View Single Post
Old 02-21-09, 10:53 AM
  #9  
Road Fan
Senior Member
 
Road Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 16,853

Bikes: 1980 Masi, 1984 Mondonico, 1984 Trek 610, 1980 Woodrup Giro, 2005 Mondonico Futura Leggera ELOS, 1967 PX10E, 1971 Peugeot UO-8

Mentioned: 49 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1851 Post(s)
Liked 654 Times in 498 Posts
If 48 mm is the actual BB drop, and I think Scooper's method can be done accurately, then it is real high. But that's a common issue with small frames. If you have a short small (48 cm remember) frame, as the TT is made shorter the front wheel moves closer to the BB. If the head tube anlgle is not changed, the tire to downtube clearance can get too small for fenders. One part of mitigating this is to raise the BB and hence move the downtube. Another aspect of course is to lay back the head tube, and decrease rake to restore desired trail.

It's hard to directly compare small frames (<51 or 52 c-c, I think) to more standard sizes, like 56 cm. Unfortunately, Trek did not publish their geometry for all frame sizes. The usually only talked about the 22.5 inch, 56 cm sizes.

My 52 cm Woodrup, built originally for 27 inch wheels and fenders, has a 6.5 mm BB drop. It always feels a little teetery to ride.

Road Fan
Road Fan is offline