On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 7:03 PM, Norris Lockley <nlockley73@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> Looking at this particular Braxton bike - the first I have ever seen, it
> provoked the same response in me as it had done in Owen Wrigleey....'It
> can't really only be a 21" - not with such a long head-tube' However
> reading
> on I noted that the top tube is only 19.5" which, of course gives rise to a
> longer head-tube than normal for a frame of its height..
>
> To obtain such a short top-tube and to create a bike that handles well,
> avoids front end overlap etc the builder does not have too many tricks at
> his disposal - he can shallow the head angle or raise the seat angle...or
> do
> both, which is what Sam Braxton did with this frame.
>
> What I wonder about is whether it was Sam's belief in the advantages of the
> shallow head angle, as implied by Kevin's comments about his Braxton frame
> that led to the top-tube being short, or whether the need by the rider -
> possibly due to having a short upper body -to have a short top-tube
> dictated
> the need to shallow off the head angle.
>
Hi Norris, I'm sure Derek can answer this much better than I can, since he worked for Sam for many years, but I can certainly chime in about my particular bike. My bike is also a 21.5" frame but has a 56.5cm (22.25") top tube. My bike, with slack seat tube angle, low bb height, and long top tube, looks much smaller than it actually is. When I first saw it, I assumed it would be much too small for me, but it actually fits quite well.
While I think that Sam did have a preference for rather slack head tube angles, (he did specialize in touring bikes after all), I'm guessing that the rider dictated the short top tube we see on this particular frame.
John
--
John Wood
Open Road Bicycles
Missoula, Montana, USA