View Single Post
Old 11-27-07, 12:05 PM
  #13  
e0richt
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Hammonton, NJ
Posts: 1,050

Bikes: Dawes Lightning sport, Trek 1220, Trek 7100

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Liked 15 Times in 8 Posts
Originally Posted by hhabca
I was given an old frame which I'm thinking of building up into a commuter/touring bike. It's an older Bianchi, Asian made frame I suspect, manganese steel frame, 26.8 seat post - ie. nothing too special but it has braze ons for cables and DT shifters, and front and rear racks, and a RD hanger, so definately not a bottom end frame. BUT, it's a tall bike with a 62cm seat tube but a pretty short 58 cm top tube. That TT length is exactly what I normally ride, and with a 100mm stem I get my perfect bar-to-seatpost distance and a very comfy bar height 1" below the seat height.

I think it was originally a 27" wheeled bike, but with 700c wheels and 25mm tires standover is a tad under 34", so I can just clear it with regular shoes on but with my heals lifted a bit.

So the question is - does it matter that I don't have 1" of crotch clearance? Is there a safety reason I'm not thinking of for having more room there? Injury in a crash?


BTW: I've always figured the racer's 'rule' of getting the smallest frame possible (which puts me huntched over on top of a 56) is more for getting a short wheelbase, lighter frame and plenty of top tube clearance for thrashing about in sprints.
to a certain extent, nope. I have a bike that my LBS told me was too big for me. I can stand over it but not with a 1'' gap... its the most comfortable bike that I have owned... (its a trek 1220 that I bought used...).

It reminds me of when I was a kid. I road a dept store bike which tended to be a bit big for me...
e0richt is offline