>
> 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?
Well, Paul... good point. I am 6' 2" and find myself often cursing the fact that I love British club bikes of an era (1940s-50s) when small(ish) frames were the norm. Before the war, 21" was the norm, after the war 22" and not until the mid '50s was there much of a choice larger than that. That is for cycles made by the big firms not the handbuilt, custom jobs of course. Same with most of the classic Italian bikes I've seen of the period. Maybe not so much cycle practice but two lands of short inseams!
Sure you can ride a smaller frame with 5 inches of seat post and 2 1/2" of stem showing. I do with my 22" Clubmans. Wonderful. And I believe that was British practice at the time to configure a machine like this. And it "looks" good too if that means anything... I hate when I see large frames with the saddle jammed as low as it goes... just looks "funny" somehow.
But I've tried to ride a neighbours 21" Raleigh Golden Arrow (1939).... it just doesn't work. I feel my knees are going to hit my cheek bones. There's small and then too small. And I find I can ride a smaller club or racing frame with comfort than a too small roadster frame.
It helps to be period correct when, in addition to the wonderful Cycling handbook you mention, the only other cycling "bible" I have is the wonderful classic "Every Cyclist's Handbook" by F.J. Camm, first published in 1936. It was released as Pocket Edition with even more information c. 1950. Essential reading.
Peter Kohler
Washington DC USA