Frame size/ saddle-height (was RE: [CR]pic of Schotte/Girardengo/ Lygie)

(Example: Framebuilding:Paint)

From: "Charles Andrews" <chasa@classicalradio.org>
To: "'Aldo Ross'" <swampmtn@siscom.net>
Cc: "'classicrendezvous@bikelist.org'" <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
Subject: Frame size/ saddle-height (was RE: [CR]pic of Schotte/Girardengo/ Lygie)
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 12:22:47 -0800


This photo reminded me of something that's been niggling at me lately:

Grant Peterson uses the example of racers from the mid-20th-century, and before, to partially validate his ideas about ideal frame sizing and saddle/bar height. After looking at many old photographs of racers in action from the '20s on up through the 70s, it seems clear that frames got smaller and saddle heights higher--for a given rider's size--as the years went on.

For some of us at least, a larger frame, and conversely lower saddle, along with higher bars, is more comfortable for most kinds of sport riding, I'm not arguing about that; and that's not what's niggling me.

I'm wondering if the racers in the middle years of the last century actually used what we might consider an incorrect configuration: saddle too *low*; legs not nearly fully extended on the down-stroke. I seem to see a lot of this in photos of hill-climbs: the riders appear to have lowered their saddles for some reason, and their legs are not extended to the extent we'd regard as correct... so that if those riders had set their bikes up for full leg-extension, their steeds would look a lot more like Merckx's bike in 1969 or '70.

I'm thinking especially of a couple of pics I've seen of Coppi climbing hills. He oddly crouched-down out there, with what looks like a very low saddle.

Now, maybe I'm just not seeing this stuff right...and, to be fair, some pics of the 20s TdF I've seen show riders with larger frames, lower saddles, higher bars with shorter stem extensions, and a reasonably moderate body position...so sometimes the example Grant cites appears to be accurate.

If that example's accurate, can anyone suggest why more and more extreme body positions became the norm by the 60s? Much higher saddles, lower bars, smaller frames, and, it seems, a very uncomfortable body position for someone with less than mile-long arms ;>.. Was it just that a more aerodynamic position makes for more speed? Simple as that? And racers were willing to sacrifice their bodies?

Interestingly, in The World of Daniel Rebour, the small frames for shorter riders are set up very much as Grant would suggest, with moderate saddle height, and bar-height nearly equal to saddle height. It's the taller frames that start to show extreme configurations by the 1960s.

I still wonder about the other thing though. The saddle-height on hill-climbs thing. If anyone can shed some light on that, I'd appreciate it.

Charles Andrews Los Angeles
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Aldo Ross [mailto:swampmtn@siscom.net]
> Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 7:57 AM
> To: Classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
> Subject: [CR]pic of Schotte/Girardengo/Lygie
>
>
> Today's picture - b&w of Briek Schotte riding his Girardengo
> next to the Lygie team car:
> http://albums.photopoint.com/j/ViewPhoto?u=1225372&a=11279364&p=39757362

"Allez!" double bottle cage Huret(?) suicide shifter Campy quick releases Fully chromed fork with intersting crown Chrome panel on seattube Vittoria gum lever hood covers Note the hand rails on top of the team car, and the rear seat passenger wearing a continental fireman's helmet! Watch your head on that handrail!!!

Aldo Ross