In a message dated 2/25/01 1:32:02 AM Eastern Standard Time, firstname.lastname@example.org writes:
> 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? Or. . . do you think this is a misperception on my part and
> there really are an equal number of frame sizes available out there if
> you look at the big picture.
I'm 6'1" and was always considered bigger than average. I look for large frames of course, 62cm / 24.5". However I ride two 25.5" Raleighs. When I'm looking it seems that everything is too small! Though once in a while I see 25'' bikes sitting. I think the 54-58 size range is where a lot of people are. If not by the old sizing standards(which put you on a bigger frame) then they fit by today's standards (little frame-long seatpost). So it makes sense that those mid sized frames sell a bit faster. Today you'd need to be 6' 6" to have most places want to put you on a 64cm frame. Also note that some brands skipped sizes in their mid priced range, so that you had to choose between sizes: one that was maybe a bit small, one a bit big. (i.e.; 21.5" vs 23.5" vs 25.5" Raleighs). So if looking for a specific brand and model it might pay to see if that size was made. Happy hunting!