View Single Post
Old 01-26-22, 04:38 PM
  #16  
63rickert
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 2,068
Mentioned: 44 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1090 Post(s)
Liked 329 Times in 245 Posts
The wife is 5’3”. When we got together her longtime number one bike was a custom built for her in 1975. Approximately 4cm of overlap. She had become accustomed to that. I asked the original builder why it was like that. His response was he had been 24 years old at the time and it was frame #63. He was 5’11” and what did he know about bikes for short people? Asked him to replace the 48mm rake fork with a 70mm. He did that at a very reasonable cost. Then we replaced the 170 cranks with 150mm. And had room for fenders.

After riding that bike bike for almost forty years with overlap she had completely stopped thinking about it. She likes it a whole lot better without. And loves fenders.

Since then we have acquired a 51cm 1973 Colnago Super. 71.5 head angle and 55mm rake. 52.5cm top tube. No overlap with the original 165mm cranks and 700x28 tires. 57mm of trail, correct for a road bike. This was a production bike, not a custom.

There is no reason for anyone to suffer an alleged road bike with a 70 head angle. They could be designed in 1973 and they can be designed now. The Colnago mentioned above has a level top tube and it has a head tube (head lugs just meet, there is space between top tube and down tube). The fork has enough clearance a 700x32 could be used if desired and there would still be enough air under forkcrown to not worry about random debris.

Do not spend money until you see a bike that is properly designed. You won't get one from any of the big name brands. They do not care about you.
63rickert is offline