6'6" beginner rider wonders: 62cm or 64cm Trek frame?
Kyle Bramblesglarb
begun training for a century ride on my Trek 5400 MTB while I shop for
something faster.
I'm considering a Trek 1-series and for 2010 they offer a 64cm frame
in the Trek 1.5 bike. I was wondering if anybody could let me know if
the 64cm would make a noticable difference over the 62cm frame. I may
not be able to justify the increased cost and may end up just getting
a Trek 1.1, but I'm concerned about comfort and getting sore on long
rides. If starting with a larger frame would make a big difference,
I'll try justifying the additional expense.
I'm also wondering how much better the Tigara shifters are over Sora
and 2300's. I know veteran riders can tell the difference, but my
last road bike was a Schwinn in 1989... would I be able to tell?
Chalo
>
> I'm a tall beginner rider preparing to buy my 1st road bike. I've
> begun training for a century ride on my Trek 5400 MTB while I shop for
> something faster.
>
> I'm considering a Trek 1-series and for 2010 they offer a 64cm frame
> in the Trek 1.5 bike. I was wondering if anybody could let me know if
> the 64cm would make a noticable difference over the 62cm frame. I may
> not be able to justify the increased cost and may end up just getting
> a Trek 1.1, but I'm concerned about comfort and getting sore on long
> rides. If starting with a larger frame would make a big difference,
> I'll try justifying the additional expense.
Better bikes for tall riders were made twenty years or more in the
past. It's not exactly easy to find frames of 64cm and up from that
time, but it is possible-- and such frames when found will be actual,
not projected, tall frames. The "64cm" Trek is actually a 61cm frame,
measured center-to-top. Measured by any other traditional means, it's
shorter.
Here's a better bike than the Trek for less money:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=270543453222
I am 6'8" and I ride a 68cm frame. I have a couple of 63cm frames,
but they're compromised by comparison, and I have to go to unusual
lengths to make them fit (mostly stems in non-commercially-available
sizes). I think if 64cm is the right size for you, you should get a
64cm bike. If 66cm is the right size for you, you should get a bike
in that size-- whether or not the Great Trek Bicycle Making
Corporation offers it.
> I'm also wondering how much better the Tigara shifters are over Sora
> and 2300's. I know veteran riders can tell the difference, but my
> last road bike was a Schwinn in 1989... would I be able to tell?
In my experience as a shop mechanic, all brifters work fine when new,
and they all die young. These generalizations are both without
exceptions in my observation so far. In that light, it's best if you
don't spend more on them than necessary.
Chalo
landotter
> Kyle Bramblesglarb wrote:
>
> > I'm a tall beginner rider preparing to buy my 1st road bike. I've
> > begun training for a century ride on my Trek 5400 MTB while I shop for
> > something faster.
>
> > I'm considering a Trek 1-series and for 2010 they offer a 64cm frame
> > in the Trek 1.5 bike. I was wondering if anybody could let me know if
> > the 64cm would make a noticable difference over the 62cm frame. I may
> > not be able to justify the increased cost and may end up just getting
> > a Trek 1.1, but I'm concerned about comfort and getting sore on long
> > rides. If starting with a larger frame would make a big difference,
> > I'll try justifying the additional expense.
>
> Better bikes for tall riders were made twenty years or more in the
> past. It's not exactly easy to find frames of 64cm and up from that
> time, but it is possible-- and such frames when found will be actual,
> not projected, tall frames. The "64cm" Trek is actually a 61cm frame,
> measured center-to-top. Measured by any other traditional means, it's
> shorter.
>
> Here's a better bike than the Trek for less money:http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=270543453222
X2 on a used road bike that just needs minor TLC. The only thing I
could see being an issue on an older Cannondale with 126mm rear
spacing is the back wheel. However, even if one has a Phil hub built
up onto a suitable rim--the final package will fit better, cost less,
and be quite bomb-proof.
Jay Beattie
>
> - Show quoted text -
The cantilever drop out arrangement on the 2.8 frame tended to crack
at the chain stay-- I broke two 2.8 frames, both 63cm. The stays can
be respaced with some work -- 4mm is not a lot of distance. The
aluminum fork was too limber for me. I replaced mine with a first
generation Kestrel with a steel steerer. What the OP really needs is
a first or second generation Cannondale -- before the 2.8 series or a
later CAAD 3. Finding it in the 66cm size will be tough. I think
aluminum is a good choice for big riders because it is stiff and
reasonably light weight in large frame sizes. -- Jay Beattie.
landotter
Good call--I've seen this happen on a couple frames. Those frames are
easy to spot, as it's a really dumb design feature. S. had one hanging
in the shop a few months ago. Did all of them have three sets of
bottle bosses, or just the large sizes?
Jay Beattie
>
> - Show quoted text -
I didn't know any of the RR bikes had three sets of bosses. My frames
had two. My wife and I were basically beta testers for the 2.8, which
as supplied, had a bad Cinelli stem that would not grip the bar. The
fix was a piece of sandpaper (supplied by Cannondale). Those frames
(and earlier designs) had shift bosses threaded on to a center stud.
I had one break during a race and my DT shifters basically fell off.
I wound them around the bottle cage and finished off the back in a
39/13. It's one of those items that can corrode without your seeing
it. Otherwise, I've had really good service from my Cannondales. --
Jay Beattie.
BeeCharmer
years. The issue isn't with your height; it's with the length of your
torso and legs. I'm fairly proportional and the top tube length
combined with a 120mm stem feels great and my seat post is not two
feet in the air. Someone shorter with longer legs might need a
shorter top tube.
Re: brifters, I've got a Campy set with 30k on them. The diff between
Campy and Shimano is that one can rebuild the shifting mech with a
five dollar spring and it works as new. I seem to need one in the
right shifter at about 10k.
Chalo
>
> Jay Beattie wrote:
> >
> > landotter wrote:
> > >
> > > Chalo wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Here's a better bike than the Trek for less money:
> > > > http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=270543453222
> > >
> > > X2 on a used road bike that just needs minor TLC. The only thing I
> > > could see being an issue on an older Cannondale with 126mm rear
> > > spacing is the back wheel. However, even if one has a Phil hub built
> > > up onto a suitable rim--the final package will fit better, cost less,
> > > and be quite bomb-proof.
> >
> > at the chain stay-- I broke two 2.8 frames, both 63cm.
>
> Good call--I've seen this happen on a couple frames. Those frames are
> easy to spot, as it's a really dumb design feature. S. had one hanging
> in the shop a few months ago.
Of the eight C'dale frames I have owned over the years, only one has
had the cantilevered dropouts (a c.1990 MTB). I rode it for years--
some of my fastest and highest-mileage years-- and then my brother
rode it for years. And then I got it back, and I still ride it. It
seems to be hanging in there. I'm suspicious of those dropouts, but
in my case they have worked out fine in the long run.
I just fitted that bike with 222mm Bullseye cranks, since it has the
highest BB in my stable at 13 inches. I did my best to correct the
gain ratio with 54/42 TA Cyclotouriste chainrings. The bike feels
good, and it turns out to be a very fast setup for me. My legs are a
little sore, I assume because I'm using parts of my range of motion
that haven't seen much action since, well, ever.
The OP could buy that auction Cannondale, have the frame break
relatively soon, and still get much better value than a >$1000 Trek
with disposable parts, whose frame isn't the right size. The
components could then migrate to a nothing-special '70s or '80s road
bike frame that can be had for relative peanuts due to its unpopular
size.
Chalo
SMS
You're already doomed with the choices you've presented.
You should be getting something with a true 64 or 65 cm frame, i.e. like
something based on the Rivendell A. Homer Hilsen frame.
Alas, most of these large frame bicycles are going to cost you a
fortune. With the curse of compact frames, a 64 cm frame is not really a
64 cm frame anymore.
At least get a true 62 cm frame, like the Jamis Aurora. Also, in those
large frame sizes, you should think about steel, not aluminum. As others
in this thread have stated, you start to have frame cracking issues with
aluminum in bad places.
Ironically, there are some true 64cm bikes from Bikes Direct, in steel
or aluminum i.e.
"http://bikesdirect.com/products/mercier/mercier_serpensIX.htm"
"http://www.bikesdirect.com/products/motobecane/sprint_x.htm"
"http://www.bikesdirect.com/products/mercier/mercier_corvus.htm"
Pretty damn sad when you have to go online to buy a new bicycle because
so many manufacturers are in a race to the bottom in terms of frame
sizes and geometry. These days, if you're not between 5'8" and 6'2"
you're often S.O.L..
Whatever you do, don't buy a frame that's way too small then try to "fix
it" with ridiculously long seat posts and steer-tube extenders.
Chalo
>
> Re: brifters, I've got a Campy set with 30k on them. The diff between
> Campy and Shimano is that one can rebuild the shifting mech with a
> five dollar spring and it works as new. I seem to need one in the
> right shifter at about 10k.
The problem with that is that then you're wedded to Campy drivetrain
parts, which have other shortcomings like untenable (for a big guy)
wheel dish.
Seeking out a less janky brifter seems like bending over backwards to
avoid simpler solutions that have worked better for decades.
Chalo
Peter Cole
> At least get a true 62 cm frame, like the Jamis Aurora. Also, in those
> large frame sizes, you should think about steel, not aluminum. As others
> in this thread have stated, you start to have frame cracking issues with
> aluminum in bad places.
That's not what people said, they said that particular dropout style
than Cannondale used may or may not have reliability issues.
The OP is 6'6", Chalo is 6'8", I'm 6'10", how tall are you? Aluminum is
actually a pretty good frame material for big frames, it makes for a
light stiff bike. It may crack, but so many anything else. Nothing lasts
forever. So far, I've gotten better longevity from my Cannondale frame
(hasn't failed) than my Raleigh's (2 failed), nor have either of my
aluminum mountain bikes failed. Lots of miles, lots of rough service.
Frame failure isn't worth obsessing about, cranks, seat posts,
handlebars and stems worry me much more, and they're almost always aluminum.
landotter
> Also, in those
> large frame sizes, you should think about steel, not aluminum. As others
> in this thread have stated, you start to have frame cracking issues with
> aluminum in bad places.
Dude, are you a Republican? Because you seem to love hammering on the
bullshit and fear based talking points. One model of Cannondale had
really stupid cantilevered dropouts--and you're going to use this
"proof" to start pushing your talking points? Give it a fucking rest,
already. Modern metal frames, which aren't built heroically light,
have a very good reliability record. The rare broken frame we see
around here is usually older or an ultralight bike, often titanium.
But I wouldn't go trashing the agriculturally durable frames from
Habanero because some other framebuilder specced dumb tube thicknesses.
Tim McNamara
<ceee478a-c53c-4dfb...@g7g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
Kyle Bramblesglarb <kyle.ram...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm a tall beginner rider preparing to buy my 1st road bike. I've
> begun training for a century ride on my Trek 5400 MTB while I shop
> for something faster.
>
> I'm considering a Trek 1-series and for 2010 they offer a 64cm frame
> in the Trek 1.5 bike. I was wondering if anybody could let me know
> if the 64cm would make a noticable difference over the 62cm frame. I
> may not be able to justify the increased cost and may end up just
> getting a Trek 1.1, but I'm concerned about comfort and getting sore
> on long rides. If starting with a larger frame would make a big
> difference, I'll try justifying the additional expense.
The larger frame will make a big difference- I would recommend
considering an even larger frame, a 66 or 68 at your height. In order
not to feel cramped and uncomfortable with a 62 or even a 64 you would
need to resort to very long seatpost and stem.
I'm 6'4" and a 64 is about right for me.
--
I want to die peacefully in my sleep like my grandfather,
not screaming in terror like his passengers.
Peter Meilstrup
> Kyle Bramblesglarb wrote:
> > I'm a tall beginner rider preparing to buy my 1st road bike. I've
> > begun training for a century ride on my Trek 5400 MTB while I shop for
> > something faster.
>
> > I'm considering a Trek 1-series and for 2010 they offer a 64cm frame
> > in the Trek 1.5 bike. I was wondering if anybody could let me know if
> > the 64cm would make a noticable difference over the 62cm frame. I may
> > not be able to justify the increased cost and may end up just getting
> > a Trek 1.1, but I'm concerned about comfort and getting sore on long
> > rides. If starting with a larger frame would make a big difference,
> > I'll try justifying the additional expense.
>
> > I'm also wondering how much better the Tigara shifters are over Sora
> > and 2300's. I know veteran riders can tell the difference, but my
> > last road bike was a Schwinn in 1989... would I be able to tell?
>
> You're already doomed with the choices you've presented.
>
> You should be getting something with a true 64 or 65 cm frame, i.e. like
> something based on the Rivendell A. Homer Hilsen frame.
>
> Alas, most of these large frame bicycles are going to cost you a
> fortune. With the curse of compact frames, a 64 cm frame is not really a
> 64 cm frame anymore.
>
> At least get a true 62 cm frame, like the Jamis Aurora.
Augh! With a 72 degree seat tube and 59cm top tube the Jamis has 2.5cm
less reach than the Trek. Additionally, the top of its head tube is
fully 6cm lower!
I don't understand why people fetishize the height of the seat
cluster. Seeing as how the seat post extension has a wider range of
adjustment than any other bicycle component, seat tube length is quite
possibly the least relevant piece of information you can have about a
bike frame. Its last relevance was in the days of level top tubes,
when it happened to also determine the height of the top of the head
tube.
Don't fall into the trap of thinking that because old bikes had level
top tubes and were made in decent sizes, that a currently produced
level top tube bike will be better than one with a sloping top tube.
In this case it led to a recommendation of a bike that's 3 sizes too
small instead of just 1.
The most important parameters of bike frame size are (1) how high the
top of the head tube is above the bottom bracket and (2) how far
forward the head tube is in front of the bottom bracket. Taken
together these two parameters determine where you can put the
handlebars in relation to the feet.
In days of yore we measured these parameters indirectly via the seat
tube length and top tube length, and riders who prefer a particular
fore-aft saddle position had to mentally adjust the top tube length
when comparing two frames with differing seat tube angles (holding top
tube length constant, a shallower seat angle robs the frame of reach,
as you end up sliding the saddle forward to compensate.) Nowadays with
varying top tube angles the seat tube can no longer masquerade as an
indicator of head tube height, so the tables list some mishmash of
"effective" tube lengths and you have to do a bunch of trigonometry to
compare between brands.
It might be better to just measure (1) and (2) directly -- this is
called "stack" and "reach" and a few manufacturers list it, including
Trek.
Compact geometry ought to have been a boon for most riders, allowing a
higher handlebar placement than traditional race fit. I think it does
help shorter riders (who are a larger proportion of the underserved
riding public than us tall guys.) However it also coincided with a
development in racer fashion of riding with a very deep saddle-bar
drop and using the "hoods" as primary hand position. So everyone now
rides on frames that are a size or two too small, level top tube or
no. Tall people who remember when bike frames were made large seem to
misattribute the cause and blame sloping top tubes for their woes.
> Also, in those
> large frame sizes, you should think about steel, not aluminum. As others
> in this thread have stated, you start to have frame cracking issues with
> aluminum in bad places.
>
> Ironically, there are some true 64cm bikes from Bikes Direct, in steel
> or aluminum i.e.
> "http://bikesdirect.com/products/mercier/mercier_serpensIX.htm"
> "http://www.bikesdirect.com/products/motobecane/sprint_x.htm"
> "http://www.bikesdirect.com/products/mercier/mercier_corvus.htm"
These have a reasonable amount of reach, particularly the aluminum
one.
Peter
SMS
> On Mar 10, 2:32 pm, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> Also, in those
>> large frame sizes, you should think about steel, not aluminum. As others
>> in this thread have stated, you start to have frame cracking issues with
>> aluminum in bad places.
>
> Dude, are you a Republican?
Hey, no need for those kind of insults. We can disagree on stuff, but
accusing someone of being a Republican is really hitting below the belt.
> Because you seem to love hammering on the
> bullshit and fear based talking points.
Not "bullshit" at all. The pros and cons of the different types of frame
materials are well known and accepted.
> One model of Cannondale had
> really stupid cantilevered dropouts--and you're going to use this
> "proof" to start pushing your talking points?
It's not just Cannondale, or that one model.
SMS
<snip>
> The larger frame will make a big difference- I would recommend
> considering an even larger frame, a 66 or 68 at your height. In order
> not to feel cramped and uncomfortable with a 62 or even a 64 you would
> need to resort to very long seatpost and stem.
>
> I'm 6'4" and a 64 is about right for me.
66 or 68 are _really_ hard to find, while there are still some true 64
cm frames being sold. Probably need a custom frame for something that
big. Koga-Miyata makes 66 cm road bikes but they aren't sold in the
United States.
But it's true that a larger frame would be better (depending on the leg
length too). There's a tendency for bike shops to steer customers toward
frames that are way too small.
Very good article about all this, and a good sizing chart, at
"http://www.rivbike.com/article/bike_fit/choosing_a_frame_size"
Well one good thing is that short people now have a much better
selection of bicycles than in the past.
Kyle Bramblesglarb
I'm a little discouraged that I can't just go into a store and put
down $1,000 to get something brand new in the right size. I really
didn't want to get into ordering stuff online and parting together a
bike.
There's a lot of things to take into consideration on this thread, so
I'm thinking on it. I really don't want to buy a frame on eBay and
peice stuff together. I don't know how to fix this stuff myself and I
don't want keeping the bike operational to be a constantly ongoing
effort. It's going to be hard enough for me to find time to ride, let
alone hot-rod around with tweaking it.
The benefit to buying a new bike from my local shop is that they'll
fit and re-fit it for me and give it free lifetime tuneups.
I'm using the bike this year to train and my end goal is to complete
the Seagull Century in October. Even though I'm really large, does
anybody here think a 62cm or 64cm compact will be "good enough" to not
kill my back or knees? I'm not going to ride it across Europe or
anything, just around Maryland.
SMS
<snip>
> I'm using the bike this year to train and my end goal is to complete
> the Seagull Century in October. Even though I'm really large, does
> anybody here think a 62cm or 64cm compact will be "good enough" to not
> kill my back or knees? I'm not going to ride it across Europe or
> anything, just around Maryland.
It's like that old Midas Muffler commercial where the customer is at a
competitor and asks if they have a muffler that will fit his car. The
response by the service writer is "Fit? We'll _MAKE_ it fit! They
proceed to weld on a bunch of pipes and adapters and they end up with
something that conceivably could work.
You could certainly take a 62 cm or 64 cm compact frame and make enough
changes to it to make it rideable. A shop that sells those would want
you to take that route. You might need a very long S curve seatpost, and
a couple of steer-tube extenders (or get an uncut, very long, fork), and
a new stem with a longer reach.
I think my first choice would be one of the 64 cm non-compact frames,
i.e. "http://bikesdirect.com/products/mercier/mercier_serpensIX.htm".
It's expensive, but it's a Reynolds 853 steel frame and it has very good
wheels and good components.
Second choice, and cheaper, would be
"http://www.bikesdirect.com/products/mercier/mercier_corvus.htm"
LBSes hate Bikes Direct with good reason, and for most people there's
little reason to buy from them versus from a shop. In this case, your
local bike shop would probably understand why you did what you did. You
still might need to make some small modifications, but a lot fewer.
A second option is to find an old 64cm or 66cm frame and build something up.
A third option is to fly to Europe and get a Koga-Miyata 64cm road bike.
It's all pretty crazy, but it's a result of where the bicycle industry
has been taken in order to survive. People that are outliers in size
have always had a hard time. Used to be very hard to buy bicycles for
short people, now it's hard to buy them for tall people. It's just not
profitable to make large frames since the sales level is so low.
Depending on where you live, a custom frame may not cost you as much as
you may think. My nephew lives near Minneapolis and was going to buy a
Rivendell, but his shop told him that there were so many frame builders
around that used to work at Trek in the olden days that he could get a
custom frame built for less than a Rivendell. The problem is that you're
then stuck buying all the other components at retail, which makes the
complete bicycle very costly.
Kyle Bramblesglarb
concieve ordering something I've never gotten to see in person,
though. The Corvus is an attractive price for me, and the components
sound good. 105's and Tiagra? That's as good as I could expect to
afford. Of course, I'd have to drag it into my LBS and pay them to do
the remaining 10% of the assembly.
SMS
Probably not. The remaining assembly is pretty trivial, and you probably
want to learn how to adjust the brakes and gears anyway. You probably
want to check the wheels for trueness, and bring those into a shop for
truing which is likely to cost you $20-25 a wheel or so. I usually go to
REI for truing since the turnaround time is very fast, and the usual
charge for members is less than what's posted (they give you a break if
it's not too much out of true). The shop I'd prefer to go to is usually
so backed up with repairs that they can't do it quickly.
I think the bigger issue is that there is really no warranty when you
buy this way since you're obviously not going to send the whole bike
back for service (unless something major breaks like the frame which
isn't likely on a steel frame bike). But you're really only talking
about the first year where any bike would be repaired by a shop at no
charge to you.
If it's delivered and you hate it, or it's not the right size, you can
always send it back, but you'll be out the return shipping charges.
Reviews on the bikes from Bikes Direct are generally good, though some
LBS people say that they are lousy of course. One thing that's
misleading is the Bikes Direct "price comparison." While their bikes are
generally a good value, the "Compare at"or "List" price is very
inflated. For the Corvus, they say $1600 for a comparable Trek or
Specialized, but really, there are no comparable products from Trek or
Specialized any more. That bike is comparable to my old Specialized
Sirrus (not the current model), but Specialized has not offered such a
bike in more than 15 years.
You're stuck here. Buying a non-compact, 64cm frame bike gives you no
great options. An LBS would be your first choice, but that choice isn't
available.
landotter
wrote:
Both the Trek and the Mercier have the same 61cm top tube length, the
only measurement that really matters. If it was between those two
only, and you're not tight for cash--I'd stay with the LBS. Not only
does it cost to build a bike, but if you get the Trek and want to
change a couple things, like the stem, you can often have that done
from the shop's parts bin or catch a good deal.
Again, SMS flaps his lips about frame material, and again I'll say
that he's strangely hysterical about steel with no evidence to support
his enthusiasm. At the $1K price point, you'll get a tough frame made
by apolitical robots, regardless of whether the thing is magnetic or
not.
Peter Cole
I'm 6'10" and haven't offered my advice yet, mostly because it's
complicated.
For a reasonably mechanical and highly motivated individual, the DIY
route would probably get you the best result for the least money. On the
other hand, I can understand perfectly why someone might not want to get
into all that & just ride a bike.
In my experience, some bike shops are very interested and skilled at
fitting problem riders, others -- not so much. I don't know what your
selection is, but if you have choices, evaluate them all.
I don't have a problem with mail order discount sellers, I've done my
share of bottom fishing and Ebay'ing, but I have a degree in mechanical
engineering, like to tinker, and have 4 cyclists in the family to
outfit. I've looked at Bikes Direct, and they appear to be a good value.
If you really never want to get your hands dirty (I know guys who take
their bikes to the shop to be *cleaned*) then try to develop a good
relationship with a local bike shop. You'll pay a bit of a premium, but
it's usually worth it -- nobody goes into the bike business to make a
fortune. Time is money, yours or anyone else's and there's nothing wrong
with letting someone else do something they like and you don't.
I'm not too negative about riding a slightly small bike (frame). For
many years, I rode a 63 cm bike (all I could find at the time), these
days I ride mostly vintage 68's, but I have one new-ish 68 that's a bit
more like a 64 (new frame sizing methods). On that bike I had to get a
little creative to get the bars high enough. I also mountain bike, and
it's a bit harder to fit those bikes.
If you're not interested in racing or fast club riding, consider a
touring bike, they're generally a bit nicer for tall people. Other than
that, a competent bike shop should be able to get you comfortable on a
frame that's a bit smaller than ideal. Mountain bike seat posts are
plenty long enough, there's just the problem of getting the bars to a
comfortable height and "reach" (the distance from the saddle, so you're
not scrunched up).
I agree it's not worth spending a fortune when you're just starting out
& you don't know what you want or even if you'll stick with it. Given
what you've said, I'd say your best bet is to shop for a shop. If you
get serious down the road and want something different, you can always
sell it.
Chalo
wrote:
> Thanks for all the advice.
>
> I'm a little discouraged that I can't just go into a store and put
> down $1,000 to get something brand new in the right size. I really
> didn't want to get into ordering stuff online and parting together a
> bike.
It's like buying pants. You go into a store and they don't have your
size. What do you do? If you're just fooling around and/or you need
something _right now_, then you buy sweat pants or shorts or whatever
and you tolerate them. But if you need to look and feel your best,
you keep looking until you find a store that has your size, or you
take your measurements and mail-order what you need, or you have a
tailor alter the next closest item or even make some just for you.
If you were buying a bike for playing with the kids, or for going down
the street to the store, or for getting to and from the bus stop for
your daily commute, you wouldn't need to spend so much attention on
fit. But you're doing a century ride, and hopefully picking up a
habit of distance cycling in the process. So you have to sweat this
particular detail.
> There's a lot of things to take into consideration on this thread, so
> I'm thinking on it. I really don't want to buy a frame on eBay and
> peice stuff together. I don't know how to fix this stuff myself and I
> don't want keeping the bike operational to be a constantly ongoing
> effort.
All bikes need some upkeep. Good quality components need less
attention than cheap stuff, but in some regards new bikes need more
upkeep than simpler older bikes. Just buying a new and factory-
configured bike doesn't mean you'll have to service it less. You are
talking about buying a bike with low-spoke-count wheels and brifters,
for Pete's sake. You'd be fooling yourself to think it would need
less mechanical attention than something old-fashioned with 36 spoke
wheels and downtube shifters. Get used to the idea that no matter
what you wind up with, your bike will need occasional service to keep
working at its best.
> It's going to be hard enough for me to find time to ride, let
> alone hot-rod around with tweaking it.
Again, you seem to assume that a new Trek might magically arrive
perfectly set up for you and never need tweaking? That's not
realistic. Any bike will need setup, just like it will need
maintenance.
> The benefit to buying a new bike from my local shop is that they'll
> fit and re-fit it for me and give it free lifetime tuneups.
A good local shop will fit you to any bike you bring in. If they'll
do more in this regard for a bike they just sold you than for any
other bike, then they are not a service shop-- and you should go find
a shop that is a service shop.
Figure out what they mean by "free lifetime tune-ups". My shop
charges $50 for a tune-up, and it really should be more expensive
because it usually involves a lot more work than the price justifies.
Other shops can and do charge a lot more, yet still deliver a service
that's worth the cost:
http://www.rideyourbike.com/tuneup.html
Free lifetime tune-ups means either cursory examinations and minor
adjustments, or a pretext to getting you in the shop and selling you
replacement parts whose markup includes the cost of your tune-ups, or
something else along those lines. Don't pay more for less bike, or
worse yet buy a less than ideal size, based on some free-lunch
marketing concept.
Heck, even a flat rate tune-up is a marketing gimmick compared to fee-
for-service pricing. It just works acceptably for most people most of
the time.
> I'm using the bike this year to train and my end goal is to complete
> the Seagull Century in October. Even though I'm really large, does
> anybody here think a 62cm or 64cm compact will be "good enough" to not
> kill my back or knees? I'm not going to ride it across Europe or
> anything, just around Maryland.
If that's your approach, then what's so wrong with your current
mountain bike as to justify spending a grand on another improvised
solution?
Like I said before, I have several bikes that started out too small,
which I made to work OK with special stems, handlebars, and
seatposts. You can do that too. But I encourage you not to spend a
lot of money doing that.
Chalo
SMS
> If you're not interested in racing or fast club riding, consider a
> touring bike, they're generally a bit nicer for tall people. Other than
> that, a competent bike shop should be able to get you comfortable on a
> frame that's a bit smaller than ideal. Mountain bike seat posts are
> plenty long enough, there's just the problem of getting the bars to a
> comfortable height and "reach" (the distance from the saddle, so you're
> not scrunched up).
There are always extra long seat posts, steer-tube extenders, and longer
stems. But if it's at all possible, it's better to get a larger frame so
the use of these devices is limited. They do affect (negatively) the
ride quality.
I don't think the issue here is saving a few bucks from Bikes Direct
versus going to an LBS, it's that there are no new, non-compact, large
frame, road bicycles sold by any shop in the U.S. anymore. Anything you
buy from an LBS is going to require some creative (and non-free)
modifications to make it work.
Here's what the o.p. needs:
Peter Cole
No, what he needs is someone to build that into a bike he can ride. I
agree it could be done within his budget, I've done it for half his
budget, but I didn't charge out my labor.
(PeteCresswell)
>I'm a little discouraged that I can't just go into a store and put
>down $1,000 to get something brand new in the right size. I really
>didn't want to get into ordering stuff online and parting together a
>bike.
Couple years back I had the luck to have an extended conversation
with one of the bigwigs in a major bike manufacturing company.
What I got from him was that once one exceeds 6'3" in height,
off-the-shelf solutions are not going to fit.
I'm about 6'5" and my experience would support that.
--
PeteCresswell
(PeteCresswell)
>
>What I got from him was that once one exceeds 6'3" in height,
>off-the-shelf solutions are not going to fit.
Written in haste....
I should amend that to "... off-the-shelf solutions are not going
to fit perfectly."
I've got four bikes. They all fit more-or-less, and they're all
off-the-shelf (one I ordered as "custom", but the measurements
just happened to turn out exactly the same as their off-the-shelf
"XL" or "XXL" size - can't recall which and the frame's been
discontinued).
--
PeteCresswell
Tim McNamara
SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> I don't think the issue here is saving a few bucks from Bikes Direct
> versus going to an LBS, it's that there are no new, non-compact,
> large frame, road bicycles sold by any shop in the U.S. anymore.
That's hardly true, Steven. Maybe that's just the situation around your
house, but my LBS has a nice selection of non-compact big framed bikes
on hand (as well as some "compact" ones too). But their product line
mix is not aimed at racers and wannabe racers like most shops. There's
not a scrap of CF in the store, for one thing.
--
Faith is believing what you know ain't so.
-Mark Twain
AMuzi
Before taking that plunge into a compromised fit, see if
there is a Gunnar dealer near you:
http://gunnarbikes.com/site/shops/
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
SMS
So what are the makes and models of those non-compact big frame
bicycles? I'm sure the original poster would love to know this
information. I sure haven't seen such an animal in any of the shops in
my area.
AMuzi
Which planet was that again?
Gunnar builds to 68cm stock, larger customs 4 to 6 weeks.
Tim McNamara
SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
I'm sorry you live somewhere that is so benighted. Two brands available
there, off the top of my head, include Rivendell and Gunnar, both of
which make frames up to 66 or 68 cm. They've had a Soma frame or two,
IIRC, and they go up to 66 cm.
Tall bikes not that hard to find, although a lot of bike shops won't
stock them for fear of never selling the things. Someone who is 6'6" or
6'10" is a fairly rare customer, after all.
Peter Cole
I think both bikes are well outside the OP's stated price range.
Kyle Bramblesglarb
make something for large sizes. But you're right, Peter, the frame
alone costs about what the budget for my whole bike is.
My local bike shop has a fitting station contraption, so I'm going to
head down there this weekend and see what they say my geometry needs
are.
(PeteCresswell)
>The Gunnar bike frames look very nice. It's good to know that they
>make something for large sizes. But you're right, Peter, the frame
>alone costs about what the budget for my whole bike is.
I looked at Gunnar's "Ruffian" SS frame: $1,125 off-the-shelf...
Sheesh!
My Surly 1x1 was a little under $300 with
fork/shipping/taxes/chasing & facing the BB shell.
I had to do some cruel and unusual things to the Surly to get a
comfortable fit... but it seems tb working for me.
The Ruffian is nicer - especially the disc mount locations that
don't contend with a luggage rack.... but, in the context of my
own budget, it's not $800+ nicer.
--
PeteCresswell
Tim McNamara
Peter Cole <peter...@verizon.net> wrote:
Well, he may be stuck there given his size. At 6'4", which is really
not that unusual since I see a *lot* of people my height when out in
public places, I have a hard time finding stuff that fits properly
(pants, shirts, shoes let alone biking equipment). For every inch
taller than me, the options must get significantly fewer.
If he really has to stay within that price range, he'd probably be best
off looking for a used bike that's big enough on Craigslist or eBay
(having a quick look just now I saw nothing larger than 62 cm, though).
Tim McNamara
<f73e6005-da98-413e...@g7g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
Kyle Bramblesglarb <kyle.ram...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The Gunnar bike frames look very nice. It's good to know that they
> make something for large sizes. But you're right, Peter, the frame
> alone costs about what the budget for my whole bike is.
As I mention in my reply to Peter, you may be stuck in this regard.
BTW, I've got a Gunnar and they do an excellent job in making bikes.
Mine is from ca. 1990 and has been all over the local area, used in
races for a couple of years, on a tour in the Alps and at PBP. Nice
riding bike.
Also check out Soma which may be a bit cheaper (or maybe not, I didn't
compare prices):
> My local bike shop has a fitting station contraption, so I'm going to
> head down there this weekend and see what they say my geometry needs
> are.
Hopefully that will help identify a viable option or two. Unfortunately,
riding on a too-small bike is painful and discouraging.
Good luck!
Tom Sherman °_°
> The Gunnar bike frames look very nice. It's good to know that they
> make something for large sizes. But you're right, Peter, the frame
You pay more for Made in Wisconsin quality.
--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
AMuzi
Seeking an outlier size produced in high volume may be a
long walk. Respondents both suggested compromise on fit and
on price. Either is a solution (I advocated moving up in
price a bit) but "unusual" and "cheap" is tough.
$4 tee shirts are "L" only. $8 ones are S-M-L, etc etc.
Chalo
I have four 68cm road bikes in my pile.
One of them cost me $600 for the frame and fork, new, almost twenty
years ago.
One of them cost me $50 for the complete bike, used in very good
condition.
Two of them cost me nothing for the frames and forks. Used, in rough
condition.
Because of sizing fashion, tall bike frames were not as uncommon in
the '70s and '80s as they are now. As far as I can tell, in sizes
above about 65cm, '70s and '80s frames are still more common than
recently made frames. And they are cheaper to acquire.
Chalo
landotter
> Per Kyle Bramblesglarb:
>
> >The Gunnar bike frames look very nice. It's good to know that they
> >make something for large sizes. But you're right, Peter, the frame
> >alone costs about what the budget for my whole bike is.
>
> I looked at Gunnar's "Ruffian" SS frame: $1,125 off-the-shelf...
> Sheesh!
>
> My Surly 1x1 was a little under $300 with
> fork/shipping/taxes/chasing & facing the BB shell.
>
> I had to do some cruel and unusual things to the Surly to get a
> comfortable fit... but it seems tb working for me.
The XL Surlys do look interesting on paper. VTT on the Karate Monkey
is 63cm--but it would require a mast of a post and the stays are quite
ridiculously short.
Also, looking at the bikesdirect stuff, the "Mercier" offerings have a
63cm top tube in a 64. Eight hundred gets a 70005 frame with 105/
Tiagra kit and some goofy wheels.
Ultimately, without seeing the OPs length distribution in various body
parts, it's pretty hard to guess what would actually be practical.
Peter Cole
> Peter Cole wrote:
>> I think both bikes are well outside the OP's stated price range.
>
> Seeking an outlier size produced in high volume may be a long walk.
> Respondents both suggested compromise on fit and on price. Either is a
> solution (I advocated moving up in price a bit) but "unusual" and
> "cheap" is tough.
>
> $4 tee shirts are "L" only. $8 ones are S-M-L, etc etc.
Thanks for the update.
Peter Cole
I have a similar collection. I paid $450 for a new 68 cm Cannondale
frame & fork ~15 years ago, $50 & $100 for older, but virtually unused
complete bikes (Fuji, Schwinn), and $150 for an early mint Cannondale --
all 68 cm frames. I also got a new Fuji frame & fork off Ebay 5 years
ago for $100, labeled 68 cm, but really more of a 64, I had to extend
the fork (Sheldon's quill in threadless trick). I suppose if I win the
lottery I might pop for a custom, but I don't really see the need.
Rivendell might spec me a 75 cm frame or something, but I don't think I
need it. My bars are below my saddle, but not all that much. All my
saddles are in the middle of the rails. I've ridden double centuries, my
fit can't be all that bad.
SMS
<snip>
> Because of sizing fashion, tall bike frames were not as uncommon in
> the '70s and '80s as they are now. As far as I can tell, in sizes
> above about 65cm, '70s and '80s frames are still more common than
> recently made frames. And they are cheaper to acquire.
Now the bean counters are in charge of the bicycle manufacturers. Not
necessarily a bad thing for the companies to have more financial
discipline, but it means dropping niche products that are unprofitable
for both the manufacturer and the bicycle shop, and getting into a race
to the bottom in terms of frame geometry and materials.
I was sad to see some of the unique Burley stuff go out of production,
like the child stoker kit for tandems, though they did bring back the
wonderful Piccolo tag-along after dropping it for a while.
Jay
"Kyle Bramblesglarb" <kyle.ram...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ceee478a-c53c-4dfb...@g7g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
> I'm a tall beginner rider preparing to buy my 1st road bike. I've
> begun training for a century ride on my Trek 5400 MTB while I shop for
> something faster.
>
> I'm considering a Trek 1-series and for 2010 they offer a 64cm frame
> in the Trek 1.5 bike. I was wondering if anybody could let me know if
> the 64cm would make a noticable difference over the 62cm frame. I may
> not be able to justify the increased cost and may end up just getting
> a Trek 1.1, but I'm concerned about comfort and getting sore on long
> rides. If starting with a larger frame would make a big difference,
> I'll try justifying the additional expense.
>
> (snip)
>
I don't know anything about the Treks you are looking at, but I can tell you
about my experience with my new Cannondale Bad Boy Disk (2009). The
following link refers to the 2010 model:
My frame size is 62cm, which Cannondale calls XL. All the pics in the
following folder show the bike after adding a Dimension Steerer Extender
(except one pic, which is labeled). The extender adds 8.3cm. The stock seat
post is the same height in all pics.
http://www.neiu.edu/~jbollyn/bike/bbq/
I am 6'4", and the bike right now is fairly close to what I need for 17
miles daily commuting. If the pressure on my hands becomes an issue, I
understand the additional bike modifications will be a bit expensive and
tricky.
I am 2" shorter than you, and you can see how it is going with my 62cm
frame. And I am commuting, not riding endurance. I like the bike, but this
is my first bike of this type. So I don't have any basis for comparison.
J.
Jean
"Peter Cole" <peter...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:hneg6k$6c1$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>
...major snippage
>
> I have a similar collection. I paid $450 for a new 68 cm Cannondale frame
> & fork ~15 years ago, $50 & $100 for older, but virtually unused complete
> bikes (Fuji, Schwinn), and $150 for an early mint Cannondale --
> all 68 cm frames. I also got a new Fuji frame & fork off Ebay 5 years ago
> for $100, labeled 68 cm, but really more of a 64, I had to extend the fork
> (Sheldon's quill in threadless trick). I suppose if I win the lottery I
> might pop for a custom, but I don't really see the need. Rivendell might
> spec me a 75 cm frame or something, but I don't think I need it. My bars
> are below my saddle, but not all that much. All my saddles are in the
> middle of the rails. I've ridden double centuries, my fit can't be all
> that bad.
I looked through Sheldon's web site and could not find the "quill in
threadless trick" that you referred to. What is the trick?
Jean
AMuzi
'Tricks' are done by magicians and by, well, other
professions than ours.
Quill stem in threadless:
http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/FISHBAR.JPG
Andre Jute
> Jean wrote:
> > "Peter Cole" <peter_c...@verizon.net> wrote in message
What are "guitarist compatible handlebars"? Or has Yellow Jersey's
copywriter been at the acid again? Those are just your standard
upright British roadster handlebars, poncilly called by some down at
Le Caff Poseur "North Road Bars" or "Trekking Bars".
Andre Jute
AMuzi
Mr Fish complained that after longish rides he couldn't play
guitar in his normally facile manner. A tall quill was so
much more elegant than a stack of adapters.
I take no moral position for or against LSD but the fond
memories are wildly eidetic.
Andre Jute
> >> Quill stem in threadless:http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/FISHBAR.JPG
Jute:
> > What are "guitarist compatible handlebars"? Or has Yellow Jersey's
> > copywriter been at the acid again? Those are just your standard
> > upright British roadster handlebars, poncilly called by some down at
> > Le Caff Poseur "North Road Bars" or "Trekking Bars".
Muzi:
> Mr Fish complained that after longish rides he couldn't play
> guitar in his normally facile manner. A tall quill was so
> much more elegant than a stack of adapters.
Jute:
I don't take a moral position against North Road Bars on long stems,
indeed the opposite:
http://www.audio-talk.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE%20Bauhaus.html and go to
the pic halfway down the page.
Also:
http://www.audio-talk.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE%20Trek%20Navigator%20L700%20Smover.html
and check out how I used the black extender to prevent the length of
stem seeming swanlike.
My sympathies to Mr Fish. As a fellow manual worker (where he operates
a guitar, I operate a keyboard), I know all about the irritation that
microvibrations from the road can cause. If you see him, recommend
balloon tyres and the Brooks grips with the many sideways-on rounds of
leather. These are so much better than a suspension fork and gel
grips.
Andre Jute
Visit Andre's recipes:
http://www.audio-talk.co.uk/fiultra/FOOD.html
Peter Cole
Read:
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/handsup.html
"Threadless Without Spacers"
Then see:
http://sheldonbrown.org/thorn/index.html
I used the "2 stem" approach, like the Thorn, with a conventional 1-1/8"
threadless stem on the bottom and a 1" quill stem inserted into the
steerer. Both stems have removable faceplates, so I can restore things
to a conventional setup in minutes. I put my main (drop) bars on the top
stem, and a stub bar on the lower stem for accessories.
Peter Cole
The "tricky" part is adjusting the headset preload without a star nut,
otherwise, there's nothing special about sticking a quill in a tube,
threaded or not.
Nate Nagel
dumb question, if this is a real problem couldn't you use something like
a rubber core plug with the stem cap and some spacers to adjust the
preload, then lock it down, remove, and insert the quill?
something like this:
http://www.automedia.com/Replacing_a_Freeze_Plug/ccr20070401fp/1
(look at the last photo)
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
Peter Cole
They make things like that for CF forks where star nuts can't be used. I
like simpler methods.
Jean
Thanks for the info!
SMS
> The "tricky" part is adjusting the headset preload without a star nut,
> otherwise, there's nothing special about sticking a quill in a tube,
> threaded or not.
The first bicycle I got with a threadless headset was a Montague Urban
folding bicycle. These were sold direct, not in shops. It did not have a
star-fangled nut, and it was rather a pain to do the pre-load without
the nut, but not impossible. I had to do it a second time when I added
an extender to make the bike more ride able.
SMS
>
> "Kyle Bramblesglarb" <kyle.ram...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ceee478a-c53c-4dfb...@g7g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
>> I'm a tall beginner rider preparing to buy my 1st road bike. I've
>> begun training for a century ride on my Trek 5400 MTB while I shop for
>> something faster.
>>
>> I'm considering a Trek 1-series and for 2010 they offer a 64cm frame
>> in the Trek 1.5 bike. I was wondering if anybody could let me know if
>> the 64cm would make a noticable difference over the 62cm frame. I may
>> not be able to justify the increased cost and may end up just getting
>> a Trek 1.1, but I'm concerned about comfort and getting sore on long
>> rides. If starting with a larger frame would make a big difference,
>> I'll try justifying the additional expense.
>>
>> (snip)
>>
> I don't know anything about the Treks you are looking at, but I can tell
> you about my experience with my new Cannondale Bad Boy Disk (2009). The
> following link refers to the 2010 model:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/yevwyos
>
> My frame size is 62cm, which Cannondale calls XL. All the pics in the
> following folder show the bike after adding a Dimension Steerer Extender
> (except one pic, which is labeled). The extender adds 8.3cm. The stock
> seat post is the same height in all pics.
>
> http://www.neiu.edu/~jbollyn/bike/bbq/
Glad you got a real rack. I think you should over the rack brackets with
black heat-shrink tubing to keep the color scheme all black.
Jay
"SMS" <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:4b9de856$0$1645$742e...@news.sonic.net...
> Jay wrote:
>
> (snip)
>>
>> http://www.neiu.edu/~jbollyn/bike/bbq/
>
> Glad you got a real rack. I think you should over the rack brackets with
> black heat-shrink tubing to keep the color scheme all black.
>
Heat-shrink tubing would be ideal, but I might just wrap with black
electrical tape.
J.
Nate Nagel
I've got just the car to go with that paint scheme :)
http://members.cox.net/njnagel2/2008_06_01/2008_06_01_003.JPG
Actually, I my beater 944 is black with a black leather interior...
only non-black bits on the whole car are the wheels.
yeah, I like black :)
AMuzi
> On 03/15/2010 06:21 PM, Jay wrote:
>>
>> "SMS" <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote in message
>> news:4b9de856$0$1645$742e...@news.sonic.net...
>>> Jay wrote:
>>>
>>> (snip)
>>>>
>>>> http://www.neiu.edu/~jbollyn/bike/bbq/
>>>
>>> Glad you got a real rack. I think you should over the rack brackets
>>> with black heat-shrink tubing to keep the color scheme all black.
>>>
>> I was just thinking today about how the brackets disrupt the feng shui.
>> Heat-shrink tubing would be ideal, but I might just wrap with black
>> electrical tape.
> I've got just the car to go with that paint scheme :)
> http://members.cox.net/njnagel2/2008_06_01/2008_06_01_003.JPG
> Actually, I my beater 944 is black with a black leather interior... only
> non-black bits on the whole car are the wheels.
> yeah, I like black :)
That's too bad. Red is faster
(yes, I do. Although I don't drive much now)
Nate Nagel
I don't like red cars. For some reason they are visible to cops and
nobody else. I used to have a red GTI 16V, and I swear to God, some
idiot managed to rear end me while I was stopped in a parking lot near
an Applebee's, while I was sitting still, under one of those big honking
parking lot light poles, with my lights and turn signal on. Only thing
I can figure was that he was way drunk, but the only damage to my car
was the scuffs on the rear bumper from the screws on his front plate, so
I just told him that he was a freaking idiot and to get the hell out of
there.
The same exact thing happened to me on I-66 as well... stop and go
traffic, I was at the tail end of it, guy apparently couldn't see the
wall of cars (not to be confused with the wall of sound, which is way
more fun) in front of him and I happened to be at the tail end of it in
the middle lane with nowhere to go.
Say what you like about vee-dubs, they stand up well to being rear-ended
by morons.
(PeteCresswell)
>http://sheldonbrown.com/harris/surly-rohloff/
Looks like Surly does the same thing with rack eyelets on the
Karate Monkey as they do on their 1x1: they put them where a disc
brake interferes with the rack - instead of forward on the chain
stay where a caliper would not contend with the rack.
Seems like it would be a no-cost option to put the caliper mounts
on the chain stay instead of where they are.
How come dey do dat?
--
PeteCresswell
AMuzi
You got that right. It is a cop magnet.
BTW when I read that sort of thing (yours above) or see these:
http://www.ksdk.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=197979
I wonder how much effect a blinky or red reflector has, when
push comes to shove. If the guy didn't see 2 parked vehicles
with red/blue lights running or couldn't quite discern your
red CAR right in his lane, how much does a little red thing do?
Tom Sherman °_°
> BTW when I read that sort of thing (yours above) or see these:
> http://www.ksdk.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=197979
>
> I wonder how much effect a blinky or red reflector has, when push comes
> to shove. If the guy didn't see 2 parked vehicles with red/blue lights
> running or couldn't quite discern your red CAR right in his lane, how
> much does a little red thing do?
>
There is a theory that the flashing lights attract drunks.
--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
Nate Nagel
There may be something to that, not so much drunks but that they attract
people in general by drawing their attention to them. If you've ever
driven a car that really turns heads, the same thing happens - people
drift into your lane because they're steering where they're looking. It
actually takes some practice to be able to drive a straight line and
look somewhere else, and most people don't practice that, because, well,
you ought to be looking where you're going. I imagine that being drunk
just makes you a) more likely to stare at the pretty blinky lights and
momentarily forget what you're doing and b) more likely to forget to
keep from steering in the direction of the pretty blinky lights at which
you shouldn't be staring but are anyway.
Worst car I had for the "people drifting into your lane because they're
staring at it, probably trying to figure out what the heck it is" was
also bright red, but this time it was a '62 Studebaker hardtop. I also
saw a cop's head swivel about 270 degrees once as I passed him at
exactly 54.5 MPH :) (the glasspacks might have had something to do with
that...) Nobody ever ran into that car, thankfully...
Nate Nagel
just dusted off some crusty ol' pics and threw 'em up, in case you were
wondering to what I was referring
http://members.cox.net/njnagel2/daytona.html
AMuzi
Nate Nagel
Nice. Oddly enough, the guy's house where those pics were taken had at
some point restored a similar body style turbo convertible. I never saw
that car though...
Bill Sornson
> I don't like red cars. For some reason they are visible to cops and
> nobody else.
Someone told me that /yellow/ attracts the eye more than any other color.
They told me this shortly after I bought a (gorgeous) yellow sports car.
Bill "and yes, I traded in a RED sports car -- no (speeding) tickets" S.
Dan Becker
<njn...@roosters.net> wrote:
> I've got just the car to go with that paint scheme :)
>
> http://members.cox.net/njnagel2/2008_06_01/2008_06_01_003.JPG
No offense, but I always thought the front end of those things looked
like the front end of a carp, and this photo illustrates that
perfectly.
dan trolling the bottom becker
Dan Becker
<njn...@roosters.net> wrote:
> just dusted off some crusty ol' pics and threw 'em up, in case you were
> wondering to what I was referring
>
> http://members.cox.net/njnagel2/daytona.html
And now in penance I must say that for 1962 that is one extraordinarily
fine rear end.
dan red in the face becker
SMS
Electrical tape is tacky and it won't last long. Either paint them or
use heat shrink. I've used black heat shrink on several bikes where I've
installed black rear racks.
Peter Cole
I used electrical tape to cover chrome inserts on outside door handles
of a car I owned. When I sold it more than a dozen ungaraged years later
it looked fine.
N8N
> In article <hnmceo11...@news4.newsguy.com>, Nate Nagel
>
> <njna...@roosters.net> wrote:
> > I've got just the car to go with that paint scheme :)
>
> >http://members.cox.net/njnagel2/2008_06_01/2008_06_01_003.JPG
>
> No offense, but I always thought the front end of those things looked
> like the front end of a carp, and this photo illustrates that
> perfectly.
>
> dan trolling the bottom becker
I believe i've heard it called a "chrome catfish" before, but have you
priced a good used 53-54 Stude front clip lately?
nate
(PeteCresswell)
>
>http://members.cox.net/njnagel2/daytona.html
Geeze, a reminder that at one time they actually *did* make
sedans with headroom...
--
PeteCresswell
Jay
$190. I don't think I would find enough uses for it around the house, to
justify the expense.
J.
N8N
> "SMS" <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:4b9eff2f$0$1588$742e...@news.sonic.net...
>
>
>
> > Jay wrote:
>
> >> "SMS" <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote in message
> >>news:4b9de856$0$1645$742e...@news.sonic.net...
> >>> Jay wrote:
>
> >>> (snip)
>
> >>>>http://www.neiu.edu/~jbollyn/bike/bbq/
>
> >>> Glad you got a real rack. I think you should over the rack brackets with
> >>> black heat-shrink tubing to keep the color scheme all black.
>
> >> I was just thinking today about how the brackets disrupt the feng shui.
> >> Heat-shrink tubing would be ideal, but I might just wrap with black
> >> electrical tape.
>
> > Electrical tape is tacky and it won't last long. Either paint them or use
> > heat shrink. I've used black heat shrink on several bikes where I've
> > installed black rear racks.
>
> I don't have a heat gun. I found a Weldy Plus Heat Gun online, but it is
> $190. I don't think I would find enough uses for it around the house, to
> justify the expense.
Hair dryer on high works fine for occasional jobs, or butane lighter.
nate
SMS
> I don't have a heat gun. I found a Weldy Plus Heat Gun online, but it is
> $190. I don't think I would find enough uses for it around the house, to
> justify the expense.
Wow, I've never known anyone without a heat gun before! :}.
"http://www.harborfreight.com/cpi/ctaf/displayitem.taf?Itemnumber=96289"
$20. Often on sale at their stores for $10. But you don't need a heat
gun, for occasional shrinking you can use a cigarette lighter or a hot
hair dryer (cover the intake and it gets hotter until it trips the
over-temperature protection which resets after a few minutes).
I've found a myriad of uses for heat shrink tubing around the house and
on sporting equipment. I used to solder the ends of shift and brake
cables to keep them from unraveling, but that doesn't work well with
cables anymore, so I slip on a small piece of heat shrink which is
better than those crimp on thingees.
SMS
> Jay wrote:
>
>> I don't have a heat gun. I found a Weldy Plus Heat Gun online, but it
>> is $190. I don't think I would find enough uses for it around the
>> house, to justify the expense.
>
> Wow, I've never known anyone without a heat gun before! :}.
>
> "http://www.harborfreight.com/cpi/ctaf/displayitem.taf?Itemnumber=96289"
> $20. Often on sale at their stores for $10.
Actually it was on sale earlier in March for $7.99.
N8N
it's also good for boot laces, when the little plastic things on the
ends wear out before the laces do. Just don't hold the lighter under
them too long!
nate
Jay
but it will be fine for what I need.
I came across this video. It is funnier if you watch the video first, then
read the comments:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gdxvdvusqU&NR=1
J.
SMS
>
> "SMS" <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote in message
> news:4b9fac8c$0$1656$742e...@news.sonic.net...
>> Jay wrote:
>>
>>> I don't have a heat gun. I found a Weldy Plus Heat Gun online, but it
>>> is $190. I don't think I would find enough uses for it around the
>>> house, to justify the expense.
>>
>> Wow, I've never known anyone without a heat gun before! :}.
>>
>> "http://www.harborfreight.com/cpi/ctaf/displayitem.taf?Itemnumber=96289"
>> $20. Often on sale at their stores for $10. But you don't need a heat
>> gun, for occasional shrinking you can use a cigarette lighter or a hot
>> hair dryer (cover the intake and it gets hotter until it trips the
>> over-temperature protection which resets after a few minutes).
>>
>> I've found a myriad of uses for heat shrink tubing around the house
>> and on sporting equipment. I used to solder the ends of shift and
>> brake cables to keep them from unraveling, but that doesn't work well
>> with cables anymore, so I slip on a small piece of heat shrink which
>> is better than those crimp on thingees.
>>
> I can afford $20 for a heat gun. It might not be as nice as the $190
> gun, but it will be fine for what I need.
Well from what I read about the Harbor Freight heat gun, it's for very
occasional use. At $7.99 it's okay, $20 may be too much.
Read the comment at:
"http://www.parts-express.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?Partnumber=360-380"
You might want this one instead
"http://www.amazon.com/Ungar-1095-Dual-Temperature-Heat/dp/B000LDKWJ0".
Jay
better.
J.
SMS
<snip>
> Sounds like the HF gun is junk, but the review of the Ungar is not much
> better.
It got good reviews here:
"http://www.parts-express.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?Partnumber=360-390" but
it's cheaper from Amazon.
There was only one review at Amazon.
I've had the same heat gun for probably 15 years with never a problem. I
don't know the brand. It's got two air speeds and two continually
variable heat ranges.
It shouldn't be so hard for these companies to make a heat gun, it's
basically just a fan and a heating element.
Peter Cole
Harbor Freight stuff is always a crap shoot, even the good stuff often
requires "re-assembly". I tend to think of their tools as partially
assembled kits, I often take them apart right out of the box when
they're either DOA or don't sound or act right. They're kind of like
factory wheels, which usually have to be totally tweaked before use or
they'll have a very short service life. If you can do that, they can be
a bargain, but not for everybody, and there's always the occasional stinker.
N8N
> Per Nate Nagel:
>
>
>
> >http://members.cox.net/njnagel2/daytona.html
>
> Geeze, a reminder that at one time they actually *did* make
> sedans with headroom...
Well, the Lark series cars were basically a "full sized" (in quotes,
because the Stude sedans were always smaller than the Big Three
offerings) sedan turned into a compact in 1959 by basically getting
rid of all the excess fat in the front and rear (notice how short the
front fenders are - the Stude V-8 is a pretty big motor, and they
basically shrink-wrapped the front end around it) - so as a result, at
least to my eye, the passenger compartment looks very
disproportionate. Even the convertible versions look a little
ungainly - the windshield looks very tall for the size of the car.
They do make for a very roomy small car, however - the room inside one
is fantastic. Even better are the "bullet nose" cars - they're like
little limousines, and a '51 Commander (Commander = V-8 engine) would
make a fantastic driver even today. You might want to upgrade the
brakes though - a pretty easy job; the 55-64 brakes bolt right on,
even the '63-64 front discs if you're so inclined. Obviously there's
still the love it or hate it styling to contend with.
Plus: real drip rails mean easy mounting of your bike rack :)
nate
SMS
> Plus: real drip rails mean easy mounting of your bike rack :)
I miss structural steel rain gutters.
Jay
"Peter Cole" <peter...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:hnopl5$6u4$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
there will probably be a gotcha. Especially if it is way cheaper than the
competition. I think their lax quality control, to meet the price point,
results in many disappointed customers. I would rather pay a bit more, with
the hope of fewer disappointments, and fewer costly and inconvenient
returns.
J.