Vintage British bikes - why so often oversized?
05-07-13, 07:13 PM
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 28,682
Bikes: 1990 Romic Reynolds 531 custom build, Merlin Works CR Ti custom build, super light Workswell 066 custom build
Mentioned: 110 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6556 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 58 Times
in
36 Posts
Vintage British bikes - why so often oversized?
Back in the early '80s a colleague from the UK came for the first time to work with us in Houston and brought his bike with him. I saw immediately that it was about 4 cm larger than a US shop would have fitted him with. In response to our constant razzing, he finally sold it and built up a frame his "proper" size. I subsequently learned he did a lot of light touring back home and had another frame there similarly oversized. Over the years I have seen one British bike after another with very little seat post showing, suggesting to me the same oversized fit for their riders. I have concluded that UK cyclists must attempt to obtain the effect of the taller head tube we now associate with long ride comfort on compact geometry frames by upsizing and using a shorter reach stem with traditional geometry.
I had always thought there must be a separate category of bikes with these features built into the design and overlong seat tubes shouldn't be necessary. Certainly I would have thought that any custom frame could have been designed for a less aggressive fit. Besides, I would imagine that standover must be a problem with the oversize strategy. Ouch! Not to mention how unsightly the appearance is (according to our aesthetic standards). In light of what we now know about compact geometry, sloping seat tubes, and tall head tubes, the whole thing seems rather naïve. Assuming no one had thought of the sloping seat tube back in the day, was the idea of just building up the head tube significantly above the horizontal seat tube also never pursued as a superior approach? Or even just the most obvious solution of very tall stems?
Then we come to the question of why this fit approach persists today in the UK. Is it just a lot of really old bikes still being ridden. Or do things just change really slowly there.
Robert
I had always thought there must be a separate category of bikes with these features built into the design and overlong seat tubes shouldn't be necessary. Certainly I would have thought that any custom frame could have been designed for a less aggressive fit. Besides, I would imagine that standover must be a problem with the oversize strategy. Ouch! Not to mention how unsightly the appearance is (according to our aesthetic standards). In light of what we now know about compact geometry, sloping seat tubes, and tall head tubes, the whole thing seems rather naïve. Assuming no one had thought of the sloping seat tube back in the day, was the idea of just building up the head tube significantly above the horizontal seat tube also never pursued as a superior approach? Or even just the most obvious solution of very tall stems?
Then we come to the question of why this fit approach persists today in the UK. Is it just a lot of really old bikes still being ridden. Or do things just change really slowly there.
Robert
05-07-13, 08:08 PM
#2
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 351
Bikes: 2014 Trek Domane
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Just how 'oversized' are we talking here? I can straddle the top tube flat footed on my horizontal top-tube bike, and I've got maybe three fingers of seat post showing.
On my previous 'modern' road bike, I rode a frame a full 4 cm smaller, due to the sloping top tube and taller head tube. That's just the way it goes.
On my previous 'modern' road bike, I rode a frame a full 4 cm smaller, due to the sloping top tube and taller head tube. That's just the way it goes.
05-07-13, 08:18 PM
#4
South Carolina Ed
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Greer, SC
Posts: 3,894
Bikes: Holdsworth custom, Macario Pro, Ciocc San Cristobal, Viner Nemo, Cyfac Le Mythique, Giant TCR, Tommasso Mondial, Cyfac Etoile
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 346 Post(s)
Liked 294 Times
in
141 Posts
Look up "French Fit". The tiny frames people buy today are more about fashion than functionality.
05-07-13, 10:19 PM
#6
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,905
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1166 Post(s)
Liked 1,275 Times
in
810 Posts
My standard for aesthetics for a horizontal top tube bike is about "a fist" of seat tube.
"Standover" is a stupid criterion, mostly (imo) brought to road bikes by the mountain bike crowd. As is the aesthetic of long seat tubes.
Standover is fine if you can stop the bike, lean it over to put a foot on the ground and have some clearance when you keep the opposite foot on the pedal. You have absolutely no need to straddle the bike with both feet down and the bike straight upright.
Both of my horizontal (or nearly horizontal) top tube bikes have about a "fist" of seat tube showing, and I have about an inch (at the max) of clearance over the top tube, flat footed, bike vertical - wearing my bike shorts and bike shoes. When I actually stop the bike, lean over and put a foot down, I have several inches of clearance.
Then saddle-bar drop.... what a mess. The old standard, for almost all riders, even racers, was handlebars at about saddle height, maybe 1-3 inches below (say 0-7 cm of drop). Comfort was achieved riding on the tops or hoods, and "aero" was achieved by using bent elbows and/or normal/deep drops. The body was able to get into the same position of horizontal back as with undersized frames. The above frame sizing benchmarks also achieved a head tube that was high enough to get the bars up within that high/low range.
Nowadays, frames are smallish, headtubes are correspondingly smallish, stems are longish, and handlebars are shallow because the position on the tops is so low that hardly anyone can use deeper drops. But the body doesn't get any lower - a body can only flex so much at the hips regardless of whether you achieve it with low drops and bent elbows or shallow drops and less bent elbows. Higher handlebars with deeper drops gives you a substantially greater range for comfort as well as race position - assuming you understand that elbows bend.
Bike fit and aesthetics for the recreational rider is nuts nowadays. THEY'RE NOT MOUNTAIN BIKES FOLKS!! YOU'RE NOT AN EURO-PRO RACER!!
"Standover" is a stupid criterion, mostly (imo) brought to road bikes by the mountain bike crowd. As is the aesthetic of long seat tubes.
Standover is fine if you can stop the bike, lean it over to put a foot on the ground and have some clearance when you keep the opposite foot on the pedal. You have absolutely no need to straddle the bike with both feet down and the bike straight upright.
Both of my horizontal (or nearly horizontal) top tube bikes have about a "fist" of seat tube showing, and I have about an inch (at the max) of clearance over the top tube, flat footed, bike vertical - wearing my bike shorts and bike shoes. When I actually stop the bike, lean over and put a foot down, I have several inches of clearance.
Then saddle-bar drop.... what a mess. The old standard, for almost all riders, even racers, was handlebars at about saddle height, maybe 1-3 inches below (say 0-7 cm of drop). Comfort was achieved riding on the tops or hoods, and "aero" was achieved by using bent elbows and/or normal/deep drops. The body was able to get into the same position of horizontal back as with undersized frames. The above frame sizing benchmarks also achieved a head tube that was high enough to get the bars up within that high/low range.
Nowadays, frames are smallish, headtubes are correspondingly smallish, stems are longish, and handlebars are shallow because the position on the tops is so low that hardly anyone can use deeper drops. But the body doesn't get any lower - a body can only flex so much at the hips regardless of whether you achieve it with low drops and bent elbows or shallow drops and less bent elbows. Higher handlebars with deeper drops gives you a substantially greater range for comfort as well as race position - assuming you understand that elbows bend.
Bike fit and aesthetics for the recreational rider is nuts nowadays. THEY'RE NOT MOUNTAIN BIKES FOLKS!! YOU'RE NOT AN EURO-PRO RACER!!
Last edited by Camilo; 05-07-13 at 10:28 PM.
05-07-13, 10:41 PM
#7
Senior Member
Well I think long seat tubes are ghey, and sloping geometry is ghey but clearly it is for weight savings, and likely a bit more stiffer frame. I had a 60 cm raleigh and it was hella comfortable compared to the 56 they put me on, The US trend is not the best and it is not for everyone.
05-08-13, 06:10 AM
#8
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 28,682
Bikes: 1990 Romic Reynolds 531 custom build, Merlin Works CR Ti custom build, super light Workswell 066 custom build
Mentioned: 110 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6556 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 58 Times
in
36 Posts
05-08-13, 06:19 AM
#9
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: the Low countries
Posts: 283
Bikes: 1980 Koga Miyata Gents Touring; 1980 Koga Miyata Gents Racer; 1980 Koga Miyata Roadspeed; and aiming for the rest of that year's brochure
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Dave Moulton, the frame builder, has written in detail about this:
tldr; it's all about the relative height of the bottom bracket to the ground.
My bike frame size back then was 22 inch; (56cm.) compare that to the 51cm. I rode at the end of my racing career in the early 1980s, and still ride today. That is a whapping 5cm or 2 inches smaller.
If I rode a 56cm. frame today it would way too big for me, and yet looking at the above picture my bike looks fine and not too large at all. So what happened; did I shrink over the years? I was certainly a lot slimmer back in my youth, but my legs are pretty much the same length as they are now.
If I rode a 56cm. frame today it would way too big for me, and yet looking at the above picture my bike looks fine and not too large at all. So what happened; did I shrink over the years? I was certainly a lot slimmer back in my youth, but my legs are pretty much the same length as they are now.
05-08-13, 06:47 AM
#10
Banned.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Uncertain
Posts: 8,651
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
They weren't oversized, they were just differently set up. Nowadays I ride a TCR at c.60cm. Fits me fine. Until recently I also had a 64cm Raleigh from the 1980s, which fitted me perfectly. Less saddle/bar drop, more reach, just about a fistful of seatpost showing (as was typical then) with a horizontal top tube. I'm currently having a frame made for me. It'll be a 63cm, again with rather less drop than the TCR.
Those old bikes weren't too big for their riders. It's just a different fitting philosophy. Three styles of fit.
EDIT. Ijsbrand: nice link, thanks.
Those old bikes weren't too big for their riders. It's just a different fitting philosophy. Three styles of fit.
EDIT. Ijsbrand: nice link, thanks.
Last edited by chasm54; 05-08-13 at 07:05 AM.
05-08-13, 08:13 AM
#11
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Incheon, South Korea
Posts: 2,835
Bikes: Nothing amazing... cheap old 21 speed mtb
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Rather wish I could find one of those 'oversized' frames here in Korea. Getting a 20.5" mtb equalivalent road frame is hard. 
Its rather annoying when 90% of the population is shorter than I am...
Its rather annoying when 90% of the population is shorter than I am...
05-08-13, 09:21 AM
#12
Senior Member
My standard for aesthetics for a horizontal top tube bike is about "a fist" of seat tube.
"Standover" is a stupid criterion, mostly (imo) brought to road bikes by the mountain bike crowd. As is the aesthetic of long seat tubes.
Standover is fine if you can stop the bike, lean it over to put a foot on the ground and have some clearance when you keep the opposite foot on the pedal. You have absolutely no need to straddle the bike with both feet down and the bike straight upright.
Both of my horizontal (or nearly horizontal) top tube bikes have about a "fist" of seat tube showing, and I have about an inch (at the max) of clearance over the top tube, flat footed, bike vertical - wearing my bike shorts and bike shoes. When I actually stop the bike, lean over and put a foot down, I have several inches of clearance.
Then saddle-bar drop.... what a mess. The old standard, for almost all riders, even racers, was handlebars at about saddle height, maybe 1-3 inches below (say 0-7 cm of drop). Comfort was achieved riding on the tops or hoods, and "aero" was achieved by using bent elbows and/or normal/deep drops. The body was able to get into the same position of horizontal back as with undersized frames. The above frame sizing benchmarks also achieved a head tube that was high enough to get the bars up within that high/low range.
Nowadays, frames are smallish, headtubes are correspondingly smallish, stems are longish, and handlebars are shallow because the position on the tops is so low that hardly anyone can use deeper drops. But the body doesn't get any lower - a body can only flex so much at the hips regardless of whether you achieve it with low drops and bent elbows or shallow drops and less bent elbows. Higher handlebars with deeper drops gives you a substantially greater range for comfort as well as race position - assuming you understand that elbows bend.
Bike fit and aesthetics for the recreational rider is nuts nowadays. THEY'RE NOT MOUNTAIN BIKES FOLKS!! YOU'RE NOT AN EURO-PRO RACER!!
"Standover" is a stupid criterion, mostly (imo) brought to road bikes by the mountain bike crowd. As is the aesthetic of long seat tubes.
Standover is fine if you can stop the bike, lean it over to put a foot on the ground and have some clearance when you keep the opposite foot on the pedal. You have absolutely no need to straddle the bike with both feet down and the bike straight upright.
Both of my horizontal (or nearly horizontal) top tube bikes have about a "fist" of seat tube showing, and I have about an inch (at the max) of clearance over the top tube, flat footed, bike vertical - wearing my bike shorts and bike shoes. When I actually stop the bike, lean over and put a foot down, I have several inches of clearance.
Then saddle-bar drop.... what a mess. The old standard, for almost all riders, even racers, was handlebars at about saddle height, maybe 1-3 inches below (say 0-7 cm of drop). Comfort was achieved riding on the tops or hoods, and "aero" was achieved by using bent elbows and/or normal/deep drops. The body was able to get into the same position of horizontal back as with undersized frames. The above frame sizing benchmarks also achieved a head tube that was high enough to get the bars up within that high/low range.
Nowadays, frames are smallish, headtubes are correspondingly smallish, stems are longish, and handlebars are shallow because the position on the tops is so low that hardly anyone can use deeper drops. But the body doesn't get any lower - a body can only flex so much at the hips regardless of whether you achieve it with low drops and bent elbows or shallow drops and less bent elbows. Higher handlebars with deeper drops gives you a substantially greater range for comfort as well as race position - assuming you understand that elbows bend.
Bike fit and aesthetics for the recreational rider is nuts nowadays. THEY'RE NOT MOUNTAIN BIKES FOLKS!! YOU'RE NOT AN EURO-PRO RACER!!
But if you look at ye olde racers like eddy mercx, I just cringe because of their positions. The hip pointing straight upwards, flexing the whole back when in the drops and just over stretching the spine quite unnaturally. There is a number of reasons for that, like bad saddle design etc. Modern racers have much healthier positions. Back straighter and hip angle opened up. All in all modern bike ergonomics is way better than it used to be.
And why pray can one not strive for a sporty aero powerful riding position? Speed is power but most of all speed is aerodynamics. If you ride like mary poppins it's good bye to speed. A horizontal back will make one really fast. Assuming of course you can handle such a low position. Stretching stretching stretchin. And a saddle with a canal.
05-08-13, 09:47 AM
#13
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 28,682
Bikes: 1990 Romic Reynolds 531 custom build, Merlin Works CR Ti custom build, super light Workswell 066 custom build
Mentioned: 110 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6556 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 58 Times
in
36 Posts
I agree with many of your points. Also top tube length is paramount. Seat tube is not quite as relevant as top tube. Head tube is not really relevant with a quill stem since there is so much room for adjustment. With an aheadset the head tube becomes pretty important too.
But if you look at ye olde racers like eddy mercx, I just cringe because of their positions. The hip pointing straight upwards, flexing the whole back when in the drops and just over stretching the spine quite unnaturally. There is a number of reasons for that, like bad saddle design etc. Modern racers have much healthier positions. Back straighter and hip angle opened up. All in all modern bike ergonomics is way better than it used to be.
And why pray can one not strive for a sporty aero powerful riding position? Speed is power but most of all speed is aerodynamics. If you ride like mary poppins it's good bye to speed. A horizontal back will make one really fast. Assuming of course you can handle such a low position. Stretching stretching stretchin. And a saddle with a canal.
But if you look at ye olde racers like eddy mercx, I just cringe because of their positions. The hip pointing straight upwards, flexing the whole back when in the drops and just over stretching the spine quite unnaturally. There is a number of reasons for that, like bad saddle design etc. Modern racers have much healthier positions. Back straighter and hip angle opened up. All in all modern bike ergonomics is way better than it used to be.
And why pray can one not strive for a sporty aero powerful riding position? Speed is power but most of all speed is aerodynamics. If you ride like mary poppins it's good bye to speed. A horizontal back will make one really fast. Assuming of course you can handle such a low position. Stretching stretching stretchin. And a saddle with a canal.
05-08-13, 10:28 AM
#14
Banned.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Uncertain
Posts: 8,651
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
I don't disagree, but remember that seat tube has become irrelevant since the advent of sloped top tubes. Now the seat tube is not a problem. But if you needed a really long top tube in the days of traditional geometry, the seat tube length could have been an issue. That's basically what my question was about.
05-08-13, 11:09 AM
#15
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 351
Bikes: 2014 Trek Domane
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I wish I would have known of this sage advice before I dropped $60 on a Nitto stem that is too short. Bicycle geometries; HOW DO THEY WORK?!
05-08-13, 11:42 AM
#16
Banned.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Uncertain
Posts: 8,651
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
This might help a bit. Even if it doesn't, I think it is quite interesting.
05-08-13, 11:52 AM
#17
cowboy, steel horse, etc
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: The hot spot.
Posts: 45,231
Bikes: everywhere
Mentioned: 74 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13016 Post(s)
Liked 7,941 Times
in
4,222 Posts
Hmmm. I'd have guessed it's more of a time thing than a location thing. People everywhere used to ride big frames w/ tiny seatposts.
05-08-13, 12:12 PM
#18
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 28,682
Bikes: 1990 Romic Reynolds 531 custom build, Merlin Works CR Ti custom build, super light Workswell 066 custom build
Mentioned: 110 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6556 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 58 Times
in
36 Posts
05-08-13, 12:14 PM
#19
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 28,682
Bikes: 1990 Romic Reynolds 531 custom build, Merlin Works CR Ti custom build, super light Workswell 066 custom build
Mentioned: 110 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6556 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 58 Times
in
36 Posts
Of course you needed a long top tube if you needed along top tube. DSFDF.
05-08-13, 12:17 PM
#20
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: N.W.Ohio
Posts: 1,205
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I was just going to say that Lester, i bought a bike in the late 70's a 58cm and it was ok, now i ride a 56cm and its perfect.I asked the shop about being fitted on a 58 and he said they sized larger back then.
05-08-13, 01:40 PM
#21
Banned.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Uncertain
Posts: 8,651
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
In practice that wasn't really a problem. There was no law against having a bit more seatpost showing. If one's proportions dictated more reach, one could choose the frame size that best accommodated that just like one can now.
Amd these bikes tended to be more comfortable, by the way, even though one could get into a similarly aggressive position.
Last edited by chasm54; 05-08-13 at 01:49 PM.
05-08-13, 03:28 PM
#22
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 351
Bikes: 2014 Trek Domane
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
This might help a bit. Even if it doesn't, I think it is quite interesting.
I'm just surprised that I wasn't able to correctly calculate total reach of TT+Stem based on my older, smaller frame when moving to a new one. Apparently, I can't just subtract 4 cm from the stem, as you're right - the TT effectively shortens as the head tube grows.
05-08-13, 03:53 PM
#24
Asleep at the bars
Join Date: May 2006
Location: San Francisco, CA and Treasure Island, FL
Posts: 1,743
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 234 Post(s)
Liked 203 Times
in
135 Posts
My rather limited, anecdotal experience also has an image of European riders mashing more at taller gears. This would call for a lower, more rearwards saddle and perhaps slightly longer TT and higher bars.
05-08-13, 03:54 PM
#25
Banned.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Uncertain
Posts: 8,651
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
That's a helpful little read.
I'm just surprised that I wasn't able to correctly calculate total reach of TT+Stem based on my older, smaller frame when moving to a new one. Apparently, I can't just subtract 4 cm from the stem, as you're right - the TT effectively shortens as the head tube grows.
I'm just surprised that I wasn't able to correctly calculate total reach of TT+Stem based on my older, smaller frame when moving to a new one. Apparently, I can't just subtract 4 cm from the stem, as you're right - the TT effectively shortens as the head tube grows.