>
> Fred Rednor wrote (snipped):
> > C-t-C tells you nothing
> > about the true frame size, unless you're also supplied
> > with the diameter of the top tube [...]
>
> Uh, no disrespect intended, but I believe your argument is
> circular. We
> are trying to define what the "true framesize" is, and many
> believe that
> is the C-T. To those folks, the true framesize is the C-T,
> and the tube
> diameter is quite irrelevant.
>
> I'm pretty ambivalent about this argument because I think it
> is so
> unimportant, but I have always used C-T and see no reason to
> change.
> C-T tells you two things directly that C-C tells you only
> indirectly or
> not at all: How long a seat tube is needed to build the
> frame, and how
> long a seatpost will be needed given the rider's saddle
> height. All the
> points in favor of C_C seem pretty theoretical to me - I
> haven't seen a
> real practical advantage to it.
>
> Mark Bulgier
> Seattle WA USA
"To those folks, the true framesize is the C-T, and the tube diameter is quite irrelevant." Mark, I think if you read my orginal message again, you'll see that this quote from your message is exactly what I was pointing out. Plus, the entire thrust of your message seems to agree with my point. Perhaps you have misread my abbreviation for center-to-center? I wrote "c-t-c" to indicate "center to center." By implication, "center-to-top" would be "c-t-t." Perhaps your abbreviations "C-T" and C-C" are clearer to you, but I don't see any disagreement in our arguments. Best regards, Fred Rednor - Arlngton, Virginia (USA)
____________________________________________________________________________________
Need Mail bonding?
Go to the Yahoo! Mail Q&A for great tips from Yahoo! Answers users.
http://answers.yahoo.com/