Cycling UK Forum

Anyone heard of Bravura?
I`ve seen these on ebay under the Raleigh name and they come with Bravura stickers.When `Bravura`bikes or frames is`Googled`the only reference appears to be the ebay one as far as i can see.
They look to be quite a bargain.

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/RSP-RALEIGH-T ... 35de973f56

Especially compared to these-

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Surly-Frame-E ... 5d596a2eaa

I think 'Bravura' is the frame tubing?

Even before I got my Vantage I've wanted a steel bike. And despite how fond I am of the Vantage, I never really got on with it's rather quick handling sooooooooooo....with the help of my fantastic family....the frame and fork version of this listing is on it's way to me

I'll keep you updated.

Ok if you fit a short seat tube!

fastpedaller wrote:Ok if you fit a short seat tube!

Never really a problem, as you can always use a longer seat post, I.E. as in a Brompton etc, better to have adequate standover than not enough (Ouch!) Plus the more exposed seat post adds a little comfort via flex.

Top tube length is a factor that needs consideration when choosing a frame size. Too short and the rider will feel cramped and too long will be quite a stretch.
Different manufactures measure their frames differently also.
I discovered that while this frame is measured 46cm centre BB to centre tt, my Dawes Vantage was measured as 48cm centre BB to top of st.

"Reach" is far from straightforward, and it has nothing whatever to do with the measurement from BB upwards, either to the top of the seat tube or to the centre of the top tube.
If I want to get a short "Effective top tube" dimension into my geometry table, all I have to do is steepen the seat tube angle...this brings the top of the seat tube forwards, so the rider must set their saddle back a corresponding amount.
If I want a short "Reach" dimension in the geometry table, all I need do is lengthen the head tube.
If anybody is driven to seek a frame smaller than say 54cm to build a bike with drop bars and 700c wheels I think its imperative to take a test ride.
https://www.stevehoggbikefitting.com/portfolio-item/sensitive-issues/
https://www.stevehoggbikefitting.com/portfolio-item/more-sensitive-issues/

My rather simplistic understanding is that as a frame (not all of them) grows in height it also grows in length*? That's going off what I saw on Dawes frame geometry chart when I first looked up my Vantage.

*I failed to include this in my other post

The devil is in the detail. I didn't find "Vantage" geo, but have a look here at Galaxy Al....http://dawescycles.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Touring-Geometries.pdf
The smallest size scores a "short effective top tube" in the geo. table by having an insane 75 deg seat tube angle and having a longer fork offset.
Now if you are going to the expense of making a 5mm longer offset fork it makes much more sense to also slacken the head angle half a degree to suit...this will normalise the steering and also shorten the reach.
Dawes' approach shoves the saddle so far forward you will either take too much weight on your hands or seek out a long layback seatpost, and makes the steering lively.

My 1995 Galaxy does just that Colin. I have got a longer stem and set back seat post. You will know this but the Spa Nidd has a longer useable rail space than my old Brooks which is now on the back of the tandem.

I made a note of the Vantages angles when I bought it. The 48cm geo hasn't changed a bit since then.
Coincidently, I was never able to set it up so I could ride comfortably resting my fingertips on the bars and sore wrists were something I sort of got used to.
The steering was definitely lively. Riding no hands was scary to say the least.

The new bike looks 'squished' by comparison and the seat tube looks set further back but I've not yet tried to measure the angles (two little girls have had me running around like a headless chicken lately).
I need to fit some in line cable adjusters for the gears and tweak the front mudflap then I can take it for a ride. Looks gorgeous though

Vantage wrote:......... I've not yet tried to measure the angles (two little girls have had me running around like a headless chicken lately)...........

and you wouldn't have it any other way.
I particularly liked the tag line...."Its a rich man whose children run to him when his pockets are empty."....is it traditional?

Absolutely no idea whatsoever but I do quite like it
We've been making princess fairy cakes this morning

This is the magnitude of the problem of designing bikes for people of "average" sorts of height. (five feet to six and a half feet)
105mm difference in seat tube length, 54mm difference in Effective top tube... traditionally a lot of the reach difference is made up by the stem.
Same frame angles through the range, but its steel, and I got to choose the fork offset

That's interesting in that I'm forever hearing about compromises having to be made in smaller frames if 700c wheels are to be used. I never could see what these compromises would be or understand why if Dawes and Raleigh can do it, then what's Surlys excuse.
Is there an actual reason why 26 inch wheels are easier to design a small frame around?