I've never understood the constant debates about bike fit. I have never had the slightest use for formulas, equations, fit kits of fit systems. I never even noticed Sloane's formula, because even then I didn't give a damn what someone else thought a good fit was, not even someone whose writing I respected as much as Sloan's. I probably developed my personal fit system in my first couple of years of riding lightweights and it has remained happily unchanged for 35 years. I set the saddle height so that my knee is just very slightly bent at the bottom of the stroke, but by dropping the heel, I can lock the knee. Standover height cannot be higher than I can straddle with both feet flat on the ground when wearing cycling shoes.
This will usually allow me to ride a frame as large as 56 cm ctc. The smallest frame I can ride will be determined by the minimum insertion of the stem. This has changed a bit over the years as I now prefer the bars even with or only slightly below the saddle. But I can usually ride a frame as small as 52 cm. On a custom frame I would once specify 53 cm sqaure, but today it would be more like 55 cm square. This isn't rocket science, as the reason seatpost height is adjustable is to to fine tune fit. And In The Day stems came in a wide enough range of extensions to adjust for TT length as well.
If Sloane's formula worked for Sloane, then good for him. But no one should have followed such advice blindly.
BTW, in regard to other books of the era, one of my favorites has the humble title of "It's Easy to Fix Your Bike" by John W. McFarlane. Third Edition 1973, but the original edition was 1947, far predating Sloane. In the prolog he imparts the sage bit of philosophy that, "The biggest thing you gain from doing anything new is the ability to do something bigger." He later offers this useful tip about overhauling pedals - "When you have a pedal apart, clean everyone with kerosene and a toothbrush (an old one, kerosene has an awful taste)." Words to live by.
Regards,
Jerry Moos
Big Spring, Texas, 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, 12:35 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