> I would describe many British lightweights of the > 1930s not as having frames with extremely long top > tubes, but as having frames with short seat tubes. > Contemporary photo evidence from catalogues and > touring photos, such as appears in the journals > of the Veteran-Cycle Club, confirms this, for here > we see significantly more seatpin showing than > on bikes of the 1940s-1960s, whereas stem lengths > appear to be about the same when similar handlebars > are used, and the riders depicted are not unusually > stretched out. Chris, You are 100% correct in this regard, and it is a situation that is well known to any modern day short person who has tried to buy British frame from that period. So to put this in the context of that period, with a racer who wasn't too tall... what sort of frame would a British frame builder have put together for the father of someone like Luison Bobet or Charly Gaul? Anyway, back to modern times: every "serious" bike I've owned had at last some overlap, be it a British, French, Italian or American. I think Jan Heine's letter said it all. I.e. if the front center measurement is less than 600mm for someone with size 43 shoes, you get overlap. In my case, the shoe size is 1cm shorter, so the length where overlap become a consideration is 590mm. That's with 170mm cranks. I suppose that other people can extrapolate and approximate from all that if they wish. Such is life... Fred Rednor - Arlington, Virginia (USA)
__________________________________________
Yahoo! DSL Something to write home about.
Just $16.99/mo. or less.
dsl.yahoo.com