Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Bicycle Mechanics
Reload this Page >

Total noob - worth building out?

Notices
Bicycle Mechanics Broken bottom bracket? Tacoed wheel? If you're having problems with your bicycle, or just need help fixing a flat, drop in here for the latest on bicycle mechanics & bicycle maintenance.

Total noob - worth building out?

Old 02-21-24, 02:19 PM
  #1  
Junior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2023
Location: Maryland
Posts: 162

Bikes: Pedego Stretch 2016 (electric cargo bike for around town and grocery shopping, Small surly Ogre (2015), Bianchi Advantage (46cm) 1993, Bike Friday NWT, 2005

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 125 Post(s)
Liked 44 Times in 24 Posts
Total noob - worth building out?

I would love to have a bike that I can travel with. I've been toying with building a bike, but I don't know jack about it. I would be be more comfortable having someone build a bike for me or at least within a coop where we learn from building it (I know there is something like that near where I live). So, occasionally, I look around for a bike frame that is the right size and I found this.

The manufacturer is unknown. The people selling it are a nonprofit site that tries to get bikes back on the street, so they have done a good look over with the frame. But would I know if this would be a good frame to do a touring bike for someone who is 5'6" (short torso, long legs) and I like to sit comfortable (not stretched out) ton the bike. Bikes I currently own is a 1992 Bianchi advantage in 46 inch frame. I've maxed out the ability to make it taller, but as it is, it feels fit GREAT - even according to a bike fit, it's good fit. I have a Surly Ogre size small and I feel a bit stretched out on it, but it's OK (and it's zippy and fun to ride).

The details: I would love to have a bike that I can travel with. I've been toying with building a bike, but I don't know jack about it. I would be be more comfortable having someone build a bike for me or at least within a coop where we learn from building it (I know there is something like that near where I live). So, occasionally, I look around for a bike frame that is the right size and I found this.

The manufacturer is unknown. The people selling it are a nonprofit site that tries to get bikes back on the street, so they have done a good look over with the frame. But would I know if this would be a good frame to do a touring bike for someone who is 5'6" (short torso, long legs) and I like to sit comfortable (not stretched out) ton the bike. Bikes I currently own is a 1992 Bianchi advantage in 46 inch frame. I've maxed out the ability to make it taller, but as it is, it feels fit GREAT - even according to a bike fit, it's good fit. I have a Surly Ogre size small and I feel a bit stretched out on it, but it's OK (and it's zippy and fun to ride).

The bike fit said I should ride a 52cm, but I felt really stretched out like that and I just think I would feel more comfortable on a 50cm.

Anyway, this bike has all these deets. How do I know if I could build it out to what I need/want? Like I want as MANY gears as possible with true granny gears, rim brakes is fine by me. It's not about speed for me EVER. I'm 54 years old female and I want to ride my bike mainly on crushed limestone. I want to feel safe and stable and be able to ride all day if need be.

I don't want to buy this to have it built up only to find I can't build it to the way I want. Can anyone who has WAY more know-how than me tell me if this is garbage or something to consider? Yes, I know by posting this, someone might nab it, but it is what it is.

The details:

Unknown Steel Touring Frame W/ S&S Couplers 50cm 26in Rim Brake Frame Set Green


This is a beautiful touring frame. There are some dents in the frame (see photos). There are some minor scuffs and scratches (see photos). All threads on this frame function great. The couplers function properly and only have some minor dings in the coupler tool interface. The lower part of the head tube has some paint chipping (see photos). The included wheel stabilizer functions properly and has lots of life left. This frameset has many more miles to ride.

**If you have any information about this frames origins, please send us a message, we'd love to hear from you.**

Specs:
50.5cm (center of bottom bracket- top of seat tube)
52.5cm (center of head tube- center of seat tube)
68mm BSA threaded bb shell
100/135mm drop out spacing
1in threaded steerer
173mm head tube length
27.2 seat tube diameter
mams99 is offline  
Old 02-21-24, 03:02 PM
  #2  
Senior Member
 
Andrew R Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 18,053

Bikes: Stewart S&S coupled sport tourer, Stewart Sunday light, Stewart Commuting, Stewart Touring, Co Motion Tandem, Stewart 3-Spd, Stewart Track, Fuji Finest, Mongoose Tomac ATB, GT Bravado ATB, JCP Folder, Stewart 650B ATB

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4194 Post(s)
Liked 3,837 Times in 2,295 Posts
Interesting frame and fork. I know of few brands who emulate the Bruce Gordon like seat binder/top of stays treatment. Really long head tube for the size, Is this frame for 26/559 wheels? Sort of touring like but only single eyelets. Note the wiring stop on the down tube, perhaps Japanese? The paint looks to be freshly done and with no decals I wonder about its past and if a previous owner is still on the lookout for it.

Do try to separate the size (as in seat tube) with that of the reach to the handlebars as you learn how to converse about fit and design. I can make a tall size have a very short reach and visa versa. What is more challenging is a small sized bike with a short top tube length (which with seat set back, stem extension and angle and bar shape' dimension makes up the reach to the bars) and maintain toe clip clearance. This is why some brands go to smaller wheel diameters for their smaller sized bikes.

I suspect without building up this frame and fork you will never be sure as to how it feels when riding. Andy
__________________
AndrewRStewart
Andrew R Stewart is offline  
Likes For Andrew R Stewart:
Old 02-21-24, 03:55 PM
  #3  
Really Old Senior Member
 
Bill Kapaun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Mid Willamette Valley, Orygun
Posts: 13,856

Bikes: 87 RockHopper,2008 Specialized Globe. Both upgraded to 9 speeds. 2019 Giant Explore E+3

Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1786 Post(s)
Liked 1,259 Times in 868 Posts
Originally Posted by Andrew R Stewart
......Note the wiring stop on the down tube.....
Do you mean the wheel stabilizer?
Bill Kapaun is offline  
Old 02-21-24, 05:38 PM
  #4  
Senior Member
 
icemilkcoffee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,385
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1557 Post(s)
Liked 1,732 Times in 972 Posts
The specs are pretty universal. The 135mm dropout spacing is basically the universal MTB spacing for the longest time until thru axle took over. You wonít have a problem finding a set of used wheels for it. You will have no problem finding parts for this frame in general and you have lots of options as to which way to go, from 3x8 to 1x11, etc
icemilkcoffee is offline  
Old 02-26-24, 04:40 PM
  #5  
Senior Member
 
oldbobcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Boulder County, CO
Posts: 4,390

Bikes: '80 Masi Gran Criterium, '12 Trek Madone, early '60s Frejus track

Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 513 Post(s)
Liked 444 Times in 334 Posts
Originally Posted by mams99

Specs:
50.5cm (center of bottom bracket- top of seat tube)
52.5cm (center of head tube- center of seat tube)
68mm BSA threaded bb shell
100/135mm drop out spacing
1in threaded steerer
173mm head tube length
27.2 seat tube diameter
Modern bikes use virtualized sizing, which means the nominal size (or advertised size, or the size that it would ride like if it were built traditionally) corresponds to no actual dimension of the frame. Looking at this frame's actual dimensions, after studying hundreds of geometry charts, I'd estimate this bike to be a nominal 55 or 56, or a 54-55 if it's meant to use 650b or 26" wheels. That means it's too big for you. You could install the fork and put wheels on it and see. I would keep looking for a 50 or a 52 with a shortish top tube.

Last edited by oldbobcat; 02-26-24 at 04:45 PM.
oldbobcat is offline  
Old 02-27-24, 03:05 AM
  #6  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 1,543
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 689 Post(s)
Liked 388 Times in 309 Posts
You see a frame that may be capable of traveling, and you think that is a good idea, and it is. Just don't get fixated on that one frame. There are many, many options that may suit you better.

Usually, I think, you don't see a junk frame with torque couplers. But as to other qualities and fit, very hard to tell with regard to you. Frame fit is the most important, you won't be able to change that, unlike other parts.

Traveling: Before going this route, I suggest you go over to the folding bike subgroup here, read the stickies to get a general idea. Any of the folders will travel by car, bus, or train easily. They fold and unfold much more quickly and easily than that coupler frame, especially because the latter may involve more disassembly than just the frame. Multi-mode travel (or commutes) with frequent folding and unfolding, is easy. Traveling by air, many airlines now transport full-size bikes without an oversize charge, but you still pay normal checked bag fees. Some airlines, for a folding bike that fits within 62" max girth, you can check the bike for free, in a suitable transport bag or box. 16" wheel bikes like a Brompton can easily fit in that size. Some 20" wheel bikes can do so with some disassembly or breaking it up into 2 checked bags. A full size bike with 26" or 700c wheels? Not a chance. Notably, Bike Friday made their business in selling a 20" wheel bike that disassembles to pack into a suitcase, the latter of which turns into an enclosed bike trailer at your destination, however it's wide, so hard to ride with that on the edge of paved roads. Many tour with a Bike Friday with panniers, and just box the bike for transport.

You have huge options available in folders; My folder started life as a mid-low-end folder with 7 speeds, and I added a double crank for 14 speeds, front and rear racks (the rear rack holding the panniers well aft so plenty of heel clearance). Notably also, many folders fit a very wide range of heights and proportions (advertised as 4'8"-6'3"), and this is because the seat tube and handlebar stem are not parallel but diverge, so as both seat and handlebar go up, the "virtual top tube length" automatically increases, and you can fine-tune that with different stems and handlebars on some. I would explore all the possible options before investing heavily to build something up, that can get expensive.

Do you just want a bike to ride at your destination, or tour with panniers? Road biking, or off-road? What distance rides?

Here are shots of my 20" wheel folder on a trip:




Last edited by Duragrouch; 02-27-24 at 03:56 AM.
Duragrouch is online now  
Old 02-27-24, 06:14 AM
  #7  
Senior Member
 
Yan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,919
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1919 Post(s)
Liked 635 Times in 434 Posts
You better buy it quick because I'm going to buy it if you don't.
Yan is offline  
Old 02-27-24, 12:54 PM
  #8  
Junior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2023
Location: Maryland
Posts: 162

Bikes: Pedego Stretch 2016 (electric cargo bike for around town and grocery shopping, Small surly Ogre (2015), Bianchi Advantage (46cm) 1993, Bike Friday NWT, 2005

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 125 Post(s)
Liked 44 Times in 24 Posts
Originally Posted by oldbobcat
Modern bikes use virtualized sizing, which means the nominal size (or advertised size, or the size that it would ride like if it were built traditionally) corresponds to no actual dimension of the frame. Looking at this frame's actual dimensions, after studying hundreds of geometry charts, I'd estimate this bike to be a nominal 55 or 56, or a 54-55 if it's meant to use 650b or 26" wheels. That means it's too big for you. You could install the fork and put wheels on it and see. I would keep looking for a 50 or a 52 with a shortish top tube.

I kept looking at my two bikes (Surly Ogre and the Bianchi Advantage) and I hopped on them and decided the same thing. I HATE tall cross bars. Sloped ones are much preferred OR one that is lower is OK. The Bianchi I have is a 46" frame. They raised the handlebar as much as possible for a good fit. That bike FEELS good - this old hybrid bike that is 35 or so years old feels great. I feel confident getting on and off of it - not unstable. I get tempted by ride bikes being sold for a great price tthat has features I'm interested in, but I need to look for smaller bike. 52cm or maybe 50cm depending on the make.
mams99 is offline  
Old 02-27-24, 01:05 PM
  #9  
Senior Member
 
oldbobcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Boulder County, CO
Posts: 4,390

Bikes: '80 Masi Gran Criterium, '12 Trek Madone, early '60s Frejus track

Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 513 Post(s)
Liked 444 Times in 334 Posts
Originally Posted by mams99
I kept looking at my two bikes (Surly Ogre and the Bianchi Advantage) and I hopped on them and decided the same thing. I HATE tall cross bars.
Good choice. Unless you're looking at extremely long-and-low frames, or your arms are more proportional to your torso than your legs (noticeably short), your choices in the 50-52cm range aren't especially limited if you choose your handlebar and stem judiciously.
oldbobcat is offline  
Old 02-27-24, 11:46 PM
  #10  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 1,543
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 689 Post(s)
Liked 388 Times in 309 Posts
Originally Posted by mams99
I HATE tall cross bars. Sloped ones are much preferred OR one that is lower is OK.
To each their own. Your desires are perfectly in line with the trend in recent decades, you'll be able to easily find what you need. I have gotten spoiled by the stepover frame on my folder.

That said, for road race bikes, I'm a total retro-grouch, I want a level top tube, both for style, and shorter seatpost, which puts less bending moment on the top of the seat tube, where I have seen fatigue cracks happen with longer seatposts. A sloping top tube frame can easily double the seatpost extension, doubling the bending moment due to rider weight. EDIT: Unless the top tube is sloping, not to be lower at the seat, but a taller head tube, for more upright riding without a tall stem; That green coupler frame looks like that, because the head tube looks really long for that frame size.

Last edited by Duragrouch; 02-27-24 at 11:56 PM.
Duragrouch is online now  
Likes For Duragrouch:
Old 02-29-24, 06:53 AM
  #11  
Senior Member
 
SJX426's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Fredericksburg, Va
Posts: 9,579

Bikes: '65 Frejus TDF, '73 Bottecchia Giro d'Italia, '83 Colnago Superissimo, '84 Trek 610, '84 Trek 760, '88 Pinarello Veneto, '88 De Rosa Pro, '89 Pinarello Montello, '94 Burley Duet, 97 Specialized RockHopper, 2010 Langster, Tern Link D8

Mentioned: 73 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1607 Post(s)
Liked 2,213 Times in 1,103 Posts
@mams99 - I recommend you take @Duragrouch advice to heart. I am not a touring guy but have had two folders.
Since you feel uncomfortable to build a bike, the frame you offer has a downside besides coupling and uncoupling There are three cables that cross the joints needing to be addressed. A folding bike takes those into account. Once it is broken down, where are you going to put it? Typically they are put in a bike box for shipping/check baggage. Then what do you do with the box.
Bike Friday NWT is a folding touring bike that would be a good option among other folding bikes. I had one for a short period of time and found it to be easily adjusted and nearly full size like in the ride. No different from needing to adjust from riding a mountain bike and then a race geometry road bike. They are different in handling but are basically the same. The NWT fits in a suitcase and BF use to offer one with wheels to tow behind.
BF_Drive Side_Wide on Flickr
P1010821 on Flickr
__________________
Bikes don't stand alone. They are two tired.

Last edited by SJX426; 02-29-24 at 07:00 AM.
SJX426 is offline  
Old 02-29-24, 10:16 AM
  #12  
Junior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2023
Location: Maryland
Posts: 162

Bikes: Pedego Stretch 2016 (electric cargo bike for around town and grocery shopping, Small surly Ogre (2015), Bianchi Advantage (46cm) 1993, Bike Friday NWT, 2005

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 125 Post(s)
Liked 44 Times in 24 Posts
Originally Posted by SJX426
@mams99 - I recommend you take @Duragrouch advice to heart. I am not a touring guy but have had two folders.
Since you feel uncomfortable to build a bike, the frame you offer has a downside besides coupling and uncoupling There are three cables that cross the joints needing to be addressed. A folding bike takes those into account. Once it is broken down, where are you going to put it? Typically they are put in a bike box for shipping/check baggage. Then what do you do with the box.
Bike Friday NWT is a folding touring bike that would be a good option among other folding bikes. I had one for a short period of time and found it to be easily adjusted and nearly full size like in the ride. No different from needing to adjust from riding a mountain bike and then a race geometry road bike. They are different in handling but are basically the same. The NWT fits in a suitcase and BF use to offer one with wheels to tow behind.
BF_Drive Side_Wide on Flickr
P1010821 on Flickr

I actually have a NWT (Secondhand). I got it to be able to throw in the trunk or a train (figuratively), but since getting it, I've worried about the weight limit. I'm not a lightweight. I have a heavy, stocky frame/build AND I'm chubby. I fit within the weight limits (though in the last year I have gained 20 lbs with not being able to get out and exercise as much because of being a full-time caregiver to my MIL with dementia - mostly the mental toll that takes on me), so I'm even closer to the max weight. I weigh somewhere around 215. I was 205 when I bought it. Now... If I go touring, even light touring, I'm going to be over the 220 or 230 weight limit (I forget what it is precisely). I CANNOT afford a new Diamond Llama with a beefier build. I spent $600 on my NWT (but it still needs racks. I have the suitcase). My Surly Ogre used was also $600 with the racks.

Maybe I'm overly worrying about it because I DEFINITELY see photos of people maxing out the weight limit on these.
mams99 is offline  
Likes For mams99:
Old 02-29-24, 01:19 PM
  #13  
Junior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2023
Location: Maryland
Posts: 162

Bikes: Pedego Stretch 2016 (electric cargo bike for around town and grocery shopping, Small surly Ogre (2015), Bianchi Advantage (46cm) 1993, Bike Friday NWT, 2005

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 125 Post(s)
Liked 44 Times in 24 Posts
OK... I found another worth thinking about - this is helping me understand better. The 50cm for most of it is probably OK for me, but the handlebar height might be an issue. I'm not a fan of carbon, so would switching to a different for even make sense for an old bike?

AND... Are the tires too skinny for road? (as an overweight rider?)

First the info about the bike and then I have a photo (there are more I can share if needed).

This lugged steel MIYATA from the mid 80s has been modified with S and S couplings that allow disassembley to pack in a travel case as airline luggage. Save hundreds every trip. The steel fork was replaced with carbon fiber. The alloy 165mm cranks have 48-38-28 chainrings to provide low gears along with the 14-28 7 speed cassette. The alloy 40cm drop bars have Shimano indexed bar end shifters and junior brake levers which were installed for small hands. The 600 brakes and Deore derailleurs are Shimano. The original narrow 26 inch road wheels were replaced with Sachs mountain bike rims to make a wider tread out of a 26x1" tire. All in good working order with many signs of travel around the world.
It is light enough to carry up to your apartment.
The top tube is 50 cm, as is the seat tube. Crossbar is 29" from ground.
Good size for some one 4'9" to 5'2".
​​​​​​​
mams99 is offline  
Old 03-01-24, 01:11 AM
  #14  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 1,543
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 689 Post(s)
Liked 388 Times in 309 Posts
(#12 and #13 above):

It's good to be aware of weight limit, however the rider weight matters far more than the cargo weight; The rider weight, mid-frame, puts vertical bending stress on the frame, and torsional loads due to pedaling, depending on your weight and how hard you push. (My Cannondale racer, with 2" diameter downtube, is massively stiff under the worst pedaling loads. The ride quality is also terrible.) The rear rack loads, directly through the dropout attachments, primarily put load directly into the rear axle (bypassing 99% of the frame). Front rack loads, in the same way, go pretty directly into the front axle if the vertical load is taken at the dropouts, but more load on the fork itself if lowrider racks attached to fork mid-length. ***Notably, I doubt that carbon fork has rack points, and you DON'T want to clamp anything around a carbon fork blade.*** So you want good hubs and wheels that can take touring loads; Bike Friday, notably, typically come with good on both, I think originally 36 hole rims, perhaps fewer now.

That Miyata looks like a road-race bike, not touring, due to the short wheelbase (rear tire close to back of seat tube, much bigger gap on a touring frame), and I'm sure matching front fork geometry. (In fact it looks VERY close to "criterium" road racing geometry, designed for agility in a short city course, not as much straight-line stability.) A typical rear rack, centering panniers over the rear wheel (fore/aft), may have insufficient heel clearance when pedaling (especially with that short of a wheelbase on 26" wheels). (Much worse even on my 20" Dahon, requiring a rack that holds the panniers behind the rear axle.) I also don't see rack and fender braze-ons and eyelets. The short racer wheelbase also hurts in terms of foot toe overlap with the front wheel when turning, even more tricky with loads while climbing. One of the benefits of 20" wheels is there is tons of toe clearance when pedaling and turning or climbing. The wheels are also stronger. However it can be more difficult to find tough touring rims in 20", but they are available. I LOVE double socket/eyelet rims, tough as iron, but impossible to find in 20". The trend of late is just thicker aluminum at the spoke nipple area.

The big limit on 20"wheels is top speed, if you stay with a typical 20" rear hub with 11T high gear; With my 50/34 crank and 11-30 cassette, I have 21-85 gear inches, and this is the lower 2/3 of typical touring gearing, I can pedal fine down gentle grades but if you want racer gearing you'd need either a hub that can take a 10T or 9T on 20", or just larger wheels. You can also go faster on 20" with a huge front chainring, but then you have bigger gaps to the lower ring, non-standard parts, etc.

"Saving hundreds (of $$$) on every trip": Maybe. Used to be, absolutely. But many airlines now transport full-size bikes in boxes for no additional charge over regular checked luggage (no oversize charge), but you still have standard checked baggage fees (not peanuts but not huge). On Southwest airlines, they DO have BIG oversize fees, but standard checked luggage is FREE, so you would save big with them and a folder. But a full-size bike without couplings is nearly impossible to take a cab, etc. So a lot depends on how multi-mode your trips will be, and how often you need to fold down the bike. Fast and easy folding is a real plus, lemme tell ya.

I think your Bike Friday NWT with racks will do you great. However, I don't like BF's folding rear rack design, I had doubts just on looks of it (my engineer's eyeball), and others' experiences confirm my suspicions, it falls apart under touring loads. Get a solid rack designed for touring loads, that holds panniers far enough aft* for heel clearance, and just detach it and nest it around a wheel or the frame when packed. (To pack down a BF for checked luggage size, you will need to remove the wheels I think.)

All of the above can be done at zero risk; You buy a good rack for the BF, if that doesn't work out, you can still use that rack on a full-size tourer if you get. Start experimenting with that BF.

* rear rack: Like this one; panniers well aft, and held on a "lower tier", makes better space on top for trunk bag or big flat loads (however, you may need extra long rack stays to reach the low frame; look at my bike in my post):
https://www.amazon.com/Axiom-Journey-Uni-Fit-Cycle-Black/dp/B009VU3RAU/

Last edited by Duragrouch; 03-01-24 at 02:10 AM.
Duragrouch is online now  
Old 03-07-24, 05:24 PM
  #15  
Senior Member
 
rekmeyata's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: NE Indiana
Posts: 8,685

Bikes: 2020 Masi Giramondo 700c; 2013 Lynskey Peloton; 1992 Giant Rincon; 1989 Dawes needs parts; 1985 Trek 660; 1985 Fuji Club; 1984 Schwinn Voyager; 1984 Miyata 612; 1977 Raleigh Competition GS

Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1125 Post(s)
Liked 249 Times in 200 Posts
You say you're 5' 6", that frame you took a picture of looks like a 58 or 60cm frame, made for someone 6' 0" to 6' 5". Unless your inseam is 37 to 44 inches long, I can't see how that frame is going to fit you. Am I missing something here?
rekmeyata is offline  
Old 03-07-24, 05:32 PM
  #16  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 1,543
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 689 Post(s)
Liked 388 Times in 309 Posts
Originally Posted by rekmeyata
You say you're 5' 6", that frame you took a picture of looks like a 58 or 60cm frame, made for someone 6' 0" to 6' 5". Unless your inseam is 37 to 44 inches long, I can't see how that frame is going to fit you. Am I missing something here?
The head tube does look huge, I thought the same thing, but her posts indicated it's a smaller frame, so my guess is a upward sloping top tube for a high handlebar position. Some sloping top tubes are for shorter seat tube to save weight, and more top tube clearance, but some are for more upright position; I saw the latter on a recent Masi touring bike I saw for sale at the LBS last year, very well equipped right out of the box for touring. But I still feel she has better options than building out that frame.
Duragrouch is online now  
Old 03-08-24, 09:38 AM
  #17  
Senior Member
 
icemilkcoffee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,385
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1557 Post(s)
Liked 1,732 Times in 972 Posts
Originally Posted by mams99
OK... I found another worth thinking about - this is helping me understand better. The 50cm for most of it is probably OK for me, but the handlebar height might be an issue. I'm not a fan of carbon, so would switching to a different for even make sense for an old bike?

AND... Are the tires too skinny for road? (as an overweight rider?)

First the info about the bike and then I have a photo (there are more I can share if needed).

This lugged steel MIYATA from the mid 80s has been modified with S and S couplings that allow disassembley to pack in a travel case as airline luggage. Save hundreds every trip. The steel fork was replaced with carbon fiber. The alloy 165mm cranks have 48-38-28 chainrings to provide low gears along with the 14-28 7 speed cassette. The alloy 40cm drop bars have Shimano indexed bar end shifters and junior brake levers which were installed for small hands. The 600 brakes and Deore derailleurs are Shimano. The original narrow 26 inch road wheels were replaced with Sachs mountain bike rims to make a wider tread out of a 26x1" tire. All in good working order with many signs of travel around the world.
It is light enough to carry up to your apartment.
The top tube is 50 cm, as is the seat tube. Crossbar is 29" from ground.
Good size for some one 4'9" to 5'2".

not 100% sure, but I think this Miyata uses 650c size tires. Itís a road bike and runs skinny tires. 650c Tire choices are severely limited. There are no tubeless choices for example, and no tpu tubes. Only available sizes are 23, 25 and 28mm
icemilkcoffee is offline  
Old 03-08-24, 09:56 AM
  #18  
Senior Member
 
grumpus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 1,170
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 473 Post(s)
Liked 425 Times in 325 Posts
Originally Posted by icemilkcoffee
not 100% sure, but I think this Miyata uses 650c size tires. Itís a road bike and runs skinny tires. 650c Tire choices are severely limited. There are no tubeless choices for example, and no tpu tubes. Only available sizes are 23, 25 and 28mm
There's also a 650C 54-571 utility bike tyre, but that wouldn't really work on these bikes.
grumpus is offline  
Old 03-09-24, 03:22 AM
  #19  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 1,543
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 689 Post(s)
Liked 388 Times in 309 Posts
Originally Posted by icemilkcoffee
not 100% sure, but I think this Miyata uses 650c size tires. Itís a road bike and runs skinny tires. 650c Tire choices are severely limited. There are no tubeless choices for example, and no tpu tubes. Only available sizes are 23, 25 and 28mm
Good eye. That may explain what appears to be a relatively tall head tube on such a small frame size (for 700c), that conflict had bothered me. 650c is a great option for better proportion for smaller riders, but tire selection is much more limited, mostly skinny road tires, 650c had prominence in time-trial and triathlon for a while.
Duragrouch is online now  

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
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.