RE: [CR]Frame size/standards

(Example: Production Builders:Teledyne)

From: "Tom Martin" <fatcogtom@comcast.net>
To: "'Robert Schenker'" <ris@schenkerdesign.com>, <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
References: <e3b086382dc944f7ef63bde85042512a@schenkerdesign.com>
Subject: RE: [CR]Frame size/standards
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 12:55:51 -0800
In-Reply-To:
Thread-Index: AcdNT7ZQeJBj9s91S5eRoGG0i5maUgABSVLg


C to C is a good approximation for sizing when you are talking to customers, non bike geek versions. It's quick and easy, something marketing types want and need. C to T is used more at the manufacturing level to determine how tall the seat tube can get. Something engineers want and need. TIG welding frames seem to make this a debatable issue, more than oversize tubing. A lug most always has the same dimensions from the centerpoint of where the top tube plugs in to the top. So everyone knew at 56cm frame would be the same from one framebuilder to another more or less. But the top of where? Where the post fits into? The back of the lug, where the binder is? The top of the point of the lug in front?

Tom martin Oakland ca Rainy oakland ca

-----Original Message----- From: Robert Schenker [mailto:ris@schenkerdesign.com] Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2007 11:22 AM To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org Subject: re: [CR]Frame size/standards

The advantage of using c-c is that it is neutral with regards to odd tubing diameters, unusual seat cluster designs, and so forth. There are advantages to using both approaches. Measuring to the top of the seat tube gives you an idea of the real lowest saddle height, where using c-c gives you consistency between different frame designs. Of course, now that level top tubes are becoming a rarity, the whole concept is more or less moot.

Bob Schenker Oakland, CA


> Here's a question that relates to framebuilding and history of the
> craft so I will beg forgiveness to cross-post to Framebuilders and CR
> list.
>
> Does anyone have any insight about using c-c vs c-t dimensions for
> seat tubes lengths when describing a frame size. It seems that most
> Italian builders used c-t dimensions. Was there a reason for this vs
> c-c dimensions?
> Did it have to do with the build process itself in some way? Did these
> methods of measure change over time for any reason. Are there any
> build traditions where the top tube is not measured c-c as is the norm
now?

>

> Roman Stankus

> Atlanta, Georgia

> USA