Varonha Frameworks 853

[SkipdiverJohn]

The idea was for a light fast bike with an old school feel: horizontal top tube, 26 inch wheels, metal mudguards, a front centre that would mean no toe overlap (after the headache of small road bike frames and 700c had caused fright & road rash), and a fork with a flat topped crown with that low curve.

I'd noticed the head angle looked fairly slack - and assumed toe clearance was the reason. Agree about 700c wheels on small frames, they are just a bad idea. The geometry is usually a right dog with the seat angle often steep enough to pass for a TT bike as a bodge to keep the top tube fairly short.

When I was a kid I had a Raleigh racer with 26" x 1 1/4" wheels on a 19 1/2" frame and it rode well and was properly proportioned. The larger frames had 27" wheels, because there was room for them. These days though, if you buy anything mass produced that's not an MTB, it comes with 700c wheels of one sort or another. That's fine for adult male sizes, but the bike industry is putting 700's on frames being sold to petite 5 foot females, which just doesn't work very well. i scrapped such a small Apollo hybrid at the weekend, keeping the wheels and other parts to go on my large mens frames. The ISO 590 size once common on 3-speed roadsters was and is a very flexible size. I don't know why they aren't still specified in place of 700c on smaller frames. You get much better geometry and more nimble handling.

 

[avecReynolds531]

I'd noticed the head angle looked fairly slack - and assumed toe clearance was the reason. Agree about 700c wheels on small frames, they are just a bad idea. The geometry is usually a right dog with the seat angle often steep enough to pass for a TT bike as a bodge to keep the top tube fairly short.

When I was a kid I had a Raleigh racer with 26" x 1 1/4" wheels on a 19 1/2" frame and it rode well and was properly proportioned. The larger frames had 27" wheels, because there was room for them. These days though, if you buy anything mass produced that's not an MTB, it comes with 700c wheels of one sort or another. That's fine for adult male sizes, but the bike industry is putting 700's on frames being sold to petite 5 foot females, which just doesn't work very well. i scrapped such a small Apollo hybrid at the weekend, keeping the wheels and other parts to go on my large mens frames. The ISO 590 size once common on 3-speed roadsters was and is a very flexible size. I don't know why they aren't still specified in place of 700c on smaller frames. You get much better geometry and more nimble handling.

Totally agree - I had a Raleigh Arena racer that had an 18" frame with 24" wheels - all ok for proportion.
Having a toe overlap tumble isn't great for anyone, yet, as you said, the bike industry tends to try to keep to 700c for frame sizes that aren't right for that.
I've heard it said that toe overlap isn't important & you soon get used to moving your feet out of the way... not for everyone though.

 

[SkipdiverJohn]

Totally agree - I had a Raleigh Arena racer that had an 18" frame with 24" wheels - all ok for proportion.

Funny, mine was an Arena too. Good bike, absolutely bomb-proof. Wish it hadn't got to small for me. Loads of youngsters had them yet now they are pretty rare bikes.
Toe overlap isn't good news, and is definitely best avoided. You especially wouldn't want it on a fixed gear. The only bike I own that has a slight bit of overlap, if I'm wearing big workmen's boots anyway, is my rod braked 26" Raleigh roadster of all things! It's only marginal, but the steel mudguards are bulky and the top tube on the Raleigh Sports frame used on the 26" versions, is quite short. Geometry is spot-on though. Surprisingly nimble for a 40-pounder with a full chaincase! Not fast, but rides very nicely. For such simple machines, there is a lot more nuanced detail to good bike design than non-cyclists realise.