Re: [CR]re: frame sizes

(Example: Framebuilders:Rene Herse)

From: "Wspokes" <wspokes@penn.com>
To: <chasds@mindspring.com>, <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
References: <27506654.1066775731177.JavaMail.root@wamui01.slb.atl.earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: [CR]re: frame sizes
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 19:09:19 -0400


Hmmm, interesting. at the turn of the century...sizes came in small, med, and large...probably due to the lack of actual framebuilders and expense of materials...etc...out there at that time....Now at the turn of this century...frames come in small, med, and large....except we now call it marketing!!!

Walt "thank God for the small framebuilders still out there today!" Skrzypek

Falls Creek, Pa


----- Original Message -----
From: chasds@mindspring.com
To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 6:35 PM
Subject: [CR]re: frame sizes



> Another issue here, which I forgot when I wrote my
> original post on the subject, is that stock racing
> frames from the early part of the century tended to
> come in few sizes. Small, Medium, and Large were
> about it I suspect, and people who were in between
> sizes probably chose the bigger frame, because, all
> things being equal, it would have been more comfortable
> if set up properly.
>
> And, there may have been a fashion-statement in these
> choices too, as Sheldon points out.
>
> Charles Andrews
> Los Angeles