>Yeah what was that whole thing of supersized frame sizes? I will say
>that we Can Not blame it on Mr Euegene, however long he has been
>laid to rest. I recall the supersized frame sizing issue going way
>back to very very very early 70s, and perhaps even 1960s, well
>before the Sloane tome. My first higher end bike was fitted to me at
>59cm with my inseam only 32inches!!
"Supersized" bike frames were a common thing in Europe from the mid-1930s until at least the early 1960s. It was the norm, not some odd-ball American thing. The formula Sloane reported probably came from some European reference. True, Americans tended to be taller, hence required bigger frames for the same sizing parameters. I doubt Cinelli sold many 65 cm frames in Italy.
Even so, Fausto Coppi, who was about 6' tall, rode a bike measuring 59 cm (center-to-center). His handlebars were a couple of inches below the saddle. Fiorenzo Magni rode a 58.5 cm frame... so he was no midget, either. Only Bartali, on a 55, was a relatively short guy.
On the track, the pros rode smaller frames with lower handlebars. It is interesting to compare the geometries of the three 1950s bikes of a French racer, shown in "The Competition Bicycle." The track bike is a full centimeter smaller than the road bike. It has a 5 mm longer top tube and a 30 mm longer stem. Talk about stretched-out on the track bike, and comfortable on the road bike.
By the time you get to Merckx, you have more modern sizing. I believe Merckx was a bit taller than Coppi, yet his bike was 5 mm smaller, and 10 mm shorter. (Coppi probably had long arms, but this also shows how a low handlebar position requires a shorter stem/top tube, because the head tube is inclined.)
Jan Heine
Editor
Bicycle Quarterly
140 Lakeside Ave #C
Seattle WA 98122
http://www.vintagebicyclepress.com