odd frame measurements

cccrider@fastmail.fm

Hi

Not content with buggering up my original bike, I've noticed a couple
of frames on ebay that I could play around with:

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI....item=7119093437
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI....item=7118344114

Actually, I'm interested in the frames because the 'current' bike -
Record Sprint 21" (I got it when I was 15 and supposed to carry on
growing) has never been the right fit - the saddle practically sits on
the seat post for a very pedestrian look! My inside leg is 75 cms so a
seat tube should really be something like 49 cms (i.e. first link
above) according to the general formula.

Taking how to measure the tube Sizes from here,
http://www.coloradocyclist.com/bikefit/, I'm now a little confused
about the size of my supposedly 21" frame.

I get:

Top tube: c-c 56.5 cm
Seat tube: c-c 58 cm and c-t 59.3 cm

Firstly, I expected the seat tube c-c to be more like 53/54 cm. 58 cm
is nothing like the 21"/23.5"/25" sizes!

Then, my top tube is shorter than seat tube! The two ebay examples
above are 49, 52 and 52, 54 for seat and top tube c-c respectively! The
expected 53/54 for the seat tube would fit in quite nicely with these
pairs of values.

I'd be surprised if anyone could actually go and measure their Record
Sprint 21" frame to check but, anyway, I don't *think* I can make a
mistake measuring something ... maybe they weren't sized according to
the directions on the bikefit web page above.

Oh well, if anyone can clear anything up about the sizings I'd be
grateful!

ccc r

PS Btw, for anyone remembering the Record Sprint, Quasar, Pulsar and
Winner (Oh dear, I had one of these 5 speeds first!) here's a good URL:
http://bulgier.net/pics/bike/Catalogs/Raleigh84 .

Richard

cccrider@fastmail.fm wrote:
> PS Btw, for anyone remembering the Record Sprint, Quasar, Pulsar and
> Winner (Oh dear, I had one of these 5 speeds first!) here's a good URL:
> http://bulgier.net/pics/bike/Catalogs/Raleigh84 .

Oooooh, my first "adult" bike. The Sprint 10. :-) Still got it, down
in the cellar. Needs some serious attention on the brakes and some fule
(me) in my unknowing younger years bent the front derailleur cage and
was sold one "that was sure to fit" but didn't. But I'll have to get
it out and dust it down and ride it with that mixture of exultation at
the twitchy lightweight ride, and horror at caliper brakes on steel rims.

David E. Belcher

cccrider@fastmail.fm wrote:
> Hi
>
> Not content with buggering up my original bike, I've noticed a couple
> of frames on ebay that I could play around with:
>
> http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI....item=7119093437
> http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI....item=7118344114
>

Link not valid for the first one - looks like it way already have been
sold. The Peugeot 653 looks like a very nice frame, though. Some chips
and scratches in the paint, as the seller freely admits, but the chrome
plating is in excellent nick, which is a good sign.

>
> PS Btw, for anyone remembering the Record Sprint, Quasar, Pulsar and
> Winner (Oh dear, I had one of these 5 speeds first!) here's a good
URL:
> http://bulgier.net/pics/bike/Catalogs/Raleigh84 .

Thanks - as an ex-Quasar owner (apparently there used to be problems
with the ovalised frame tubes cracking, but mine seemed to have escaped
this), I'll give it a go.

David E. Belcher

Simon Brooke

in message <cp836c$lnq$1@hercules.btinternet.com>, Richard
('richard@percival.demon.co.uk') wrote:

> cccrider@fastmail.fm wrote:
>> PS Btw, for anyone remembering the Record Sprint, Quasar, Pulsar and
>> Winner (Oh dear, I had one of these 5 speeds first!) here's a good
>> URL: http://bulgier.net/pics/bike/Catalogs/Raleigh84 .
>
> Oooooh, my first "adult" bike. The Sprint 10. :-) Still got it,
> down
> in the cellar. Needs some serious attention on the brakes and some
> fule (me) in my unknowing younger years bent the front derailleur cage
> and
> was sold one "that was sure to fit" but didn't. But I'll have to get
> it out and dust it down and ride it with that mixture of exultation at
> the twitchy lightweight ride, and horror at caliper brakes on steel
> rims.

Given that my Record Sprint now boasts a Camagnolo Record front mech
(bought very cheap on ebay), I have an original Sachs Huret front mech
in the parts bin, well used but not bent. Would you like it?

--
simon@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; this is not a .sig

Simon Brooke

in message <1102544733.400283.106060@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
cccrider@fastmail.fm ('cccrider@fastmail.fm') wrote:

> Not content with buggering up my original bike, I've noticed a couple
> of frames on ebay that I could play around with:
>
> http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI....item=7119093437

Nice! Note that it will be built for 27" wheels, so if you use 700c
wheels you'll need 'deep drop' brakes. You would also need to cold-set
the back end to take a modern back wheel.

> Taking how to measure the tube Sizes from here,
> http://www.coloradocyclist.com/bikefit/, I'm now a little confused
> about the size of my supposedly 21" frame.
>
> I get:
>
> Top tube: c-c 56.5 cm
> Seat tube: c-c 58 cm and c-t 59.3 cm

That's a 23" frame.

> Firstly, I expected the seat tube c-c to be more like 53/54 cm. 58 cm
> is nothing like the 21"/23.5"/25" sizes!
>
> Then, my top tube is shorter than seat tube! The two ebay examples
> above are 49, 52 and 52, 54 for seat and top tube c-c respectively!
> The expected 53/54 for the seat tube would fit in quite nicely with
> these pairs of values.

Yup, same on my Record Sprint. 63cm seat tube (c-c), 57cm top tube
(c-c). My (new) Dolan is 60cm seat tube, 60 cm top tube. Fashions in
bike geometry have changed, of course, but I think the truth is the
Record Sprint was never meant to be a racing bike, it was meant to be a
bike which _looked_ like a racing bike but with a compromise riding
position which leisure riders would be more comfortable in.

--
simon@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; If Python is executable pseudocode,
;; then Perl is executable line noise
-- seen on Slashdot.

James Thomson

<cccrider@fastmail.fm> wrote:

> Taking how to measure the tube Sizes from here,
> http://www.coloradocyclist.com/bikefit/, I'm now a little
> confused about the size of my supposedly 21" frame.
>
> I get:
>
> Top tube: c-c 56.5 cm
> Seat tube: c-c 58 cm and c-t 59.3 cm
>
> Firstly, I expected the seat tube c-c to be more like 53/54 cm.
> 58 cm is nothing like the 21"/23.5"/25" sizes!

Why are you convinced that you have a 21" frame?

Raleigh sizes generally measure from the centre of the bottom bracket shell
to the top of the seat lug. Yours is almost certainly a 23 1/2" frame. The
top tube length sounds correct. I used to own a 23 1/2" Record Sprint.

> Then, my top tube is shorter than seat tube!

That's not unusual. The fashion for lower handlebars and longer seatposts
has led to longer top tubes relative to seat tube length, but at the time
your Record Sprint was made, shorter top tubes were the norm, particularly
in the larger sizes. It wasn't uncommon for makers to keep the same top
tube length throughout the size range, meaning that smaller frames had
relatively longer top tubes.

James Thomson

cccrider@fastmail.fm

David E. Belcher wrote:
> cccrider@fastmail.fm wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > Not content with buggering up my original bike, I've noticed a
couple
> > of frames on ebay that I could play around with:
> >
> > http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI....item=7119093437
> > http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI....item=7118344114
> >
>
> Link not valid for the first one - looks like it way already have
been
> sold. The Peugeot 653 looks like a very nice frame, though. Some
chips
> and scratches in the paint, as the seller freely admits, but the
chrome
> plating is in excellent nick, which is a good sign.

Strange, if you copy the link out and paste it into a browser, they're
both OK. But both fail for me if I just click on the hyperlink.

The first one (that doesn't work) is a "Classic Reynolds 531 road frame
49 cm c-c campagnolo".

Btw, using the Zinn book's measuring method using inside leg, torso and
arm length I get:

seat tube - 49/50 cm
top tube - 56 cm
handlebar stem - 12 cm
crankarm - 167.5 mm

So, if say, I was to buy the 49 seat tube, 52 top tube frame, would a
sensible 'correction' be to buy a longer stem handlebar?

Of course, it's all down to on-bike tuning but wondering if this would
be feasible as a starting point?

ccc r

cccrider@fastmail.fm

Simon Brooke wrote:
> in message <1102544733.400283.106060@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> cccrider@fastmail.fm ('cccrider@fastmail.fm') wrote:
>
> > Not content with buggering up my original bike, I've noticed a
couple
> > of frames on ebay that I could play around with:
> >
> > http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI....item=7119093437
>
> Nice! Note that it will be built for 27" wheels, so if you use 700c
> wheels you'll need 'deep drop' brakes. You would also need to
cold-set
> the back end to take a modern back wheel.

That's true - thanks for reminding me - people seem to think those
Shimano RSX100 ones are pretty good but I'll just have a fish around
anyway. Luckily my Record Sprint was for 700c so I got away with
'modern' reach brakes but do have to cold-set the frame: it's my new
hobby!

> > Taking how to measure the tube Sizes from here,
> > http://www.coloradocyclist.com/bikefit/, I'm now a little confused
> > about the size of my supposedly 21" frame.
> >
> > I get:
> >
> > Top tube: c-c 56.5 cm
> > Seat tube: c-c 58 cm and c-t 59.3 cm
>
> That's a 23" frame.

Weird. It was a long, long time ago but I was convinced that I had a
19" Winner then a 21" Sprint which is why I thought something odd was
going on as there didn't seem to be a 23" frame on the brochure link.

> > Firstly, I expected the seat tube c-c to be more like 53/54 cm. 58
cm
> > is nothing like the 21"/23.5"/25" sizes!
> >
> > Then, my top tube is shorter than seat tube! The two ebay examples
> > above are 49, 52 and 52, 54 for seat and top tube c-c respectively!
> > The expected 53/54 for the seat tube would fit in quite nicely with
> > these pairs of values.
>
> Yup, same on my Record Sprint. 63cm seat tube (c-c), 57cm top tube
> (c-c). My (new) Dolan is 60cm seat tube, 60 cm top tube. Fashions in
> bike geometry have changed, of course, but I think the truth is the
> Record Sprint was never meant to be a racing bike, it was meant to be
a
> bike which _looked_ like a racing bike but with a compromise riding
> position which leisure riders would be more comfortable in.

That all makes sense and I did notice that most of the modern road
bikes had very similar seat tube and top tube dimensions. Poor old
Record Sprint: it's more like a sit-up-and-beg especially with my
saddle position!

Cheers for help,

ccc r

cccrider@fastmail.fm

James Thomson wrote:
> <cccrider@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > Taking how to measure the tube Sizes from here,
> > http://www.coloradocyclist.com/bikefit/, I'm now a little
> > confused about the size of my supposedly 21" frame.
> >
> > I get:
> >
> > Top tube: c-c 56.5 cm
> > Seat tube: c-c 58 cm and c-t 59.3 cm
> >
> > Firstly, I expected the seat tube c-c to be more like 53/54 cm.
> > 58 cm is nothing like the 21"/23.5"/25" sizes!
>
> Why are you convinced that you have a 21" frame?

I'm not anymore, but I've spent 18 years thinking it was a 21" frame! I
can't believe I was sold a 23.5" frame back then but it definitely is.
Anyway, it was so I could grow into it (very optimistic)!

> Raleigh sizes generally measure from the centre of the bottom bracket
shell
> to the top of the seat lug. Yours is almost certainly a 23 1/2"
frame. The
> top tube length sounds correct. I used to own a 23 1/2" Record
Sprint.
>
> > Then, my top tube is shorter than seat tube!
>
> That's not unusual. The fashion for lower handlebars and longer
seatposts
> has led to longer top tubes relative to seat tube length, but at the
time
> your Record Sprint was made, shorter top tubes were the norm,
particularly
> in the larger sizes. It wasn't uncommon for makers to keep the same
top
> tube length throughout the size range, meaning that smaller frames
had
> relatively longer top tubes.

Cheers for that bit of history: it's quite interesting to see how road
bikes have changed. I was only comparing the values I obtained with
modern-day information + the dimensions on the ebay frames. When you
look at the Record Sprint, as someone else has said, it's not really
supposed to have road-bike geometry as such, just look a bit like one
for a birthday or Christmas present :-)

Cheers

ccc r

James Thomson

<cccrider@fastmail.fm> wrote:

> When you look at the Record Sprint, as someone else has said, it's
> not really supposed to have road-bike geometry as such, just look a
> bit like one for a birthday or Christmas present :-)

That's not really true. Certainly, the Sprint wasn't an out-and-out road
racing bike, but it had features in common with bikes that would have been
ridden in club-level competitions at the time, and the geometry was sporty.
Compare the angles and clearances of the Sprint with the contemporary
Record Ace and Road Ace, or even the Team Replica. The Sprint was a sports
bike. Yours is simply much too big for you. I'm 6'1", and found my 23 1/2"
Sprint a good fit.

James Thomson

cccrider@fastmail.fm

James Thomson wrote:
> <cccrider@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > When you look at the Record Sprint, as someone else has said, it's
> > not really supposed to have road-bike geometry as such, just look a
> > bit like one for a birthday or Christmas present :-)
>
> That's not really true. Certainly, the Sprint wasn't an out-and-out
road
> racing bike, but it had features in common with bikes that would have
been
> ridden in club-level competitions at the time, and the geometry was
sporty.
> Compare the angles and clearances of the Sprint with the contemporary
> Record Ace and Road Ace, or even the Team Replica. The Sprint was a
sports
> bike. Yours is simply much too big for you. I'm 6'1", and found my 23
1/2"
> Sprint a good fit.
True, I think my comment was a bit silly really.

ccc r

Simon Brooke

in message <1102594159.187503.252560@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
cccrider@fastmail.fm ('cccrider@fastmail.fm') wrote:

> David E. Belcher wrote:
>> cccrider@fastmail.fm wrote:
>> > Hi
>> >
>> > Not content with buggering up my original bike, I've noticed a
> couple
>> > of frames on ebay that I could play around with:
>> >
>> > http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI....item=7119093437
>
> The first one (that doesn't work) is a "Classic Reynolds 531 road
> frame 49 cm c-c campagnolo".
>
> Btw, using the Zinn book's measuring method using inside leg, torso
> and arm length I get:
>
> seat tube - 49/50 cm
> top tube - 56 cm
> handlebar stem - 12 cm
> crankarm - 167.5 mm
>
> So, if say, I was to buy the 49 seat tube, 52 top tube frame, would a
> sensible 'correction' be to buy a longer stem handlebar?
>
> Of course, it's all down to on-bike tuning but wondering if this would
> be feasible as a starting point?

You can do quite a lot of 'length' tuning with saddle position and stem
length - and it's amazing how much difference just a centimetre on the
stem can make to your comfort.

I note that (contra my precious post) the bike is said to be 700c, but
that strikes me as odd for a UK built bike from the eighties. If it is
700c so much the better but don't be surprised if it isn't.

--
simon@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; This email may contain confidential or otherwise privileged
;; information, though, quite frankly, if you're not the intended
;; recipient and you've got nothing better to do than read other
;; folks' emails then I'm glad to have brightened up your sad little
;; life a tiny bit.

James Thomson

"Simon Brooke" <simon@jasmine.org.uk> wrote:

> I note that (contra my precious post) the bike is said to be 700c,
> but that strikes me as odd for a UK built bike from the eighties.

It wasn't that unusual for sportier bikes from the fifties onwards to be
designed for 700c or dual (700c/27") use. All tub rims were 700c, and it
was common to use tubs for racing and clinchers (700c or 27") for training
and social rides, swapping wheels as required.

James Thomson

cccrider@fastmail.fm

Simon Brooke wrote:
> in message <1102594159.187503.252560@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> cccrider@fastmail.fm ('cccrider@fastmail.fm') wrote:
>
> > David E. Belcher wrote:
> >> cccrider@fastmail.fm wrote:
> >> > Hi
> >> >
> >> > Not content with buggering up my original bike, I've noticed a
> > couple
> >> > of frames on ebay that I could play around with:
> >> >
> >> > http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI....item=7119093437
> >
> > The first one (that doesn't work) is a "Classic Reynolds 531 road
> > frame 49 cm c-c campagnolo".
> >
> > Btw, using the Zinn book's measuring method using inside leg, torso
> > and arm length I get:
> >
> > seat tube - 49/50 cm
> > top tube - 56 cm
> > handlebar stem - 12 cm
> > crankarm - 167.5 mm
> >
> > So, if say, I was to buy the 49 seat tube, 52 top tube frame, would
a
> > sensible 'correction' be to buy a longer stem handlebar?
> >
> > Of course, it's all down to on-bike tuning but wondering if this
would
> > be feasible as a starting point?
>
> You can do quite a lot of 'length' tuning with saddle position and
stem
> length - and it's amazing how much difference just a centimetre on
the
> stem can make to your comfort.

One day-ish left on the auction for these lovely frames. I keep on
deliberating which one to go for!

If it was down to looks I'd go for the Tom Avon:
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI....item=7119093437 and
it's 49/52.

The calcs provide 49/56 as suitable for me (well, I am a bit wonky
shaped).

The Peugeot (
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI....item=7118344114 ) is
slightly bigger: 52/54 but could easily manage the frame size given
that I've been on a 23 1/2" frame! Comes with seat post too.

>From what I've read the top tube is the most crucial measurement so,
just in terms of dimensions of the two vs my size, is there much
between the two? I don't know how much a difference 2 cms makes!
Cheers

ccc r