View Single Post
Old 02-18-20, 05:18 PM
  #497  
RobbieTunes
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 27,297
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 378 Post(s)
Liked 1,368 Times in 882 Posts
Originally Posted by abshipp View Post
Quick question here about geometry.

I've perused the thread a bit but there's a lot to go through, so can anyone confirm or correct this summary about seat tube angles?

1986-1988 74.5 STA
1989 73 STA

STA is a big factor in whether a bike will fit me or not.

Thanks!
I don't think the difference was that much from '88 to '89.
Perhaps in 1985, when there was more clearance, it was the shallower number.
There is anecdotal evidence (and I believe) that the 1989 was a quicker handler. It might have just been gas.
Centurion told the bike magazines it tweaked the '89 the geometry, but never provided accurate and up to date numbers.
My educated guess would be that the 1985 was the smoothest and most stable, hence the shallowest.
It seems like the '86 was a bit quicker, and I can't really say if the '87 and '88 followed this trend or were the same.
It seems like the black '89's were a bit twitchy, but I didn't feel this way about my '89 fade. Probably in my head.
I'm sure the numbers are out there, but whether the entire lineup conforms to some static numbers, I simply don't know.
They all ride the same to me from '86 on: like an Italian for 1/5 the price.
RobbieTunes is offline