At 2:26 PM -0700 2/26/07, Doug Van Cleve wrote:
>I have purchased progressively taller frames since buying my 55cm
>Rivendell in 1998. They have all been used, so there is an element of
>chance but they have all been fine. I have a bike now that was pretty
>badly mismeasured by the seller. It is about 57cm C-T and about as
>tall as I can straddle without injury and both feet on the ground. I
>think it will be okay, am currenly just shy of having it built. How
>tall did the old timers go?
Many modern "classic" bikes, like the Rivendell, use a sloping top tube, head tube extension, even spacers in the headset, to get the handlebars higher than the frame size suggests. So your 55 cm Rivendell rides more like a 57-58 cm traditional frame, that is, the handlebars are in the same position in relationship to the seat.
A lot of the old-timers went further: They did not have clearance to straddle the top tube with both feet flat on the ground. It appears that they did not feel a need to do so. When stopping, they put one foot down, not both. Riding a tall frame allowed them to have their handlebars about 1-3 inches below the saddle, and still have the stem inserted most of the way.
Many of my bikes fit similarly, and while modern cyclists often remark that my bikes are too big for me, I like them fine that way!
It's funny how fashions change: Toeclip overlap was a big no-no in the old days, and now it's no big deal. Standover clearance wasn't an issue back then, and now it's mandated.
Jan Heine
Editor
Bicycle Quarterly
140 Lakeside Ave #C
Seattle WA 98122
http://www.bikequarterly.com