Folks,
I have been following the discussion about frame size with some interest today as I contemplate a frame purchase. Having in the past year or so picked up frames that were either too small or too large for me, I am now more cognizant of the notion of buying to ride (thanks David!!!!!).
But, in reading through the 1941-2 "Cycling Manual and Yearbook" - "compiled by the staff of 'Cycling', " I came across the following discussion about fitting a frame:
"Frame size represents the distance from the top of the seat lug (where the saddle pin enters) to a point equivalent to the centre of the bracket axle. In other words, it is the measurement that most matters where the rider's leg reach is concerned. In choosing a size of frame it is important not to buy one that is too large, which means that the rider would always be over-reached in pedalling, giving constant discomfort, inefficiency, and perhaps injury. On the other hand, a frame can hardly be too small, because there is plenty of adjustment by drawing the saddle-pin farther out of the frame. Therefore it is better to err on the small side and be safe. A good working rule is to take the inside leg measurement and deduct 11 ins. from it. The result denotes the maximum size of frame that should be bought."
Now that "working rule" is interesting as with such a calculation I should be riding about a 19" or 48cm frame. I am just under 5'9" and usually ride a 21-21.5" or 54-55cm frame.
Okay, this raises the question, given that different periods favoured either larger or smaller frames, would smaller frames have been the case in the pre-War and War years? And at what point after the War do frames start to be ridden a little larger? Does one ride a size for period-correctness or for modern day comfort? If one rides a frame that is too small are there the suitable parts - i.e. seat-post, stem - to make the bike rideable and what does that do for the appearance of the bike?
Paul Williams,
musing in Ottawa, ON, Canada