dave moulton has his insights into this at:
http://www.prodigalchild.net/
Angel Garcia, wishing all a great New Year
Long Valley, NJ
> It makes sense to have shorter top tubes on older frames. If you fit
> a bike so that you have a "fistful" of seatpost showing, as was
> common back then, you can't ride a "square" frame, as the top tube
> length for a given rider can't change too much.
>
> Jan Heine, Seattle,
> whom they'd put on a "compact" 54 cm frame today and would have put
> on a 63 cm frame in 1948, but all with 56-58 cm top tubes!
>
> >Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this was "standard" geometry for
> >bikes of this era. I have a 1971 63cm Mercian with a 58cm TT that I
> >have been fretting over for a little while now (I'm 6'5" with longish
> >arms). From my research into this frame, a short TT was common.
> >
> >Jason Moore
> >Dallas TX
>> >Can I start this off in another direction? Why would any builder make a
> >62cm frame with such a short 57.5 top tube. Is it me or should it be
> >longer. Hell with my legs and arms I could ride this frame but they do
> >not make a stem long enough for me, not that I would want to ride a stem
> >that long. Steven
> >
> >The Bike Stand
> >1778 East Second Street
> >Scotch Plains NJ 07076
> >908-322-3330
> >www.thebikestand.com
> >-- Jason Moore