Garthr

Getting a fit is no guarantee either as every fitter has there own ideas on what a proper fit and frame design is. I'm fortunate that vintage road frames just don't fit me, so no temptation or nostalgia ! They're too short in the front end. I went to fitter for a custom frame builder who wanted to put me on the same kind of frames I had been riding, classic road frames. So I told the guy to add 3cm to the TT for a 62cm TT on a 62cm c-c frame @72.5d STA, or no deal. He agreed and I still ride that frame today, some 23 years later. I like it so much I'm in the middle of having another one made. Customs are the best !

Garthr

It's a standard frame measurement that every frame builder knows. The distance from the center of the BB to the center of the front axle. Not every retailer lists it, but they ought to as it's an easy way to compare frames as to how much toe clearance you may have with tires or fenders.

USAZorro

While I "could" ride anything between 50 - 60cm, I only ride bikes with seat tube lengths between 53 - 56 cm. There are two very excellent reasons for this.

Bicycles with seat tubes shorter than 53, or taller than 58 just don't look good. You need enough of a head tube for a proper head badge, but not quite enough for two or more. You really tall folks live in denial about this, but deep down, you know it's true. If you're 6'2" or taller, you really need a bicycle where everything is scaled up proportionally. The industry has been cheating you for an entire century, and you should demand better. Larger wheels, oversize tubing and proportional bicycles.

The other reason is because it would be exceptionally dangerous. If I started riding 50 cm bikes or 58 cm bikes, before you know it, I'd be rationalizing why I should buy them (beyond "for my wife", or "in case a guest shows up and needs something to ride"). The number of bikes could quickly double, and projects could triple and before you know it, I could be living in a cardboard box. This would be bad for all of us. At least one of us C&Vers needs to be courageous enough to speak truth, and by gosh, I'm just starting to find my form. .

Piff 

What rear rack is that? Looks like it would be at home attached to the fork or the seatstays.

Garthr

Piff, it's a Nitto M1 aka "Mark's rack". It's great as it can be mounted front or rear. It can be attached with 2 different tangs, or using all 4 struts, everything is included. I tried it on the front but didn't like the feel at all, I prefer no weight up front for regular road riding. I ride it as I ever did on the classic racing frames I formerly had. Being custom though, I spec'd 18" chainstays and the additional front length, plus rack mounts. I would have used the rack mounts with the struts for the upper mount, but the braze-ons are narrow and I'd need to either bend them more or buy some prebent ones. Using the tang was easier. I've tried a Revelate seat pack instead, but my thighs rubbed and that destroys lycra shorts. So while the rack and bag isn't great looking, kinda dorky, I don't have to look at it while riding , plus it's rock solid compared to bags. That's part of the beauty of being "older", I just don't care about how many things look as I did of yore.

merziac

These are the 2-10k or Million $$$ ?'s and yes there are more.

When I had the Strawberry built I asked Dave Levy about some of this when we started.

He told me he had derived his own system based on many/some of the other ones used.

"But" he said most was his own experience and expertise that steered the build along with the buyers wants, hopes, dreams, needs and more.

He had me bring the 66cm Merz and the 60cm Gordon that both ride fantastic for me, we spent about 3 hours swapping them out on the trainer and riding for 15-20 minutes at a time.

He also checked the angles on each frame several times before scratching his head again, then said "I know exactly what to do" as I saw the "light bulb" go on.

He explained the lengthy process was from the two very different frames, my unusual proportions and the need to build the new frame to go the distance.

He said it may be and seem a little small but would ride very well anyway. We could make it bigger but I would probably not be able to ride it at some point that would be sooner rather than later.

He said he would plug the numbers into his program to make sure he hadn't missed anything before starting on it but said that rarely happened.

He was surprised that I had both bikes set up very well for my riding as they were so different in size and geometry.

It turned out better than I expected and rides fantastic for me, bigger hills are easier, longer rides are easier and every ride is more fun.

I cannot emphasize enough how important all this is and I strongly do not believe there is any kind of one size fits all system, especially for us that have been riding for a long time.

It is critical IMO to have someone like Dave build these frames.




Yes, pretty jarring to look at but it was always going to be, rides like a dream.

USAZorro

That's a great story.

I condensed it down to the one statement. One need only pay attention while walking down the street or the supermarket aisle to see the truth in this statement. Mass-production bicycle builders have done their best to create frames that exhibit a "one geometry fits as many people as possible" solution. I consider myself fortunate in that my body's proportionality is about dead-center for how many companies size their frames and components. They've been doing this since at least the time of the derailleur. One of the reasons I have multiple 1970's Raleighs in the 21-1/2" size is because they fit as if they were custom-made for me. (It also helps that they ride nicely and that they are modestly priced... usually).

I could ride a size smaller, or a size larger, but experience shows me that the formula works. I have my own "rule of thumb", which I take more seriously than the single-headbadge one that I referenced above. If the bike requires concentration to mount - the frame is too big. If you look like Filippo Ganna riding his race bike (reminds me of a trained bear on a circus bike), it's too small. If you're somewhere in the middle, it's likely suitable, but if you're not comfortable in some way - time to experiment and consider going the custom route.

As much as I'd love to have an Ellis made just for me, I get so much enjoyment out of riding my mass-produced bikes that it's difficult to justify the expense. Perhaps after the house is paid off.

AdventureManCO 

Okay so I had a chance to finally ride this thing.


Here is what it looks like with a replacement seatpost (the post the bike came with was too short) adjust to the right height for me:





Wow wow wow the ride is freakin’ amazing! It was a very short ride and very sketchy- lots of ice and snow all over the roads and paths. Bike was
smooth, quick-feeling, stiff without being harsh. Totally understand those comments now.

The ONLY thing I noticed is that the handlebar position was pretty aggressive - probably around an 80mm drop from saddle height if I was just eyeballing it. I suppose that is the one thing that should absolutely be expected if riding a much ‘smaller than normal’ frame. I have noticed that my body has adjusted a bit more to a road bike position, at least more than it has in the past. I would have never, ever reached for the drops in the past, but now I don’t mind it.

Everything else feels fine. The saddle tip to center of handlebar measurement is actually exactly the same as the Guerciotti - 49cm. Plenty of toe overlap due to the longish wheelbase. I’ll take some measurements tonight.

Bottom line: it works, and I’m excited. And if you want to have the handlebars at a more normal level, prepare to look like a dork. The price of entry.

mstateglfr 

STIs used only for the brakes and bar end shifters cabled up to shift?...that is certainly unique.

AdventureManCO 

they might have been looking for more ergonomic levers? Not sure, but will probably change those out. Bike is a mixmaster at this point. But the ride is ace.

nlerner

My neck hurts just looking at that saddle-to-bar drop.

masi61

The saddle to bar drop looks fine to me. The upward tilt of the bars makes the drops kind of useless and unsafe but maybe that's just my personal preference.

AdventureManCO 

Its all perspectives. The saddle to bar drop is not as extreme as those last pictures lead one to believe, but they are too aggressive, especially for what this bike is built for.

And I agree, the bar setup is goofy. The bars are actually turned down a hair compared to the level of the stem, but they were far lower initially. It places the hoods in this goofy position. This bike would benefit greatly from a slightly longer, zero degree stem, and a modern cockpit geometry, which would go a long way into a raised bar setup not looking so obvious.

Just the maiden voyage so far, but the ride was nice enough to invest the energy and time into figuring out the bar setup. I can’t wait to ride it again. Even with the low bar height. It’s a good sign!

Hobbiano 

How about a picture straight from the side, perpendicular to the direction of travel, with the camera at about top tube level? So we can get the full effect.

GullyFoylesbike

Discussions like this always make me think of this historical factoid - where the Air Force confirmed that none of us are the same shape, and that one-size-fits-all is a fever dream.

After seeing your photos & reading through this my main takeaway is . . . maybe I should have snapped up that expedition that sold here a day or two ago, I could have made it work!

Frkl

Or perhaps adherence to the myth is necessary to prevent precisely that sort of thing (buying another bike) from happening. If I limit myself to between 60-62cm, I automatically reduce the number of possible purchases by a significant amount!

sd5782 

That bike calls out for a dirt drop stem. They are the problem solver on too small frames and for old guy’s wanting the bars up a bit. They also look better that a technomic raised all the way up. There is a vintage version, SR maybe, but it is expensive.

AdventureManCO 

Considering that there are very likely also bikes in our 'best' size that we've all owned and moved on because something about them still didn't fit or feel right, it speaks to the notion of 'correct size' being somewhat less than infallible. I can recall riding a 64cm Peugeot...I may actually have pictures somewhere. I set it up with inverted mtn style handlebars, and while I cannot for the life of my remember how I fit over it - I remember the ride - it was wild! Tons of fun, and plenty fast as well! It felt like you were pedaling a crows nest, and had sort of a 'flex' to it (in a good way) that you cannot get with a small frame. Just a blast to ride.

64cm to 50...its quite the span. But this thing rides sweet. I'm digging the concept of a more compact frame, and if I can get the bars up just a bit (dork factor correlates), then hopefully I'll hit a sweet spot!

I also had (for a very short time) a similar sized Windsor that I commuted on exactly 1 time. Probably the scariest riding bike I've ever been on. Not a knock on Windsor, more on the size and the wheelset and brakes.

jamesdak 

I ran an old Profile Design stem on the KHS I built up last year to get some bar height. It looked pretty good once I removed the logo and polished it up.






The bottom piece of this quill stem is aluminum while the stem is chromoly. I'm not used to seeing aluminum used for this piece.

This is what the stem looked like when I got it in.

t2p

I ran 0 / 90 degree stems on some of my road bikes back in the day - including this Syncros stem

options like this were fairly limited - many more options now with threadless stems

AdventureManCO 

I would have gotten this yesterday, but we got home late and I got hit with something that had me going straight to bed - today though! I also want to take a lot of measurements! While that seatpost looks like its sky high, its about 6 3/4" from the top tube to the rails of the saddle.



jamesdak that does actually look quite nice! A slight bit non-traditional, but classy, and a little more appropriate for an '89+ road bike. I like it. This one is likely a '90-'92, so I'm absolutely not opposed to the right tigged steel stem.

I appreciate the stem suggestions. Yes, finding something that works, but is also 'classy', is tough. Something like the old Sakae 0 degree stems would be great, but those are still pretty short, so not a lot of room to raise it up.

I also thought about the VO Threadless quill stem adapter. Its got a nice look to it, but very non-traditional. Functionally speaking, though, it is the best of both worlds - the adaptive nature of the quill (to raise and lower) and the Threadless stem with its open faceplate (for handlebar removal).

I may try to hit up the co-op just to see what they've got and let y'all decide, if I find a few options (technomic, dirt drop, etc), because most of these stems new are like $50+ if purchased new.

AdventureManCO 

Round two with 'the midget', this time with measurements!




Full on side shot






Full wheelbase measurement. A hair over 41”.



This is that front center or whatever it was called measurement. BB center to front axle.



Tip of saddle to center of bars. Around 53cm




Front axle to center of bars. Around 22”.



Chainstay length. 18”-ish.



Top tube to saddle rails. About 6.75”.

Mad Honk 

I always thought the smaller frames were much easier to "muscle" around when riding. Just think about going from a road bike to a BMX bike. I suspect this is kinda the same thing going on. Smiles, MH

AdventureManCO 

I can kinda understand now some of what folks were talking about w/ different stem lengths. I never really understood stem length. To me, it was always: longer = bad, because it means you lean over more and that's more uncomfortable. That ignorance carried over w/ the Huffente, as it has that little 35mm-ish Jun stem. But these past few months have been enlightening. The Midget has a 110mm stem on it, and I can FEEL how it impacts the steering of the bike, especially when out of the saddle. I'm guessing that 90-100mm is my sweet spot. Some people can feel a 5mm difference in their stem and how it makes the bike handle. I'm not there yet, but getting closer.

I did decide to take the Guerciotti (56-57cm) out right after riding this one just to get a feel for how it is different, compared to bikes I usually ride. WOW - big difference! Neither one in a good or bad way per se, but I did feel more 'at home' on the Guac, and that probably has to do with the fact that its adjusted pretty well for my right out of the gate.




I was surprised to learn that the Guac's bar height is about 2 inches lower than the saddle, when I thought it was about level. It shows that I'm getting more flexible. And even with that difference, it feels great! In the past, I would have abhored a lower bar height of any sort. Well, the Midget's is a full 4 inches lower than the saddle, and I can tell you what, that 2 extra inches is HUGE!!. But, surprisingly, I seem to adapt to it well. I think I'm understanding 'race fit' a bit better now. I could totally see rocking this bike's geometry and setup in a race, but not something I would want to ride for a whole day. So, I do think I want to change it to mimic more of the Guac's fit and setup. I'm close on the saddle - I adjusted it forward, and up about another 3/4 of a centimeter.

Now, the only hang-up is to try to find a non-dorky setup for raising up the bar another two inches. Impossible? Well well! I've been doing research, and I'm thinking a 90 degree (or zero drop) quill stem is the way to go. For 2 reasons. One, a standard -15 or -18 degree stem comes up, in essence, higher than it needs to, in order to drop the bar clamp lower. While aesthetically, it works well because the negative drop accounts for the angle of the headtube so that you hopefully end up with a stem that is parallel w/ the ground, it means that on a bike like this, that eye-pleasing 'flat stem' feature is offset by the off-putting visual of a stem that is raised up too high. A 90-degree stem will put the bars in the same place while knocking an inch off the height of the stem. Also, it will give me the excuse to turn up the bars just a bit to raise up the hoods and get a little more height by matching the upward angle of the stem, or coming slightly under it. While this looks terrible with a traditional alloy negative drop stem, it is certainly more presentable w/ a zero drop stem:



With this bike above, the bars are actually flat w/ the ground, but in theory you could turn them up to match the stem rise, or come up in the middle somewhere, and have it still look somewhat presentable.

I'm thinking of this stem (same as on the bike above):




It's steel, the bike is steel. It's svelte (not chunky), it comes in many lengths, its a 90 degree (or zero rise) design, and it has a really long neck! So much so, that I'll probably have to cut it back at the wedge, but that's okay. It's expensive, oh well. Something to save up for I guess. It comes w/ a 31.8mm clamp, so the world's my oyster w/ modern bars. Good way to bring a classy older bike into the 21st century.

Hobbiano 

I think you've answered your question: Just what is too small?