1980s & 90s Italian Road Bikes - Appropriate Frame Size To Height
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Visalia, CA
Posts: 2,249
Mentioned: 45 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 981 Post(s)
Liked 1,844 Times
in
609 Posts
1980s & 90s Italian Road Bikes - Appropriate Frame Size To Height
Hello all,
I'm not too familiar with road bicycle culture from the 1980s and '90s but I love the utility of the technology of that period. I'm familiar with "period correct" ratios between rider height and frame size on many older styles of frames, such as the classic English lightweight or French randonneuse bikes but admit ignorance here.
I'm 185cm tall with an 86cm inseam (approximately). If I were professionally fit to a custom steel frame in the 1980s or '90s, would I be riding a 58-59cm frame (c-c) as I suspect might be the case? This is a bit smaller than I generally ride, but my suspicion is that shorter frames were in vogue for a while there at least... Any memories or literature to confirm what I'd be getting into would be appreciated. Cheers!
-Gregory
I'm not too familiar with road bicycle culture from the 1980s and '90s but I love the utility of the technology of that period. I'm familiar with "period correct" ratios between rider height and frame size on many older styles of frames, such as the classic English lightweight or French randonneuse bikes but admit ignorance here.
I'm 185cm tall with an 86cm inseam (approximately). If I were professionally fit to a custom steel frame in the 1980s or '90s, would I be riding a 58-59cm frame (c-c) as I suspect might be the case? This is a bit smaller than I generally ride, but my suspicion is that shorter frames were in vogue for a while there at least... Any memories or literature to confirm what I'd be getting into would be appreciated. Cheers!
-Gregory
Last edited by Kilroy1988; 12-08-23 at 07:50 PM.
#2
feros ferio
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: www.ci.encinitas.ca.us
Posts: 21,800
Bikes: 1959 Capo Modell Campagnolo; 1960 Capo Sieger (2); 1962 Carlton Franco Suisse; 1970 Peugeot UO-8; 1982 Bianchi Campione d'Italia; 1988 Schwinn Project KOM-10;
Mentioned: 44 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1393 Post(s)
Liked 1,329 Times
in
837 Posts
Frame size / standover height fashions changed over the years, and, yes, smaller frames were more fashionable in the 1980s and 1990s, versus 1970s. It was also somewhat common for the tourists to ride slightly taller frames than the racers.
For me, the most important frame size parameter is top tube length; seat tube length is important, but second to that.
For calibration, I am very happy with my road bike frames (see signature), all of which except the Peugeot measure 55cm C-T. My shoe sole to crotch inseam is 81cm, and I stand 172cm tall. I think 59 or 60 cm C-T should work well for you.
For me, the most important frame size parameter is top tube length; seat tube length is important, but second to that.
For calibration, I am very happy with my road bike frames (see signature), all of which except the Peugeot measure 55cm C-T. My shoe sole to crotch inseam is 81cm, and I stand 172cm tall. I think 59 or 60 cm C-T should work well for you.
__________________
"Far and away the best prize that life offers is the chance to work hard at work worth doing." --Theodore Roosevelt
Capo: 1959 Modell Campagnolo, S/N 40324; 1960 Sieger (2), S/N 42624, 42597
Carlton: 1962 Franco Suisse, S/N K7911
Peugeot: 1970 UO-8, S/N 0010468
Bianchi: 1982 Campione d'Italia, S/N 1.M9914
Schwinn: 1988 Project KOM-10, S/N F804069
"Far and away the best prize that life offers is the chance to work hard at work worth doing." --Theodore Roosevelt
Capo: 1959 Modell Campagnolo, S/N 40324; 1960 Sieger (2), S/N 42624, 42597
Carlton: 1962 Franco Suisse, S/N K7911
Peugeot: 1970 UO-8, S/N 0010468
Bianchi: 1982 Campione d'Italia, S/N 1.M9914
Schwinn: 1988 Project KOM-10, S/N F804069
Likes For John E:
#3
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Southern California
Posts: 1,467
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 801 Post(s)
Liked 754 Times
in
411 Posts
Would be good to mention how 'racy' your fit is. Regardless, assuming the usual 73/73 italian square geometry, I think something around 58-59cm would fit you very well. Your inseam to height ration is very 'normal' so I think the square geomtry will work well for you.
I do better with japanese geometry, my height is 180cm but my legs are 84 or 85cm, I can't remember. I think I'd be best off with a 59cm seat tube but a 55cm top tube. Hard to find in a production bike. So, the pennies go in the 'custom frame' piggy bank
I should mention that I'm talking about center to center, not center to top.
I do better with japanese geometry, my height is 180cm but my legs are 84 or 85cm, I can't remember. I think I'd be best off with a 59cm seat tube but a 55cm top tube. Hard to find in a production bike. So, the pennies go in the 'custom frame' piggy bank
I should mention that I'm talking about center to center, not center to top.
Likes For Piff:
#4
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 4,707
Bikes: 82 Medici, 2011 Richard Sachs, 2011 Milwaukee Road
Mentioned: 55 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1952 Post(s)
Liked 2,013 Times
in
1,112 Posts
Google Greg Lemond bicycle sizing. It works.
Years ago, soon after Al Gore invented the internet, Leonard Zinn made available the average anatomical measures of a large number of cyclists. Comparing that data to your individual numbers you would know if your femurs were longer than average or your arms were shorter than average or whatever. It helped me understand why for my height, I ride a larger frame.
Years ago, soon after Al Gore invented the internet, Leonard Zinn made available the average anatomical measures of a large number of cyclists. Comparing that data to your individual numbers you would know if your femurs were longer than average or your arms were shorter than average or whatever. It helped me understand why for my height, I ride a larger frame.
__________________
I don't do: disks, tubeless, e-shifting, or bead head nymphs.
I don't do: disks, tubeless, e-shifting, or bead head nymphs.
Last edited by Classtime; 12-08-23 at 08:32 PM.
Likes For Classtime:
#5
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 20,305
Mentioned: 130 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3464 Post(s)
Liked 2,831 Times
in
1,997 Posts
When I was racing it was the C.O.N.I. Manual, aka the Cinelli Book. I have one somewhere. They sell for solid money now on eBay.
I am surprised no one has not scanned it.
I am surprised no one has not scanned it.
Likes For repechage:
#6
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 20,305
Mentioned: 130 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3464 Post(s)
Liked 2,831 Times
in
1,997 Posts
Likes For repechage:
#7
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Visalia, CA
Posts: 2,249
Mentioned: 45 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 981 Post(s)
Liked 1,844 Times
in
609 Posts
Thanks everyone, much appreciated.
The Lemond sizing chart is really interesting and would definitely have me riding frames I'd generally consider small. I don't quite like maintaining a racer's arc to my back anymore and I don't necessarily want my stems all jacked up, so that has something to do with that...
Interesting. I hadn't heard of it before! It looks like the book was published at least by the early '70s, though... Did much change between then and the '90s regarding fit for the pro peloton?
-Gregory
The Lemond sizing chart is really interesting and would definitely have me riding frames I'd generally consider small. I don't quite like maintaining a racer's arc to my back anymore and I don't necessarily want my stems all jacked up, so that has something to do with that...
-Gregory
#8
Junior Member
https://www.amazon.com/Road-Racing-T...s%2C142&sr=8-1
Note that Hinault & LeMond had longer femurs and thus liked to sit further back. So did Eddy Merckx, for longer distance rides. The further back 'pushing' style of pedaling is supposedly more efficient for longer rides.
Otherwise, I recommend that you find a professional bike fitter, and get evaluated by someone with (as I like to say) "calibrated eyeballs". They can thus determine the best overall set of dimensions for your fit and your frame(s).
Andrew G.
#9
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Visalia, CA
Posts: 2,249
Mentioned: 45 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 981 Post(s)
Liked 1,844 Times
in
609 Posts
Cheers!
-Gregory
Likes For Kilroy1988:
#10
Junior Member
Gregory:
Thanks for detailing your experience. I think Hinault's book will be a good and useful read for you. I remember reading both Hinault's and Lemond's books at the bookstore when they first came out, and (to me) Hinault's book was well reasoned out and much more detailed.
I was fitted independently of the Hinault book, but my frame size correlates more closely to the upper size limit of the Hinault range:
maximum frame size center to center = 0.66 times inseam; minimum frame size c-c = 0.65 times inseam.
regards,
Andrew G.
Thanks for detailing your experience. I think Hinault's book will be a good and useful read for you. I remember reading both Hinault's and Lemond's books at the bookstore when they first came out, and (to me) Hinault's book was well reasoned out and much more detailed.
I was fitted independently of the Hinault book, but my frame size correlates more closely to the upper size limit of the Hinault range:
maximum frame size center to center = 0.66 times inseam; minimum frame size c-c = 0.65 times inseam.
regards,
Andrew G.
Likes For Andrew_G:
#11
Crawlin' up, flyin' down
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Democratic Peoples' Republic of Berkeley
Posts: 5,658
Bikes: 1967 Paramount; 1982-ish Ron Cooper; 1978 Eisentraut "A"; two mid-1960s Cinelli Speciale Corsas; and others in various stages of non-rideability.
Mentioned: 40 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1027 Post(s)
Liked 2,531 Times
in
1,059 Posts
To be a bit contrarian, I would say that, for those of us of a certain age, if in doubt, go bigger, not smaller. Do it for the handlebar height. BITD I rode frames from 59cm to 61cm and enjoyed the heck out of them. Bars low? No problem. Today? Wildly uncomfortable to the point of being not workable. Now my best ride is 64cm with a Nitto Tallux stem (Technomic height with a nicer finish, available at Rivendell) to get the bars level to the saddle.
My opinion, and it's worth exactly what you are paying for it.
My opinion, and it's worth exactly what you are paying for it.
__________________
"I'm in shape -- round is a shape." Andy Rooney
"I'm in shape -- round is a shape." Andy Rooney
Likes For bikingshearer:
#12
Senior Member
I had a bike built and fit for me in `89. I chose the smallest of the frame sizes the fitter said would work for me. The 200mm seatpost wound up with min insertion mark right at the top of seat tube. The resulting appearance was very typical for road race bikes of the day - smallish frame with plenty of seatpost visible.
__________________
I.C.
I.C.
Likes For Insidious C.:
#13
Making up the numbers
Join Date: Jun 2022
Posts: 280
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 109 Post(s)
Liked 504 Times
in
162 Posts
Hello all,
I'm not too familiar with road bicycle culture from the 1980s and '90s but I love the utility of the technology of that period. I'm familiar with "period correct" ratios between rider height and frame size on many older styles of frames, such as the classic English lightweight or French randonneuse bikes but admit ignorance here.
I'm 185cm tall with an 86cm inseam (approximately). If I were professionally fit to a custom steel frame in the 1980s or '90s, would I be riding a 58-59cm frame (c-c) as I suspect might be the case? This is a bit smaller than I generally ride, but my suspicion is that shorter frames were in vogue for a while there at least... Any memories or literature to confirm what I'd be getting into would be appreciated. Cheers!
-Gregory
I'm not too familiar with road bicycle culture from the 1980s and '90s but I love the utility of the technology of that period. I'm familiar with "period correct" ratios between rider height and frame size on many older styles of frames, such as the classic English lightweight or French randonneuse bikes but admit ignorance here.
I'm 185cm tall with an 86cm inseam (approximately). If I were professionally fit to a custom steel frame in the 1980s or '90s, would I be riding a 58-59cm frame (c-c) as I suspect might be the case? This is a bit smaller than I generally ride, but my suspicion is that shorter frames were in vogue for a while there at least... Any memories or literature to confirm what I'd be getting into would be appreciated. Cheers!
-Gregory
Opinions vary widely, but from my perspective and recollection a few points in no particular order…
- I’m 188cm tall with a c. 90cm inseam. From multiple sources, including Technique and Training by Hinault and Genzling (still have a copy) I settled on 59-60 c-to-c frames with 58-59 top tube length, c. 83cm seat height and 13-14cm stem length. For a then-standard 180mm Campagnolo seat post this meant close to maximum extension. In my view this was typical of racing bicycle fit for taller riders 180cm-plus at the time.
- Hinault/Genzlings’ and later Lemond’s fit philosophy emerged in the early 1980s and represented an evolution from what had been applied through the 1970s and continued into the 1980s. For all the talk of 73/73 “Italian” angles my recollection is that from the mid/late 70s 74/74 was far more common, and 74 degree seat angles were a limiting factor for many seeking to adopt Lemond’s philosophy which necessitated much closer to 72.5, and in turn an extra 1-1.5cm top tube length for larger frame sizes.
- Lemond’s approach wasn’t universally adopted, at least in New Zealand where I was, and which took its lead more from Europe. In that respect I suspect the Coni book (with which I’m not familiar) and others such as below, are at least equally representative of what was most common in the 1980s and into the 90s even.
If I encountered a 185cm-tall racer in 1985 I’d have expected them to most likely have all but 1-2cm of available seat post exposed and be using at least a 13cm stem no more than 2-3cm higher than maximum insertion. If their frame had anything like a 74 degree seat angle their Turbo/Rolls or occasionally Regal saddle would almost always have been fully set back on its rails.
Anyone that tall with more than 3-4cm of available seat post inside the frame and a stem shorter than 12cm was usually told they were riding a farm gate too big for them…
FWIW YMMV atmo etc.
__________________
Nothing quite says wall hanger like drillium toe straps
Nothing quite says wall hanger like drillium toe straps
Likes For seagrade:
#14
Making up the numbers
Join Date: Jun 2022
Posts: 280
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 109 Post(s)
Liked 504 Times
in
162 Posts
Thanks everyone, much appreciated.
The Lemond sizing chart is really interesting and would definitely have me riding frames I'd generally consider small. I don't quite like maintaining a racer's arc to my back anymore and I don't necessarily want my stems all jacked up, so that has something to do with that...
Interesting. I hadn't heard of it before! It looks like the book was published at least by the early '70s, though... Did much change between then and the '90s regarding fit for the pro peloton?
-Gregory
The Lemond sizing chart is really interesting and would definitely have me riding frames I'd generally consider small. I don't quite like maintaining a racer's arc to my back anymore and I don't necessarily want my stems all jacked up, so that has something to do with that...
Interesting. I hadn't heard of it before! It looks like the book was published at least by the early '70s, though... Did much change between then and the '90s regarding fit for the pro peloton?
-Gregory
__________________
Nothing quite says wall hanger like drillium toe straps
Nothing quite says wall hanger like drillium toe straps
Likes For seagrade:
#15
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 20,305
Mentioned: 130 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3464 Post(s)
Liked 2,831 Times
in
1,997 Posts
Note in the 1988 Giro, Hampsten raised his stem considerably for his decisive win in the mountains, and kept it there.
‘the reason was when climbing, having a more upright position is more effective.
cannot find it at moment, there was a good documentary video of that day. Might have been the last of the Hard Men.
‘the reason was when climbing, having a more upright position is more effective.
cannot find it at moment, there was a good documentary video of that day. Might have been the last of the Hard Men.
Likes For repechage:
#16
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: Wake Forest, NC
Posts: 5,795
Bikes: 1989 Cinelli Supercorsa
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3514 Post(s)
Liked 2,927 Times
in
1,776 Posts
Stand over the bike. If you can lift the front wheel an inch before hitting your junk, it’s the right size. If unsure, go a size smaller (people who tell you to go bigger must prefer more weight and frame flexibility). Top tube length is meaningless. That’s what different size stems are for. You size an 80s road bike on seat tube length alone.
I’m your height exactly and ride a 58 cm Cinelli. Have no idea what its top tube length is. It wouldn’t matter anyway since it can’t be changed for my 58 cm frame size.
I’m your height exactly and ride a 58 cm Cinelli. Have no idea what its top tube length is. It wouldn’t matter anyway since it can’t be changed for my 58 cm frame size.
Last edited by smd4; 12-09-23 at 09:13 AM.
Likes For smd4:
#17
weapons-grade bolognium
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Across the street from Chicago
Posts: 6,345
Bikes: Battaglin Cromor, Ciocc Designer 84, Schwinn Superior 1981
Mentioned: 44 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 985 Post(s)
Liked 2,378 Times
in
891 Posts
58/59 ctc seems about right. I’m about 1/2” taller than the OP.
I tried everything from 56-62cm and found that seat tube angle and top tube length are also important parts of the fit equation. Slack seat post angles (less than 73 degrees) don’t work for me.
Some 1980s Italians I’ve owned:
56 ctc - fun, but required setback seatpost and 130 stem. Ended up selling
57 ctc - good ride overall. Need to get this one back on the road.
58 ctc feels a little less racy than the Ciocc and the tt is 1 cm longer.
I tried everything from 56-62cm and found that seat tube angle and top tube length are also important parts of the fit equation. Slack seat post angles (less than 73 degrees) don’t work for me.
Some 1980s Italians I’ve owned:
56 ctc - fun, but required setback seatpost and 130 stem. Ended up selling
57 ctc - good ride overall. Need to get this one back on the road.
58 ctc feels a little less racy than the Ciocc and the tt is 1 cm longer.
Likes For thinktubes:
#18
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Visalia, CA
Posts: 2,249
Mentioned: 45 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 981 Post(s)
Liked 1,844 Times
in
609 Posts
Thanks again for all of the information, folks!
I regularly ride 62cm frames that allow me to have an inch between the top of my inseam and the top tube. My experience with 58-59cm frames is that I'd have about 2-2.5", which is apparently what I'd have if I followed the Lemond chart or some of the suggestions posted by others above. Of course, bottom bracket height and frame angles also make a difference for standover height, so maybe some of these Italian frames have higher brackets than I'm used to with my older English bikes and that margin would shrink.
These days if I did get a bike sized like that I'd have to look like a poser because my stem extension would definitely be about 2-3" higher than a typical "racy" slammed look.
-Gregory
These days if I did get a bike sized like that I'd have to look like a poser because my stem extension would definitely be about 2-3" higher than a typical "racy" slammed look.
-Gregory
#19
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: Wake Forest, NC
Posts: 5,795
Bikes: 1989 Cinelli Supercorsa
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3514 Post(s)
Liked 2,927 Times
in
1,776 Posts
Likes For Kilroy1988:
#21
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: Wake Forest, NC
Posts: 5,795
Bikes: 1989 Cinelli Supercorsa
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3514 Post(s)
Liked 2,927 Times
in
1,776 Posts
#23
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: Wake Forest, NC
Posts: 5,795
Bikes: 1989 Cinelli Supercorsa
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3514 Post(s)
Liked 2,927 Times
in
1,776 Posts
Are you? You’re the one with the question.
#24
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Visalia, CA
Posts: 2,249
Mentioned: 45 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 981 Post(s)
Liked 1,844 Times
in
609 Posts
Okay, I'm done with the trolling. If you actually don't understand how measuring bottom bracket height works and how frame angles affect the overall stack of a frame, then I'll remember not to take any more advice from you.
-Gregory
-Gregory
#25
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: Wake Forest, NC
Posts: 5,795
Bikes: 1989 Cinelli Supercorsa
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3514 Post(s)
Liked 2,927 Times
in
1,776 Posts
Fine by me. You don’t understand how to size an 80s frame. Good luck.