suburbanreuben
Old School Grand Master
Cor! You must be bored! 
Ah. I din't realise the tt was a guesstimate.
Ah. I din't realise the tt was a guesstimate.
RM Vertex Scandium Frame - 1.3kg !!
- Thread starter gump
- Start date
- Feedback
- View
Yes (or ignoring the kids as they have hyper-half-hour , that and just looking to see if it was suitable
would prefer the Altitude if he chucked it in the bargain though.
, that and just looking to see if it was suitable would prefer the Altitude if he chucked it in the bargain though.
Crikey, I can tell you the actual no problem, but its an 18.5" RM from the era, the changes over the years have not been major. They all measure c-t, which is (to me) most sensible, though effective tt is actually the critical dimension on any frame.
Actual and standovers have no effect on ride.
The 22.5" is measured to a point slightly above the ST top actual. I am just under 6' and take a 33" inside leg, ie longer legs than body.
No idea if that helps, but anyone is welcome for a ride on one of my RM in same size to get a feel.
If your looking for an Altitude, I have a 94/95 TO I may sell shortly in a ... 18.5"
I can't see me building it up as I have a 96 that rides so well, and an 89 Blizzard that really needs a good XT build.
Hey ho, still may keep this if it doesn't sell as it rides so well as a light SS. Not worth selling for less, worth more to me
The 2000/2001 decals are actually hard to replace, though personally think they are shite anyhow. I was going to replace with some different ere from Gil. The era looks cheap, would have been OK if original, but they have gone, so its replacement time. Sure Gil would create from pics if that was your desire.
There are a couple of paint marks on TT from bars, but not dented at all, there is some rub on HT, some rub on CS from tyre mud, CS by chainset is almost unmarked (amazing, but true!), otherwise fine frame. Couple of marks, but always looks worse as 1) frame with no decals, and 2) not built up.
When built, looks great
If you are not happy, will refund less postage - is that fair enough?
Actual and standovers have no effect on ride.
The 22.5" is measured to a point slightly above the ST top actual. I am just under 6' and take a 33" inside leg, ie longer legs than body.
No idea if that helps, but anyone is welcome for a ride on one of my RM in same size to get a feel.
If your looking for an Altitude, I have a 94/95 TO I may sell shortly in a ... 18.5"
I can't see me building it up as I have a 96 that rides so well, and an 89 Blizzard that really needs a good XT build.
Hey ho, still may keep this if it doesn't sell as it rides so well as a light SS. Not worth selling for less, worth more to me
The 2000/2001 decals are actually hard to replace, though personally think they are shite anyhow. I was going to replace with some different ere from Gil. The era looks cheap, would have been OK if original, but they have gone, so its replacement time. Sure Gil would create from pics if that was your desire.
There are a couple of paint marks on TT from bars, but not dented at all, there is some rub on HT, some rub on CS from tyre mud, CS by chainset is almost unmarked (amazing, but true!), otherwise fine frame. Couple of marks, but always looks worse as 1) frame with no decals, and 2) not built up.
When built, looks great
If you are not happy, will refund less postage - is that fair enough?
FW its worth, the actual is 22" bang on
I have set all my bikes up by feel, and measured them out of interest, and all within mm of each other - road. mountain and FS. Amazed me!
Effective measure is horizontal at a point from middle of HT to centre of Seatpost. I put the ~ as I am a geeky engineer and know it wont be 22.50000". If someone else measures it, may be 22.4 or 22.6 - hey, thats out of my control, hence the ~
If I can help in any way, just let me know!
PS the TO Altitude is lush too
or a 96 Blizzard in need of a respray?
I have set all my bikes up by feel, and measured them out of interest, and all within mm of each other - road. mountain and FS. Amazed me!
Effective measure is horizontal at a point from middle of HT to centre of Seatpost. I put the ~ as I am a geeky engineer and know it wont be 22.50000". If someone else measures it, may be 22.4 or 22.6 - hey, thats out of my control, hence the ~
If I can help in any way, just let me know!
PS the TO Altitude is lush too
or a 96 Blizzard in need of a respray?
suburbanreuben
Old School Grand Master
gump":lb89ic5o said:FW its worth, the actual is 22" bang on
I have set all my bikes up by feel, and measured them out of interest, and all within mm of each other - road. mountain and FS. Amazed me!
Effective measure is horizontal at a point from middle of HT to centre of Seatpost. I put the ~ as I am a geeky engineer and know it wont be 22.50000". If someone else measures it, may be 22.4 or 22.6 - hey, thats out of my control, hence the ~
If I can help in any way, just let me know!
PS the TO Altitude is lush too
or a 96 Blizzard in need of a respray?
As a geeky engineer you should really be including your tolerances...
It is too small unfortunately. I'm not averse to a bit of Scandium.
Similar threads
