Tommasini Super Prestige - strange sizing
09-09-21, 08:52 AM
#1
Member
Thread Starter
Tommasini Super Prestige - strange sizing
I've got a line on a Tommasini Super Prestige that is the great condition and looks to be all original, at a fair price. Vintage unkown. It's probably the most beautiful frame I've ever set eyes upon so I'm trying not to let that cloud my judgement...
The sizing looks a bit non-standard though. The seller doesn't know the specific sizing and says so, but has pictures with a tape measure. Seat tube T to C puts it right about 56cm, which will work perfectly for me. Top tube C to C reads about 53cm, which strikes me as quite short. Head tube is about 15cm if that matters. I suppose this could have been custom for someone with longer legs but a shorter torso, but it looks like a production frame.
Is this something that Italian builders (or any for that matter) were known to do, or is there something I'm missing about the sizing here? Any insight into this type pf geometry? I don't want to waste mine or the seller's time, so I'm trying to decide if it is worth the trip to see it.
The sizing looks a bit non-standard though. The seller doesn't know the specific sizing and says so, but has pictures with a tape measure. Seat tube T to C puts it right about 56cm, which will work perfectly for me. Top tube C to C reads about 53cm, which strikes me as quite short. Head tube is about 15cm if that matters. I suppose this could have been custom for someone with longer legs but a shorter torso, but it looks like a production frame.
Is this something that Italian builders (or any for that matter) were known to do, or is there something I'm missing about the sizing here? Any insight into this type pf geometry? I don't want to waste mine or the seller's time, so I'm trying to decide if it is worth the trip to see it.
09-09-21, 09:16 AM
#2
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: se MIch.
Posts: 2,300
Bikes: 1938 claud butler,1983 Basso,teledyne titan,teocali super,nrs,1993 stumpjumper fsr,Paramountain,Paramount Buell(sold),4 banger,Zaskar LE,Colnago Master Ibex MTB,1987ish,.etc....
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 800 Post(s)
Liked 2,962 Times
in
1,492 Posts
measuring frame size?
Last edited by '02 nrs; 09-09-21 at 09:22 AM.
09-09-21, 09:58 AM
#3
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: London, UK
Posts: 723
Bikes: Yes, probably too many but still have a roving eye...
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 313 Post(s)
Liked 2,782 Times
in
531 Posts
I'm assuming it has a horizontal top tube and is not sloping like in the graphic above.
My 90's steel Tommassini Super Prestige has seat tube of 61cm CTT and top tube 58 CTC which seems fairly stock, but 56/53 does seem an uncommon ratio, but 3cm isn't much really, and with a longer stem you can get closer to square if that's what you want. I guess they did a lot of custom builds so maybe someone with irregular proportions as you mention, or simply someone with a bad back
And come one now, Tommassini paint jobs are amazing so this sounds too good an opportunity to turn down, we can make it fit...and if it really is possibly 'the most amazing bike you've ever seen' you'd never forgive yourself for not at least trying to make it work, and it sounds so nice I'm sure you have no problem reselling it without losing money if you can't get comfortable on it.
So in summary just buy it already
.and be sure to post it in the Tommassini Lounge thread.
My 90's steel Tommassini Super Prestige has seat tube of 61cm CTT and top tube 58 CTC which seems fairly stock, but 56/53 does seem an uncommon ratio, but 3cm isn't much really, and with a longer stem you can get closer to square if that's what you want. I guess they did a lot of custom builds so maybe someone with irregular proportions as you mention, or simply someone with a bad back
And come one now, Tommassini paint jobs are amazing so this sounds too good an opportunity to turn down, we can make it fit
...and if it really is possibly 'the most amazing bike you've ever seen' you'd never forgive yourself for not at least trying to make it work, and it sounds so nice I'm sure you have no problem reselling it without losing money if you can't get comfortable on it.So in summary just buy it already
.and be sure to post it in the Tommassini Lounge thread.
09-09-21, 02:37 PM
#5
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Fredericksburg, Va
Posts: 9,579
Bikes: '65 Frejus TDF, '73 Bottecchia Giro d'Italia, '83 Colnago Superissimo, '84 Trek 610, '84 Trek 760, '88 Pinarello Veneto, '88 De Rosa Pro, '89 Pinarello Montello, '94 Burley Duet, 97 Specialized RockHopper, 2010 Langster, Tern Link D8
Mentioned: 73 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1607 Post(s)
Liked 2,214 Times
in
1,103 Posts
ST measurement is key. CTT or CTC? Many Italian frames are "square", or close to it not the extreme of 56/53. Even CTT this is a bit much but if the ST lug projects high enough or has a point sticking up, maybe. All conjecture on my part (ACOMP?)
__________________
Bikes don't stand alone. They are two tired.
Bikes don't stand alone. They are two tired.
09-09-21, 03:09 PM
#6
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 23,223
Mentioned: 654 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4722 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3,036 Times
in
1,874 Posts
Agreed, a 53cm CTC top tube would be very short for a 56cm seat tube, regardless of whether it's measured CTC or CTT. A 15cm head tube sounds about right, for a 56cm seat tube. It sounds like a custom frame or an error in measurement. However, what I want to know are the characteristcs that the OP thinks makes this a production frame. Many times, the only difference is the customer specific geometry.
Regardless, in the end, I always by my bicycles based on top tube length. Going too short or long, means that I have to compensate with stem length, which upsets the geometry.
Regardless, in the end, I always by my bicycles based on top tube length. Going too short or long, means that I have to compensate with stem length, which upsets the geometry.
09-09-21, 03:15 PM
#7
Le Crocodile
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Santa Barbara Calif.
Posts: 1,873
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 369 Post(s)
Liked 783 Times
in
311 Posts
I have a SOMEC with nearly identical geometry. It has a lot of toe overlap. This was just "tight" geometry from a certain era.
Note how tall the headtube is for a 56.5 cm frame. Super short top tube!
Note how tall the headtube is for a 56.5 cm frame. Super short top tube!
09-10-21, 11:28 AM
#8
Member
Thread Starter
Pics added - I know they are not particularly good, nor telling, but they are pics with a poorly placed tape measure included. Maybe this will help.
09-10-21, 11:37 AM
#10
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: se MIch.
Posts: 2,300
Bikes: 1938 claud butler,1983 Basso,teledyne titan,teocali super,nrs,1993 stumpjumper fsr,Paramountain,Paramount Buell(sold),4 banger,Zaskar LE,Colnago Master Ibex MTB,1987ish,.etc....
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 800 Post(s)
Liked 2,962 Times
in
1,492 Posts
very nice find! there maybe a stamp on the underside of the BB to take any guess work out of it.look for a 54 or 53.
Last edited by '02 nrs; 09-10-21 at 11:44 AM.
09-10-21, 11:49 AM
#11
Member
Thread Starter
I'll reach out to seller and see if there are any markings on the bottom of the BB shell.
Additional question - does the Shimano 600 group detract from the value compared to Campy? Seems weird to have a Japanese group on an Italian frame, but I know there have been other Super Prestiges with this group.
Additional question - does the Shimano 600 group detract from the value compared to Campy? Seems weird to have a Japanese group on an Italian frame, but I know there have been other Super Prestiges with this group.
Likes For BadgerOne:
09-10-21, 01:37 PM
#12
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,675
Bikes: too many sparkly Italians, some sweet Americans and a couple interesting Japanese
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 567 Post(s)
Liked 563 Times
in
405 Posts
I just measured my super prestige as I only use ctc and the ctt is 59 with a 56 tt. My wifes prestige is 53.5 ctt and 53tt and my Tecno is 56 ctt x 55tt in the charts but I get 56.5 ctt for the st.
From what I have seen with nice a rider I don't think a record has any value over a dura ace but if it's a real vintage collectable a super record will have more value.
From what I have seen with nice a rider I don't think a record has any value over a dura ace but if it's a real vintage collectable a super record will have more value.
09-10-21, 01:54 PM
#13
Ride, Wrench, Swap, Race
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Northern California
Posts: 9,181
Bikes: Cheltenham-Pedersen racer, Boulder F/S Paris-Roubaix, Varsity racer, '52 Christophe, '62 Continental, '92 Merckx, '75 Limongi, '76 Presto, '72 Gitane SC, '71 Schwinn SS, etc.
Mentioned: 132 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1562 Post(s)
Liked 1,287 Times
in
858 Posts
The TT measurement looks more like 55.5cm or 22.5" to me. I read tape measures from many different angles a lot in recent months (lumber-related).
Frame angles are an important variable when it comes to frame sizing, but I wouldn't go near a bike with an actual 53cm top tube and I can ride a 56cm comfortably.
Some Tri bikes had very short tt's and slack HT angles, a combination that just cannot work for me regardless of ST angle.
Frame angles are an important variable when it comes to frame sizing, but I wouldn't go near a bike with an actual 53cm top tube and I can ride a 56cm comfortably.
Some Tri bikes had very short tt's and slack HT angles, a combination that just cannot work for me regardless of ST angle.
09-10-21, 01:58 PM
#14
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Stillwater, OK
Posts: 7,827
Mentioned: 33 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1872 Post(s)
Liked 692 Times
in
468 Posts
Great find. That 600 needs to go but that will make the whole thing cheaper once you sell it I guess.
BTW: Looks more like a 53cm to me.
BTW: Looks more like a 53cm to me.
__________________
2014 Cannondale SuperSix EVO 2
2019 Salsa Warbird
2014 Cannondale SuperSix EVO 2
2019 Salsa Warbird
09-11-21, 01:09 PM
#15
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 20,305
Mentioned: 130 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3464 Post(s)
Liked 2,827 Times
in
1,995 Posts
Really hard to assess the frame geometry from the detail images.
my hunch-
80’s Italian bikes were getting shorter.
53.5 is Short.... but what may also be a factor is the seat tube angle, steepen that up and the top tube gets shorter.
a steep seat tube angle if one does not wish can be countered with a seat post with more setback.
The implication here is examining the bike in person is a challenge.
my hunch-
80’s Italian bikes were getting shorter.
53.5 is Short.... but what may also be a factor is the seat tube angle, steepen that up and the top tube gets shorter.
a steep seat tube angle if one does not wish can be countered with a seat post with more setback.
The implication here is examining the bike in person is a challenge.
09-11-21, 01:22 PM
#16
Ride, Wrench, Swap, Race
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Northern California
Posts: 9,181
Bikes: Cheltenham-Pedersen racer, Boulder F/S Paris-Roubaix, Varsity racer, '52 Christophe, '62 Continental, '92 Merckx, '75 Limongi, '76 Presto, '72 Gitane SC, '71 Schwinn SS, etc.
Mentioned: 132 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1562 Post(s)
Liked 1,287 Times
in
858 Posts
Really hard to assess the frame geometry from the detail images.
my hunch-
80’s Italian bikes were getting shorter.
53.5 is Short.... but what may also be a factor is the seat tube angle, steepen that up and the top tube gets shorter.
a steep seat tube angle if one does not wish can be countered with a seat post with more setback.
The implication here is examining the bike in person is a challenge.
my hunch-
80’s Italian bikes were getting shorter.
53.5 is Short.... but what may also be a factor is the seat tube angle, steepen that up and the top tube gets shorter.
a steep seat tube angle if one does not wish can be countered with a seat post with more setback.
The implication here is examining the bike in person is a challenge.
But most folks here seem to already be using a large amount of setback to their saddle position, and a super laid-back seatpost might be needed for a very steep seat tube angle.
But I am not convinced of this frame having any odd geometry based on those photos!
Likes For dddd:
09-11-21, 03:48 PM
#17
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 4,777
Bikes: Numerous
Mentioned: 150 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1676 Post(s)
Liked 3,084 Times
in
911 Posts
That’s a gorgeous bike and you’re right to be very drawn to it! I agree that the TT measurement looks about 53-54 cm. I’d not place much stock in the seat tube measure. If you’re looking for a 56 cm bike, you maybe should pass, although I know it hurts.
Regarding the 600, it does decrease the value of the bike some if you’re comparison shopping on eBay, etc, but nothing wrong with it. Depending on the asking price, that could be leverage to offer a little less.
Regarding the 600, it does decrease the value of the bike some if you’re comparison shopping on eBay, etc, but nothing wrong with it. Depending on the asking price, that could be leverage to offer a little less.
__________________
N = '96 Colnago C40, '04 Wilier Alpe D'Huez, '10 Colnago EPS, '85 Merckx Pro, '89 Merckx Century, '86 Tommasini Professional, '04 Teschner Aero FX Pro, '05 Alan Carbon Cross, '86 De Rosa Professional, '82 Colnago Super, '95 Gios Compact Pro, '95 Carrera Zeus, '84 Basso Gap, ‘89 Cinelli Supercorsa, ‘83 Bianchi Specialissima, ‘VO Randonneur, Ritchey Breakaway Steel, '84 Paletti Super Prestige, Heron Randonneur
N = '96 Colnago C40, '04 Wilier Alpe D'Huez, '10 Colnago EPS, '85 Merckx Pro, '89 Merckx Century, '86 Tommasini Professional, '04 Teschner Aero FX Pro, '05 Alan Carbon Cross, '86 De Rosa Professional, '82 Colnago Super, '95 Gios Compact Pro, '95 Carrera Zeus, '84 Basso Gap, ‘89 Cinelli Supercorsa, ‘83 Bianchi Specialissima, ‘VO Randonneur, Ritchey Breakaway Steel, '84 Paletti Super Prestige, Heron Randonneur
09-11-21, 03:59 PM
#18
cycles per second
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 1,930
Bikes: Early 1980's Ishiwata 022 steel sport/touring, 1986 Vitus 979, 1988 DiamondBack Apex, 1997 Softride PowerWing 700, 2001 Trek OCLV 110
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 44 Post(s)
Liked 71 Times
in
48 Posts
This bike seems perfect for me! I have long legs (or short torso, if you prefer) for my height and need relatively short stems on my bikes. So, no, this bike is not worth a trip for you. Can you give me the email of the seller?
A 53cm top tube does seem short on a 56cm frame. But from the pics, the stem seems pretty long (130mm?) and the drop bars seem like they have quite a bit of reach so maybe the fit would be OK as is. If not, you can always get a longer stem.
I have had 3 road bikes that are about that size. My Vitus is 55cm CtC (about 56.5 CtT) with a 56cm top tube. My Fuji (which is no longer) was a 58cm CtT with a 56cm top tube. And my steel sport/touring is 57.5cm CtT with a 56cm top tube. The Vitus has more aggressive drop so I use a 100mm stem on that and a 110mm stem on the sport/touring
A 53cm top tube does seem short on a 56cm frame. But from the pics, the stem seems pretty long (130mm?) and the drop bars seem like they have quite a bit of reach so maybe the fit would be OK as is. If not, you can always get a longer stem.
I have had 3 road bikes that are about that size. My Vitus is 55cm CtC (about 56.5 CtT) with a 56cm top tube. My Fuji (which is no longer) was a 58cm CtT with a 56cm top tube. And my steel sport/touring is 57.5cm CtT with a 56cm top tube. The Vitus has more aggressive drop so I use a 100mm stem on that and a 110mm stem on the sport/touring
09-13-21, 01:37 PM
#19
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 20,305
Mentioned: 130 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3464 Post(s)
Liked 2,827 Times
in
1,995 Posts
Good point about the seat tube angle, since a steeper seat tube angle increases the frame's reach and front-center dimensions, adding precious toe clearance and reducing the need for a very long stem extension.
But most folks here seem to already be using a large amount of setback to their saddle position, and a super laid-back seatpost might be needed for a very steep seat tube angle.
But I am not convinced of this frame having any odd geometry based on those photos!
But most folks here seem to already be using a large amount of setback to their saddle position, and a super laid-back seatpost might be needed for a very steep seat tube angle.
But I am not convinced of this frame having any odd geometry based on those photos!
The seat angle is a strong suggestion of where the builder wants the saddle placed in relation to the bottom bracket.
Without accurate measures, its a guess. But some bikes in side view do strongly suggest what is going on.
