Fred Rednor wrote:
> By the way, the real proof that Hilary's explanation is
> accurate, lies in the top tube length of those early "small"
> frames. Even if you allow for the shorter stem lengths that
> were prevalent in those years, the top tubes are quite long
> relative to the seat tube heights. Another consideration is
> the height of the saddle's surface above the rails. With a
> true leather saddle, this will be grater than with a modern
> saddle. Of course you can stll see this today if you use
> Brooks saddles.
>
> In fact, I have had great difficulties trying to purchase one
> of those old frames, despite looking for quite some time.
> Although many of them meet my requirement for seat tube length,
> the top tubes are extraordinarily long. I just realized that
> the most pertinent question to ask about these frame sizes is,
> where was the saet positioned - longitudinally - on those old
> bikes?
> Fred Rednor - Arlington, Virginia (USA)
>
>
Another thing to consider is some older frames used a "7" shaped seat
post which allowed inches of forward adjustment.
Also the higher the bottom bracket the smaller the frame has to be if
you want to stand over it and along with this of course comes a longer
(taller) seat post to get the right relationship to the pedals.
Looking at some older pictures of riders and bikes it does not appear
that stand over height was always a great consideration.
Marcus Coles
London, Ontario, Canada.