Dawes Galaxy Sizing

[g_r_richardson]

Hi all,

I'm considering building a classic steel tourer based on something like a Dawes Galaxy.

I just followed an auction on eBay for this 90s Galaxy (ended) http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Dawes-Galaxy-touring-bike-/161800208105?autorefresh=true&euid=866873e90f044c7d855ed83a3624ca95&cp=1&nma=true&si=GJWmaxKSbvmsLOfSk%252BFQCG3cd78%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557
When asking for the frame size, I was told:
Seat tube C-T = 58 cm
Top tube C-C = 57 cm

To me the head tube looks a little on the small side for a 58 cm frame, but I trust that the seller measured correctly. In fact when looking at the stated sizes of many of the Galaxies available, the frame geometry makes the bike look like a smaller size than the one stated (when comparing to a classic road frame). Perhaps the reason for the short head tube is the considerable clearance under the crown?

Anyway, to get to the point, I'm about 5'7" and used to riding 80s road frames, (currently comfortably on a 55 cm Eddy Merckx Corsa Extra), but with the geometry looking quite different on the Galaxies I'm wondering what size to go for. Anyone out there with an 80s/90s model and some insights?

(I'm also very open to suggestions of other framesets that can be found in the UK. I quite liked the Temple Cycles road/light touring frame but has caliper mounts and I was tempted by the Spa Cycles steel tourer, but not a big fan of the compact frame and threadless stem with lots of spacers look.)

[Brucey]

the older Galaxies were all built with fairly short top tubes which do not increase very quickly with frame size. This means that if you are average height, but want the feel or the raised head tube that comes with a larger frame size, you can go up a couple of sizes and still get a decent position that isn't too long a reach provided you fit a short stem. Hence a 58cm galaxy is do-able at 5' 7" where with other frame designs 54cm would be more like it.

BTW yes, the mudguard clearance and a slightly lower BB height do make the head tubes look a bit short if you are used to looking at road racing frames.

If you are looking at touring bikes then (in new bikes) you should take a look at the EBC models, the surly LHT, the ridgeback, and the Fuji offerings. If you are not going to load the bike up and want something a bit faster-feeling, there are various 'light tourers' that are disguised as CX bikes which might be worth a look too.

cheers

[531colin]

Look at the Spa geo. here. http://www.spacycles.co.uk/smsimg/uploads/touringgeometry.jpg
The Spa 54 has an ETT of 577mm, and a top tube drop of 60mm, so the front end is as high as a 60cm horizontal top tube frame.
I'm 5' 10", I designed the 54 to fit myself. Its the back of the frame thats low, not the front.
This one http://www.spacycles.co.uk/smsimg/uploads/tourer/5434tourer.jpg is roughly set up for me (steerer uncut)

[g_r_richardson]

Thanks Brucey & 531colin. I haven't been looking at new bikes because I tend to prefer the look of older frames, and I've got a good idea of how I want to build the bike up.

On the Galaxies, I think I'd prefer shorter top tube with a slightly longer stem, with some scope for adjusting the reach, so maybe the 54cm frame would be better, though as you said there's not too much difference in the top tube lengths. Maybe on the smaller frames the drop from saddle to handlebars would be too far without having a highly risen stem and would actually end up with me being more bent over?

I would still prefer to go for an older steel frame, despite the drawbacks in components and the limitations on sizing. Can see the advantages of going for a sloping top tube Spa-tourer geometry though, and I am contemplating that frame. Does that imply that the 51 cm would be a better fit for myself, or I could run the 54 with less spacers under the stem?

[Brucey]

it kind of depends where you are going to put the handlebars; some folk tour with the tops well below the saddle and others have the bars much higher up and maybe set a bit shorter too. You can buy tall quill stems (eg Nitto) so you can make a smallish frame work for you if you want to, even if you want to set the bars fairly high.

I would suggest that you work out your riding position first, and then buy a frame that fits that, rather than trying to do it the other way round though!

The other thing you need to think of is if this bike is going to be used loaded or not. If 'yes, always loaded' then some older touring frames may be a touch on the flexy side. More recent touring frames often have bigger diameter tubes (DT and TT) and this can make for a bike that isn't so springy when riding unladen, but is more stable when loaded up.

cheers

[531colin]

...............Can see the advantages of going for a sloping top tube Spa-tourer geometry though, and I am contemplating that frame. Does that imply that the 51 cm would be a better fit for myself, or I could run the 54 with less spacers under the stem?

http://www.spacycles.co.uk/smsimg/uploads/touringgeometry.jpg

The general rule for deciding between 2 sizes of the same bike is.......the smaller one will give you a shorter top tube and lower head tube.....
......in this case 13mm shorter ETT and 26mm lower head tube. The 51 has a top tube drop of 70mm, so its front end is comparable with the height of a 58cm horizontal top tube frame.......... so it could be for you?
On the other hand, if you want the top tube length of the 54, you can get the bars lower than in the photo I linked simply by flipping the stem.

The best thing to do is go to the shop and ride the test bikes, failing that, measure up carefully a bike that you are comfortable on.

[g_r_richardson]

Thanks again for the clarifications, I think I'm getting somewhere now based on this and what I already know from current bikes. I actually just measured up the front half of my tandem which is of a touring geometry similar to the Galaxies, though I'd never thought of it like that before. That's a 58 cm ST and 58 cm TT. It's a comfortable ride with a 70 mm stem and about 70 mm drop from saddle to bars, so that's given me a good idea of what the next sizes down will feel like. I don't mind a drop, but I think I'd like to reduce the reach a bit for a proper tourer. Will try to try some first though, as that is obviously the better way round to do things!

Starting to be talked round to the idea of a modern frame in terms of both strength and sizing, but they're just not as pretty... Not going to always be loaded, but normally do two of three reasonably loaded trips each year (never actually weighed how much I've taken).