I knew people who made this assumption had to be a 'in the common range'
size. I need just over a meter from the top of my seat to the center of
my pedal axle in line with the seat tube, and that required in the old days a 24" with about 8" exposed seatpost. Unless one had the bucks to have a custom or special order bike. I rode a Gazelle for years set up that way, and it is completely different than my sub compact 60cm OT CF ride with geometry adjusted. And not for the better.
Of course, this dropped top tube is not a contemporary idea as 'innovation' is usually appropriation and recontextualization- we see it
in the 'Ladies' frames of yesteryear. Instead of making 4 sizes to fit a diverse population, women were relegated fewer choices (if at all) of measurements then the other gender's ride.
Bianca Pratorius wrote:
> Personally, I do not see how lowering the top tube in any way makes a 5
4
> cm 'virtual" bike fit more body sizes. The lowered tube with long seat
> post offers nothing that the classic square frame with a shorter seat
> post doesn't. When you get off the bike, you naturally drop the frame
> off to one side so that your dangly bits don't hit, even if you are a
> little small for the frame. I ride a 54 cm bike, but in a pinch I could
> use a 58 with a short stem, without damaging any minor organs. The
> handling wouldn't be ideal, but that would be the same case if top tube
> were dropped, raised or invisible. Nothing changes. If I ride a 55, I
> just lower the stem, and if I ride a 53 I raise it. If I ride a 52, my
> knees jamb into my ribs, and if I ride a 56 I can't get low enough in
> the drops. Three sizes fit all, assumes the rider doesn't ride much.
--
gabriel l romeu
deconstructiing history in a warm central nj, usa
± http://studiofurniture.com Ø http://journalphoto.org ±