# Nashbar Touring frame: note about top tube



## holy cromoly (Nov 9, 2008)

I just picked up my Nashbar Touring frame.

I measured the frame and the top tube specs listed by Nashbar are center-to-center, not effective.

So my size 56cm frame is listed with a 56cm top tube, that is CTC.
Measured out leveled, the effective measurement is 57.5-ish. So it's longer. This may matter to some out there, so take note.

I am in the clear though since I am building my frame up to be a Porteur style bike with the sweep back Nitto bars, so the longer top tube will actually be nice.

But for those who are thinking about drop bars, do take note.


----------



## Squidward (Dec 18, 2005)

Interesting. I purposely bought the next size down from what I would normally buy and it seemed to be sized larger than advertised. I chalked it up to using a handlebar with more reach than normal. I did measure my bike, though, and it seemed correct at 20 and 3/8 inches (about 51cm) for the 50cm size, on the horizontal. Maybe they sent you the next size up? Did you see the size label just above the bottom bracket on the seat tube?


----------



## holy cromoly (Nov 9, 2008)

The box and sticker on the frame both say 56cm.

Remeasured, it's definitely 56cm CTC, not effective.
The effective leveled measurement is 57.5cm.

It's no big deal for me as I said, just wanted to make note for others.

Since I am building this up as a cruiser errand bike with Nitto Albatross bars, I sized this out more based on my mountain bike geometry.
At 57.5cm, that similar to a medium size mountain bike with an effective top tube of 22.6 inches. So works for my upright riding position.


----------



## jgsatl (Mar 16, 2009)

so...question. what do these measurements mean to someone wanting to run drop bars?? i was looking at these and haven't had a drop bar bike before. 

according to most of the 'fit' websites i'm between a 56 and 58 (i wear a 32 inseam trousers).

thanks!


----------



## Squidward (Dec 18, 2005)

Bike fit is a very personal thing. There are folks out there who believe that the top tube length is more important than the seat tube length so I would pay attention to that more than anything else. Obviously, a longer top tube will stretch you out more while a shorter top tube will not. Also, since a longer top tube comes with a longer seat tube you end up with a higher handlebar compared to a smaller frame. All of these things can be compensated for with different stems and lots of spacers, but some people don't like this, neither.

If your bikes don't have drop bars and you want to try to figure out what top tube length you need then measure your best fitting bike's top tube and minus about 2 inches (50mm). this should put you in the ballpark.

With a 56 or 58 frame the top tube would typically be around 55 or 57cm, respectively, but different frame makers vary this length so that's why having this measurement is important.

Nashbar lists their 56 as having a 56cm top tube and their 58 as having a 59cm top tube. As holy cromoly found out, their 56 has a longer than advertised top tube of about 57.5cm.


----------



## jgsatl (Mar 16, 2009)

which may be too long for someone wanting to run drop bars based on what nashbar published.

i think i got it.....thanks! i think my biggest issue is getting the handlebars high enough. interesting how few bikes have big head tubes or use threaded headset/forks to allow the use of easier rising stems.


----------



## Squidward (Dec 18, 2005)

Well, if you look at holy cromoly's pictures you will see that they left a fairly long steerer tube on that fork, which allows you to put a bunch of spacers on there to raise the controls up to where you like. Some people ride their bikes without cutting the excess steerer just to make sure that the handlebar height and length are correct before cutting it.


----------



## jgsatl (Mar 16, 2009)

just seems like the 'riser' stems with threaded fork/headsets is a more elegant solution to me. must be some inherent flaw if 'no one' is using them these days?

in any case, i bought a rawland so i could run mountain and road tires on the same bike and it had a monster head tube. i'm still using a riser stem to get the handlebars where i want.....but i feel like the top tube is a bit too long for drop bars.

i may bite the bullet next sale on these nashbar frames and give it a try.


----------



## Squidward (Dec 18, 2005)

jgsatl said:


> just seems like the 'riser' stems with threaded fork/headsets is a more elegant solution to me. must be some inherent flaw if 'no one' is using them these days?


Nope, nothing wrong with the old system. The new system has a few advantages and that's why it has overtaken the industry.


----------



## holy cromoly (Nov 9, 2008)

jgsatl said:


> i bought a rawland so i could run mountain and road tires on the same bike and it had a monster head tube.


Congrats on the Rawland. I wanted to get one of those cosmetic flaw frames on clearance right now over at the Rawland site, but I my size sold out.


----------



## jgsatl (Mar 16, 2009)

that didn't stop me :lol:

i'm riding the 'L'. standover is pretty tight. but i'm really digging it with a 100mm stem and h-bars.


----------



## holy cromoly (Nov 9, 2008)

jgsatl said:


> that didn't stop me :lol:
> 
> i'm riding the 'L'. standover is pretty tight. but i'm really digging it with a 100mm stem and h-bars.


I'd like to hear more about the Rawland. Start a new thread if you have photos and thoughts on it you want to share. 

Another good frame is the Handsome Devil, not as versatile as the Rawland's 650b/700c wheel options, but a good solid bike too.


----------



## jgsatl (Mar 16, 2009)

well, i'll do just that. i'm not sure if i have any pics in it's current guise, but i'll be on a ride on friday so i'll snap some. it'll be very silly looking to some people....but i'm comfortable on it


----------



## holy cromoly (Nov 9, 2008)

jgsatl said:


> well, i'll do just that. i'm not sure if i have any pics in it's current guise, but i'll be on a ride on friday so i'll snap some. it'll be very silly looking to some people....but i'm comfortable on it


I dig the way the Rawlands look. But I do think the tallish headtube and angle of the toptube slope makes it look different. It's different looking in the way those old 80's Volvo 240 cars looked compared to other cars at the time.


----------



## rcnute (Dec 21, 2004)

holy cromoly said:


> Congrats on the Rawland. I wanted to get one of those cosmetic flaw frames on clearance right now over at the Rawland site, but I my size sold out.


Ask on the 650b list. That's how I got my Olaf. I think there's a Sogn out there too.


----------

