One of the very last Cino Cinelli customs

Cino Cinelli's best colour was grey.

Citoyen du monde":1yqgmkbd said:

torqueless":1yqgmkbd said:

Cinelli Criterium bars? The tips of those Universal levers must surely be sticking out a bit...
Apart from anything else, a refreshingly subtle colour.

Click to expand...

I have heard it said many times that somewhat smaller riders with correspondingly shorter arms often prefer the criterium bend because it gives them better access to the drops. For larger riders, their wider shoulders don't create as many access problems. So I suppose it makes sense to fit them on smaller frames, especially with what were for the period somewhat wider bars.

Click to expand...

Yes that makes sense, but I was wondering about the brake levers? I guess it's no secret that with these bars, more than most, there are compromises to be made: You get the levers low enough on the bars to be vertical and parallel, and find them a bit low for riding on the hoods.. You raise the levers up the bar, and find that the tips ride out and no longer pull into the bar. You angle the bars up in the stem and the drops are at an angle. I was wondering how these levers look from the front?

If a bike can be said to have 'corners', then the brake levers are two vulnerable corners. I worry about ones that stick out sideways beyond the drops, for reasons ergonomic and aesthetic as well as any issues of vulnerability. Not criticising the way this bike is set up, just interested if you or others experience this 'dilemma' and have reconciled yourselves to the other 'horn'..? Personally I cannot raise my levers much further than this on these bars with a clear conscience....

Citoyen du monde":idsini38 said:

American Friend":idsini38 said:

I don't get the long cranks on a small frame (clearly an odd idea that never caught on), but that's a gorgeous frame.

Click to expand...

The long cranks have actually caught on. Back in the 70's, you could barely find a bike with anything other than 165 or 170 cranks. The longer cranks give one more leverage. Cinelli was apparently recommending 180 mm cranks for larger frames.

Click to expand...

Of course longer cranks caught on for the obvious reasons you state, but longer cranks on small frames never caught on, for equally obvious reasons. One can only wonder what Cinelli was thinking back then. :roll:

torqueless":2r11tu3d said:

Yes that makes sense, but I was wondering about the brake levers? I guess it's no secret that with these bars, more than most, there are compromises to be made: You get the levers low enough on the bars to be vertical and parallel, and find them a bit low for riding on the hoods.. You raise the levers up the bar, and find that the tips ride out and no longer pull into the bar. You angle the bars up in the stem and the drops are at an angle. I was wondering how these levers look from the front?

If a bike can be said to have 'corners', then the brake levers are two vulnerable corners. I worry about ones that stick out sideways beyond the drops, for reasons ergonomic and aesthetic as well as any issues of vulnerability. Not criticising the way this bike is set up, just interested if you or others experience this 'dilemma' and have reconciled yourselves to the other 'horn'..? Personally I cannot raise my levers much further than this on these bars with a clear conscience....

Click to expand...

I have seen people take a file to the bottom edge of the body of the brake lever to ever so slightly change the angle at which the lever joins the bars. On the criterium bars that I have ridden, it is possible to get the levers to be perpendicular to the ground (the same thing on this bike.)

American Friend":1fogix69 said:

Citoyen du monde":1fogix69 said:

American Friend":1fogix69 said:

I don't get the long cranks on a small frame (clearly an odd idea that never caught on), but that's a gorgeous frame.

Click to expand...

The long cranks have actually caught on. Back in the 70's, you could barely find a bike with anything other than 165 or 170 cranks. The longer cranks give one more leverage. Cinelli was apparently recommending 180 mm cranks for larger frames.

Click to expand...

Of course longer cranks caught on for the obvious reasons you state, but longer cranks on small frames never caught on, for equally obvious reasons. One can only wonder what Cinelli was thinking back then. :roll:

Click to expand...

One of the major reasons that longer cranks have not caught on for smaller frames is that using 700c wheels, you cannot build a bike without having extreme toeclip clearance issues. With the smaller wheels you can overcome this issue. Indeed, you will find some smaller triathlon bikes with smaller wheels that do use long cranks.

Cit, you can find exceptions to every rule, but 175mm cranks on a 52cm road bike is way outside the norm, and the reason for this originally had little to do with toeclip overlap. It's possible the person for whom Cinelli built this frame was very oddly built, but it's stretching things to claim this was some brilliant idea. You'd struggle to find many other well-regarded framebuilders advocating that combination. Cranks, like frames, should be proportional to rider size. The smaller the rider, the smaller the frame, and the smaller the crank. Back in the late 1970s, toeclip overlap wasn't such a big issue for racers. It became a big issue when Americans starting suing bike companies.

I have seen people take a file to the bottom edge of the body of the brake lever

Click to expand...

That's something else I'm not going to be able to do with a clear conscience, on those particular levers...