This all sounds pretty subjective. While the dimensions given by Michael sound wonderful, they seem pretty darn close to current Rivendell production models. The mind is a powerful thing. Are we in awe simply because it's a Masi? I wonder in a blindfolded test if we'd still pick an early Masi over any number of bikes you could name, past or present? Do those who like racy type geometry like the way these older Masi's ride?
Also, I seem to recall a recent post from I believe Brian Baylis, where he stated that he dearly loves his old Masi(s) for obvious reasons, yet when it comes to the "ride", he'd much rather grab his Colnago or Flying Scot?
cheers, Rod (ridden plenty, but never the pleasure of an old Masi) Kroneneberg Fort Collins, CO
>
>
> "Now to really add some spice here, I'd point out that with the low
> bottom
> bracket and all that was attributed to the early Masi bikes they were
> more
> Richard Sachs like. Just not as good riding. I love 'em both, but I do
> often feel that we Masi owners do tend to over rate them." wrote Tom
> Sanders.
>
>
> Tom,
>
> I don't know about the early Masi's you've ridden, Tom, but they're
> certainly not like a Richard Sachs frames. My 1962 (63?) Masi Special
> that I got from Faliero rides like a modern Ti frame. The bike is 56 x
> 56 with 72 parallel angles and a long rake. Put on some silk tubies and
> it's like air shocks. The frame has a 44.5 cm chainstay and a wheel
> base of 105 cm. Richard makes a beautiful frame but those are not his
> dimensions. No, the early Masis are not over rated.
>
> Michael Allison
> New York, NY