Cycling and bicycle discussion forums. 
   Click here to join our community Log in to access your Control Panel  

Go Back   > >

Framebuilders Thinking about a custom frame? Lugged vs Fillet Brazed. Different Frame materials? Newvex or Pacenti Lugs? why get a custom Road, Mountain, or Track Frame? Got a question about framebuilding? Lets discuss framebuilding at it's finest.

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-19-12, 01:57 PM   #1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Toronto, Canada
Bikes: Merckx titanium with Chorus, Columbus Cyclops Campy Victory, 531 Harry Quinn 1st gen DA, SLX Fuso 8-spd DA, Airfriday. Colnago Gilco with Campy mix, Claude Pottie 753 w. 8S Record, Claude Pottie Columbus with 105, Basso with DA 7402, Masi Team 3v wit
Posts: 599
Changing ST-to-TT ratio question.

nuther question...
As I look at my list of some two dozen frames (don't ask why I have two dozen+ frames), I notice that ST to TT ratio seems to increase as the ST size increases.

So, a 50cm ST frame typically has a TT greater than its ST (TT = 52, even 54cm),

then when I get to the middle of the pack (ST=56 or 57) the TT matches (I think this is called "Square"? as in "a 56square is a 56STx56TT) then in the bigger frame sizes the TT drops down smaller than the ST (so a 62cm ST frame has a 59 or 60cm TT)

This can't be based on body dimensions.
Is there some constraint in framebuilding that makes this change in ST:TT ration change so?
pstock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-12, 03:52 PM   #2
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Happy Valley, Pennsylvania
Posts: 14,482
actually, it is based on body dimensions for the most part. If you take a large number of humans and sit them at a table, you will see much less variation in height than you do in standing height.
unterhausen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-12, 09:17 PM   #3
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,339
I'm not sure I buy that. Obviously seated people are half the height, so half the variance, but that assumes the upper body range difference is the same as the bottom.

I had three reasons, but they were just guesses, I'm not convinced. One is based on the idea there is a cycling type who in performance male version has long legs and smaller upper body, lots of power to push, but no more upper body weight than necesarry. Two, the idea is that the tubes are fixed length so they run out of materials in the longer sizes and there are constraints, but since tubes are available in a variety sizes, seems unlikely. 3, is the idea that there are certain markers that buyers are looking for like a wheel base length or frame weight, and the longer sizes get squeezed. If a big guy can get onto the shorter top tube length, maybe he wants the more nimble wheel base.
MassiveD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-12, 12:19 PM   #4
Decrepit Member
Scooper's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: San Francisco California
Bikes: Waterford 953 RS-22
Posts: 10,089
There's a good explanation of this phenomenon in the C.O.N.I. Manual, Part II, Chapter 5, "Modalities for constructing a frame to measure."

Note that in Table 1 on page 129, the seat tube length for lower limb (a) of 89mm should be 56.7mm, not 65.7mm (the 5 and 6 are transposed).

The whole manual can be downloaded from HERE.
- Stan
I'm with her.

Last edited by Scooper; 04-20-12 at 12:27 PM. Reason: added link for C.O.N.I. Manual download
Scooper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-12, 02:55 PM   #5
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Happy Valley, Pennsylvania
Posts: 14,482
I love that book, I need to go back and read it again. I was once accused of sleeping with it under my pillow
unterhausen is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:05 AM.