Eddy Merckx Elite.

On Thursday, April 1, 2021 at 3:53:33 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Thursday, April 1, 2021 at 9:05:54 AM UTC-5, wrote:
Russell, Waterford's are a custom made bike. If YOU didn't have it made with a long top tube someone did. That is hardly proof that Colnagos have short top tubes since ad I have said, they have always had longer top tubes than the competition. While I will agree that it isn't much (Maybe 2%) that is longer.
Today Waterford frames are custom only. But they had/have stock sizes too.. See the link immediately below. Mine is a stock 58 cm Waterford frame from 1998 I believe. Go to the page below and go down to the 9th post, #9. You will see standard sizes for Waterford R-22 frame. Modern version of my Waterford 1200 frame. The 58 cm frame has a 57 cm top tube
https://www.bikeforums.net/road-cycl...-question.html

Go down to page 72 of the link below. Its a PDF. You will find the 1999 Trek catalog. Look at the geometry chart on page 72 for the Trek 5500. The frame Lance Armstrong rode/won in the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005. The 5500 frame was made from 1992 to 2004. You will clearly see that the 58cm Trek 5500 frame has a top tube length of 57 cm. Do you honestly believe Trek (biggest bike company in America?, or is it Specialized?) makes bikes with excessively long top tubes? I'd guess Trek makes bikes with average, standard length top tubes. Trek is trying to sell as many bikes as they can to anyone they can sell to.
http://www.vintage-trek.com/Trek-Fis...d/1999trek.pdf

Here is what I wrote in my previous post.
Below is a link to the current Colnago Master. The 58cm center to top frame has a 56.5 center to center top tube.
https://www.colnago.com/wp-content/u...RADITIONAL.pdf

Below is the geometry chart for a C40. HP designation. Look at the 58cm center to top frame size. It has a 56.3cm top tube center to center.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/20704059@N00/8008557892

Colnago bikes have shorter top tubes than almost all other bike brands. I am referring to the same size frame from the various manufacturers.
You have yet to explain why a DIRECT measurement of my Colnago CLX3.0 is 58 cm c - c.

Long ago I should have realized that people like you and John have never had the money to actually own these things and hence you get your knowledge entirely from the Internet. I suppose it is a good thing that you can read enough to almost understand what you're talking about so that you can argue with people that that been there and done that, that they haven't.

On Friday, April 2, 2021 at 12:05:53 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Thursday, April 1, 2021 at 8:00:14 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/1/2021 5:59 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
Do you mean the part that says, "Although these bikes are all custom"?

Waterfords are each custom, geometry individually drawn for
one rider, to order.

One may order a standard suggested geometry or amend as
desired. Color selection is as broad as the brazed bits
selection. Rider may specify tube gauge (within limits)
angles, dimensions, threaded or threadless fork, TIG or
silver braze lugs, stainless lug or crown options and so on.

The Waterford Gunnar line consists of 15 models in 2-cm
increments 48 to 68cm and nine colors which change monthly.
There are no quality differences in material, workmanship or
paint. Same shop, same tubes, same fixtures, same people.
Gunnars are normally made in batches and stored unfinished
(except not during our recent travails).

A middle increment is a custom Gunnar which is slightly less
expensive than a TIG Waterford but without full color palette.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Waterford is all custom now. Yes. But that is a somewhat recent trend. In the late 1990s they were making stock frame sizes and charging extra for custom sizing. I own a stock 1998 58cm c-t Waterford 1200 built with Reynolds 753 tubing in Candy Apple Red color. It has a stock 57cm c-c top tube.

See post #3 in the link below.
https://www.roadbikereview.com/threa...d-1200.254216/

This link is a review by people owning Waterford 1200 frames. Many of the reviews mention having stock frame sizes or custom as an upcharge.
https://products.roadbikereview.com/...d-ultegra.html

See post #2 in the link below.
https://www.bikeforums.net/classic-v...rd-1200-a.html
Russell, I have had several Waterford Paramount. Several of them. They were not particularly good bikes then. Their latest "racing" looks like it is, but don't try to pass off the earliest Waterford's and any better than the Schwinn Paramount's.

On Fri, 02 Apr 2021 06:30:04 -0700, Tom Kunich scribed:


Russell, I have had several Waterford Paramount. Several of them. They
were not particularly good bikes then.

Then why the heck did you buy the second and later ones.

On 4/2/2021 8:47 AM, News 2021 wrote:
On Fri, 02 Apr 2021 06:30:04 -0700, Tom Kunich scribed:


Russell, I have had several Waterford Paramount. Several of them. They
were not particularly good bikes then.

Then why the heck did you buy the second and later ones.


'Schwinn Paramount' is so meaningless and generic I have no
idea what he, or you, meant. See also 'Chevrolet Impala'
which describes a collection of dissimilar things with the
same name.

https://ccnwordpress.blob.core.windo...pala-std-c.jpg

https://st.hotrod.com/uploads/sites/...front-view.jpg

https://www.chevrolet.com/content/da...g?imwidth=1200


Paramounts have been made of many materials, with many
geometries using various jointing systems by several makers,
domestic and foreign. It's a marketing label not one actual
thing.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Friday, April 2, 2021 at 7:23:25 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/2/2021 8:47 AM, News 2021 wrote:
On Fri, 02 Apr 2021 06:30:04 -0700, Tom Kunich scribed:


Russell, I have had several Waterford Paramount. Several of them. They
were not particularly good bikes then.

Then why the heck did you buy the second and later ones.

'Schwinn Paramount' is so meaningless and generic I have no
idea what he, or you, meant. See also 'Chevrolet Impala'
which describes a collection of dissimilar things with the
same name.

https://ccnwordpress.blob.core.windo...pala-std-c.jpg

https://st.hotrod.com/uploads/sites/...front-view.jpg

https://www.chevrolet.com/content/da...g?imwidth=1200


Paramounts have been made of many materials, with many
geometries using various jointing systems by several makers,
domestic and foreign. It's a marketing label not one actual
thing.

Uhm, Andrew, I said "Waterford Paramount." They were all PDG OS models. When I initially started riding them I was 210 lbs and didn't have an ounce of fat on me. I'm presently 185 lbs on doctors orders.

On 4/2/2021 2:10 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Friday, April 2, 2021 at 7:23:25 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/2/2021 8:47 AM, News 2021 wrote:
On Fri, 02 Apr 2021 06:30:04 -0700, Tom Kunich scribed:


Russell, I have had several Waterford Paramount. Several of them. They
were not particularly good bikes then.

Then why the heck did you buy the second and later ones.

'Schwinn Paramount' is so meaningless and generic I have no
idea what he, or you, meant. See also 'Chevrolet Impala'
which describes a collection of dissimilar things with the
same name.

https://ccnwordpress.blob.core.windo...pala-std-c.jpg

https://st.hotrod.com/uploads/sites/...front-view.jpg

https://www.chevrolet.com/content/da...g?imwidth=1200


Paramounts have been made of many materials, with many
geometries using various jointing systems by several makers,
domestic and foreign. It's a marketing label not one actual
thing.

Uhm, Andrew, I said "Waterford Paramount." They were all PDG OS models. When I initially started riding them I was 210 lbs and didn't have an ounce of fat on me. I'm presently 185 lbs on doctors orders.


Oh sorry you are correct I misread that.

But even among Waterford built Paramounts there are heavier,
lighter, various geometries and so on.
It's been a very long time and Schwinn specification changed
more often than Schwinn ownership which is a lot.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Friday, April 2, 2021 at 3:52:07 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/2/2021 2:10 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Friday, April 2, 2021 at 7:23:25 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/2/2021 8:47 AM, News 2021 wrote:
On Fri, 02 Apr 2021 06:30:04 -0700, Tom Kunich scribed:


Russell, I have had several Waterford Paramount. Several of them. They
were not particularly good bikes then.

Then why the heck did you buy the second and later ones.

'Schwinn Paramount' is so meaningless and generic I have no
idea what he, or you, meant. See also 'Chevrolet Impala'
which describes a collection of dissimilar things with the
same name.

https://ccnwordpress.blob.core.windo...pala-std-c.jpg

https://st.hotrod.com/uploads/sites/...front-view.jpg

https://www.chevrolet.com/content/da...g?imwidth=1200


Paramounts have been made of many materials, with many
geometries using various jointing systems by several makers,
domestic and foreign. It's a marketing label not one actual
thing.

Uhm, Andrew, I said "Waterford Paramount." They were all PDG OS models. When I initially started riding them I was 210 lbs and didn't have an ounce of fat on me. I'm presently 185 lbs on doctors orders.

Oh sorry you are correct I misread that.

But even among Waterford built Paramounts there are heavier,
lighter, various geometries and so on.
It's been a very long time and Schwinn specification changed
more often than Schwinn ownership which is a lot.

The Paramount PDG OS's I had rode about as well as the Eddy Merckx Strata OS. In fact they were nearly identical except for the bottom bracket threads.. Which is why I presently have neither. And have no intentions of ever getting another. But I will say that both descended far better than most steel bikes.

On Fri, 2 Apr 2021 06:00:27 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Thursday, April 1, 2021 at 3:53:33 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Thursday, April 1, 2021 at 9:05:54 AM UTC-5, wrote:
Russell, Waterford's are a custom made bike. If YOU didn't have it made with a long top tube someone did. That is hardly proof that Colnagos have short top tubes since ad I have said, they have always had longer top tubes than the competition. While I will agree that it isn't much (Maybe 2%) that is longer.
Today Waterford frames are custom only. But they had/have stock sizes too. See the link immediately below. Mine is a stock 58 cm Waterford frame from 1998 I believe. Go to the page below and go down to the 9th post, #9. You will see standard sizes for Waterford R-22 frame. Modern version of my Waterford 1200 frame. The 58 cm frame has a 57 cm top tube
https://www.bikeforums.net/road-cycl...-question.html

Go down to page 72 of the link below. Its a PDF. You will find the 1999 Trek catalog. Look at the geometry chart on page 72 for the Trek 5500. The frame Lance Armstrong rode/won in the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005. The 5500 frame was made from 1992 to 2004. You will clearly see that the 58cm Trek 5500 frame has a top tube length of 57 cm. Do you honestly believe Trek (biggest bike company in America?, or is it Specialized?) makes bikes with excessively long top tubes? I'd guess Trek makes bikes with average, standard length top tubes. Trek is trying to sell as many bikes as they can to anyone they can sell to.
http://www.vintage-trek.com/Trek-Fis...d/1999trek.pdf

Here is what I wrote in my previous post.
Below is a link to the current Colnago Master. The 58cm center to top frame has a 56.5 center to center top tube.
https://www.colnago.com/wp-content/u...RADITIONAL.pdf

Below is the geometry chart for a C40. HP designation. Look at the 58cm center to top frame size. It has a 56.3cm top tube center to center.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/20704059@N00/8008557892

Colnago bikes have shorter top tubes than almost all other bike brands. I am referring to the same size frame from the various manufacturers.
You have yet to explain why a DIRECT measurement of my Colnago CLX3.0 is 58 cm c - c.

Long ago I should have realized that people like you and and hence you get your knowledge entirely from the Internet. I suppose it is a good thing that you can read enough to almost understand what you're talking about so that you can argue with people that that been there and done that, that they haven't.

"John have never had the money to actually own these things
? What things? Bicycles? Not being a ham handed klutz I don't buy
second hand stuff and then try to make it work, I build bicycles
exactly as I want them to be from the bare tubes and lugs.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Friday, April 2, 2021 at 8:00:29 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Thursday, April 1, 2021 at 3:53:33 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Thursday, April 1, 2021 at 9:05:54 AM UTC-5, wrote:
Russell, Waterford's are a custom made bike. If YOU didn't have it made with a long top tube someone did. That is hardly proof that Colnagos have short top tubes since ad I have said, they have always had longer top tubes than the competition. While I will agree that it isn't much (Maybe 2%) that is longer.
Today Waterford frames are custom only. But they had/have stock sizes too. See the link immediately below. Mine is a stock 58 cm Waterford frame from 1998 I believe. Go to the page below and go down to the 9th post, #9. You will see standard sizes for Waterford R-22 frame. Modern version of my Waterford 1200 frame. The 58 cm frame has a 57 cm top tube
https://www.bikeforums.net/road-cycl...-question.html

Go down to page 72 of the link below. Its a PDF. You will find the 1999 Trek catalog. Look at the geometry chart on page 72 for the Trek 5500. The frame Lance Armstrong rode/won in the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005. The 5500 frame was made from 1992 to 2004. You will clearly see that the 58cm Trek 5500 frame has a top tube length of 57 cm. Do you honestly believe Trek (biggest bike company in America?, or is it Specialized?) makes bikes with excessively long top tubes? I'd guess Trek makes bikes with average, standard length top tubes. Trek is trying to sell as many bikes as they can to anyone they can sell to.
http://www.vintage-trek.com/Trek-Fis...d/1999trek.pdf

Here is what I wrote in my previous post.
Below is a link to the current Colnago Master. The 58cm center to top frame has a 56.5 center to center top tube.
https://www.colnago.com/wp-content/u...RADITIONAL.pdf

Below is the geometry chart for a C40. HP designation. Look at the 58cm center to top frame size. It has a 56.3cm top tube center to center.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/20704059@N00/8008557892

Colnago bikes have shorter top tubes than almost all other bike brands. I am referring to the same size frame from the various manufacturers.
You have yet to explain why a DIRECT measurement of my Colnago CLX3.0 is 58 cm c - c.


You measured them wrong? I am merely showing you what appeared in catalogs for Colnago frames. Shorter top tubes. It is possible you are using a 56cm sloping top tube bike and comparing it to a 56cm level top tube frame in the catalog pages displayed. The C40 frame was a level top tube bike. The 56cm sloping frame would in fact be a 60cm level top tube frame. And a 58cm top tube might be appropriate.

Below are links to Colnago CLX3.0 geometry. The 57s frame, sloping top tube, has a 58.3cm top tube length. If you converted the sloping frame up to level top tube sizing, you would likely get a 60, 61, 62 cm level top tube frame. As measured c-t or c-c along the seat tube. Making 58cm top tube somewhat realistic. With sloping and level top tube frames the sizing or what they label a bike frame can be different. With level top tube bikes the measuring of the frame is always c-t or c-c along the seat tube. With sloping top tube frames, some companies measure c-t or c-c along the now shortened seat tube. And others use generic small, medium, large names for frame sizes.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/glorycycles/14230625952 57s frame with 58.3 top tube.
https://velobest.bike/en/velosipedi/...o-clx-3-0.html 57s frame with 58.3 top tube.
https://www.merlincycles.com/colnago...9-192662..html At the bottom of the page is the geometry chart. It has a 58s frame with the 58.3 top tube.

Below are a couple links that review the Colnago CLX as equipped from the factory. You will notice in both, depending on the size reviewed, they come from the factory with long stems. A long stem coupled with a short top tube will get the rider in the correct riding position. Sort of.

54cm frame and 13cm stem.
http://www.bicyclingaustralia.com.au...olnago-clx-3-0

54cm frame and 12cm stem. Must have changed lengths between 2012 for the review above and 2016 this review.

On Friday, April 2, 2021 at 8:30:06 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Friday, April 2, 2021 at 12:05:53 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Thursday, April 1, 2021 at 8:00:14 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/1/2021 5:59 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
Do you mean the part that says, "Although these bikes are all custom"?

Waterfords are each custom, geometry individually drawn for
one rider, to order.

One may order a standard suggested geometry or amend as
desired. Color selection is as broad as the brazed bits
selection. Rider may specify tube gauge (within limits)
angles, dimensions, threaded or threadless fork, TIG or
silver braze lugs, stainless lug or crown options and so on.

The Waterford Gunnar line consists of 15 models in 2-cm
increments 48 to 68cm and nine colors which change monthly.
There are no quality differences in material, workmanship or
paint. Same shop, same tubes, same fixtures, same people.
Gunnars are normally made in batches and stored unfinished
(except not during our recent travails).

A middle increment is a custom Gunnar which is slightly less
expensive than a TIG Waterford but without full color palette.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Waterford is all custom now. Yes. But that is a somewhat recent trend. In the late 1990s they were making stock frame sizes and charging extra for custom sizing. I own a stock 1998 58cm c-t Waterford 1200 built with Reynolds 753 tubing in Candy Apple Red color. It has a stock 57cm c-c top tube.

See post #3 in the link below.
https://www.roadbikereview.com/threa...d-1200.254216/

This link is a review by people owning Waterford 1200 frames. Many of the reviews mention having stock frame sizes or custom as an upcharge.
https://products.roadbikereview.com/...d-ultegra.html

See post #2 in the link below.
https://www.bikeforums.net/classic-v...rd-1200-a.html
Russell, I have had several Waterford Paramount. Several of them. They were not particularly good bikes then. Their latest "racing" looks like it is, but don't try to pass off the earliest Waterford's and any better than the Schwinn Paramount's.

I do not recall ever writing that I think the earliest or any Waterford are better than Paramounts. But if I did say something like that, please post a link to it. My 1998 Waterford is a wonderful bike. Impossible to get any better with a lugged steel frame. Maybe equal. Waterford was a Paramount frame maker in the early 1990s I think. I think Fuji in Japan was also making Paramount labeled frames too at the time. But I am talking only about the Paramounts that are lugged steel. And as mentioned by others the geometry of the frames themselves may have changed from when Waterford was making Paramount stickered frames and when they started/did make their own stickered frames. A 58cm c-t Waterford frame may not, will not, have the exact same geometry as a 58cm c-t Schwinn Paramount.

I was 180 pounds on most of my riding of the Waterford. Never ever any problems at all.