Is 21 inches to small

[EltonFrog]

For a six footer? There's a classic steel bike on the Bay of E that I quite fancy, the stated frame size is 21", which I suspect is to small for me, but I believe the geometry of bikes has changed over the years I wondering if I could get away with that size.

What say you?

 

[Cycleops]

Way too small.

 

[Apollonius]

My wife, who is 5 feet 2 in that funny old system of measuring things rides a 21" steel bike. (Though not often.)
I am your height (1.82) and the smallest steel frame I can ride with comfort is a 23". 23 and a half is better. 24 too big. 22 and a half a bit small, but just about OK.
It is not just the height of the seat tube. The reach will be much smaller too and you knees will get in your way.
Old steel diamond frames were much of a muchness as to what was being measured. The convention is to measure from the centre of the bottom bracket to the last bit of tube upwards. Modern frames have very different angles from each other and are not so comparable.
Look for a 23.
People were smaller in the olden days, so there are fewer of them around, sadly.

 

[KneesUp]

I agree with the above. My much mourned stolen 531 Falcon was a 23" and fitted be beautifully. I'm 5 ft 11 and a bit.

 

[EltonFrog]

Way too small.

My wife, who is 5 feet 2 in that funny old system of measuring things rides a 21" steel bike. (Though not often.)
I am your height (1.82) and the smallest steel frame I can ride with comfort is a 23". 23 and a half is better. 24 too big. 22 and a half a bit small, but just about OK.
It is not just the height of the seat tube. The reach will be much smaller too and you knees will get in your way.
Old steel diamond frames were much of a muchness as to what was being measured. The convention is to measure from the centre of the bottom bracket to the last bit of tube upwards. Modern frames have very different angles from each other and are not so comparable.
Look for a 23.
People were smaller in the olden days, so there are fewer of them around, sadly.

I agree with the above. My much mourned stolen 531 Falcon was a 23" and fitted be beautifully. I'm 5 ft 11 and a bit.

Thanks chaps, thats what I thunked. Alas and alack a nice bike I'm not going to get?

 

[biggs682]

Thanks chaps, thats what I thunked. Alas and alack a nice bike I'm not going to get?

share the love @CarlP and show us a link

 

[EltonFrog]

I took a fancy to a Raleigh Record Sprint on the Bay of E that's down in Borden in Hampshirecestershire. Had a BIN of one hundred and twenty beer tokens if I recall correctly.

 

[pauldavid]

Sorry for jumping into the thread for my own purposes, but bearing in mind what is stated above would a 23" framed Carlton from the 70's be too big for 5'7" self?

I am also looking at the bay for my first classic/project and am ready to bid but don't want to end up with something I can't ride!

 

[Apollonius]

You might get away with it, but I think you would be better off with a 22. This might sound silly, but what is your inside leg measurement for trousers? If you add up the 23" of the frame, tack on (say) 170mm for the crank length - what's that - around 6 inches in old money? you end up with the seat tube and the saddle touching the crossbar, and that, as they say, is not a good look.

 

[pauldavid]

Oh well, back to the search then. Thanks for your help.

 

[hatherton_wood]

I have a 29" inside leg but I[m fine on a 23" old Raleigh 1950's - in fact this has a somewhat better feel - reach and so on that the 21" which should fit me better. Most 1950's gents bikes seem to be 23" - its harder to find 21" I think.

 

[sittingbull]

........People were smaller in the olden days, so there are fewer of them (23" frames) around, sadly.

I think 21" was considered adult size and bigger frames were in vogue. Current trends have reversed that philosophy.

I've been looking for a decent small frame for 18 months. I would say the majority of vintage frames listed were over 21" although maybe it just seemed that way as I wanted something smaller. I'm about a 30" inside leg and have a 1987 531 Raleigh which is 22"/56cm. I've always found it comfortable but current trends would suggest it's too large. I have very little seat post showing, insufficient to attach a seat pack.

Two 20" frames appeared in the listings recently, one was actually a complete bike but I want a modern groupset with gear ratios I can climb with and being 531c I had concerns over cold setting. The other is 653 from the late 80s and I believe was built to take an 8 speed hub (so presumably 130mm), avoiding the cold setting issues on the 753 rear triangle (as they apparently are on a 653 frame). I was fortunate to "win" the latter

 

[stevevw]

If any of you want a smaller frameset I have one for sale.

1952 Hobbs 'Blue Riband' Frameset

This is the Blue Riband that I recently bought. It is 21" which is too small for me. I will let it go for the same price I paid not looking to make a profit just to get another classic back on the road. I have more pictures if needed also I have included the text from the original advert below. £180


Absolutely stunning vintage 1952 Hobbs 'Blue Riband' classic racing frame, frame No. E2516 on bottom bracket shell and fork steering stem, because of the spearpoint lugs I am almost certain it's the 'Championship' model. The frame has been resprayed in the last year to match its original colour and lug lined in gold, as original, frame is either Reynolds 531 or Accles & Pollock Kromo, in 1952 Hobbs used either tubing, whichever one was used this frame is extremely light.Frame includes Brampton bottom bracket with TDC axle and also includes seat stem.
Seat tube 21" (54mm)
Top tube 21" (54mm)
Downtube 23" (58.5mm)
The headset is TDC, could be original fitting.
A superb example of British Lightweight frame building.
For the purists out there who have pointed out that Hobbs Frame Numbers were normally on the rear dropouts,
by 1952 Hobbs was not following closely the original methods of stamping the frame Number, this can be confirmed by the V-CC Hobbs expert.
I should have also pointed out that the Frame is built with Oscar Egg lugs.
The rear dropout width is 120mm.
Wheel size: 27s or 700c. with brake drop of 60mm. Preparation and re-spray by Mario Vaz.

 

[Apollonius]

That is lovely. Way too small for me, though, and Mrs A rides modern bikes all the time now. At least, she does when she is not on crutches having fallen off her horse.