# Eddy Merckx: proper head tube lengths?



## Henry Chinaski (Feb 3, 2004)

Now, I'm not saying that Eddy is getting all Grant Peterson on us, but it does look like his frames have slightly more appropriate (ie longer) head tubes lengths than a lot of the frames today which seem to require even pros to use funky stems and/or lots of spacers. And I don't think it's purely a result of his move to integrated headsets.

Check it out:

http://www.cbike.com/merckxspecs.htm


----------



## mainframe (Aug 20, 2002)

Makes sense to me. If its not in the HT length, most will make it up with spacers/flipped stems. I'm not all hung up on spacers/stems, but given a choice, might as well get it out of the box.


----------



## MR_GRUMPY (Aug 21, 2002)

I hope he sells a lot of bikes. Maybe then, other manufactures will follow.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*watch any of eddy's old films*

guy was a gear freak. little custom measuring tools, etc. I think it's why he's been so successful as builder from ex pro. I own 2, love them dearly.


----------



## PMC (Jan 29, 2004)

I wish Bianchi would add a couple of CMs to their head tube lengths. My new 59cm with integrated headset is only 160mm. I don't need 198mm like the EM 58cm frame but something between 180-185mm would be nice.


----------



## KATZRKOL (Mar 4, 2004)

*No such thing as appropriate. .*



Henry Chinaski said:


> . . . more appropriate (ie longer) head tubes lengths than a lot of the frames today which seem to require even pros to use funky stems and/or lots of spacers.
> Check it out:QUOTE]
> 
> People come in a lot of different sizes. Using smaller head tubes is common sense. You can shim up a head-tube and get it perfect to within 1.5mm or so depending on your spacers. If the build with monster head-tubes, you are not going to be selling a lot of frames because people won't be able to fit on them.
> ...


----------



## Thorn Bait (Feb 3, 2004)

KATZRKOL said:


> Henry Chinaski said:
> 
> 
> > . . . more appropriate (ie longer) head tubes lengths than a lot of the frames today which seem to require even pros to use funky stems and/or lots of spacers.
> ...


----------



## MR_GRUMPY (Aug 21, 2002)

With a thin quill stem, even three inches looked alright. With threadless, any more than a 1/2" of fat spacers looks goofy.
It's about time someone designed a frame to take account of the threadless look.
Maybe now, we'll see -17 deg threadless stems again.


----------



## Spunout (Aug 12, 2002)

Pegoretti. Lemond has now changed. Litespeed, Merlin, all extended.

My old Lemond was terrible, less than 140mm on a 55. New bike has 165mm for a 55.


----------



## mainframe (Aug 20, 2002)

Yea, my old Lemond was the same way, 133 on a 55.


----------



## olds_cool (Feb 14, 2005)

*i think most head tubes are too short for all but the racers..*

but than again, i ride taller frames. still, i think big frames with no or mimimal spacers look as goofy as smaller frames with lots of spacers. it's all in the proportions. having a 200mm ht, and no spaecers looks like your frame is too big for you even if it really isn't. it's just an appearance thing. there was a post somewhere around here with a pic of michael berry's trek where guys were raggin' on him for all of the spacers he used, but the bike looked normal to me, because that's what most bikes in that size that i see on the road look like. look at magnus beckstead's bike. same deal. people make too big a deal about spacers. check out pics from the old days. the pros from the early 90's on back rode with a lot less drop than the guys do now. some of the photos ive seen from the 40's-60's look like the bars are level with the seat.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*if you look at how high*

most stems were set in the quill age, and compare to now they are on average far lower.
most had 3" of quill sticking up, now stem extends from either 0 or under 1" of spacers


----------



## bigbill (Feb 15, 2005)

*The reason I bought a Pegoretti*

is the extended head tube. I use two spacers and an 80 degree Deda stem. On my old Merckx Leader MX, when I changed over to a carbon fork from the steel, I had to use the max height of spacers and a 100 degree Thompson stem. When I had the steel fork, I used a Cinelli XA quill stem at the max line. I hope all manufacturers follow this trend. I ordered a Surly from the LBS and anticipate using alot of spacers to match the Pegoretti setup. BTW, I ride 60cm frames. (bigbill)


----------



## Nessism (Feb 6, 2004)

Integrated head tube lengths are always longer than conventional because the bearings are captured within. I suspect if the usual stack height of a standard headset was subtracted from Merckx specs, the actual head tube lengths would seem more normal.


----------



## Mosovich (Feb 3, 2004)

*ALAN has good headtube lengths.*

I"ve got an ALAN A-Matrix and it's got a good head tube length. I've got a Large, which is a 51X56.5 and it has a 16cm head tube. I like the Merckx though, he seems to have it best. I'm currently wanting a new frame, but EM is the only other than ALAN that has a good headtube length. I really wanted a Bianchi, but too short for me, and Trek's just won't cut it. Ridley does a good job, but I can't the right top tube length, either too short or too long.


----------



## kajukembo (Jan 20, 2003)

*A little of both.*



Nessism said:


> Integrated head tube lengths are always longer than conventional because the bearings are captured within. I suspect if the usual stack height of a standard headset was subtracted from Merckx specs, the actual head tube lengths would seem more normal.


I was at the LBS a couple of weeks ago (truly a rare event for me) and there was Merckx MXM built up on the floor. Being a Merckx owner I had to check it out. The first thing that struck me was how long the head tube was. I started talking to a friend of mine who works there and I asked, "Is the head tube so long because of the integrated head-set?" He broke out a tape and we measured the head tube at 18.5 or so on a 56. If I remember correctly, a Campy threadless headsets have a stack of about 2.5 cm (including both upper and lower). So, that would make the head tube equal to a 16 or so with a non integrated head set. A 16 cm head tube on a 56 is a little longer than most. My steel Merckx has a threaded head tube that is a little longer than most. So, I mostly agree with Nessism, most of the perceived extra length is made up by the integrated headset, but the head-tube is a little longer than most mfgs in any given size.

The Pegoretti's on the other hand do have a long head tube and don't utilize integrated headsets. I've been told that the vast majority of Dario's production is sold to recreational racers and enthusiasts in the US and he understands that "we" can't get the same saddle to bar drop as the pros. I know of more than one person who has had the HT extension cut down on their Pegoretti.


----------



## MR_GRUMPY (Aug 21, 2002)

*Talk about long headtubes......*

My Gunnar roadie has a 182mm head tube to go along with its 58cm top tube.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Here's another Gunnar with a rather long top tube
.
.
.
.
.


----------



## Henry Chinaski (Feb 3, 2004)

I didn't really realize how much rise your typical +/- 6 degree stem has, but according to my lame math it's like 2cm or so of rise for an 11cm stem when in the -6 position (really +11 degrees from horizontal). So I've revised my opinion on this a bit. 

My old steel 57 cm Merckx has about a 15.5 cm headtube. The new ones have a 19.1 cm headtube. I'd actually probably need to find a -17 stem with no spacers to get the Merckx in my size to fit right for me--heck, that might even still be tad high. Maybe I'd go with a new 56.


----------



## kajukembo (Jan 20, 2003)

*What kind of steerer?*



Henry Chinaski said:


> I didn't really realize how much rise your typical +/- 6 degree stem has, but according to my lame math it's like 2cm or so of rise for an 11cm stem when in the -6 position (really +11 degrees from horizontal). So I've revised my opinion on this a bit.
> 
> My old steel 57 cm Merckx has about a 15.5 cm headtube. The new ones have a 19.1 cm headtube. I'd actually probably need to find a -17 stem with no spacers to get the Merckx in my size to fit right for me--heck, that might even still be tad high. Maybe I'd go with a new 56.


What kind of steerer does your old steel Merckx have? Threaded or threadless?


----------



## Henry Chinaski (Feb 3, 2004)

Threaded. I have a Cinelli 1A quill stem set at what I would consider to be a "normal" racing height. I never spent much time thinking about headtube lengths before threadless came along.


----------



## kajukembo (Jan 20, 2003)

Henry Chinaski said:


> Threaded. I have a Cinelli 1A quill stem set at what I would consider to be a "normal" racing height. I never spent much time thinking about headtube lengths before threadless came along.


So, a 19 cm head tube, less a 2.5 stack equals 16.5 "effective" head tube. Given that +6 degree stem rises about 2 cm, that would put the bars at about the same place they would be if you normally had 3 cm of quill exposed. 

The nice thing about going with a 56 is you'd have a shorter front-to-center which along with using a longer stem, the bike would handle better.


----------

