Were people back in the day giants or something?

[MrHappyCyclist]

Yes, it is the compact frame we have nowadays. I just measured the distance from the centre of my bottom bracket to the top of my seat post and it is 26.5". I'm only 5'10" tall, but I would probably have been getting a road bike with a 24" frame 30 years ago.

Edit. I do remember that bruised groins seemed a lot more common back then.

 

[mickle]

The reason there are so many large and extra large frames still around is simply that these are the ones which survived. Their size limited the number of people who could ride them which made them less likely than smaller sizes to be worn out, wrecked, lost or stolen.

 

[tyred]

I was recently given a Viscount Aerospace by a mate. He told me it's too big for him but it would be perfect for my height. I drove over to pick it up and was met with this huge 25" frame. I thought I can't ride that thing. But standover height was just about okay and now after a service, I've been riding it a lot and find it very comfy with about three inches of seatpost showing. My other old road bikes are all around 22"- 23" frame with a lot of seat post showing and I suddenly find them very cramped now that I've got used to the big frame.

 

[tyred]

As an aside, take a look at the bikes from the 1920s and before. They were often 26" or 28" frames and people actually were smaller then.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

Think back to the original bikes such as the Penny Farthing. They were huge. The first bike to be "normal" sized in our minds was the Dwarf Safety Bike.

 

[mickle]

I was recently given a Viscount Aerospace by a mate. He told me it's too big for him but it would be perfect for my height. I drove over to pick it up and was met with this huge 25" frame. I thought I can't ride that thing. But standover height was just about okay and now after a service, I've been riding it a lot and find it very comfy with about three inches of seatpost showing. My other old road bikes are all around 22"- 23" frame with a lot of seat post showing and I suddenly find them very cramped now that I've got used to the big frame.

If it has an Aluniman fork stop riding it. It was the subject of a recall.

 

[oldroadman]

OK, start from basics. To get seat height, centre of BB to top of saddle, measure inside leg (bare feet) accurately. Find a close friend to help, more fun...
Take the measurement in cm then multiply by 0.882. This is a basic starting point, as recommended by one B.Hinault, who did know a thing or two and was not very tall, but managed 5 TdF wins
Adjust by tiny increments (0.5 - 1 mm) if required.

For instance, inside leg 73cm (about 28", typical for a smaller rider) means seat height centre BBto seat top of 64.386cm. Then you just need to decide how much distance you want from the top of the top tube to top of seat.
Again, a 49cm seat tube centre to top will leave 15.386cm (about 6" in old money) of seatpost and saddle above, so a small rider may want to go for a small compact, maybe actual size 47/48 if they can get one. This leaves more seatpost showing if that's what you want.
The comments are right, in past days we rode with little seatpost showing, parallel frames (top tube horizontal) and got position adjustment from mostly bars and stem - no aheadsets or stacks in those distant days - Mr Campagnolo/Stronglight supplied, you used!

 

[tyred]

If it has an Aluniman fork stop riding it. It was the subject of a recall.

No, it's been replaced with a 531 fork.

 

[asterix]

My Touristique is a 62cm frame, horizontal top tube bike with about 10cm of post showing.

I also have a Roberts compact built specially for me with a 54cm seat tube and yes, 18cm of post showing. The ergonomics are very close i.e. relative positions of saddle, pedals and bars but the Roberts is significantly lighter and I think the Roberts helps me climb more. There is something about the Touristique's steering that I really like, very similar to another mid-80's bike I had once.

OTOH I have an off-the-peg bike that is 23" (c.58 cm) framed and although I have tried to make it as similar to the other 2 as possible, it just doesn't feel as right. A good bike, even so.

 

[martint235]

http://www.cyclechat.net/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/whistling.gif[/img]

 

[mickle]

Top tubes have always been known as top tubes - only plebs refer to them as 'cross bars'.

Really

 

[mickle]

All this talk of 'take your inside leg measurement in fractions of a league, minus the girth of your weener multiplied by a series of fibonachi numbers' is only relevant (1) if we are talking about horizontal top tubes and (2) if the frame to which we are referring is designed after the principles of Eddie Merxcxxes 'square' geometry.

I've said it before and no doubt will say it again: the most important dimension on a bike frame is the 'effective' top-tube length. The seat tube length - even though we use this dimension to describe frames - is irrelevent.

 

[samid]

Can't read the Retrobike post but the explanation is that nowadays we ride "compact" frames, where the frame is designed smaller to reduce flex and weight.

There are some pictures somewhere on here of mountain bikes with ridiculously long seatposts.

I wonder if the fashion will eventually go back the other way?

Besides reducing flex and weight, "compact" frames allow manufacturers to cover the whole range of peoples' heights with fewer sizes and thus cut production costs. Also (as the retrobike post mentions) while a smaller frame does weight and flexes less - you need a (much) longer relatively heavier and possibly flexier seatpost. (But I'm partial to "classic" bikes...)

 

[Mad at urage]

Top tubes have always been known as top tubes - only plebs refer to them as 'cross bars'.

Really

Calling your fellow CCers plebs
http://www.cyclechat...__1#entry714052

Really

 

[asterix]

So how do you give someone a 'croggie' of you only have a top tube?