Originally Posted by nlerner

So where do lugged mixties fit in this paradigm?

Originally Posted by mstateglfr

Some fuel to add to this thread.

- Threadless headsets solved a dangerous issue in mountain biking and there is no downside to them so they caught on.

Originally Posted by SkinGriz

I know nothing about road bikes other than what can be casually observed by someone who grew up riding BMX bikes.

This question has probably been asked...

Why were all the top tubes on old road bikes parallel with the ground?
Am I misunderstanding something or over generalizing?

Thank you.

Originally Posted by Wildwood

Sorry not to have read every post. Some looked windy.

1959 German touring bike by Hugo Rickert.
Besides, this thread NEEDS pics.

Is it sloped enough? I dunno.

w/ apologies for the 'no-drive side' picture.

Originally Posted by BFisher

That bike makes me want to hit the slopes, nds or not.

Originally Posted by cyccommute

I haven’t done a complete survey of every bicycle manufacturer since the beginning of time, but your assumption is flawed. Trek has consistently offered 5 to 9 frame sizes since the 80s. The earliest years have fewer frame sizes then the later years. Cannondale in 1984 offered 4 frame sizes in road bikes. Today, they offer 6. They don’t use a radical slope but they offer more frame sizes. The Specialized Allez was offered in 6 sizes in 1991. Today they offer 7 road bike sizes with a fairly good slope to the top tube. I’ve bought a lot of Specialized mountain bikes over the years and not one has been selected from only 3 or 4 frame sizes.

Originally Posted by gugie

Someone once told me that lugs are like strikeouts - they're fascist. ;-)

Fillet brazing and TIG welding opens up the design possibilities, but I do like the look of a vintage, lugged frame.

Originally Posted by cyccommute

Probably. Mixtes, in my experience, came in one size...to large for the target audience. The 1980 Univega catalog lists only one size...19.5”... for 4 different mixte models. Similar mixties of the same era were about the same size. There wasn’t much discussion with a retailer about “size” for Mixte purchases.

Originally Posted by pcb

Gotcha. But I'm not making an assumption, I'm speaking from experience. I was National Sales Mgr of a B-/C-level line, which introduced compact road frames in '99-'00ish? when the craze started. 1st year of compact we offered fewer road frame sizes, down to maybe 4? S/M/L/XL? Maybe we went from 6 sizes to 4 or 5? The point is we offered fewer sizes that first sloped-tube year, and the Product Manager was thrilled, because he got to cut out a lot of SKUs. I was responsible for selling reps/dealers on the marketspeak reasoning for compact frame superiority. Dealers mostly said "whatevs," but were unhappy because with fewer sizes they often had to swap out stems and seatposts to fit riders, still couldn't fit many riders all that well, and so complained that we didn't offer enough sizes. Product manager complained, internally: "We only switched to compact so we could build fewer sizes, but NOW we have to go back to where we were before?!" He shook his head, and asked the factory to build more sizes for the following model year.

So do all the analysis you want. I was there.

It is also true that mfrs have, in general, offered more sizes moving out of the '80s, including offering women-specific sizing. So many sizes. One of the reasons compact was so attractive, 'cause they thought they could build fewer sizes. Less bother, fewer SKUs, more profit. Only that didn't work out, so they quickly went back to offering more sizes.

You also might notice I specifically mentioned road frames, not ATBs. And the OP specifically mentioned and asked about road bikes. So besides the fact that the OP was specifically asking about road bikes, by '99-'00 nobody was making horizontal top-tube ATBs, so the onset of compact/sloping road frames at the turn of the century has very little to do with ATBs.

Originally Posted by SkinGriz

I just looked it up.

It seems a mixte is what would have been called a “bicycle” in the 1940’s?

Originally Posted by pcb

Gotcha. But I'm not making an assumption, I'm speaking from experience. I was National Sales Mgr of a B-/C-level line, which introduced compact road frames in '99-'00ish? when the craze started. 1st year of compact we offered fewer road frame sizes, down to maybe 4? S/M/L/XL? Maybe we went from 6 sizes to 4 or 5? The point is we offered fewer sizes that first sloped-tube year, and the Product Manager was thrilled, because he got to cut out a lot of SKUs. I was responsible for selling reps/dealers on the marketspeak reasoning for compact frame superiority. Dealers mostly said "whatevs," but were unhappy because with fewer sizes they often had to swap out stems and seatposts to fit riders, still couldn't fit many riders all that well, and so complained that we didn't offer enough sizes. Product manager complained, internally: "We only switched to compact so we could build fewer sizes, but NOW we have to go back to where we were before?!" He shook his head, and asked the factory to build more sizes for the following model year.

So do all the analysis you want. I was there.

It is also true that mfrs have, in general, offered more sizes moving out of the '80s, including offering women-specific sizing. So many sizes. One of the reasons compact was so attractive, 'cause they thought they could build fewer sizes. Less bother, fewer SKUs, more profit. Only that didn't work out, so they quickly went back to offering more sizes.

You also might notice I specifically mentioned road frames, not ATBs. And the OP specifically mentioned and asked about road bikes. So besides the fact that the OP was specifically asking about road bikes, by '99-'00 nobody was making horizontal top-tube ATBs, so the onset of compact/sloping road frames at the turn of the century has very little to do with ATBs.

Originally Posted by Chombi1

Blame it on bean counters too.... With back sloping top tubes, the bike manufacturers can get away with just making three frame sizes. Small, Medium and Large...... The modern companies jump at these opportunities all the time. This includes the industry's decision to build their steel bikes with unicrowns and lugless construction. Cheap and fugleh........

Originally Posted by cyccommute

While there may have been mixte frames back then, not all bicycles from the 40s were mixte frames.

Originally Posted by SkinGriz

I had no idea bikes were fillet brazed until this post. My exclusive experience brazing for structure was sticking a steel pipe to a steel plate in welding class.

Fascist. It’s such an emotionally charged word that hardly anybody uses it with respect for the bundle of sticks forced together, the marriage of industry and government, etc.

Originally Posted by cyccommute

except there aren’t fewer sizes. Trek’s 1983 catalog lists road bikes in 19”, 21”, 22.5”, 24”, and 25,5” sizes. Occasionally, there may have been a 22” frame in the mix. Today, trek road bikes come in 44cm, 47cm, 50cm, 52cm, 54cm, 56cm, 58cm, 60cm, and 62cm sizes. The 44cm is listed in women’s sizes but is available to everyone. That’s 9 sizes vs 5 from “back in the good old days”.

From the standpoint of someone who has fought long and hard in the “size wars”, i can tell you that it’s a whole lot better now than it was back when people told my 5’ tall wife that a 19” frame was “close enough”. A 44cm is probably too tall for her but it’s far closer. And, if you think that close is “close enough” go out and ride around on a frame that is 7 to 9cm (3” to 4”) taller than what you usually ride.



A lot of the reason that 3 fists full of seatpost is possible is that the material used to make the seatposts are so much better. Mountain biking changed the way that we use bicycles significantly. An sr laprade seatpost from 1984 just wasn’t up to the stresses demanded by bicycles that had to be smaller for obvious reasons. The walls on the old laprade post was almost thick enough to qualify the post as a billet rather than a tube. Even then, they didn’t hold up to the bending stresses put on them. I’ve even bent steel seatposts. New materials allowed the posts to be thinner, lighter, and stronger than those old posts.



Yes, but not for the reasons you think. Smaller triangles on the frame as stiffer and the ride is more responsive. It’s more enjoyable to ride a stiff frame than it is to ride a noodly frame. Less material also means less weight. Less weight means the bike is more fun to ride. New technology also makes the bike easier to use and, again, more fun to ride.

Friction shifting is a royal pain. As a kid, i was told by every other kid who was riding a multi gear bike “don’t shift” because friction shifting clatters and clunks and sounds like the bike is going to break. When i got my own multi gear bike years later, i did learn to shift fairly well but i completely understood the problem. Unless you are bold and aggressive, shifting with friction makes a whole lot of noise.today, i click and the bike shifts. I don’t have to worry about trimming the shift. I don’t have to constantly adjust. I don’t have to do anything other than enjoy the ride and shift when and where i want to shift.

Yes, new bikes cost a lot but the price isn’t nearly as bad as many people think it is. Sure there are $20,000 super bikes but the less expensive “regular” bike is a great value for a good machine that works better, for less, then bikes from “back in the day”. People seldom take inflation into account when considering costs. I paid $500 for a miyata ridge runner in 1984. It was the top of the line mountain bike in the miyata line because it was the only thing in the line. In 2021 dollars, that’s $1300. $1300 today buys a hell of a lot better bike! A specialized rockhopper expert cost $1250, has an air shock and a much lighter frame than the ridge runner. It’s also a much more capable mountain bike machine.

All that stuff you pooh, pooh may make the companies more money but it also makes for a more accessible and more enjoyable bicycle experience for the riders.

Originally Posted by gugie

and Bull Durham.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-guv9Pd_RA

I thought the wink at the end of my post might have tipped one off to the sarcasm...

Originally Posted by gugie

and used for comic effect in Bull Durham.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-guv9Pd_RA

I thought the wink at the end of my post might have tipped one off to the sarcasm...

BTW, fillet brazing bicycles has been around for a long time. Go look up some of these famous builders:
Jo Routens
Tom Ritchey
Jeff Lyon

Heck, I've made my own lugs using fillet brazing:


One aspect of fascism is conformity. Lugs force conformity to certain frame angles. Unless, of course, you roll your own (example shown above).

Originally Posted by SkinGriz

Is an ATB bike a MTB bike? I was a teenager in the 90’s. I think Mountain bikes with horizontal top tubes were before my time.

Originally Posted by cyccommute

I don’t know what company you represented but I checked many catalogs across the companies I checked. Your company may have made smaller size runs but I can’t find any difference in frame sizes in the major companies that I checked. I didn’t just check the beginning date and the end dates I gave.

And the frames I checked were specifically road frames. I didn’t look at mountain bikes at all, although sloping top tube had a lot to do with mountain bikes.

Additionally, I was “there” as well. Perhaps not in the industry but as a consumer and an enthusiast. I followed the offerings pretty closely and never noticed a decrease in sizes available in the shops.

Originally Posted by Wildwood

Sorry not to have read every post. Some looked windy.

1959 German touring bike by Hugo Rickert.
Besides, this thread NEEDS pics.

Is it sloped enough? I dunno.


w/ apologies for the 'no-drive side' picture.

Originally Posted by Chombi1

Blame it on bean counters too.... With back sloping top tubes, the bike manufacturers can get away with just making three frame sizes. Small, Medium and Large...... The modern companies jump at these opportunities all the time. This includes the industry's decision to build their steel bikes with unicrowns and lugless construction. Cheap and fugleh........