In a message dated 10/22/03 11:09:05 AM Pacific Daylight Time, airart4@juno.com writes:
> Thanks for the information. What was it like to ride - I assume pretty
> quick turning? Was the quality of workmanship good? He said that there
> were no decals and no marks on the BB shell. I will tell him what you
> said and if I end up buying I will come back to you and buy those decals
> if you want to sell!
>
Hi Mike,
Mine was 73 parallel, (angles I don't like for my size frame). The frames
have a couple of problems, mostly they are too short on the back. It was very bad
for me, (tall guy with size 44-45 feet) in that my heel actually hit the rear
derailleur while pedaling. The bike was too short in the back and too long in
front, it wanted to wheelie while climbing. I put a 14 cm stem on it to add
weight to the front, it helped, but didn't solve, the problem. It would have
been a lot better with a 74 or 75 degree head angle, but they probably would
have used too much fork rake for good handling.
Build quality? Paint was terrible and the poor tubing was probably grossly
overheated, in any event, there were the usual French signs of flux and crap all
over it. (Renee Herse and Singer don't count as usual French quality!) Also,
the braze on for the front derailleur was not close to the right angle for the
impossible to replace front derailleur. If I could do it all over again, I
would have ordered the track frame instead of the road frame, I might still have
that.
If you are at all thinking of a road frame, sit on it and use scales to check
the weight distribution...if it's 80/20, run screaming. In my opinion, these
super short wheelbase bikes are novelties, not riders. I know people like
them, but I feel the same way about curved tube Jack Taylors. Under 16" chainstays
are really questionable.
Stevan Thomas
Alameda, CA