Help a newbie buy a bike

[cce]

17 inch is a bit small for 5ft 10.

I run an 18.75in frame at that height, with a 100 or 110 mm stem...

 

[PurpleFrog]

17 inch is a bit small for 5ft 10.

Nope. You never size for different people by using height. Standover can vary by several inches and so can reach. (I'm 5'10 and I have his standover height and I ride a 17"; a 19" would definitely be painful for me.)

I run an 18.75in frame at that height, with a 100 or 110 mm stem...

So you are suggesting that he ride exactly the size that didn't work for him when he tried it, because it works for you? Hellooooo?

 

[PurpleFrog]

Not that I'm one to discourage enthusiasm for all things retro, but I have to say, I'm not entirely getting the draw?

I mean for people who were riding / owning these bikes BITD, I get the nostalgia which tilts the balance, somewhat, on the form vs function scales.

I am curious - what draws somebody to retro bikes, if not from nostalgia and memories of "back then" - is it a price / cost thing, an aesthetic thing, or something else? What would draw you to retro-bikes, specifically, over, say, new bikes (rigid is available, new, as are decent second-hand bikes that don't necessarily fall into the "retro" definition as specified on here).

That's not challenging you on your choices, it's purely curiosity on my part.

I'm not a great sentimentalist and don't seek out the bikes I had then or those that I wanted. I can make a serious, science-based case for the rigid mtbs of the early 90s to be the best general purpose bikes ever built, especially now that wide fast tyres are available. And maybe fitted with drops, depending (although I'm thinking about flippped Mary Bars for the way I use my bike.) Modern "performance" hybrids and even crossers are crippled by limited tyre clearance and the 700c tyre size, which makes for clumsy handling when fitted with a wide tyre. And most modern MTBs are too tilted to serious offroading.

I'm not averse to the notion - but I:-

a) wonder if that's an argument being made

It's an argument being made by ME. Based on reading papers and tests on bike handling and efficiency.

b) still don't really get why people would be particularly drawn to bikes from this era, unless they either experienced those times, or had some other sentimental connection (say somebody's dad or older relative / friend rode bikes in that period)

The best all-round (ie fast commute speed, reasonable handling on light trail) readily available tyre is a low hysteresis 50-60mm slick or semi-slick for a 26" wheel. (References to various tests of rolling resistance, grip and gyroscopic effects available on request, but you'll find most of it at Bicycle Quarterly.) This leaves you either spending £1500 on a Thorn or £150 on a Zaskar. £150 is less than £1500, decision made!

I suspect an even more sensible design would have a 22 or 24" wheel with a deep vee section to get the same "just right" gyroscopic effects, have lower trail, and be sized for extra wide drops. And an IGH placed where the bottom bracket is. But no one makes this, and if someone did then no one would buy it because it would look like the unholy spawn of a 60s French randoneur and a BMX, and it wouldn't have a racing event to make it cool.

..I suspect a lot of people would make a less eccentric version of my argument - that these bikes (at least those that get bought most frequently - the rigid GTs, Konas and Spesh, etc) were extremely well-designed all-rounders; bikes you can sensibly ride to the pub and have fun off road on.