[CR]classic frame sizing vs. modern trend

(Example: Framebuilders:Masi)

To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
From: "Bianca Pratorius" <biankita@earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 18:08:46 -0500
Subject: [CR]classic frame sizing vs. modern trend

A friend of mine recently went to a popular and high volume bike shop in Miami and was told that he would need a 54 cm road bike to fit his 5' 11" frame. I was struck that although I had sized him up to be need a 56 top tube and seat post, a salesman would immediately judge him to be a 54. The salesman said that although they had an adjustable frame meant for sizing up customers that his experience always predicts the same. Many modern riders seem to jamb their bodies into the smallest possible frame nowadays, and the result is that they are uncomfortable in the drops and sometimes don't use them much as a result. Also their backs look cramped as they fail to stretch out on the bike even though they sometimes use 13 cm stems and the like.

I remember that years ago it was the guys that were 5' 8" and under that used the 54's and the the 55's (most popular size) was usually used by the average height man of about 5'9" to 5'10". The guys who were tallish used the 56's (5'11" - to 6 feet). The 58's were used by the 6 feet and up crowd. Eddy Mercks was quoted as being 6 feet and his bike looks for all the world like a 58. Of course, individual leg lengths vary relative to spine length proportion, but at least when top tubes were still parallel to the ground it was a good rule of thumb that you stand over the bike while wearing cycling shoes and you were in the ball park when you could still pull up the frame up 1/2 to 1" or so before it hits the family jewels (jewels being differently sized relative to no other physical variable devised by women to predict). Average stem lengths seemed to be 9 to 11 cm when a bike was properly sized. Nowadays, manufacturers have the compact frame in small medium and large. (54, 56, 58 as nearly as I can guess is their logic). Many riders seem to be trudging around on frames that are 2 cm smaller than physiology would seem to dictate and I can't for the life of me, figure out what is gained by this. On small frames you can't breathe with normal sized stems and when 13 cm stems are used you feel like you are going to be launched over the front on downhills and sudden stops. Other than letting bike shops carry fewer sizes, and fooling riders into thinking that they are saving 2 ounces and getting stiffer frames (as if aluminum isn't stiff enough already), this whole trend seems in line with women who buy smaller shoe sizes with the idea that their feet are so dainty.

Anyone else notice this trend away from classic sanity?

Garth Libre, still working on that stubborn seatpost in Miami Shores Fl.