Re: [CR] Large bike sizes

(Example: Framebuilding:Brazing Technique)

Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 20:27:31 -0400
From: "Harvey Sachs" <hmsachs@verizon.net>
To: Classic Rendezvous <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
Subject: Re: [CR] Large bike sizes


I pick up from where Jan Heine left off, with Howard Darr's comments on bike shop sizing in mind. As a middle-age guy with a 30" inseam (and substantially larger waist), and no pretense of racing any longer, here's what works for me:

1) Prefer to be able to straddle flat-footed. 2) 58 +/1 cm ctc top tube. 3) Within that, taller frame means higher handlebars which means greater comfort and the actual ability to ride comfortably in the drops. Imagine that.

I did 490 mi. of RAGBRAI on my 62 cm Cinelli, which I could barely straddle flatfooted. Wonderful, though I have replaced it with a 60 cm. Both were close to 57 cm top tube, so they fit. Of course, with the 62 I didn't have enough clearance for a Brooks saddle on a Campy post, had to use a Cinelli (much lower wire-to-top). My Weigle is a 60x57 or 58 (as I recall). And so it goes. I refuse to consider these bikes as "supersized" for me: recreational riders who ride undersized frames have themselves and their vendors to blame for their discomfort.

And, looking at photos from the 50s and 60s racing scene, I find myself agreeing wih Jan. I recall a lot less seat post exposed than the contemporary fashion. Oops, I guess now it's fact-based and research-driven, and so much for CONI. :-)

harvey sachs mcLean va

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>Yeah what was that whole thing of supersized frame sizes? I will say >>that we Can Not blame it on Mr Euegene, however long he has been >>laid to rest. I recall the supersized frame sizing issue going way >>back to very very very early 70s, and perhaps even 1960s, well >>before the Sloane tome. My first higher end bike was fitted to me at >>59cm with my inseam only 32inches!!

Jan Heine wrote: "Supersized" bike frames were a common thing in Europe from the mid-1930s until at least the early 1960s. It was the norm, not some odd-ball American thing. The formula Sloane reported probably came from some European reference. True, Americans tended to be taller, hence required bigger frames for the same sizing parameters. I doubt Cinelli sold many 65 cm frames in Italy.

Even so, Fausto Coppi, who was about 6' tall, rode a bike measuring 59 cm (center-to-center). His handlebars were a couple of inches below the saddle. Fiorenzo Magni rode a 58.5 cm frame... so he was no midget, either. Only Bartali, on a 55, was a relatively short guy.

On the track, the pros rode smaller frames with lower handlebars. It is interesting to compare the geometries of the three 1950s bikes of a French racer, shown in "The Competition Bicycle." The track bike is a full centimeter smaller than the road bike. It has a 5 mm longer top tube and a 30 mm longer stem. Talk about stretched-out on the track bike, and comfortable on the road bike.

By the time you get to Merckx, you have more modern sizing. I believe Merckx was a bit taller than Coppi, yet his bike was 5 mm smaller, and 10 mm shorter. (Coppi probably had long arms, but this also shows how a low handlebar position requires a shorter stem/top tube, because the head tube is inclined.)

Jan Heine