Retrobike Forum Index

It is currently Sat Oct 01, 2016 12:47 am

* Login   * Register * Search  * FAQ



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 43 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 10, 2012 5:15 am 
Dirt Disciple

Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 6:12 am
Posts: 33
Location: Long Island,NY
Now this is an amazing bike. Majestic and powerful in its large size. I'm 6'4"and this retro grail would fit me nice. Would look great next to my Cunningham.
So how high is it gonna go?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 10, 2012 11:20 am 
Feature Bike
Feature Bike
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 8:13 pm
Posts: 1143
Location: York-ish UK
halaburt wrote:

I'd much rather see (and ride) a bike that actually fits instead of a "normal" size frame with a stupid 20" long seat post and 8" drop to the handlebars.


Well said that man.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 10, 2012 3:22 pm 
Gold Trader
Gold Trader
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 14, 2007 11:28 pm
Posts: 4681
Location: Scotland!!!!!! Yay, at last, only 4 years waiting!
This is Joe's own, and apparently not for the taller gent at all. Take a look at the ad as he has added some more about size


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 10, 2012 4:47 pm 
Gold Trader / MacRetro rider
Gold Trader / MacRetro rider
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 11:03 am
Posts: 18072
Location: Sunny Glasgow
:shock: OMG its my size too.Shame its gone over my limit by about $5000 :lol:

Serious piece of history,Like owning one of Hendrix's guitars.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 10, 2012 4:49 pm 
98+ BoTM | BoTM | PoTM Winner
98+ BoTM | BoTM | PoTM Winner
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 2:53 am
Posts: 267
Location: San Rafael, CA, USA
development_cycle wrote:
This is Joe's own...

What makes you say that? It's not.

As for its size, the original listing (refreshingly) gives very precise and useful information on that: 33.8" stand over and 30.75" saddle height (presumably measured from the BB along the seat tube axis). I think most would agree that this WAS designed for a "taller gent" to ride.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 10, 2012 4:58 pm 
Gold Trader
Gold Trader
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 14, 2007 11:28 pm
Posts: 4681
Location: Scotland!!!!!! Yay, at last, only 4 years waiting!
halaburt wrote:
development_cycle wrote:
This is Joe's own...

What makes you say that? It's not.

As for its size, the original listing (refreshingly) gives very precise and useful information on that: 33.8" stand over and 30.75" saddle height (presumably measured from the BB along the seat tube axis). I think most would agree that this WAS designed for a "taller gent" to ride.


Oh, sorry, I thought someone from Breezer told me about it and sent me the link that's all. I re-read his email and he says "did you see Breezer #3 from Joe’s Type II Series just went on eBay? http://www.ebay.com/itm/190625492678 Pretty cool!", so you can see why I thought he said it was Joe's.

Not intentionally trying to provide false info just didn't read the email thoroughly.

The only reason I say that it isn't for the taller gent is that the ad says it

"I'm 5'11" and the bike fits me well. It's probably not ideal for someone much over 6'2" -- the seatpost has only 1" more length to the max "

Just passing on information that I have read and thought to be correct.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 10, 2012 5:18 pm 
retrobike rider / Gold Trader
retrobike rider / Gold Trader

Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 9:05 pm
Posts: 9245
Remember that all bikes were that big at the time*. They were limited by the short road bike seatposts. I'm no S2 expert but all the series one Breezers were the same size with 21" seat tubes and little Wende Cragg managed to ride them OK.
We have got so used to lots of standover height and long seatposts now that anything like this bike looks odd. And frankly, I don't think the future owner of this machine will be looking to use it on technical trails where extra ball clearance would be a boon.

*Thank goodness for Charlie Cunningham whogave us long posts and standover height a few years after this bike.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 10, 2012 5:26 pm 
BoTM Winner
BoTM Winner

Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2011 12:21 pm
Posts: 81
Location: Nebraska
Dr S wrote:
*Thank goodness for Charlie Cunningham whogave us long posts and standover height a few years after this bike.


You mean prior?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 10, 2012 5:26 pm 
The Guv'nor
The Guv'nor
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2005 11:19 pm
Posts: 23098
Location: Retrobike HQ
Not much to add to this other than cool!

Reckon this'll go big and quite rightly, up at US$6500 as of now. Where will it end and who will get it, someone here?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 10, 2012 6:06 pm 
retrobike rider / Gold Trader
retrobike rider / Gold Trader

Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 9:05 pm
Posts: 9245
stanlee wrote:
Dr S wrote:
*Thank goodness for Charlie Cunningham whogave us long posts and standover height a few years after this bike.


You mean prior?


Well niether really. This Breezer was built in 1980. Charlie started in around 79 but as we have seen last month his first few bikes were also gates. Yes he was experimenting with longer posts and shorter framesets around the same time. My feelings are that the world woke up to his more radical designs a year or so on from 1980 when he teamed up with Potts and Slate and formed WTB. Until then I guess the Cunningham style was not widely known outside the locale. It certainly took a few years for other designers/builders/producers to follow suit so rightly or wrongly I always consider it to be a later evolution. Looking at bikes produced around 82/83 by Ritchey, Specialized and Univega, they all still employ short Campag or SR Laprade seatposts. Also looking at the early Mountain groupsets from Shimano and Suntour in 83/84 there are no long seatposts available. In short it took a few years for them to catch on and frame sizes to be reduced. So designed maybe, but commonplace no.

This isn't gospel though and I could be a few years out, but that's the way I see it based on what I have learnt over the years.


Last edited by Dr S on Tue Jan 10, 2012 6:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 43 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Gruff and 25 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

About Us

Follow Retrobike

Other cool stuff

All content © 2005-2015 Retrobike unless otherwise stated.
Cookies Policy.
bikedeals - the best bike deals in one place
FatCOGS - Fat Chance Owner's Group

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group