Advertise on Bikeforums.net



User Tag List

Results 1 to 5 of 5
  1. #1
    B17
    B17 is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    282
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Why so hard to find a low-price shorter TT steel CX frame?

    Seems like that Bikes Direct guy was talking last year about a steel frame, but the only one I've seen with the Motobecane label was a SS. The Double Cross and the Pake C'mute are a bit long in the top tube for me, and the Cross-Check's chainstays are a bit long to look good to me. When I go to eBay, I can find a dozen AL frames under $250, but few steel ones.

    Why can't someone offer a cheap frame with enough clearance for CX (but not so much that it looks like a touring bike) in a size where the top tube and seat tube are the same (virtual) length?

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    2,005
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Beggars can't be choosers.

  3. #3
    antisocialite dirtyphotons's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    3,385
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    because people with short torsoes can ride long frames by getting a smaller size, jacking up the seatpost and using a riser stem.

    people with short legs can't or won't ride a square frame because they can't stand over the bike.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sheldon Brown
    Because when fashion conflicts with function, I vote for function.

  4. #4
    B17
    B17 is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    282
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by dirtyphotons View Post
    because people with short torsoes can ride long frames by getting a smaller size, jacking up the seatpost and using a riser stem.

    people with short legs can't or won't ride a square frame because they can't stand over the bike.
    I understand the issue of fit, but when you have tons of seatpost and quill (or tube spacers) showing, it's ugly. Besides, I'm not talking for a frame for someone with "a short torso"- I'm looking for a frame that doesn't have an abnormally long top tube. Virtual 55x55, whether sloping or not.

  5. #5
    Padovano Mike552's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    696
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I understand what you're saying and can certainly relate.
    What I ended up doing was picking up a Jamis Aurora frame. It's made of TIG welded Reynolds 520 (typical 4130). The geometry is what you are looking for. I ended up replacing the front fork with a straight blade fork to make the handling a little more snappier, although the standard geometry of the Aurora is already considered to be pretty aggressive for a touring bike. My only qualm with Jamis is that I found them to have the crappiest customer service. It took weeks for them to get back to me with the simplest of inquiries, and the emails were not helpful whatsoever, and at times, unnecessarily vulgar. As far as the bike itself, it looks to serve its purpose pretty well, however, I wish there was a tad more tire clearance. The maximum tire size I can squeze in is 700x38 with no fenders. I wish I could mount 700x45's. I understand the Surly Crosschecks are capable of this. Also, there are only cable stops (for STI shifters) on the down tube. I wish I had the option of mounting DT shifters as an option. Again, something that is possible on the Surlys.
    *1987 Panasonic DX-5000/STI-9 *1983 Univega Gran Premio/STI-9 *1991 Bridgestone MB-2/Suntour XC Pro

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •