Harvey & group:
I noticed the same tendency of the "Merkuns", at least those new to cycling, to want the bigger frame size, and more gears too. For many it was just because those frames looked kool to them. I learned that when someone had their heart set on that too big (for them) bike, and ignored my advise to purchase a smaller, more correct size bike, it was best to sell them what they wanted or they would probably go to the competitor and buy the too tall bike from them. There were a lot of tall bikes sold that way. I have to admit, that back in '72, I bought a Raleigh Grand Sports, my first nice racing type bike, that was a 24 1/2" frame size, and too tall for me (I found I like a 57 cm best). That wasn't the last too tall bike for me, I followed the Raleigh with a 25" Jeunet 630, which had a lower stand-over height due to a lower BB height, and fit better, but not correctly. That was the end of too tall bikes for me. I currently own a few that are too tall for me, but they are part of my collection, and I'm not too picky when I can get a really nice classic road bike for very little cash (Examples: 60cm, '59 Bianchi Competizione - free; 24-1/2", '73 Raleigh Grand Sports - $5; 24-1/2" or 25-1/2",'67 Raleigh Professional - traded for it, but my brother got it in a yard sale for $75; and an '61 Allegro Special with original sew-ups and a set of 10-yr. newer clinchers - $10 in an estate sale).
On a similar note, I don't think I have ever been into a bike shop that didn't have at least one really tall bike, probably at least last year's model, left over on the show room floor, and probably with the price marked down a bit. Sometimes, shop owners over-bought tall bikes, and didn't have enough tall customers to sell them to.
It seems to me that there have always been (at least since the 70's), an abundance of tall frames and bikes available. And from some of the prices I've seen, you tall guys could have nice collections at a fraction of the cost that most average size guys have to pay, IMHO.
"Bicycle Mark" Perkins Visalia, CA
On Sun, 25 Feb 2001 06:41:59 -0500 Harvey M Sachs <sachs@erols.com>
writes:
> At 22:29 2/24/2001 -0800, siverson@garlic.com wrote:
> >I am puzzled at the seemingly infinate number of classic bicycle
frames
> >available sized 60cm and greater in the used bike marketplace.
>
> <snip>
>
>
> >My questions are these: In the 60's/70's was there a trend toward
> >larger frames? Are more bicycle enthusiasts traditionally over 6'
> >tall? Were shorter frames more likely to be ridden-to-death and
> >trashed?
>
> At the time of the first big bike boom of last century (early 70s), I
used
> to marvel that we 'Merkuns seemed to translate our desire for the best
of
> everything into the biggest. I remember telling friends that fitting a
> bike was like fitting shoes, and you should get the right size. Most
still
> just applied the metrics they used for cars, houses, etc: bigger was
> better. Of course, a few years earlier my first Paramount was "a tad
on
> the large side" -- but used paramounts were very rare, my budget
wouldn't
> touch a new bike, and finding anything worth riding in Cosmopolitan
Village
> Houston was almost a miracle.
>
> This is just my impression of the times, and may not have been
applicable
> to the more sophisticated markets in places like - well, wherever they
> were. Boston. San Francisco. ??
>
> harvey sachs (not meaning to start a thread on where the most vintage
bikes
> were sold, but that could be interesting)
>
>
> _______________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/