![]() |
East Hill special.....
In comparison to a 54cm road bike:
http://i495.photobucket.com/albums/r...e/DSC02666.jpg http://i495.photobucket.com/albums/r...e/DSC02665.jpg |
My wife rides a 42-43 cm, which I guess would be a junior east hill. She has an old panasonic sport. It's not that easy to find a 42cm, so we just keep it around.
It probably good to let east hill know that she rides the "tall" version. |
My, what beautiful pink bar tape you have...
|
Originally Posted by alicestrong
(Post 9173664)
My, what beautiful pink bar tape you have...
|
Nice bikes......but a question.
I don't understand the point of the build up of the Nishiki. Looking at the bike I see the top tube is parallel to level. but I see the actual axle's front and rear are not level. This seems to be due to a long length fork which offsets the longish head tube and then again offset by a smaller front wheel.... Ok, maybe it's just me, and I sure someone is going to explain to me the obvious (except to me) reason for this setup, but to me it just seems a unnecessary exercise in engineering...though it still looks nice! |
Since we're talking small East Hill bikes and pink bar tape. Here's the wife's '85 Paramount in 48cm size.
http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i2...h_DSCF0088.jpgclicky thumbnail Mutt |
Originally Posted by phillyrider
(Post 9173604)
It probably good to let east hill know that she rides the "tall" version. |
Originally Posted by soonerbills
(Post 9174078)
Nice bikes......but a question.
I don't understand the point of the build up of the Nishiki. Looking at the bike I see the top tube is parallel to level. but I see the actual axle's front and rear are not level. This seems to be due to a long length fork which offsets the longish head tube and then again offset by a smaller front wheel.... Ok, maybe it's just me, and I sure someone is going to explain to me the obvious (except to me) reason for this setup, but to me it just seems a unnecessary exercise in engineering...though it still looks nice! |
Originally Posted by East Hill
(Post 9174375)
Women Specific Design.
|
If ya'll say so...still makes no sense to me!
|
I believe it is to reduce the toe overlap with the front wheel while turning.
|
Isn't the design intended to provide a headtube of reasonable length on a frame with short standover?
|
Originally Posted by cranky old road
(Post 9174944)
Isn't the design intended to provide a headtube of reasonable length on a frame with short standover?
With conventional 700c wheels its only possible to get a top tube so low before it hits the down tube which in turn has its won minimum height due the height of a 700c/27" fork, there's a minimum standover height. By using a smaller 24" front wheel a low standover height can be achieved with a female friendly top tube length. |
Originally Posted by noglider
(Post 9174470)
In other words, it has a small front wheel.
|
The question is, would my wife's 5' nothing friend be able to buy that thing?
|
Originally Posted by RobbieTunes
(Post 9175042)
The question is, would my wife's 5' nothing friend be able to buy that thing?
|
PM sent.
|
Not to quibble, but if that is an "East Hill" style bike then isn't the "lanky lass" descriptor a bit inapt?
Or is it because I ask questions like this the reason I'm still single. :trainwreck: |
Ronsonic
Don't feel bad...I seem to have become somewhat of a thread killer around here and as such my musings tend to be ignored on a regular basis....I am pleasantly surprised as to the friendly explanations given on this subject though!! Thank you Jim and others for that! |
What does oversquare mean? If square means the sides are the same size, would over square mean they're SUPER the same size? Kinda like an extra-medium size t-shirt?
|
Originally Posted by Ronsonic
(Post 9175249)
Not to quibble, but if that is an "East Hill" style bike then isn't the "lanky lass" descriptor a bit inapt?
Or is it because I ask questions like this the reason I'm still single. :trainwreck: |
Ahhh, That'd explain things.
|
Originally Posted by soonerbills
(Post 9174078)
Looking at the bike I see the top tube is parallel to level. but I see the actual axle's front and rear are not level. This seems to be due to a long length fork which offsets the longish head tube and then again offset by a smaller front wheel....
#2: Fork blade length remains the typical length for said smaller wheel, i.e., shorter then a 700C fork. #3: The lower fork crown allows for the top tube to be built lower, reducing standover height for a rider of shorter stature. Essentially, the design prevents you from having a 700C wheel up front, for the necessary top tube standover height may be no more then an inch or two higher (if not at the same height or lower) then a fork crown of a bike running a 700C front wheel. The only other option in such cases is to slant the top tube, but one then runs into toe-clip overlap problems as the overall top tube length decreases for the shorter rider. The smaller front wheel addresses both problems. -Kurt |
Why my old lady is so short...When she sprained her ankle - I gave her a Bontrager seatpost to use as a cane. It was too tall for her!
<I'll run away now - back to gas-masks...> |
Originally Posted by noglider
(Post 9175637)
What does oversquare mean? If square means the sides are the same size, would over square mean they're SUPER the same size? Kinda like an extra-medium size t-shirt?
Oversquare = top tube > seat tube Undersquare = seat tube > top tube |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:41 AM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.