Re: [CR]Frame size speculation


Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 06:41:59 -0500
To: <siverson@garlic.com>, <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
From: Harvey M Sachs <sachs@erols.com>
Subject: Re: [CR]Frame size speculation
In-Reply-To: <200102250629.f1P6Thj44570@winery.garlic.com>


At 22:29 2/24/2001 -0800, siverson@garlic.com wrote:
>I am puzzled at the seemingly infinate number of classic bicycle frames
>available sized 60cm and greater in the used bike marketplace.

<snip>


>My questions are these: In the 60's/70's was there a trend toward
>larger frames? Are more bicycle enthusiasts traditionally over 6'
>tall? Were shorter frames more likely to be ridden-to-death and
>trashed?

At the time of the first big bike boom of last century (early 70s), I used to marvel that we 'Merkuns seemed to translate our desire for the best of everything into the biggest. I remember telling friends that fitting a bike was like fitting shoes, and you should get the right size. Most still just applied the metrics they used for cars, houses, etc: bigger was better. Of course, a few years earlier my first Paramount was "a tad on the large side" -- but used paramounts were very rare, my budget wouldn't touch a new bike, and finding anything worth riding in Cosmopolitan Village Houston was almost a miracle.

This is just my impression of the times, and may not have been applicable to the more sophisticated markets in places like - well, wherever they were. Boston. San Francisco. ??

harvey sachs (not meaning to start a thread on where the most vintage bikes were sold, but that could be interesting)