I didn't know where the 1.09 multiplier came from, but since I've head it, it seems to be a great starting point that seems to need only a tiny bit of adjustment.
It's not clear to me where the "fist full of seatpost" maxim came from, but that's how my uncle directed many a customer when he sold bicycle before, during and after the boom. I can only speculate that having the bars close to the seat height was appropriate for the legions of novice cyclists, and that necessitated slightly taller frames.
At any rate, I've tried what are now considered "appropriately sized" frames, and I prefer mine 2-3 cm larger than current convention suggests. I suppose that being familiar with vertebral tectonics may have some bearing on this, but then again - just like with bar-cons - it's what I grew up with.
Good discussion topic.
Cheers
(forever) shoeless John Barry
Mechanicsburg, PA, USA
> From: john strizek <lyonstrings@yahoo.com>
\r?\n> Subject: [CR] sloane
\r?\n> To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
\r?\n> Date: Tuesday, June 16, 2009, 1:35 PM
\r?\n> I too was influenced by Eugene
\r?\n> Sloane. I still think that the 1.09 is a good starting
\r?\n> point. That is the pedal at bottom stroke to saddle top
\r?\n> measurement. that does not influence the stand-over height
\r?\n> that should be just that. The theory for Sloane Sloane that
\r?\n> you should get full extension for maximum stroke seemed and
\r?\n> still seems reasonable. I see and you too are likely to see
\r?\n> riders of BMX bikes that sit far too low to take advantage
\r?\n> of a full extension pedal stroke. There is a bike that is to
\r?\n> short for the rider that is almost as bead as frame that
\r?\n> is too big. My pant inseam is just over 30 inches, of course
\r?\n> I have my foot below that. I have ridden anything from 21
\r?\n> inches to 23.5 inches. The 23.5" was just too tall, the
\r?\n> reason for selling my beloved Peugeot PR-10 (after 26
\r?\n> years) with chromed Tange fork with Cinelli style fork
\r?\n> crown. the 21 felt too small but is workable. I think the 21
\r?\n> is actually fine. it is the aesthetic that to me
\r?\n> makes the seat post look too far out of the top of the
\r?\n> seat tube. It is that and I feel perched on the bike rather
\r?\n> than part of the bike. I am 6 feet tall with a long torso/
\r?\n> short legs (French style long top tube bikes are a good
\r?\n> fit.) I really prefer the 22" or 22.5" with 22 best and 22.5
\r?\n> preferred. I use the inches because of my beginning with a
\r?\n> Raleigh Super Course and being from the US.
\r?\n> I must add that my setting up a bike has changed
\r?\n> over the years as my flexibility and my girth have also
\r?\n> changed, just call me Clyde. I still use the same saddle
\r?\n> set up over the bottom bracket but handlebar position has
\r?\n> been the big difference, mostly in height.I prefer
\r?\n> Radonneur(sp) bars and bar-cons. This is in part due to
\r?\n> flexibility and girth. I have saved all my down tube
\r?\n> shifters because we are keepers of the flame not owners of
\r?\n> it. The next holder may prefer originality more than I.
\r?\n> At some point in the future I plan to cut down to three
\r?\n> bikes and pass on the others. None are particularly valuable
\r?\n> but have much personal attachment. Ideally I would like a
\r?\n> really high quality mixte with internal gear hub or Sachs 3
\r?\n> internal with multi-cog freewheel, a fully equipped tourer,
\r?\n> and a single speed around town bike as I live in a
\r?\n> relatively flat area. I suppose that will not really come to
\r?\n> fruition. I will always be interested in tinkering and
\r?\n> trying out something a bit different.
\r?\n> Getting back to the original thread, I would like
\r?\n> to hear how others set up their bikes and how they arrived
\r?\n> at their parameters. Also have those parameters changed over
\r?\n> the years?
\r?\n> happy trails
\r?\n> john strizek
\r?\n> Sacramento California
\r?\n> USA