Were people back in the day giants or something?

[Jezston]

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.

As a man with proportionately short legs for his height, this statement is just wrong. Ideal bike for me would be a 56cm seat tube, 58cm top tube.

Both are relevant, the seat tube probably more so as your legs are kind of the most important bit when riding a bike.

 

[MacB]

As a man with proportionately short legs for his height, this statement is just wrong. Ideal bike for me would be a 56cm seat tube, 58cm top tube.

Both are relevant, the seat tube probably more so as your legs are kind of the most important bit when riding a bike.

not so sure there Big J, as long as the seat tube isn't too high to get your saddle low enough then effective TT is the one that matters. The only other bit re the ST is the angle, if it's such that you can't get the correct saddle setback, but either the ST angle or your own angle would need to be pretty way out for that to happen.

 

[on the road]

In my scanning of Ebay, looking for suitable old road frames for my next project (Single speed conversion), it seems to me that people who cycled anytime before 1990, must have all be reeeeeeeeally tall.

When I've been down the LBS, sitting on the fancy road bikes, it seems anything from about 54 to 59cm is right for me, 59 being the utter limit.

I look on ebay... "Hmm, that looks like the sorta thing", I think... "Let's see what the frame size is", I tell myself, then I look at it might has well be 18yards frame size!!!

I come across loads of 23, 25.5, 26 inch frames but hardly any old stuff in the 18-21 region.



Did they measure these things in a different fashion back then or something? Cyclists can't ALL have been 6ft+

Some of us had bikes that were too big for us

 

[Deleted member 1258]

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

Really

The term top tube is very recent, when I was a young fella we always called them cross bars.

 

[mickle]

As a man with proportionately short legs for his height, this statement is just wrong. Ideal bike for me would be a 56cm seat tube, 58cm top tube.

Both are relevant, the seat tube probably more so as your legs are kind of the most important bit when riding a bike.

You could have a six inch seat tube if your seat post was long enough to reach your arse. Try riding a bike with a six inch top tube...

 

[TheDoctor]

As someone who has a bike with a six inch seat tube (Daewoo Shuttle, the shame...) I can attest that, once more, Mickle speaketh the sense.
Seat posts come in a huge variety of lengths. Not so stems...

 

[Fnaar]

Top tube... seat post... length... inches... oo'er... I wish this thread was in t' cafe, then I could make inane innuendos!

 

[GrumpyGregry]

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?

Sounds reasons for those appropriately long mtb seatposts....

on technical terrain, esp. singletrack there are few things more annoying than a top tube that catches on your legs when manoeuvring yourself and your bike about. Not a problem for road bikes of course.

long seat posts tend to flex more so tend to be more comfortable

 

[swee'pea99]

Argggh, where can I get a bike with a 29" frame???

You have a 38" inside leg? What are you, a giraffe?

 

[martint235]

[quote name='swee'pea99' timestamp='1308133488' post='1708902']
You have a 38" inside leg? What are you, a giraffe?
[/quote]

Nope just a normally sized person (6'6")