Re: [CR]Re: Confente #07 and undersquare frames

(Example: Component Manufacturers:Campagnolo)

From: <GPVB1@cs.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 18:11:15 EST
Subject: Re: [CR]Re: Confente #07 and undersquare frames
To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org


I think the thinking may have been that it was easier and cheaper to make several frame sizes with the same top tube!

Additionally, it was probably a quest for a reasonable "marketable" wheelbase on the larger frames....

Cheers,

Greg Parker Ann Arbor, MI USA

Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 12:04:06 -0800
> From: "Dan and Holly" <tedfords@attbi.com>
> To: <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
> Subject: [CR]Re: Confente #07 and undersquare frames
>
> My '74 Holdworth Pro has a 62cm c-c seat tube and 57cm c-c top tube. As =
> a tall rider that also needs a long toptube, I'm curious to know why =
> these larger frames did not get longer top tubes. My newer bikes are =
> have roughly an additional 2cm. What was the thinking at the time that =
> resulted in the shorter top tubes? =20
> Dan Tedford
> SF, CA =20
>
> Harvey Sachs wrote:
> what fascinates me is that this is another large frame with greatly=20
> undersquare design. My Cinelli SC is 64 cm (c to top) x 57 cm top=20
> tube. From this I'm beginning to believe that these designers, back =
> then,=20
> (still?) thought that the thin-air breathers were all leg and no=20
> torso. Are most "oversize" frames that undersquare?

>

> harvey sachs

> mcLean Va