Steve Barner says:
>Interestingly (at least for we short folks), that kind of geometry appears
>on other touring-oriented bikes of the '70s.
(Steve's talking about those top tubes that stretch on to infinity here...)
> Raleigh Internationals are
>almost identical. Sure, I can put a real short stem on it but,
>aesthetically, this leaves something to be desired. It also puts the rider
>way back behind the front wheel. The weight distribution can be totally
>different between a taller and shorter rider, which may be the reason why
>shorter riders typically don't come back with as many shimmy complaints as
>taller riders. If that's the reason, why not stretch out the larger frames,
>too?
I'm gathering steam....
>So, what's the reason for this? Toe clip clearance? If so, it doesn't help
>once the fenders are on. Weight distribution? Shorter racing frames handle
>just fine; better, in fact. Shock absorption on smaller freames? Tube
>inventory? Maybe Brian can shed some light on this.
My Waterford is correct for me, long seat tube, short top tube. Mark from Waterford warned me about the toe clip overlap, and boy, I have it in spades. I really only notice it though when messing around, maybe out of the saddle turning sharply at low speed in a parking lot. I've never had it be an issue when actually riding though. Bike handles right though, really comfy, and my seat and bars are nice and on the same plane.
With stock bikes what I end up doing is riding a 50 cm and jacking the seat way up, and then hassling with the handlebar height. If its not all together too vintage, a Nitto Technomic stem is a possible solution to bring up the bar, but too much stem sticking up, and the bike handles funny. This is something I've struggled with for years.
I'd always assumed that the toe clip overlap issue was the reason - make a bike with steep angles and a short top tube and not only will it be twitchy, but you will be in danger of stuffing your toe in the spokes.
I don't think that is it entirely though.
We use the fit kit system at work and I've noticed an interesting trend about body proportion between men and women and bikes over the last couple of years. Most men under 5' 8" have really long torsos and arms, and this gets more exaggerated as they get shorter. Most women are more equally proportioned between legs and upper body/arms, no matter how petite. Most bikes are sold to men.
Now, the more recreational the bike is, or specifically orientated towards touring, the more relaxed the geometry gets, the longer the chain stays, the longer the wheelbase. More stable, but longer.
Even though I love the Raleighs out there - measure those top tubes!
Pete Kohler says:
>Raleighs had lots of small frames. Tiny ones. Pre-war, most of their club
>and lightweights were 20 or 21"-- that was IT. Post-war, the Clubman only
>came in 22". 23.5" was about the biggest even for the RRA other than special
>order. So I guess what we're saying it that small English bikes are hard to
>find outside of England. Perhaps true... although all the really nice bikes
>I seem to find on eBay or through the V-CC are too small.
Pete! Come to Atlanta and let me fit you <g>. A 22" frame is about a 56 cm center to top seat tube wise, or a hair less than 54 center to center, which is pretty much average. I'd love to know how long the top tube is center to center on one of those old Raleighs. The Lenton I have with the seat tube crack in it, was 53.5 center to top (21 inch) but it had a 56 cm top tube... Owww.
Now the Italians built bikes that I can ride!
Ann Phillips, Decatur GA if its too cold to ride, then you have lots of time to talk about it!