[CR]Re: Frame size/ saddle-height new

Example: Events:Eroica

From: CYCLESTORE@aol.com
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 14:10:47 EST
To: chasa@classicalradio.org, classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
Subject: [CR]Re: Frame size/ saddle-height new

Greetins all,

On the taller saddle in the 1960's to present I may have some insight. The old legend in our local touring club named Jay Howard used to ride in Philly with Fred DeLong back in the 1950's. Jay is 80 years young now and used to ride a century every week till recently. Now just 30-60 miles on his regular jaunts.

He claims that the reason everyone started with higher saddles (and big gears) was J. Anquetile (sic) who's down pointed toes won many a Time Trial in th late 50's on along till the late 1960s.

Some times the old guys know a lot, since they lived through that time.

Regards. Gilbert Anderson Raleigh, NC

In a message dated 2/2/01 5:05:08 AM, chasa@classicalradio.org writes:

<< If that example's accurate, can anyone suggest why more and more extreme

body positions became the norm by the 60s? Much higher saddles, lower bars,

smaller frames, and, it seems, a very uncomfortable body position for

someone with less than mile-long arms ;>. Was it just that a more

aerodynamic position makes for more speed? Simple as that? And racers were

willing to sacrifice their bodies?

Interestingly, in The World of Daniel Rebour, the small frames for shorter

riders are set up very much as Grant would suggest, with moderate saddle

height, and bar-height nearly equal to saddle height. It's the taller

frames that start to show extreme configurations by the 1960s.

I still wonder about the other thing though. The saddle-height on

hill-climbs thing. If anyone can shed some light on that, I'd appreciate


Charles Andrews

Los Angeles