OK, let's state some accepted practices:
Generally speaking, for traditional road bikes: - below 10 1/2" is in the "low" range.. - 10 1/2" -10 3/4 " is moderately normal - above 10 3/4" is high...
'Course all things are relative. Obviously tire size can change things Dale Brown Greensboro, North Carolina USA
-----Original Message----- From: chuckschmidt@earthlink.net To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org Sent: Sun, 31 Dec 2006 12:18 PM Subject: Re: [CR]Was: Woodrup frames. Now: BB height, etc.
A fascinating aspect to this whole discussion of high and low BB height is that there hasn't been a single dimension mentioned as to what would be considered a high or low BB.
Hilarious...
Chuck Schmidt South Pasadena, CA
On Dec 31, 2006, at 6:41 AM, oroboyz@aol.com wrote:
> Hey Ken:
>
> I can't help but wonder about a couple of things you wrote here:
>
> << Mine (1980, pre-TSD) also has a high BB, the drop is about 6.4 > cm. Compares
>
> to about a cm more for my Trek and others. I think this > contributes to the
>
> Woodrup's sense of stability. >>
>
>
>
> "In Theory" the lower the BB, the more stable and of course the > opposite for
>
> higher BBs.
>
>
>
> In fact, if I remember correctly, that is one of Richard Sach's unique
>
> characteristics in his frames... He has used quite a bit lower bb > height
>
> and while you may not be able to pedal through the curves quite as > much,
>
> that is a well considered trade-off that results in a more secure > control
>
> (stability)while cornering.
>
>
>
> I think that much of the sought after stability and steering > accuracy is part
>
> of accurate frame alignment and dishined wheels... So many frames, > of all quality
>
> levels, are not straight.. Just a 1/2 CM in misalignment can make a > huge
>
> difference and we tend to blame other factors (frame angles, > dimensions)
>
> when in fact, if the frame were carefully aligned, would make the > bikes
>
> ride ever so much better....
>
>
>
> << My theory is that both of my frames are small frames, and > subject to
>
> compromises inherent in minimizing toe overlap and gettign adequate > front
>
> tire to downtube clearance, without extremely long top tubes. One > design
>
> feature to address this is to raise the BB, and another is to lay > back the
>
> head tube to perhaps 72 degrees. >>
>
>
>
> In my (limited) experience, the reason many builders/manufacturers > make
>
> a higher BB in smaller frame is to solve the problem/save a lot of > work
>
> in joinery at the compacted head tube /head lugs area...
>
> By raising the BB, that allows raising the upper head lug, > allowing quick and unmodified use of the
> stock lugs. I.e., no cutting or fitting, etc. Another solution to > this was a one-piece head lug
> that allowed the top tube & down tube to intersect...
>
> On road bikes of any size, I don't think
> the clearance of the down tube vs tire is much concern...
>
> 'Course I could be wrong. It is fun the theorize about all this > mysterious stuff!
>
> Happy New Year!
>
> Dale
>
>
> Dale Brown
> Greensboro, NC USA
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: freesound@comcast.net
> To: jerrymoos@sbcglobal.net; hydelake@verizon.net; > Classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
> Sent: Sat, 30 Dec 2006 7:43 PM
> Subject: RE: [CR] WOODRUP frames
>
> Jerry,
>
> Mine (1980, pre-TSD) also has a high BB, the drop is about 6.4 cm. > Compares
> to about a cm more for my Trek and others. I think this > contributes to the
> Woodrup's sense of stability. The SOH on mine is 77.6 cm, seat > tube is 53.5
> c-t, 52 cm c-c.
>
> My '84 or so Mondonico (sure looks on-topic, but I can't be sure!) > has a BB
> drop of 7.2, 52 cm c-c seat tube, and 78.3 cm SOH. Both bikes seem > to have
> high BBs, so I don't think national style is necessarily being > illustrated
> here. My theory is that both of my frames are small frames, and > subject to
> compromises inherent in minimizing toe overlap and gettign adequate > front
> tire to downtube clearance, without extremely long top tubes. One > design
> feature to address this is to raise the BB, and another is to lay > back the
> head tube to perhaps 72 degrees. My Woodrup and Mondonico > respectively have
> head tube angles of 72.0 degrees and 72.4 degrees (I have less > confidence in
> this latter number).
>
> Both bikes are sort of a French fit for me.
>
> Ken Freeman
> Ann Arbor, MI USA
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: classicrendezvous-bounces@bikelist.org
> [mailto:classicrendezvous-bounces@bikelist.org] On Behalf Of Jerome &
> Elizabeth Moos
> Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2006 11:56 AM
> To: Barb & Dan Artley; Classic Rendezvous
> Subject: RE: [CR] WOODRUP frames
>
> I have an early/mid 80's Woodrup. Nice bike, but does have a very > high
> bottom bracket. Haven't measured the actual BB height, but the > standover
> height is what I'd expect on a bike with a seat tube about 2 cm > longer. No
> one else has mentioned this, but were high BB's typical of > Woodrup? On the
> other hand I also have a 52 cm ctc 1988 Mercian KOM with a > standover height
> about the same as a 55 cm French of Italian frame, so maybe the > high BB's
> were a British thing in the 80's.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jerry Moos
> Big Spring, TX
>
>
>
> Barb & Dan Artley <hydelake@verizon.net> wrote:
> I can't say how pleased I am hearing so much of Woodrup Cycles. A > Woodrup
> was my first really nice race bike replacing what I considered more > of a
> tourer, my PX-10 (Sorry Peter K.). It was unfortunately crashed, badly
> repaired and sold, but recently repurchased. I'm hoping that > someday it will
> get the restoration it deserves for the fond memories of my only > race season
> back in 1973. Thanks to all who've provided this information. Does > anyone
> know if they are still building keepers of the flame in lugged > steel? ...
> More?
>
> Dan Artley in Parkton, Maryland
>
> Archive-URL:
> http://search.bikelist.org/
_______________________________________________
Classicrendezvous mailing list
Classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
http://www.bikelist.org/