Veteran mechanic's opinion re: small frames:
This is from having sold bikes since 1975 and being married to 5'3" woman
since 1989 and helping her shop several times............At least as far as
bikes that have been available in the US (mostly Italian, UK, and a very few
French and domestic brands,) until the early 90's most 52cm and smaller
frames seemed misdesigned in two ways. These were having disproportionally
long top tubes partly because short men generally have shorter legs and
longer trunks than short women and womens' needs weren't considered at least
by the bike manufacturers whose products were widely available, partly
because of the bicyclists' emotional disorder known as "overlapphobia."
Yes, I'm 5'9" and can buy anything I want "off the hook," and have owned
several good frames in the 56 to 58cm range that still had overlap--get over
it!
The other was a designer's mistake--obsession with a non-sloping top tube.
This resulted in 49cm frames with the same standover height as 52's or
53's--some geniuses decided that you shrank a frame by raising the bottom
bracket shell.
Just my opinions from some experience and observation.
David Feldman
Vancouver, WA
> Hello Curtis -
>
> Dale is right about the bell-shaped curve. Fewer short men (like me) and
> fewer tall men than average sized men. Hard to beat those
> statistics. However, I think there are some additional subtle influences
> at play. (Caution - most of what follows is opinion.)
>
> I am near average height for the half the population that is WOMEN. So -
> there should be plenty of used bikes made for women that would fit
> me? Except - there were not nearly as many serious women riders as men,
> especially in the 50s, 60s and 70s. For serious here I mean buyers of
mid-
> to high-level bikes.
>
> In years prior to 1970 there was a tendency for riders to ride bikes that
> are larger than what is customary now. This meant that there were
> relatively fewer smaller bikes made.
>
> I believe the problems with making a good-handling bike in small sizes,
> using 700c wheels, was also a factor. Beating the geometry problems meant
> making a frame that in some way is not as good as a larger frame. I think
> this may have reduced the number of smaller riders who wanted to ride, or
> who wanted to pay big bucks for a frame/bike that was still inherently
> problematic. These problems are now solved routinely with smaller wheels.
>
> For current bikes I find there are (relatively) lots of used bikes in
> smaller sizes. More women are (and have been) riding and more are
spending
> the bucks for a good bike. My experience is that the smaller used bikes
> often go for less than the equivalent larger sized bikes. (The exception
> is for collector bikes of interest to buyers in the Orient.) This may
have
> to do with the relative scarcity of buyers of smaller bikes. One has to
> work harder to find an appropriate purchaser because they are rarer than
> average-sized purchasers. Another dynamic at work for current-era used
> bikes is that (I believe) women prefer to buy new bikes rather than
concern
> themselves with the increased maintenance and uncertainty of a used
> bike. This results in a weaker market for current used small bikes, and
> results in a $ bonus for those of us who live closer to the ground.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Skip Echert
> Renton, WA
> vintage-trek.com
>
>
> At 09:11 AM 11/5/02 -0500, you wrote:
> >Just a matter of personal curiosity. There don't seem to be many small
frames
> >for sale, 48-52 cm. Is there a particular reason for this? Is there a
bias
> >against short people or do short people never give up their bikes?
> >
> >Curtis (kleine sheist) Whatley
> >riding a 50cm frame
> >Mission, Texas