The starting price is probably a little high, but these don’t come up very often in big sizes.
I still cry myself to sleep at night thinking about the 66cm one I didn’t bid on last year. :’(
It seems to be quite rare to find a large frame that deosn’t look completely out of proportion, and this is definitely one of those. great looking rig for the size
i’m rolling on a 55cm one atm … so rough but love it
I think its the thicker downtube that contributes to its lack of awkwardness.
Personally i think frames from 58-63 look the best!
looks like a pretty short head tube which helps to make it look normal
this has been up 3 times, and has never recieved a bid! nice group tho
Tis weird, one would think there must be a taller gent out there who has found it hard to find something their size for a somewhat decent price…
it must be measured to top of seat tube. there’s no way that’s any bigger than 60cm c-c.
pretty ridiculous price given it’s age. probably wasn’t even that much when it was new
^ don’t know about 60, the fat tubes and the sloping angle all make for an illusion i think
WRONG!! some measuring in photoshop strongly suggests that seat tube c-c is the same as top tube c-c. 59cm.
no fat tube illusions. no angle illusions. ain’t no way a bike with 63cm c-c seat tube can’t look kinda weird. unless you build it with 29ers.
Its not really all that expensive for a fairly original 92 track i have seen frames go for 700 us and another one for 450gbp but myabe people are losing a little bit of interest in them now.
All it takes is two people who want it, and know how hard it is to find good big(even small) stuff to shoot the price sky high.
BUt then on the other hand, there may only be 2 people in the world looking for a frame of that size at that time so if they don’t want it, its never going to sell.
Well I’m out. But I was never in - I don’t like them. The fork is small diametre steel and the frame is oversized Al. - looks mismatched. The welds are smooth but far from perfect. The flattening in the centre of the chainstay looks crap and doesn’t seem to serve any purpose. And those rear track ends… horrendous!
- Crank clearance
- Tightening the rear triangle for stiffness.
I never said they were good ideas! Those dropouts were short lived, I can’t believe they put them on touring frames (facepalm).
Cranks used on the CAAD5 may have a wider Q-factor.
I prefer the look of a steel frame myself, be it normal or oversize, but there’s still something about a pre-Trek fat tubed Klein that does it for me.
Lookit dem toobs
my first CX!
i quite like the look of this year’s Capo