Re: [CR]Frame size/standards

(Example: Production Builders:Pogliaghi)

Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 10:19:54 -0800 (PST)
From: "Fred Rafael Rednor" <fred_rednor@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [CR]Frame size/standards
To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
In-Reply-To: <E1HFhB2-0003ag-6P@elasmtp-curtail.atl.sa.earthlink.net>


Roman,
     In the days when top tubes were all about 1 inch in diameter, it was easy to convert between center-to-center and center-to-top specifications. So it was not an issue, as long as you knew what method was used by a particular builder. Once you're in a situation in which different top tube diameters might be used for various bicycles, the c-to-c dimension really looses its meaning.
    So my impression is that c-to-c was more common in the past - but in any event, local custom dictated which method to use.
      Best regards,
      Fred Rednor - Arlignton, Virginia (USA)


--- Roman Stankus wrote:


>
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>

____________________________________________________________________________________ Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check. Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta. http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/newmail_tools.html