube by carefully balancing standover clearance, top tube length, top tube slope, head angle, and fork rake, taking into account the customer's measurements, desired stem extension, and the minimum insertion of classic stems the customer might use. There probably aren't very many builders who could do that or would be willing to, but maybe that is the sort of thing that sets the really great builders apart. That sort of thing would require a customer to visit Brian in person or at least to communicate a lot on information by phone or email, but again, maybe ordering a Baylis frame requires some time commitment from the customer. It just seems to me that an extended head tube is easier than designing a frame around the stem insertion, even if a guy like Brian can do this with no compromises to the other design considerations. Also, I kind of like the look of the extended headtube, which is why I ordered one on the Custom Caygill frame Richard Kent is currently building for me.
Regards,
Jerry Moos
-----Original Message----- From: Jonathan Cowden [mailto:jac33@tron.arts.cornell.edu] Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2001 11:23 AM Cc: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org Subject: Re: [CR]It wasn't me
Hi Jerry. I can have a go at this since Brian is building me a frame and I would like the brake hoods on this frame to be level with the saddle. Brian suggested three things: a) sloping the top tube; b) building a slightly bigger frame; and c) getting a stem with the appropriate quill.
Jon Cowden Ithaca, NY
On Thu, 24 May 2001, Jerry & Liz Moos wrote:
> Well, Brian, I wasn't really asking why you didn't like extended
headtubes,
> but rather what your preferred method of achieving higher bars is.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jerry Moos
>
> Brian Baylis wrote:
>
> > Climbing out from under a rock;
> >
> > Actually it wasn't me that opened this can of worms, it was Jerry Moos
> > who inquired about something I said at the Cirque. In the name of not
> > offending some of my friends, I'd prefer to keep my trap shut on the
> > issue except for one thing. Several others have said it already so don't
> > blame me for this, but I wholeheartedly agree that it is NOT a
> > neccessity, regardless of who says it is or what their reasoning is. As
> > far as exactly what my objections are, you'll just have to guess. But be
> > sure of one thing, you won't see me doing it.
> >
> > OK let's move on to a diversion; hey look over there, it's an electric
> > cooled pony harness...with fuel injection!
> >
> > Back under the rock now.
> >
> > Brian Baylis
> > Again, I'm not letting on where I live. Maybe I'll join Richie at the
> > bar.