|Cannondale Sizing... C to C or C to T||funknuggets|
Jan 16, 2003 12:17 PM
|Would a 54cm CAAD 3 be measured C to C or C to T, or do they have a sloping geometry, so it would actually be like a 53? Thanks.
|C to T - see geometry diagram||PdxMark|
Jan 16, 2003 12:23 PM
|C to T - Here's the geometry diagram||PdxMark|
Jan 16, 2003 12:25 PM
|I always thought that it was c-c.||eyebob|
Jan 16, 2003 3:00 PM
|the diagram notwithstanding. To be safe, e-mail tech support at c-dale. They've always been pretty responsive.
Here's my contact...
|agree with eyebob, and example why||micha|
Jan 16, 2003 3:45 PM
|Sometimes diagrams get drawn and never checked. The Lemond website's diagram three weeks ago showed center-to-top sizing, while the chart below it indicated center-to-center sizing.|
|agree with eyebob, and example why||bugleboy|
Jan 16, 2003 8:04 PM
|cannondale measures c to c. We(the shop I work for) are a dealer|
Jan 17, 2003 5:50 AM
|Better get out your tape measure. C'dales have always been measured c-t.
There advertised standover height calculates exactly to a c-t measurement.
For example, a 54cm frame has a BB height of 27.3cm. Add 54 times the sine of 74 degrees (51.9cm) and you get the 79.2cm standover height. If the frame was measure c-c, the standover would be at least 1.5cm more.
|FWIW, I measured my 54 cm C'dale...||Horace Greeley|
Jan 17, 2003 6:06 AM
|and it measured 54 cm c-t, and about 52 cm c-c.|
Jan 17, 2003 7:24 AM
|The reason that I was asking is that a guy was selling a carbon fork off of a CAAD 3 and indicated that it had been cut to 130mm or so on a 54cm frame. I was really confused, for an alu Fondriest frame (54), the absolute minimum steerer height was in the 150s and that is on the side. So, it now makes more sense. I couldnt fathom any type of geometry that would have made that much of a difference if they were both C to C. This explains most of the difference. Thanks.