>>1148399That chart seems legit to me. I'm 180cm, and I feel fit on bikes having ETT not shorter than 58cm, be it road or whatever flat bars bike (xc mtb/commuter/"fitness"/touring). Even 60cm, if it's a flat bars bike.
>>1148320Most of the things in
>>1148400 list indeed are red flags:
>* Steel rimsbike is older than 80s, and/or low end
>* Cottered cranksbike is older than 80s, and/or low end
>* Suicide lever brakesbike is older than 80s, and definitely isn't a legit road race bike, could be an okayish touring bike though
>* High tensile steelbike is low end
>* Wheels with visible wobble when spunalso check for sideways play in wheels and cranks. there should be none
>* 27" i.e. 630mm ETRTO wheels (vs 700c i.e. 622mm ETRTO)bike is older than 80s, not easy to find new road tyres, impossible to find new road rims (they still make omafiets/opafiets bikes and hence rims in this size, but that doesn't help), pain in the ass to make brakes work if you put 700c wheels in this frame
However I wouldn't be so harsh on stem shifters, there are some vintage mid-end touring bikes that have these.
In order to get some more grasp on what you should look out for, you might want to have a read on some of this
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/oldbikes.htmlans some other stuff there
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/>>1143008>>1143323>Way overpriced for what you get.That sure is a low end bike, but how much was it? The classified has expired.
>>1143327>higher-end bicycles are subject to this even more so than entry-level bikes.This is true. You can easily sell a 2005 300€/$ bike in good shape for 100€/$, you can't a 2005 3000€/$ bike for 1000€/$.
>>1143519Better, and indicates an overall better bike, than hi-ten steel.
>>1145965Judging by the bike spec, I would assume the tubing is some kind of crmo, but
>“custom selection premium tubing”sounds hella fishy to me. You call a crmo crmo, even if you're into flashy sounding marketing nonsense.
